The current gym proposal has generated a lot of division and rancor that might have been avoided. I think the dissatisfaction stems principally from the fact that many in opposition felt unheard. The board advocated forcefully to the entire membership with a one-sided view of a controversial project. Those opposed had little opportunity to present their case except by fuming online, to be heard by a small group of mainly like-minded homeowners.
This was an unusual case as capital expenditures under approximately $900K don't require a vote. However, I think the process for deciding upon capital improvement projects could better represent the will of the homeowners and be applied to the majority of projects, even when a vote is not required by the bylaws.
Here is a proposal for a process to select future projects:
Conduct annual surveys getting feedback on ideas for development and other concerns the homeowners may have (such as the one in 2023). That data should be promptly and completely published - preferably by providing a link to the results page on the survey platform. (That is, members should be able to see actual results, not only excerpted results that have been interpreted or edited. )
Once the board and staff have homed in on a few suitable projects (based on the survey) and developed estimates, they should return to the membership for feedback. Since a formal vote would not usually be required, this could be done as inexpensive survey sent to all members.
Importantly, each item under consideration would be presented with a brief description and cost estimate, along with arguments for and against (similar to the Colorado blue books that are published for elections). Probably there should be a "None of these" option.
Rather than an up or down vote on each item, none of which might get a majority, it could be a ranked-choice vote. These results should also be promptly and completely published. That way the board can act upon the clear preferences of the membership, in a very transparent way, even when there is no strong consensus for any one project.
If a large capital expenditure requiring a formal vote percolates to the top of the list, then that would be the time to vote on it specifically.
I accept that some projects might be necessary but lack broad appeal. Smaller projects below a certain threshold and/or related to basic safely and services might be exempted and left solely to the discretion of the board (like expanding an overflowing parking area, or mailbox expansion where homeowners lack sufficient boxes and safe pullouts).
Would this extra surveying take a little more effort? Perhaps, but not much. Presumably the board is already working with estimates and considering the pros and cons of each project. It might take a few extra hours to condense and organize that information for a survey.
Would it prevent the anger and sense of injustice we are we are seeing today? I hope so. It would give a voice to those who currently feel unheard and provide evidence of support for those projects that are chosen for completion.
I do not claim that this is a perfect plan. But it's an idea. I hope it will start a discussion about how we can do better.