This project sits at the junction of two competing ideas. First, the community needs to continue to offer the well-maintained amenities its residents want and need. Second, expenditures on projects like this must emphasize thoughtful, not elaborate spending. Reconciling these competing ideas is a complicated process. It is impossible to please everyone. Some people will not like every single solution any board comes up with.
Oakmont 2030 is the latest in a series of projects conducted over the last 20 years and designed to determine Oakmont's future. It was conducted during a period where I was a full time caregiver for my wife, so I didn't have the luxury of following its progress.
I plan to review Oakmont 2030 and each of the other central area projects conducted since Oakmont's last major renovation over 20 years ago. Lots of data and many good ideas have been presented. I'll look for commonalities and try to determine why past efforts stalled and what prompted their resumption. I'll pay attention to how long facilities would be unusable, which groups would be affected and whether acceptable alternatives exist. I'll look into likely changes to dues and how such projects would be financed.
After a complete review, I'll formulate my thoughts, validate them with experts, expose all my ideas to the community and then vote on resolutions pertaining to this matter in a way that fulfills my fiduciary responsibility.
All this said, I'm not yet convinced that breaking ground on large new projects is currently in the community's best interests. Virtually all Oakmont residents with whom I've spoken over my 13 years as an Oakmont member are very happy and grateful to be living here. Clearly, we've done most things right and the state of the community is strong.
It's a very complicated issue, and I plan to study it thoroughly.
We live in very challenging, inflationary times. This puts pressure on people who live on a fixed income, especially those whose incomes have been fixed for many years and have had their nest eggs diminished by recent recessions.
Money spent by any HOA must emphasize bang for the buck. Very serious consideration should be given prior to large capital outflows.
Based on the worldwide growth of this sport, I think new courts would be well used. However, as a board member, I 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 period.
There is no question that Oakmont's governing documents are 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.
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. If elected, I would favor allowing the committee to continue its work, with the goal of seeing what it ultimately recommends and giving its recommendations due consideration.
Davis-Stirling laws governing all California HOAs require votes for large assessments and dues increases. For example, to purchase the golf courses, California law required (and Oakmont executed) a vote in order to raise dues sufficiently to complete this purchase.
I believe the law offers adequate protection against rogue boards spending excessively on pet projects. Oakmont's legal team agrees and does not recommend lowering this threshold because it negates the entire purpose of representative boards. No system of governance is perfect, but all California HOA law rests on the assumption that representative government is superior to all other possibilities.
As legal fiduciaries, board members are required to put community interests above their own. If, in the opinion of community members, they don't do so, they can be recalled at any time by a community vote.
Community members, on the other hand, are not bound by fiduciary responsibility, so they are free to advocate and vote according to their own personal interests. That is, I believe, as it should be, but we must recognize that it means our community and property values are not necessarily protected by resident preferences.
Board members are supposed to be the most informed and non-biased members of any HOA community. They are the only people in our community with the power and the legal responsibility to be true community stewards. Compromising this ability is potentially damaging to Oakmont's future.
However, if elected, I favor allowing the GDC to continue its work to create a few options for the board to consider. If these options lower the threshold a bit and all other aspects of their submissions seem reasonable, I can see supporting it.
Yes. All major Oakmont issues should be ongoing topics of discussion among the board and other interested parties. Further, Oakmont residents should be provided with all the information needed to facilitate such discussions.
When the community voted to raise dues to subsidize the purchase of the golf facilities, it was primarily a defensive move to keep developers from building large numbers of homes on Oakmont golf course land. I still believe such building would be catastrophic for our community. However, now that we own the land and facilities, it's up to the OVA board - with active input from community members - to continually review how that land is used and whether that land use is maximally benefitting our residents.
Copyright © 2026 Steve Spanier - All Rights Reserved.