Dear editor:

Municipal election time has come around again and I find myself struggling to decide who to vote for. In the last cycle, I thought we had elected a council that shared my concerns for preserving the things that make Niagara-on-the-Lake special, especially its heritage district, and taking a balanced, considered approach to growth and development. I have been bitterly disappointed.

I live in Old Town. Like my neighbours, I choose to live here because of the wonderful ambience: tree-lined streets, quaint historic homes and the occasional horse-drawn carriage passing by. Yes, NOTL attracts a lot of tourists, but frankly their comings and goings have not detracted from my quality of life here. In fact, I am grateful that NOTL’s vibrant tourism industry allows us to enjoy the theatre, shops and restaurants that are here only because of the revenue tourists provide.

Last election cycle, I made a point of having one-on-one discussions with the main mayoral candidates and a number of those running for council. I voted believing that the people I voted for shared my priorities and concerns. However, this council has shown itself to be far more pro-development than my worst fears, at the expense of heritage preservation.

The most obvious (and disappointing) example is the approval of the Parliament Oak hotel development. Now, admittedly, the history of the Parliament Oak site over the last decade or so has been the story of one bad move after another, but council’s decision to allow a massive hotel (the single biggest structure in Old Town) in a residential neighbourhood demonstrates incredibly poor judgment and a complete disregard for the concerns of those who live nearby (including me). We could talk all day about the various elements of the Parliament Oak proposal (Why does it have to be so big? Why didn’t council push for a smaller boutique hotel instead?), but the bottom line is that, as a voter, I feel betrayed.

Now I am faced with the prospect of voting again. I am struggling to see through the words that the candidates publish in their campaign materials (“responsible development,” “resident-first government,” “heritage preservation”) to determine how they will vote on the critical issues that will come before council over the next four years.

The candidates who voted in favour of the Parliament Oak development (Wiens, Mavridis, Cater Vizzari) have demonstrated to me that I cannot trust their actions to align with my priorities. Those who voted against Parliament Oak (Burroughs, Balasiuk, O’Connor) have more credibility with me.

The Parliament Oak decision is in the past now, but there are critical issues still to come before council, such as the development of the old hospital site and the Rand estate. Another issue that concerns me greatly as a resident in Old Town is the issue of infilling. In the past few years, a number of smaller, older houses in Old Town have been knocked down and replaced by overly large modern structures that somehow got approval to exceed the allowed lot coverage (see examples on Gate, Victoria and other streets). I fear that a continuation of this trend will greatly reduce the charm of Old Town (killing the golden goose).

As I prepare to vote Oct. 26, I call upon the candidates to make their positions on development and heritage protection clear and specific, so that we all can cast informed votes and hold our newly elected council accountable for subsequent actions. Having been “once bitten” by the last council, I am determined to be especially demanding of the next one.

John Foreman
Old Town