LETTER: Apology for incorrect criticism

Editor: I must apologize for not obtaining all
of the facts before writing the commentary for the Windsor Times
which you published on November 27. I was mistaken in stating that
the Town Council voted 4-to-1 to approve allowing Windsor’s water
to be used for a proposed 241 unit Apartment Project on the corner
of 101 and Airport Boulevard. This was incorrect; no formal or
straw vote was taken by the Town Council at their November 13
meeting. I had been misinformed, but that is no excuse since I
could have checked the facts with Town staff.
Nevertheless, the basic facts of my commentary were correct and
I have no apologies to make for the rest of the content of the
commentary. The Council did discuss the issue of providing Windsor
water for the project and Council Members Deborah Fudge, Sam
Salmon, Steve Scott and Steve Allen did indicate that they did not
“object” to providing Windsor’s water for the project despite the
staff admonition that Windsor may not have sufficient water in the
future for its residents.
According to the minutes of the Nov. 13 Town Council meeting,
nly Councilwoman Morehouse dissented, reiterating that she does not
support residential use in an industrial area outside of Town
limits. She pointed out that the County General Plan supports
city-centered growth and that is not happening in this case. She
further pointed out that the Town has stood for trying to prevent
urban sprawl as indicated in the Town’s Urban Plan and Urban Growth
Boundary.
I am satisfied that the proposed 241 unit apartment project is a
sad example of more urban sprawl leading to more congestion on our
roads and on Highway 101. With a rainfall so far this season that
is 10 inches less than last year and a snowpack in the Sierra that
is alarmingly low, it is irresponsible for local politicians to
encourage more growth at this time.
Richard S. Gaines, Windsor