Dear editor:

Having noted in The Lake Report, that a private foundation wished to conduct a survey of NOTL residents (“Company seeking feedback on plan for old hospital site,” The Lake Report Oct. 6), I was not surprised to receive a telephone call on the evening of Oct. 18 asking me to participate in said survey. 

In fact, I was enthusiastic to provide my input and ideas for the former hospital site. 

I wish to alert NOTL residents and the town council to the content of this survey and its obvious intent to produce the outcome for which it was commissioned, and I caution against any weight it is given. 

To demonstrate the tone of the questioning, I can say it took several questions before getting to any mention of the former hospital site. 

The surveyor started by advising me that they were engaged to conduct a survey on issues concerning NOTL residents.

Then, they proceeded to ask me several quantitative questions to demonstrate whether I value the culture and history of Niagara-on-the-Lake and others to determine if I value tourism in our town.

At this point, I was naturally very suspicious of the intent of this survey.

Who lives in NOTL without understanding the value of its history, culture and tourism? 

The hospital site was finally mentioned in the following context: Would I be in favour of the rezoning from community/institutional use to culture/tourism use of the former site?

A sub-question even included residential redevelopment.

Another question, I presume, to justify taking the hospital site was: The town of Niagara-on-the-Lake bears the expense of maintaining this building, therefore, would I be in favour of selling the site to a private developer?

Not one question asked whether I was in favour of using the site for the purposes it was intended or if that was even being considered. 

Yet again, the residents of Niagara-on-the-Lake are not being asked for meaningful and thoughtful input or ideas.

What weight will this ridiculous survey hold with the council when presented?

Or, is it being used as a vehicle to pretend that input was sought and that assent to proceed with private development was confirmed?

I ask, how can a highly questionable survey conducted with 1.58 per cent of Niagara-on-the-Lake residents (300 surveys out of 19,088 residents), be used as any kind of input device in determining the outcome of our hospital site?

At the end of the day, why are culture, history and tourism being used to trump NOTL residents’ need for meaningful health care and seniors’ facilities?

I wonder why our town council isn’t playing a leadership role in its outcome. Once we give up our hospital building’s community/institutional use, we will never get that space back. 

In my opinion, the best use for the site is to partner with several private organizations and developers and create a meaningful multiuse building that serves residents, seasonal workers and tourists.

For example, I envision expanding its footprint and building up five or six storeys.

On the main floor, an urgent-care facility that includes imaging and X-ray.

On the next two floors, a seniors’ care facility that includes palliative care.

And, on the last few storeys, private seniors’ apartments — all developed in conjunction with town council, provincial government, private developers and a resident advocate group. 

I am told that our current council likely has no appetite for a project this meaningful because it takes effort and input, but I would hope that the current and future needs of our town will hold value and that the engagement in a legacy project for the town is worth it. 

We have lost our hospital, we lost Upper Canada Lodge, and a most recent survey demonstrates that seniors in Niagara-on-the-Lake are looking for housing options as they age.

Our former hospital site could serve all those needs. 

Gee Rende
NOTL