Dear editor:

Has council’s 5-4 vote on the Parliament Oak hotel sealed the deal?

Or might it trigger enough blowback for a pause, some sober second thoughts? What has clarified is the discontent that many feel about the behaviour of several councillors.

Begs the question (again) of “What is really going on?” Is this turn of events simply misguided? Or is there something really troubling underneath? Or, acknowledging another possibility, could the critics have it wrong?

Several facts are evident: The decisions to approve are contrary to the official plan, contrary to much-needed guidance of contextual zoning, will change the living experience of immediate residents as well as others and also are contrary to the election promises that the majority of the five made.

Let’s add a fifth and call it conclusive: Niagara-on-the-Lake is an international historic and cultural gem and increasingly fragile now, under threat of decline when examples of other once special communities are considered.

There are real concerns.

• An over-reliance on tourism: Too many beds, too much in-town parking, too much gridlock, congestion and noise during too much of the year.
• Absence of strategic balance: Nothing officially apparent about the critical need for 21st-century agriculture, capitalizing on artistic endeavours, stimulating a start-up economy. That’s really important, all about competitiveness, entrepreneurship, younger people resident with higher-paying jobs, better demographics and more tax revenue.
• Lack of leadership: Including adequate direction to staff. Not just a part-time job.
• A flawed consultation-before-decision-making process: Insufficient weight being given to the views of those most directly affected. In effect, a “Ready-Fire-No Aim” progression.

As well as growing, some more insidious fears. Has any undue, undeclared influence been exerted? Is enough known about how the related funding is derived?

How might we now proceed? Here are three suggestions:

• The Lake Report could consider conducting a second questionnaire, an informal plebiscite of those most affected on a day-to-day basis. While imperfect, it would add substance, one way or other, to the situation.
• Council could be lobbied to pause, say to late January, in order to provide time to collect more data and consider a more balanced strategy, where tourism is intelligently reset and better understood.
• Equally, perhaps even more important, steps could be taken to clean up our act about conflicts and declarations of interests. Current rules and conventions are inadequate and a better, fairer for all, process is possible. That warrants a separate and serious discussion soon.

Mr. Terry Mactaggart
NOTL