Returning from vacation last October, my mail included a Twin Lakes Homeowners Association proposal more than doubling my dues to solve an impending financial crisis at the country club. Subsequent meetings and letters haven’t answered two basic questions.

First, why should a homeowner “invest” $300 per year for several years if the club owners remain free to close the facility, sell out or declare bankruptcy? Thus far, the claimed justification is that the golf course and open spaces will keep our property values up, and that we will all enjoy several amenities. I continue to have the feeling I’m being “hustled.”

A simple calculation assuming no COLA correction, etc., shows that a thousand homeowners would contribute $1,500,000 to the 200 or so club owners in five years. If the owners sold out then and collected about $5 million, they would benefit mightily. The return on the homeowner’s “investment” would only be the amenities, such as being able to play some golf (if one pays the fees), etc.

More homeowners might consider voting for the amenities if the club gave up something more than its members’ privacy. If the annual $300,000 bought a couple of proprietary memberships for the homeowners to hold, they could then claim about $45,000 if the club was sold after five years. This would still be a very poor return on our investment, but at least the homeowners not using the amenities would know that the golf club paid something for our substantial support.

The second question about the amenities proposal is, where did the monthly $25 increase come from? The club’s five-year income-expense projection indicates that there will be a total operating profit exceeding $100,000 every year. Why not increase the homeowners’ dues by only $20 per month?

David C. Morris, Federal Way