David Israelson
Special to Niagara Now/The Lake Report

Here is a bit of unsolicited advice for, well, just about everyone in Niagara-on-the-Lake: chill out.

It would be a good idea for everyone to dial back the unseemly conflict that’s growing about “opinion-based” inquiries.

Town staff have been directed to “no longer respond to information requests made in support of opinion, advocacy or commentary pieces,” NOTL’s chief administrative officer Nick Ruller said in a statement he released on Feb. 5.

Nobody has asked for my opinion on this, but I do feel compelled to offer a bit of advocacy and comment. It would be helpful for everyone on all sides of this dispute, right or wrong, to lower the temperature, in print, online and in social media.

End the personal attacks

First, a bit of empathy for our town staff and members of council. Many people in NOTL do not like many of the decisions they have made.

There’s concern and even some despair about issues ranging from large-scale development to heritage protection to a perceived lack of vision about what is needed to protect and enhance “Canada’s Most Beautiful Town.”

While criticism may often be reasonable and valid, a level of nasty invective and personal attacks has been creeping into our public discourse, and that’s not appropriate.

Public and elected officials do not deserve this, and we should not let the ugly circus that has infected politics south of the border grow here. It’s not fair to our officials and it’s mean-spirited.

We may think our decision-makers are making a lot of wrong decisions, and if expressed reasonably, it’s valid for people to point out what they believe are mistakes.

It’s completely unfair to launch personal attacks on the decision-makers though. This is supposed to be Canada’s most beautiful town, so let’s not be ugly.

Town went too far

At the same time, the town is clearly too far over its skis when it calls for vetting the questions — and the questioners — who it will choose to answer and those it will decide to ignore.

True, there are sometimes reasons why an official answer can’t be given. For example, the town may have information which, if made public, would interfere with competitive bidding for taxpayer-funded work or give away someone’s private business data or personal information.

But the town’s edict about not answering questions goes way too far for what is appropriate or likely even legal in a free society. At the basic level, the public has a right to know the details about how decisions are made by its elected and staff officials.

If the town is not going to answer a question, there had better be a good reason or it should be required to answer. Any refusal should be an exception to the basic rule that we have a right to know, and the reason should be stated and explained.

This is completely different than what the town is trying to do — a blanket refusal to answer only questions or questioners it likes.

The media matters

Town officials should also remember that in asking questions of public institutions, the media is no different than an individual member of the public. We all have the same right to know.

It’s presumptuous of the town to assume that anyone who might have an opinion — your neighbour, or someone’s podcast or your widely read local newspaper — is an enemy.

Refusing to answer sounds an awful lot like some of the unpleasant political talk over the river. Please let’s not let Niagara-on-the-Lake descend into a U.S.-style sloposphere.

Again, nobody asked me, but I think the town should rethink its ill-advised Feb. 5 “we-won’t-answer” statement.

The rest of us need to think twice too: rather than yelling, let’s have a real, constructive dialogue about NOTL’s future.

David Israelson is a writer and non-practising lawyer who lives in Niagara-on-the-Lake.