Save our PUD Pools

Protect Our Community – Protect Our Home Values

If a few pools are removed today, where does it stop tomorrow? Once removal begins, there is no clear limiting principle preventing further reductions — potentially even the elimination of all pools over time. Once common amenities are removed, the change is permanent.

Take Action

✅ Vote NO on pool removal
✅ Fill in the “save our pools” online form to stay in touch.

Counterpoints to the PUD Board’s proposal

• “Savings”: The proposal presents the removal of pools #27 and #29 as a “saving”. However, in reality, it is just a removal of a shared amenity. Yes, we can reduce costs over time at the expense of permanently losing use of a shared facility AND of giving away land that we own without compensation. A true cost saving would have been if the PUD Board found a way to reduce costs while keep the same level or improving the shared amenities.
  • The CC&Rs, section 4.4.C, allows the PUD Board to do this without a vote. However, in order for the board to do this without a vote, the property to be sold must be valued at less than 5% of the PUD’s annual expenses. The Board is asking for our vote to give it the go ahead to do this without having presented a written valuation report for the PUD property they want to give away. Also, there is no written report on the impact to the home values of nearby houses for pools #27 and #29 or the other properties the Board is planning to reporpuse.
  • If the Board can do this for pools #27 and #29, there is nothing preventing them from doing the same for pools in other neighborhoods. Indeed, the proposed plan involves the gradual repurposing of other pools over the coming years. The Board wants to replace pools with houses, which means multi-year construction.
  • The currently impacted pools might not be in your neighborhood but there is nothing preventing the Board from coming for your neighborhood pool in the future! A “NO” vote to the current proposal will tell the Broad that we, as a community, do not want for our PUD pools to go away!
• “Environmental impact”: We all care about the environment.
  • The presentation for the proposal suggests that an unspecified number of people have expressed dismay towards the wastefulness of maintaining the neighborhood pools. Were there 5, 10, 100 homeowners?
  • We all bought our houses in a community with 17 neighborhood pools. We could have chosen to buy a house at a community without neighborhood pools.
  • We live in a community on grass golf courses. Is there a desire to also remove the grass given the impact to the environment?
• Usage:
  • No data was presented about the usage of the pools. It is difficult to make decisions without data.
  • Even if usage is low, it is a luxury amenity that was a factor for many when they decided to buy their house in the community. What will the removal of this amenity tell future buyers about our community? What else is going to be removed next?

Why This Matters

We bought our homes in a community with 17 pools—a visible, material part of its layout, character, and appeal. Removing pools changes that permanently.

What’s at stake?

• Property value and marketability
• Walkable access to shared amenities
• Community character and livability
• Fair and equitable treatment of all 601 homes

Allowing a precedent of removing shared amenities, in some cases without even compensation

The proposal would:

• Permanently remove existing common amenities
• Reduce convenience and access for some homeowners
• Alter the established character of the PUD
• Proceed without objective, quantitative usage data

Establish a precedent for continued future pool removals