No candidate could identify a point at which their own conduct might merit reflection — or even consideration. We will also be collecting checklists and takeaways from the series in one place.

This article explains how groups move from honest error to entrenched conflict — not through a single bad act, but through a sequence of thresholds that change how correction, accountability, and disagreement are handled.

During the election, specific choices were made—under pressure—to prioritize de-escalation, documentation, and long-term trust over short-term vindication. Those choices could be seen in the materials produced and reduced the speed and spread of conflict at a moment when escalation was most likely. This was containment.

I have opinions, and I’m not neutral about systems that reward exclusion or punish dissent. I write from lived experience, from documents and records, and from direct involvement in the community issues discussed here. I bring references not to posture as objective, but to show my work — so readers can trace how I arrive at my conclusions and decide for themselves whether those conclusions hold.

Interrupting a speaker during community comment is never neutral. It is a communication act — and it reveals who is allowed to define the story and who is not.

DARVO, narrative causality, and moral framing do not tell us whether anyone acted in good or bad faith. They tell us to look deeper for evidence and emotion because of what communication patterns are being used. SaveKenLake used these communication patterns extensively. By naming those structures, we make space for better conversations — ones grounded in records, process, and shared responsibility rather than in narratives about individuals.

During the 2025 election season, SaveKenLake.com published a short set of posts to support campaign materials. These included candidate messages, a highlight piece about board work, and a fear-based piece titled “Why Ken Lake is in Danger.” The site has since been removed, but the archived posts help explain how the election narrative hardened and why it became difficult to correct.

And if we want a neighborhood where people feel safe to speak, disagree, participate, and belong, then we — the adults in the room — must be willing to look honestly at how narratives form, how they distort relationships, and how we can break the cycle early.

Once a narrative forms about a person, every new action is filtered through it — no matter what the documents say. This is not about anyone being bad or malicious. It is about how stress and emotion turn into shared stories that shape how an entire community interprets one neighbor. And once systemic bias takes hold, that person can do nothing right, because the story has already been written.

It is important to say clearly: We understand that many of the people who spoke or wrote most strongly this election — including board leaders and candidates — genuinely believed what they were saying. Believing something strongly, however, does not make it complete or accurate.

Unlike typical HOA communication or even standard political comparison, the letter focused almost entirely on character attacks toward one neighbor, naming him repeatedly across two pages and framing him as manipulative, dangerous, and personally responsible for a long list of perceived harms.

Many of the letter’s strongest accusations collapse under their own internal contradictions. Not because of anything outside the text — but because the text itself doesn’t hold together.

Disagreement is expected in any election, however it is unusual for HOA materials to focus so extensively on a single neighbor’s character rather than on governance issues. While the first flyer used contrast-based political framing, this second flyer escalated that tone— centered not on competing ideas or visions, but on a series of personal allegations and warnings. Because this flyer significantly shifted the emotional climate of the election, this article looks at the

A first person account of election-related events leading up to flyers arriving on doorsteps.

During the 2025 election season, neighbors received two different types of campaign flyers. Many residents later commented that “both sides” seemed equally divisive. Because the messages did not use comparable communication styles—or make the same types of claims—this article looks directly at the communication approaches themselves to assess; how equal were the candidates in this? This installment focuses on tone, structure, and strategy, without assessing the factual acc

Ken Lake is made stronger when neighbors feel informed, respected, and included. Reviewing the claims made in this election is one way to support that shared foundation. When we understand what was said—and what the documents show—we create room for clearer conversations and more trust across differences. Whatever our perspectives, we all benefit from a community where information is accurate and participation feels safe.

Talking about challenges in communication isn’t about dwelling on the past—it’s about building a future where no one has to navigate harm alone.

When the tone changes overnight from “existential threat” to “open discussion,” it’s worth asking: Was the pre-election messaging truly about policy, or about winning? What other choices were made in pursuit of your vote?