- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
Neighbor vs. neighbor in Twin Lakes | Federal Way letters
The Twin Lakes Homeowners Association Board will say that all owners in the Twin Lakes neighborhood would pay $25/month under the proposed "benefit agreement."
But that isn't exactly true because the owners who live on the golf course that pay social or associate dues to the golf course and golfing members get this money back via a rebate or credit from the golf club. (Or as described by the Twin Lakes Golf and Country Club president in the November issue of the Twin Lakes Courier, "the direct cost of this program to you would be $0.")
The people who purchased homes on the golf course knew they were required to pay dues for a social membership to the golf course. This was a choice. Others, like me, chose not to live on the golf course.
However, the upcoming vote means the people who live on the golf course and golfing members (who pay no additional dues associated with this benefit agreement) get to vote to force the people who do not live on the golf course to pay dues to fund the golf course.
Why did the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association board design the plan this way? Believe me, it was no accident. The reason the people who live on the golf course and golfing members do not receive an increase in dues is because the HOA board recognizes that people are more likely to support a plan if it does not cost them anything. (The HOA board is right about that.)
So in other words, the HOA board designed the voting system so the people who have the most to lose if the golf course closes do not receive an increase in dues and are the most likely to support this proposed plan since it does not cost them anything.
The result of this inequity has pitted neighbor vs. neighbor.
The Twin Lakes Homeowners Association Board did not have the foresight to recognize that this two-tiered system (I will not pay any more in dues; but you will) would cause friction or dissent between neighbors.
This lack of foresight is one of the many reasons why I think we should vote no on Feb. 6 and consider replacing the HOA board with those that are better able to represent all the homeowners in our community.
Carol Barnett, Twin Lakes