Letter sent to our Board of Directors by a concerned homeowner
To the Board of Directors and Fellow Homeowners,
I am writing as a concerned member of our community regarding the repeated proposal to build a new activity center, which would require a $3,500 assessment from each homeowner. This will likely in increase in cost, scope, and timeline due to Tariffs.
This proposal has already been presented and voted down twice by the residents. That outcome should be respected. Continually bringing it back for a vote not only disregards the will of the voters/Residents but is also dividing our community.
We need to have a limit on the number of times any major proposal can be voted on.
Many residents—including myself—are concerned about the financial burden this project would place on homeowners. We all have different financial realities, and it’s important that decisions made by the board take that into consideration. No resident should feel pressured or alienated over an issue like this. Our Board President suggesting that our residents living on a fixed income to take out a LOAN is deeply insensitive and inappropriate and deserving of a written apology to all residents.
We all want the best for our neighborhood, but we must make decisions that reflect the community’s voice. I urge the board to focus on projects with broad support and to respect the decisions residents have already made.
The remark about affordability is deeply insensitive and inappropriate thing to say, especially to residents who are on fixed incomes, such as retirees or lower-income residents.
It’s Dismissive of Financial Hardship: Telling someone to “just take out a loan” ignores the very real financial constraints many people face. Loans come with interest, fees, and credit requirements—things not everyone can manage.
It’s Divisive and Elitist: It creates a class divide within the community, suggesting that only those with financial flexibility should have a say, while others should just “find a way” or leave. That undermines the values of inclusion and fairness.
It also Undermines Trust: Leadership in an HOA is supposed to represent all residents, not just those with means. Comments like that damage trust in leadership and increase hostility within the neighborhood.
Comments like this made publicly could raise legal and ethical concerns—especially if it’s tied to efforts to pass an unpopular, expensive project.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
P.S. What ever happened to the Emergency Evacuation Plan for FOS ?? and when was the last time the water pressure was tested on our Fire Hydrants??
———————————————
The following 2 letters were forwarded to us ( the first was posted on a FOS Facebook page) expressing differing opinions. Please take time to read both and make your own determination.
——————
I for one am very disappointed in the outcome of the vote. It is not what the MAJORITY wanted but we needed a super majority so the minority won out but only by 48 votes.
I am disappointed and saddened that I live in a community that has people (even if they are in the minority) that are so selfish, self serving, are willing to pass on so much false information/lies to get their way.
Because of this minority win, we will not be making our Activity Center ADA compliant, apparently the minority that “won” could care less about our neighbors that are handicapped. We also will not have a building with fire suppression so Heaven help us if there is a fire that our slow moving older folk’s have enough time to get out before the flames get to them. But HEY by hook or by crook the minority got what they wanted. I have no idea how some of these people can look at themselves in the mirror. My guess is all they see and care about are themselves because they surely do not care for their neighbors.
Our HOA Board gave it everything they had and we appreciate everything they did & their effort to keep our community safe, usable and nice. They put in 100’s & 100’s of hours – volunteered hours. My Husband is one of those Board Members and I personally know how much time he gives to this Community and I HOPE & PRAY that those people who called for the Board to be recalled/overturned run for the Board as soon as they can – because apparently they think they could do a much better job – and get a little of their own medicine when unappreciative people, that don’t have a CLUE, get insulting.
“An OASIS in the DESERT Greets You with Fountains, Palm Trees, a Golf Course and More!
FOUNTAIN OF THE SUN IS A SECURE, WELL-MAINTAINED, �ACTIVE 55+ COMMUNITY AFFORDING RESIDENTS A RANGE OF ACTIVITIES TO SERVE AND ENHANCE THEIR LIFESTYLES.”
This is the statement (description) of our community. If you bought in this community and did not do your due diligence then that is on you. We offer Activites to enhance your lifestyle, not just a place for you to buy and sit in your house until you die. Notice it does not read -A Cheap Place to Live – as many of you stated as to why you moved in here. I for one do not want my community to be known for that.
I am saddened that the Minority won yesterday.
Sincerely,
Dixie Yopp
——————-
I understand that emotions are high after a close and contentious vote, but I feel compelled to respond to the recent letter with a different point of view—one that respects both the democratic process and the intelligence and values of our neighbors who voted differently.
First and foremost, this was not a case of the “minority” somehow hijacking the outcome. The vote did not pass because it failed to meet the required supermajority—a threshold that exists for a reason, particularly when it involves major financial commitments, changes to property, or community obligations that affect everyone. This wasn’t a trick or technicality. It was the rule from the start. If nearly half the community didn’t support the proposal, perhaps it’s worth considering why.
It’s disheartening to see fellow residents labeled as “selfish” or accused of “lying” simply because they made a different choice. That’s not only unfair—it’s inaccurate. Many who voted against the measure did so with thoughtful consideration of costs, long-term implications, and how it would affect neighbors on fixed incomes. Fiscal responsibility and caution are not signs of selfishness—they’re signs of caring for all community members, not just a particular vision.
Regarding ADA compliance and fire safety: of course we want a safe and accessible community. But disagreement on how best to achieve that—financially, structurally, or otherwise—doesn’t equate to disregard for the elderly or disabled. Accusing neighbors of not caring about the vulnerable simply because they disagreed on how to help is divisive and deeply unfair.
As for Board members—many of us do appreciate their time and efforts. Volunteer service is commendable. But holding differing opinions or questioning decisions is not an attack—it’s a healthy part of governance. Democracy doesn’t just mean agreeing with the Board. It means having the right to challenge, debate, and yes, even replace leadership if enough residents believe it’s needed. That’s not “ungrateful”; that’s participation.
Lastly, regarding the idea that this community is not meant to be a “cheap place to live”: affordability is not a moral flaw. Many of us chose Fountain of the Sun because it offered a balance—activities, safety, beauty, and yes, reasonable costs. That doesn’t make us any less committed to the community’s success. It simply reflects the diverse reasons people choose to live here.
In closing, while it’s natural to be disappointed by a vote that doesn’t go your way, let’s be careful not to demonize those who voted differently. We are still neighbors. We still want a vibrant, safe, inclusive community. Let’s work together with respect and listen to all voices—not just the loudest or the most emotional.
Sincerely,
A Concerned and Respectful Resident.
——————————————————————