Years ago, my family made the decision to make Wellington our home. It was not hard to fall for Wellington and the opportunities of the future, and all the great things that come with being a part of this great community. I’ll never be able to express how thankful I am for the way so many of you welcomed me and my family.
Prior to our ownership of the Winter Equestrian Festival, it was a small show operated as a private club for the enjoyment of a privileged few. It was not family friendly, nor was the public welcome. The show was losing money, and the venue, which was rented, had a decaying infrastructure. It needed a long-term private investment from those willing to take a risk to make our economy thrive. That’s what we did when we built a new venue from the ground up and christened it the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center.
The families composing our partnership had a single primary goal: to create a welcoming, inclusive, family-friendly venue that our community could enjoy and be proud of. But I have become worried that all our progress is in danger because of upcoming ballot Question 3.
Question 3 is an act of political trickery positioned as preservation, aimed at undermining our community and making voters believe this is beneficial to us all. Question 3, in fact, would be detrimental to our thriving economy. Those who find themselves in a position of leadership in our community are willing to risk the lifeline of our equestrian economy to please their political patron, a patron whose desire for “preservation” is to isolate the family mansion and 300-acre estate from the rest of the community. All of the subject land already has commercial or residential designation.
This patron represents the family who is using litigation in an attempt to tear down one of our two equestrian venues, who tried desperately to fight incorporation, and then tried to fight Village Park, Wellington’s largest recreational facility. The village was forced to agree to no bike or walking paths in front of their mansion, speed bumps on Pierson Road, and the dangerous curve at Stribling Way and Pierson Road that the village is now using hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars to correct.
Wellington attracts visitors from 50 states and 43 countries. Many have purchased property, and some are calling Wellington home. These visitors pay taxes that benefit the village’s infrastructure and operating costs. They dine at our restaurants, retain many of our professional services and shop at our stores. Ask any of your friends who run a local business about the beneficial impact of equestrian visitors. Their spending supports many of the businesses that we year-round residents value. And of tremendous significance are the contributions these visitors make to our Great Charity Challenge. The GCC has raised and distributed more than $9 million to Wellington charities, Wellington schools and other Palm Beach County charities.
In addition to eliminating much-needed lodging options, a damaging element of Question 3 would be a prohibition of families renting out apartments on their property. Further, the more visitors who have local accommodations, the less traffic there will be in and out of town. Most visitors must now travel from outlying areas on our roads. We can greatly reduce that traffic.
Stop the influence of special interest money. That is why I’m urging you to vote “No” on Question 3. Defeating Question 3 will reduce traffic, strengthen local businesses and allow us to thoughtfully expand the season. Let’s end the council infighting and strengthen Wellington by sending the message that this village is not for sale.
Mark Bellissimo, Wellington
Editor’s note: Mr. Bellissimo is the managing partner of Wellington Equestrian Partners and CEO of Equestrian Sport Productions.
We may have a couple of sleeping dog. Time will tell.Watch out
You are correct. Anne and Michael are trying to allow apartments, condos, condo/hotels and motels in the EOZD.
Question 3 is very important, and it is very clear – it keeps motels, hotels, condo-hotels and apartment complexes out of the Equestrian Preserve.
But one developer has launched a misinformation campaign about the intent of Question 3, and is telling the equestrian industry that it would ‘prohibit groom’s quarters’. That is absolutely false and we need to let people know the truth.
Responding to these false attacks, Wellington’s attorney issued a very clear statement of fact:
“Groom’s quarters, caretaker quarters, mother-in-law suites and guest cottages are permitted within the EOZD as accessory uses to the principal use of the property and will continue to be permitted within the EOZD if the amendment passes.”
Now, we need your help — please forward this email to others concerned about protecting the preserve, and share this graphic on Facebook.
If one owns equestrian properties prior to this proposed Charter Amendment; can’t those properties be ‘grandfathered in’?
Totally forgot that the billionaire Jacobs were against the Incorporation of the Village of Wellington (btw- the Village is celebrating 20 years of incorporation at the nearby popular Village Park, which the Jacobs didn’t want either on March 19th).
The Safety of our children is a big concern in the Village. Why don’t the children of Wellington have safe passage with sidewalks to gain access to the Village Park down Pierson Road in front of the Jacobs huge estate? Oh, maybe they’re afraid the munchkins would soil their precious grounds.
Selfish people.
There is misunderstanding here. Grooms’ quarters ARE ALLOWED on most farms and they are usually rented with the barn for their help. This is not the same as an apartment, condo apartment, hotel or motel. The barn owners who rent their barns don’t rent apartments unless they are a part of the rent included in the barn rental. This is a convenience for the renter. This is completely different from rental apartments as we know them in areas NOT in the Equestrian Preserve. Mr Bellissimo is trying to fool all of you into making it sound like the Jacob’s are preventing the farm owners from leasing their barns and groom’s quarters. NO that is not the case. Mr. Bellissimo wants to build in the equestrian preserve which he tried several years ago. We need to VOTE YES on questions 1 and 3 to maintain the open equestrian areas. DON’t LET this developer ruin our most precious commodity.
Big question.Let’s find the answer.
NO MORE DEVELOPMENT. THE PEOPLE WHO MOVED AND MOVING HERE ARE NOT DOING IT FOR PROFIT AS YOU ARE. THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING IT TO HAVE A BEDROOM COMMUNITY,GOOD SCHOOLS,LOW CRIME,LESS TRAFFIC AND NO BULLING FROM PEOPLE WHO WANT HIGH PROFITS IN OUR TOWN.
WE WILL DO JUST AS GOOD WITHOUT YOU AND YOUR PARTNERS.I’M NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY AS YOU ARE.
I know of no provision that allows apartments in the EOZD. Grooms quarters are allowed but I would like an understanding about apartments.
Our current attorney, Laurie Cohen, wrote on March 3, 2016, that groom’s quarters, mother-in-law suites, care taker’s quarters and cottages are allowed and will CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED in the EOZD if question 3 passes. There will be no change.
Then am I to conclude that Drahos and Gerwig, both in the leadership of our village don’t know the basic codes they have sworn to uphold or are hidding Belissimo’s true intentions?
YES
DON’T VOTE FOR THEM. sell before it’s to late. sad as it is.