Welcome to Niagara-on-the-Lake — Canada’s new Wild West, wherein development overtures are flying through the air thick and fast, like bullets shot by hired gun-slingers whose actions are undeterred because, apparently, there is nary a brave sheriff to be found.

Most of the town’s citizens are huddled in their homes, quietly bemoaning the apparent destruction of their formerly bucolic town streetscapes.

“How could it be allowed to go on?” they mutter. “Where are the elected officials and their trusty staff who should be proactively protecting the town from rapacious, patently unsuitable development?

There is a great deal of hand-wringing and, occasionally, there are some folks who engage in gentle attempts to influence the actions (or inaction) of our councillors and town staff to align with the majority’s shared opinion.

Gentle because we Canadians are generally a polite people who would rather negotiate a compromise on an issue rather than outright deny it (my brilliant wife describes this as “doing the wrong thing right” — in other words, any accommodation of a bad or destructive undertaking is wrong, while acting in a civilized manner is right).

And, when this polite approach is ignored or fails to influence the outcome — as appears to be the norm over the last few years — most take one of three actions:

They retreat and allow the undertaking to go forward without further opposition. Or, they continue to repeat their unsuccessful polite overtures, hoping for a different result. Or, there are those sad folks who put up a “for sale” sign and move the heck outta Dodge — seemly believing in the myth that their utopia is just over the next hill.

Before we go any further, let’s consider just a few examples of out-of-control, “rapacious” and/or destructive development …

While the Two Sisters Resorts’ overture on the former Parliament Oak site is considered by most to be both rapacious and destructive development, recently it has apparently moved into the “out-of-control” category as well.

Over the past couple of weeks, earth-moving equipment has commenced working on the site and in the last few days, caissons have started to be installed.

For those who may not be aware, a caisson is a large, watertight steel tube that is drilled into the ground and filled with reinforced concrete to act as a deep, stable foundation for large structures on sites where there is the expectation of groundwater issues.

So, the construction of the development’s foundations has started.

And, to the best of our knowledge, as per a participant in a Sept. 22 meeting (which included the town’s director of community and development services), staff stated that they were aware of the excavation activity on-site but, as of that date, no building permit had been issued for this project.

I suppose there may be some dubious justification for town staff to ignore work that was focused on “moving dirt” vis-à-vis issuing a stop work order; however, installation of caissons clearly crosses the line into verboten territory.

Bluntly, no one goes to the expense of installing caissons on dry land for any other reason than foundation work. Any argument to the contrary would be ludicrous.

The correct response should be to immediately issue a stop work order followed by an order to remove the illegal caissons.

After more than a week, town staff finally got around to issuing a stop work order on Sept. 23. Although they claimed it had been served, work continued all day and, as of 4 p.m. on Sept. 24, a copy of the order was still not visibly posted on site.

Will the developer comply in the face of the pitiably small $500/day fine? We’ll see.

Shifting gears, we move to the Rand Estate, where, in August, the developer’s agents filed a “new” application to approve a panhandle subdivision access street.

Note that this overture was clearly and unequivocally rejected by the October 2024 Ontario Land Tribunal decision, which determined as a “fundamental principle” that there could be “no panhandle access” and “Solmar must find another access solution.”

Yet, despite the fact there was no substantively “new” information or justification for arguing that the tribunal decision was in error (typically required for a municipality to accept a “new” application, nor would it have passed the Ontario Land Tribunal’s vetting process and come to a hearing), staff accepted the submission and put it into process.

Our final example is, unfortunately, the redevelopment proposal for the Royal George. At its current size — approximately 46,000 square feet (roughly similar to the above-ground Festival Theatre footprint) — massing, form, detailing, etc., it is both rapacious and destructive in the context of the Queen-Picton heritage district.

Moreover, a slick PR campaign, continually changing — somewhat misleading — drawings/renderings and the tin halo worn by the Shaw as a cultural institution, has resulted in demolition permits for three historic buildings without further scrutiny.

Did you know that you have the right to delegate (speak to) any item included on the open agendas of town council and all of its committees?

As citizens, we have only two formal venues through which we can express our opinion. The first is our vote, once every four years.

The second is through our voice. While public open houses and surveys are important, the use of delegation is far, far more powerful.

Make your voice heard, choose to delegate through the town’s website and speak in front of those who decide on the issues. You can make a change.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.