Political Platitudes, Leadership, and Listening to Everyone

One of the most interesting things I’ve observed during my time on Council is that some elected officials seem to have mastered the art of voting against an application they know will pass.

Not because they genuinely believe it should be rejected.

Not because they have a realistic path to stopping it.

But because they understand the mathematics of the vote.

If an application already has enough support around the Council table to pass, a councillor can safely vote “no,” issue a press release, post on social media, and tell residents they “fought against it” without ever risking the outcome changing.

In politics, this is often referred to as a platitude.

A political platitude is a statement or position designed to be popular, comforting, or politically advantageous without requiring meaningful action, responsibility, or results. It allows a politician to appear aligned with public sentiment while avoiding the difficult realities of governance.

It sounds good.

It feels good.

But it doesn’t actually accomplish anything.

Municipal government is filled with difficult decisions. Some applications are unpopular. Some developments create concerns. Some planning matters involve balancing property rights, Provincial legislation, planning policies, environmental considerations, housing needs, economic impacts, and legal risks.

The easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is simply say “no.”

The harder job is understanding whether “no” is legally defensible.

Because in municipal government, decisions are not made in a vacuum.

A Council can reject an application for political reasons, but if that decision is appealed and overturned, taxpayers often end up paying the price through legal costs, tribunal hearings, and settlements.

That reality doesn’t fit neatly into a Facebook post.

What residents often don’t see is that many planning applications arrive at Council after years of work. Professional planners, engineers, environmental consultants, transportation experts, heritage specialists, lawyers, and countless hours of staff review have already been involved.

Disagreeing with an application is fair.

Questioning a recommendation is fair.

But there is a difference between making a difficult decision based on facts and legislation versus casting a symbolic vote that was never intended to change the outcome.

The political calculation is simple:

Vote against it.

Know it will pass anyway.

Tell residents you opposed it.

Hope they remember that during the next election.

The problem is that symbolic opposition is not leadership.

Leadership is making decisions that you can defend, even when they are unpopular.

Leadership is explaining why an application meets planning policy even if some residents don’t like it.

Leadership is acknowledging when Provincial legislation limits municipal authority.

Leadership is understanding that governing and campaigning are two very different things.

As councillors, we are elected to be leaders.

That means listening to residents and stakeholders, reviewing all the information available, reading the reports, understanding the recommendations, considering legal advice, and making decisions based on governance—not emotion.

Lately, we have heard the phrase, “They don’t listen.”

My question is: who exactly are “they” not listening to?

When a residents’ association makes that claim, are they referring to their membership?

If an association has approximately 500 members, that represents less than 3% of Niagara-on-the-Lake’s population.

See, here’s the thing: I do listen.

I listen to all taxpayers.

I listen to residents who agree with me and residents who disagree with me.

I listen to business owners.

I listen to seniors.

I listen to young families.

I listen to volunteers.

I listen to people who have never attended a Council meeting and people who attend every single one.

Many residents meet with me one-on-one. They express concerns, ideas, frustrations, and hopes for the community they call home. Most are not part of an organized group. Most do not have a stage, a social media platform, or a newsletter.

But they matter.

Their voices matter just as much as anyone else’s.

That is why I find it offensive when all of Council is painted with the broad brush of “they don’t listen.”

A more honest headline might be:

“They don’t listen only to us. They are also listening to others.”

Because that is the reality of representative government.

Council is elected to represent the entire community, not a single group within it.

It is easy to throw your hat into the ring during an election and promise that you will listen and put residents first.

The hard part comes after election day.

The hard part is sitting in that Council chair and having access to all the information.

The hard part is reading hundreds of pages of reports.

The hard part is reviewing planning recommendations, engineering studies, financial implications, legal opinions, and emails from residents on all sides of an issue.

The hard part is making a decision that may not be popular but is responsible.

Yesterday, I met a resident for coffee at the Community Centre.

During our hour-and-a-half conversation, we discussed concerns, questions, and possible solutions. It wasn’t until the end of the meeting that he told me he had asked a friend which councillor he should speak to.

According to him, my name was recommended because I would hear his concerns without turning them into political positioning. The recommendation was that I would simply listen and try to help guide him in the right direction.

I can honestly say I did not know that going into the meeting.

And that is exactly how it should be.

Playing politics does not belong in this Town.

I’ve heard people say, “Stop blaming previous councils.”

But the truth is that when I went back and watched previous Council meetings to better understand how we arrived at some of today’s challenges, it often confirmed the opposite lesson.

Too much time was spent playing politics.

Too much focus was placed on the popular vote.

Not enough attention was given to the dozens of bylaws, policies, agreements, and contracts that had become outdated and required attention.

Important infrastructure was deferred.

Necessary policy updates were delayed.

Difficult decisions were postponed.

Sometimes it felt like budgeting for popularity rather than budgeting for actual needs and future obligations.

Those decisions eventually catch up to a municipality.

And now, as another election year approaches, we once again hear familiar promises.

“I will listen to residents.”

That sounds wonderful.

But my question is simple:

Will you listen to all residents?

Or only the residents who belong to the association you are part of?

Will you listen to the people who agree with you?

Or also to the people who don’t?

Will you consider all the facts?

Or only the ones that support a predetermined position?

Because leadership is not about telling people what they want to hear.

Leadership is about listening to everyone, reviewing all the information, and making the best decision possible for the entire community—even when it is difficult.

That isn’t always popular.

But it is governance.

And there is a difference.