“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.
“None of these owners, when learning of deficiencies, should consider tearing the building down without first looking at all of the possible solutions to the problems,” writes Wayne Murray.
“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.
“Frank and Jill did a great job communicating with us, last year and this year, making changes to improve the traffic flow and eliminate congestion,” write Bruce and Regina Robb.
“Personally, I would be extremely disappointed to vote for someone whose stand on over-development aligned with my own, only to have them unable to exert their power because they are in the same business as the applicant,” writes Sonja Kloss.
“This is an absolutely classic case on how to handle the insanity of the anonymous miserable people in this town; suffering fools gladly, a case study of sorts,” writes Peter Rusin.
“Mr. Turner suggested that while others run for a cause or a crusade, Andrea is running because she craves power and wants to raise her public profile. This could not be further from the truth,” writes Cindy I’Anson.
“Considering the terrible things that have been allowed to happen recently and are threatening again in the Old Town, this would be a good time to say that’s enough,” writes Wayne Murray.
“If the town continues to tear down buildings for tourism and build parking lots in place of schools, it removes the scenery and voices of school kids entirely from its streets,” writes Aspen Ziraldo.
“Many small arts spaces operate with a level of uncertainty, and finding suitable, properly equipped and affordable space is increasingly difficult,” writes Valérie Bélisle.
“The culture you are so proud of includes much less citizen participation on committees and fewer public consultation bodies with a much expanded administrative staffing cost,” writes Bob Bader.
“Too much focus is being placed on proposed infrastructure changes at the expense of the natural heritage and beauty of the treed streetscape,” write Karen Conderan and George Jager.
“It’s time for council to stop making decisions that benefit commercial developments and get back to making decisions that will make the community a better place to live,” writes Wayne Murray.
“What is the fundamental difference between the family-owned wineries and the corporate-owned wineries? Why does one group seem to get special treatment over the other?” writes Megan Wood.
“The centre of town … should be returned to the previous purpose it was originally meant to be: to be an accessible area for long-time taxpayers of Niagara-on-the-Lake,” writes Cecilia Bennett.
“We look forward to sharing more in the coming months about how the community can continue to support this important project,” writes Susan May Wery.
“Under realistic conditions, the proposed parking structure is unlikely to be financially self-sustaining, and the burden shifts to the taxpayer,” writes Colin Patey.
“The lands at and surrounding 176 Wellington St. hold deep historical significance — history that defended alliance lands and helped shape the nation we now call Canada,” writes Tim Johnson.
© All Rights Reserved, Niagara Now.
