I have no preconceived notion of how I will vote on this issue. However, I'm not convinced that breaking ground on grandiose new projects is currently in the community's best interests.
Virtually all Oakmont residents with whom I've spoken over my 13 years here are happy and grateful to be living here. Clearly, we've done most things right and the state of the community is strong.
If elected, to fulfill my fiduciary responsibility to the community, I will carefully review everything that's been done over the last five years since I was previously on the board to determine what I believe is the best path for the community, then I will vote accordingly.
We live in uncertain, inflationary times. This puts pressure on people who live on a fixed income. Money spent by any HOA must be spent efficiently, with emphasis on bang for the buck.
I definitely enjoy pickleball and think new courts would be well used but Steve Spanier the board member would need to look at the data, including sound studies, tennis and pickleball court usage, conversations with neighbors and anything else that's available on the subject before deciding the best course of action for the community.
As I did when I was previously on the board, I will seek community input in a variety of ways. I favor resuming neighborhood gatherings, workshops and line item discussion at board meetings to ensure community input is heard. I'm open-minded and tend to seek lots of information from a variety of sources prior to making decisions. That said, once I decide something is in the community's best interests, I'm not afraid to vote accordingly. That is the job board members sign up for.
Surveys can be helpful but they can also be abused. For example, consider a survey question like "Are you in favor of an 80 million dollar project to renovate the central area if such a project would shut down Oakmont facilities for two years?" vs. a question like "Would you attend a concert at a new concert hall if it featured first-class performing acts at very reasonable prices?"
Very targeted surveys can be useful, but regardless of community sentiment, board members are obligated by California HOA law to make decisions based on their own best judgments of what is in the community's best interests. Therefore, if surveys are used, they must be constructed very carefully, narrowly targeted and survey results should not be extrapolated beyond the scope of the question or time.
There is no question that Oakmont's governing documents are almost ridiculously out of date. This is because board after board that considers changing them faces the quite daunting task of achieving almost impossible voting ratios in order to get new documents passed.
The bar is very high and I favor lowering it. I'm aware that work is being done by the Governing Documents Committee and I'm very interested in reviewing that work to see what might be possible.
Davis-Stirling laws governing all California HOAs require votes for raising dues beyond a given percentage in any given year. I believe this offers adequate protection against rogue boards spending excessively for pet projects.
Oakmont's legal team does not recommend lowering this threshold because it negates the entire purpose of representative boards. As legal fiduciaries, board members are required to put community interests above their own. Community members are not bound by this legal restriction, so they are free to vote according to their own personal interests.
I think it's a great place for Oakmont residents to find a plumber or to sell an old pair of roller skates. As a political forum, however, I believe it is too often plagued by personal attacks, innuendo and twisted facts. I'm happy it exists, but I don't pay much attention to it.