“A cyclist cannot be banned from cycling and a pedestrian cannot be banned from walking. They have an inalienable right to use the available transport infrastructure system safely,” writes Frank Hayes.

“The 95 Johnson intensification proposal, when carefully analyzed in detail, borders on the edge of tragic comedy,” writes Peter Rusin.

“The case for balance was simply put almost a decade ago. We had a medium-term tax problem — too many houses, not enough businesses to support a growing load,” writes Terry Mactaggart.

“Mr. Rusin is kidding himself if he believes SORE is an anonymous group, lacking broad-based community support and draining the town’s tax revenue for legal expenses,” writes Judy McLeod.

“This proposal is not for an agricultural ‘farm stay’ experience — it is simply plunking a hotel in a vineyard to capitalize on weddings, conferences and other events,” writes Connie Tintinalli.

“As someone looking for change, I’m concerned that without broad-based community discussion to coalesce the ‘change’ vote behind one candidate, a split vote will enable the ‘status quo’ to prevail,” writes Jim Stirling.

“If vacation rentals were capped at one per owner and numbered companies not allowed, there would be a lot less vacation rentals,” writes Jackie Bonic.

“Hopefully there will some of these questions answered and acted upon, so that the plan benefits the taxpayers here, instead of just the tourists,” writes Cecilia Bennett.

“The silence surrounding this decision is a coverup; nobody knows about this but everybody should, because SORE just got beat up,” writes Peter Rusin.

“Please remember, NOTL has a soul. It lies within this wonderful community and its residents. We are proud to call this home,” writes Sue-Ann Ramsden.

“As I enjoy reading, it always surprises me when a passerby looks over and smiles. But then, I really shouldn’t be surprised — Niagara-on-the-Lake is one of the friendliest places I’ve ever visited,” writes Lucy Kovaliv.

“Tourism represents an opportunity, but can also become a curse. As elections draw near, let’s determine which way we are leaning and take the appropriate actions,” writes Terry Mactaggart.

“Cost savings are needed somewhere, or we’re going to be taxed to death,” writes Gienek Ksiazkiewicz.

“The allegations about hollowing out and the loss of neighbours didn’t apply then and doesn’t apply now to hosted short-term rentals,” writes Kenn Moody.

“There are better (and still profitable) uses of that property that would also celebrate its historic placement among us. Randwood should be available to the public for reasonable access,” writes Terry Mactaggart.

“For your writer to make the comment that people are not allowed occupancy at the remaining Rand property is both incorrect and false, as are those that refer to hypocrisy and again to NIMBYism,” writes Derek Collins.

“There is a lot of hypocrisy especially in the Old Town district of NOTL that is allowed to flourish in favour of NIMBY attitudes that kind of spoils the mood for others,” writes Peter Rusin.

“There are opinions and then there are informed opinions. In the case of columnist Garth Turner, there are too many of the former and too few of the latter,” writes Ron Fritz.

“Our volunteers offer companionship, compassionate listening and emotional support for a caregiver’s loved one — and regular respite from caregiving duties,” writes Bonnie Bagnulo.

‘No one in Rainer’s large extended family ever forgets that the difference between a mud hut and a mansion is only the next bad political decision,” writes Wallace Wiens.

“We love a parade here. Even if it rolls over us and breaks our backs while it destroys our town,” writes Rick Monette.

“If we are considering a major construction project on the old hospital on Wellington Street, it would be pertinent to look at restructuring that end of Queen Street (Picton),” writes Malcolm Newton.

“It appears to this writer that Save Our Rand Estate is basically trying to preseve the historical and heritage assets that have been determined by experts to be located at the site, for the benefit of current and future generations,” writes Derek Collins.

“In a Canadian climate, outdoor courts can only provide a seasonal solution. Play is limited to a relatively short portion of the year and is frequently interrupted by rain, wind, excessive heat and cold temperatures,” writes Ron Pychel.