16.6 C
Niagara Falls
Wednesday, November 6, 2024
Letter: Councillors should defend residents, not private interests
Letter to the editor.

Dear editor:

When people are asked what government’s main role is, most answer with some version of “the security of its citizens.”

On a federal level, this means economic security, health and wellness and protection from foreign invasion.

At the municipal level, we’re talking safe roads, waste collection, policing and upholding bylaws.

In the Oct. 23 edition of The Lake Report, in reference to the town’s recent victory at the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the Rand Estate development (“Success is ‘when the bleeding stops,’ Wiens says of Rand hearing“), Coun. Erwin Wiens is quoted as saying: “I’m always concerned when people say a complete victory. A complete victory would mean the bleeding would stop.”

“When the bleeding stops is when council stops paying to take development proposals such as these to court, Wiens told The Lake Report,” the article states.

Unfortunately, Wiens has it wrong.

Council did not take Solmar to the tribunal over the Rand Estate. The developer initiated that action themself to challenge the planning rules in place.

The developer has had opportunities to compromise and settle with the town. They chose not to do so, believing they would win at the tribunal.

It is the developer that’s caused the bleeding, not the town. The town is simply defending itself.

Large developers like Solmar have tremendous resources and financial capabilities. A small town cannot compete when it comes to enforcing planning policies and regulations.

For large developers, legal battles are a cost of doing business and an expense that reduces their tax bill.

They play a long game and can often outwait municipalities and politicians until they get what they want.

It is no coincidence that Parliament Oak was sold to Two Sisters two days after the current council was elected.

To illustrate, an interview with Benny Marotta for The Lake Report from Nov. 2, 2022 (“Parliament Oak property sold to Two Sisters for $8 million”) reported: “The plans for the property aren’t set yet, but he is eager to ‘work with the new administration, with the new lord mayor and council, and to see what is the best way to develop in a way that will satisfy the needs of the town.'”

“He added that ‘residents need to be part of the discussion. But at the end of the day, the town cannot go by what everybody wants, otherwise there will never be a decision. So, they need to trust council, especially the new council, in order to make a decision that we can all enjoy.'”

So what is the town to do?

If we follow Mr. Wiens’ advice, council simply gives in and lets the developers have their way. There are far better uses for tax dollars than going to court.

But, if NOTL doesn’t defend itself and developers are allowed to do whatever they want, what is the cost to the community in terms of quality of life and property values?

Do you want to live next to a hotel or housing development that doesn’t fit with your neighbourhood?

If Coun. Wiens and others are not prepared to defend NOTL against companies that don’t respect the rules and put the needs of tourism and development before residents, then we must elect different politicians.

Defending the rights of citizens, rather than businesses whose goal is to maximize profits at the expense of residents’ quality of life, is job number one for a town councillor.

Stewart Hall

NOTL

Subscribe to our mailing list