9.1 C
Niagara Falls
Saturday, April 20, 2024
Letter to the editor: A modicum of redemption. But …


In the Lake Report’s Feb. 28 edition, the paper achieved a modicum of redemption to the editorial of its previous edition by posting a number of cogent letters to the editor criticizing the previous week’s editorial on the matter of Randwood legal fees.

Yet, in the Lake Report’s following editorial, the paper perpetuated its earlier mischief about legal fees arising from Solmar’s litigation against the Town.

It challenges again the wisdom of the Town’s legal initiatives to protect the community’s heritage not mentioning that each of them are in response to Solmar’s aggressive legal attacks on the Town’s heritage initiatives.

Why so?

Apparently reliance is based upon a bank of legal sources and the Editor’s own analysis that concludes the legal defences to Solmar’s attacks are misguided and lack merit.

The Editor does not explain why he and the paper’s legal experts have so concluded nor is there disclosure as to who these legal experts are.

The editor decries the fact the Town has not been forthcoming in disclosing its own legal advice ignoring that such disclosure would be a serious breach of what is otherwise an in-camera matter and would be strategically unwise.

Of course, he does not ask for Solmar to do the same and assumes the propriety of Solmar’s position on each of the five suits without a wink of due diligence to which we are privy.

Perhaps the Editor might muse that Solmar’s legal attacks on the Town’s heritage initiatives are part of a broader strategy counting principally in its deep pockets and the Town’s lesser ones and that albeit its legal initiatives lack merit and are frivolous and vexatious, they will never be so determined by the Courts, as Solmar counts on the Town caving before then due to adverse press publicity and cost fear-mongering-such as the Lake Report itself is about.

Think again please.

The Feb. 28 edition through a sop to those critical of last week’s editorial in publishing letters critical to it, but then repeats itself not addressing the validity of the arguments posed in the letters to it.

Subscribe to our mailing list