I have lived in Wellington’s Equestrian Preserve Area for 29 years. I am against hotels, condos and even multi-family apartments.
However, I am against Question 3. It prohibits all apartments. This would not allow grooms apartments attached to barns.
The real disturbing reason I am against Question 3 is how it was put on the ballot.
Question 3 is just plain poorly written. I wrote the village attorney and questioned how she could put out such a poorly crafted piece of work. I have to give her credit. She gave me a very honest answer. It shocked me. Here is her answer: “To be clear, neither I nor anyone else at the village drafted the language that is now the proposed Question 3. That language was provided to Councilman Willhite by a community member or interested party and was introduced by Mr. Willhite to the rest of council just before the deadline to provide it to the Supervisor of Elections. The Charter Review Task Force, which met for over a year, never considered or proposed this change.”
I could not believe what I read. The Charter Review Task Force never considered the change that was put in by Councilman Willhite in the form of Question 3. Instead of taking the advice of the council’s own task force, that worked over a year on this problem, Mr. Willhite, at the last minute, introduced Question 3 with language provided by “a community member or interested party.”
Who is this “community member or interested party?” Does he or she even live in Wellington? You have five citizens working for over a year on a problem. The chairman was Ken Adams, a guy who has worked for years to make Wellington a better place. The council does not take their advice. Instead you have some “community member” come in at the last moment, and the council uses the language provided by him to pass a terrible piece of legislation. We should know who this person behind the curtain is.
Gilman Hallenbeck, Wellington