OPINION: Master Planning and OVA Bylaws Amendments
“Master Plan”, “Long Range Planning”, “CAC Redevelopment”, or “It’s déjà vu all over again”. Although listening to what everyone thinks is difficult, the OVA BOD must at least try. For this purpose, the 2022-2024 2030 process did not work; the 2015 Voices of Oakmont survey did.
We can call the current CAC update process whatever we want, but technically, Master Plans start with a parcel of land, a blank sheet of paper, and an overall purpose of the project. H. N. Berger’s plan included the normal development issues of configuring plot plans, roadways, community space, and a “development purpose”: to provide a variety of residential housing and recreational venues for a wide range of senior buyers with varied incomes and housing needs. As a successful developer, Berger also understood that building an inclusive senior community would be a sales asset and generate a better financial return.
There is no question that over time buildings and services require updating and refurbishing to comply with changing regulations, legal issues, or community needs. Change is ok, but there is no viable reason to alter (even unintentionally) one of the basic “purposes” of the 1962 Berger “Master Plan” or to undermine the successful history of Oakmont as an inclusive community.
Four years ago (9/1/2020 ) Yvonne Frauenfelder posted an article in the Oakmont Observer entitled The Two Oakmonts (https://oakmontobserver.com/the-two-oakmonts) in which she observed the community’s concern with the replacement (as opposed to a rehabilitation) of the Berger Center that if completed, would have compromised Mr. Berger’s 1962 “purpose”. The article reminded readers that the 2015 community wide Voices of Oakmont survey favored a $4 million rehab of the Berger rather than a new building that could cost $15 to $20 million. The Berger was not rehabbed or torn down.
The concern with both the 2020 Berger and the 2024 CAC proposals is that the membership will be negatively affected by the probable long term borrowing costs of the project(s) as well and the operational increases to support those new areas. In addition, increased costs for 2025 and beyond due to fire insurance and more firewise expenses for both the OVA and its members are yet unknown. There is also a concern about the golf courses future that may add to that financial burden. The accumulated costs could create financial disruption to all Oakmont residents, but those who have relied on Berger’s original purpose will be more greatly impacted.
No planning solution will satisfy all Oakmonters, but the dilemma could be reduced by amending the OVA bylaws (and possibly the OVA CC&R’s) to allow a more realistic gauge to balance the needs vs wishes for Oakmont’s long range vision. After a two or three year lull, the bylaw discussions have again begun and hopefully those discussions will lead to a movement toward direct community involvement (a vote) in future large long term investment proposals.
OVA bylaw amendments are difficult due to current quorum requirements, but if the OVA BOD and other reasonable members can reach a compromise on the quorum and majority issues – by indicating that a vote on large expenditures could eventually become a reality, the quorum amendment may pass more easily than previously expected. If a reasonable amendment is successful, we can then consider future redevelopment in a more cooperative environment.
“If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.” (Yogi Berra)
Hello John –
I am entirely on your wavelength, although, momentarily 8000 miles away from Oakmont. Thank you for reminding, once more, our BOD of the urgent necessity of updating our 1999 Bylaws, and for that very purpose to establish a sensible and attainable participatory quorum for our community.
Nothing could celebrate our village’s 60 anniversary better than getting our administrative household in order.
Ah, yes, if one ignores road signs and declines to ask for directions, we’ll likely end up someplace else. That we continue to head in a direction at odds with the signal members sent in April is beyond dispute, says this observer.
1, Our bylaws need to be updated. But . . . we continue to get the government we elect.
2. The discord expressed in April would decline quickly if our leadership would commit to holding a plebiscite on any large project. It’s not complicated.
3. As to long range planning, let’s focus on the here and now. If we do that the future will be better for our having done what we know rather kidding ourselves about our foresight a decade or more away.
I agree. A vote would definitely make the process more transparent and, hopefully, get the community on board. I think something this momentous should definitely be submitted to the residents for a formal vote.
Accepting the will of a majority is almost a prerequisite to living happily in an HOA. Essential are the means to know that majority. Current policy is indefensible.
It is sad and worse that the OVA leadership (management and board, other planning groups, 2030 etc) will NOT listen and follow the consensus and votes of large groups of OVA residents – AND attempt to circumvent the residents with their actions while hiding and obfuscating their agenda, plans and goals.
Elihu “It’s sad and worse” says it all, and there is no shame.
Here is the link to the “minutes” of the Bylaws Revision Committee for August. If that’s all that is occurring I’m concerned.
https://oakmontvillage.com/article/8-8-2024-bc-minutes/
Concerned? Agree. But, we don’t need to amend our bylaws to resolve issues on the table today. The board needs to act.