Dear editor,
After many conversations with Whispering Hills residents and much to time to respond and not react, I write to share my thoughts on recent letters posted here regarding a letter weeks ago titled “Whispering Hills rate hikes prompt shouts about injustice.”
In these times, it seems rather routine that someone, or some organization is offended and angry about the actions of someone else. In our culture it seems to have become a sport of sorts. We are becoming more and more polarized with each other by the day and peace and serenity is a fleeting commodity. I remember times when neighbors strove to get along despite differences, fully knowing that we were interdependent on each other as we lived side by side.
When my friend, Jasmin Warren, was running for the board I thought she was crazy. I knew she had dedicated her life to assisting those in our society who are desperate and hurting in her mission as a social worker. She exhibited the same passion for being elected to the board and striving to improve the quality of life in her neighborhood as she has always made manifest in her life. Now, she may have come to realize that no good deed goes unpunished. She has walked into a litany of financial obligations as a condo 1 board member, not of her making, that demand to be addressed.
The funding of the roof should not have been an issue had a sinking fund been in place since day one. All knew that this would present itself one day and is I naively understand it, what has been put aside is woefully insufficient. Why was this not addressed and corrected years ago? A sinking fund is specifically designed to set aside funds for future obligations to prevent what the current board of condo 1 is now faced with. It is truly unfair and disingenuous to fault current members especially if they were just elected and inherited this mess.
Maybe though, this is also endemic in our culture of not saving for a rainy day and pretending that surprises are not going to happen. It only would have cost each unit $10 a month over the past 25 years using a compound interest of future value calculation which would have provided $4200 per unit for roof replacement, a much better alternative to the assessments of $100 a month being floated now. The overarching question is why this was not done. The obligation seems to have kicked down the road and the true injustice here is castigating the new board members who inherited this mess.
Sincerely,
Tom Gordon
Chester