Dear editor:

To quote in part the renowned academic, Thomas Sowell: “If you’re the world’s leading authority on some particular subject, that doesn’t mean you have even minimal competence in a hundred other things.” 

While I’m certain Ms. Morris’ accounting of Ms. Ridesic’s years of Shaw and community support is accurate and has produced much gratitude through the years, I’m uncertain how any of it necessarily exemplifies competence or expertise on the matter of the Shaw proposal (“Letter: Let’s be civil when talking about public projects in town,” Aug. 7).

Ms. Morris goes on to diminish Garth Turner, and his remarks on the basis of him being a resident of lesser time than others. That remark could be directed towards many Old Town residents well beyond Mr. Turner — like me!

As residents, Mr. Turner and I pay our taxes here Ms. Morris, just as you do. I find your suggestion of some presumed “seniority” or “indulgence” relating to some residential longevity you hold over any other taxpayer is, at the least, insulting.

Mr. Turner expresses himself weekly in the Lake Report, and I, for one, am grateful for his comments.

Mr. Turner cares about the town in which he resides, just like you and me. His leanings may or may not differ from ours, but to launch personal disparaging criticisms against him, especially regarding his successes in life, is deeply troubling from my vantage.

The comments of local builder Mr. Taylor were obviously pro-Shaw and clearly tainted, given his position.

Unfortunately, I felt Mr. Taylor was “selling” me on issues full of intent rather than proven results (“Royal George rebuild is personal for NOTL’s Jon Taylor,” July 31).

Referencing some of his claims: “… his company will do everything it can to minimize impacts on residents and tourism”; “The construction will not materially impact Queen Street”; “… all the construction, all the vehicles, the access to the site, will all be off Victoria Street”; “… it’s about doing it with the least amount of disruption to the town, to the businesses, to the tours and to the residents.”

His claims that all evidence of construction will be housed on the Victoria Street property seem highly unrealistic, not that such a result would be of any comfort to the residents living on that part of Victoria Street. Trucks wait their turn on public streets at all town construction sites because of limited space.

As well, the unloading process for any vehicle takes time. And whatever will be hidden behind the vague dimensions of the Queen Street construction barrier walls, this hardly negates the need and impact of the required public space for the barrier.

In Mr. Taylor’s own words on managing the visibility and presence of the three-year supposed construction process, he needs to hire another professional to help minimize the construction impact on Old Town.

This clearly acknowledges what is only his hope that someone else will find a solution for that which he has not.

I’m also hoping Mr. Taylor wasn’t presuming to speak on behalf of the town, town businesses or residents. I appreciate his right to offer his opinion, but respectfully, I regard Mr. Taylor’s opinion as his own, and not necessarily anyone else’s.

The Niagara Foundation statement makes both complementary and critical remarks of the Shaw proposal. They also stress their support for the heritage district and streetscapes (“Opinion: The importance of these streetscapes should not be overlooked,” Aug. 7).

Truthfully, I don’t know where this foundation stood or how they actioned themselves regarding the approval of the Dairy Queen signage several storefronts away from the Royal George, but I’m hopeful they raised sufficient criticism at the time.

Ms. Yep, a retired architect, has suggested there are ways to restore and preserve the Royal George without demolishing the existing structure and still bringing it up to current code requirements (“Letter: How the Royal George could be restored without affecting Queen Street,” July 24).

I’m not an architect. Certainly, I wouldn’t know how to go about accomplishing what Ms. Yep states. But when a professional suggests there may be a way of either “raising the bridge or lowering the river,” I’m at least up for a listen.

Additional seat capacity, venue diversity and parking can all be accomplished by the extraordinary amount of non-impactful, vacant, level land just down the street that surrounds the Queen’s Parade Festival Theatre area.

I believe our town shows a pattern of inconsistency regarding heritage decisions.

I’m sure our town has well-intended individuals managing heritage concerns, but again, good intentions don’t always equate to the expertise required for such a task.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate that town residents do comment and participate on town issues.

I believe some components of our seemingly chaotic, argumentative behaviour allows NOTL’s Old Town to remain as charming as it has.

I’m sure many readers know about the ‘plebiscite’ voting procedure. Switzerland utilizes this procedure almost entirely. California uses it to varying degrees.

This simple voting procedure allows the public to decide an issue rather than allowing their elected representatives to decide for them.

As one resident, I still believe that we need heritage preservation expertise as input. I believe we need that element to weigh against our more individuated passionate leanings.

But the point here is that because my view is no more relevant than another’s, perhaps a plebiscite is an approach that might, on rare but important occasions, allow our direct input to take credit or blame for what befalls us.

Mark Smith
NOTL