Rarely does a day go by that I don’t receive one or more communications from an individual living in our town regarding the “state of our union.”

Whether it is the debacle of Parliament Oak, the proposed Royal George behemoth, the proliferation of developments in St. Davids or a litany of other egregious overtures, a common thread runs through these conversations.

Namely, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake that we know and love is dying the death of a thousand cuts and very few — if any — residents believe that the scarred and mutilated carcass left in the aftermath will be anything more than a carnival sideshow exhibit combined with a little slice of Mississauga’s blighted urban landscape.       

Growth and change in any town may be inevitable. However, those forces must be thoughtfully and consistently managed in order to preserve its unique character and cultural landscapes while evolving into a greater version of itself.

Of course, this requires a central authority which unwaveringly and, without exception, focuses on managing decision-making based on what is best for the preservation of the community’s character.

Not what is convenient in the moment or serves the behest of special interests.

It is all well and fine to publish a new official plan chock full of highfalutin general philosophical statements and objectives, but without hard-defined guidelines (which are purported to be coming later in the form of secondary plans) and, moreover, a willingness to unwaveringly adhere to — enforce — said guidelines, one simply has 400-plus pages of very expensive political tripe.

We will not revisit all the reasons why this council’s decision to allow a hotel to be built in the middle of a residential neighbourhood was fundamentally injurious to the preservation of Old Town’s unique character — that particular decision is “water under the bridge.”

Nor will we circle on the seemly inexplicable events that saw the developer defy a stop-work order; the miraculous issuance of a surface excavation permit by the town to allow work to proceed; then a second stop-work order for exceeding the parameters of said permit.

I’d opine this would fall under construction activities without a work permit (a Building Code violation subject to a fine of $500,000) — which was subsequently revoked. And, all without fines to the maximum extent of the law … just the ludicrous $500-per-day fine contained in the local bylaw.

Most recently, the developer provided the town with an addendum letter to their hydrogeological assessment — it is assumed that the letter was provided to support the developer’s application for site plan approval (which has still not been issued despite all the work which has been conducted on the property). According to an engineering expert, this letter “is completely devoid of proper engineering standards and protocols.”

Furthermore, the entire wastewater management issue from the property remains unresolved and the town has received a legal missive on behalf of property owners “downstream” from the site, which clearly outlines the probability of lawsuits against the town in the future event(s) of flooding along One Mile Creek.

In other words, the town will be held liable and the taxpayers on the hook.

How very strange from a council which continually bemoans legal charges from past questionable decisions.

Moving on, as my colleague, Garth Turner, wrote last week (Oct. 23, “The Turner Report: NOTL rebels target ‘worst council ever’“), the “heavy equipment in the Shaw’s mega-project” was recently dropped onto Victoria Street in preparation for the demolition of three historic buildings in the Queen-Picton heritage district. 

The demo permits have been issued with little fanfare and nearly non-existent dissent. Another fine example of completely ignoring a valid set of guidelines (embedded in the designation of the heritage district itself) at the expense of Old Town’s historic character.

Since the site plan has not yet been approved, council and staff still have the opportunity to, at least partially, mitigate the potential damage that will result from a leviathan building with a design completely devoid of any place identity — imagine the Festival Theatre fronting on Queen and Victoria. 

Will council have the integrity to insist the building be scaled down and rendered with a contextually sympathetic design as the only route to site plan approval?

Oh, and please, do not seek to justify a bad decision predicated on the Shaw’s loose claim of how much revenue devolves upon the town from theatre patrons.

That suggestion could be easily reversed to demonstrate how much revenue devolves upon the Shaw from tourists who visit Old Town primarily for its historic flavour.

Do the right thing right — it would be a nice change.          

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