From Crisis Messaging to Calm Governance

A comparison of the President’s Corner before and after the election

In the weeks leading up to our HOA election, homeowners were presented with messaging that framed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and housing density as an existential threat to the character and safety of Ken Lake. The tone was urgent, alarmed, and overtly political.

The before election message was written in September, and I attempted to address the tone in a board meeting as a community comment. I was interrupted by the President and muted before I was able to finish my statement. The second message you will have read in the November newsletter, released November 25, 2025.

Before the Election: Crisis Messaging

Quotes from the September President's Corner

“Most important provision… may come under challenge.”

“The city won’t deny multiple-family building applications, even for Ken Lake.”

“This could lead to duplexes, triplexes… larger populations… only a single exit in emergencies.”

“Your vote counts more than ever.”

The issue was presented as a crisis—one that could only be averted depending on who won the election.

After the Election: ADUs Become a “Discussion”

Quotes from the November President's Corner

The post-election message from the new Board President struck an entirely different chord. Instead of existential warnings, we heard:

“The community could decide to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on a limited basis.”

“It’s a discussion we need to have as we revise the covenants.”

“Let’s all move forward for the betterment of our community.”

Gone was the fear of duplexes and triplexes. Gone was the emergency-exit imagery.

Gone was the insistence that ADUs would undermine safety and the “single-family character” of the neighborhood.

Instead, ADUs were reframed as something that might be allowed “on a limited basis,” and merely one part of a normal covenant revision process.

What Changed?

The contrast between the two messages is not subtle.

Before the election:

• ADUs were described as a threat.

• Density was framed as dangerous and destabilizing.

• The messaging was designed to motivate votes through urgency.

• Opposition to ADUs was positioned as a defining issue of the election.

After the election:

• ADUs are now “a discussion we need to have.”

• The board signals openness to limited ADUs.

• The tone becomes administrative and conciliatory.

• Election rhetoric gives way to procedural language.

This shift matters—not because ADUs are inherently good or bad—but because election-season messaging shapes community perception and voter behavior. 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?

Why This Matters for Governance

Residents deserve consistent, transparent communication—especially on issues where fear can easily outpace facts.

ADUs are complex:

• State law continues to evolve

• City policy affects us directly

• Our covenants are strong and also need updates

• Different neighbors have different needs

When the tone swings dramatically depending on the electoral moment, homeowners lose the ability to evaluate policy on the merits—and instead are pulled into a politicized and divisive narrative that may not reflect the board’s actual intentions once in power.

The September President’s Corner was followed up with two flyers, a letter, and a website (now removed) using language even more alarming and containing claims about Friends of Ken Lake positions that differed significantly from our own statements. 

We will discuss each of these productions separately — however, it’s clear from the coordinated volume and tone of the election-season materials that this issue was elevated into a major political topic used for contrast, even though all candidates are closely aligned in policy.   Our focus will be on the content and the choices reflected in those materials, not the individuals involved, because while we intend to hold individuals accountable for their choices, we do believe everyone has the opportunity to grow and communicate more constructively going forward.

A Call for Clear, Stable Communication

As we move into covenant revisions, our community would benefit from:

• Clear explanations of what state law does and does not require

• Honest descriptions of what ADUs mean for Ken Lake—both pros and cons

• Transparency about where board members actually stand, not just during election season

• Space for the full community to discuss, not just react to rhetoric

• A consistent tone between campaigning and governing

• An acknowledgement of the directors and members who have already been trying to have a discussion about ADUs and housing density at this tone and level.

We deserve a conversation rooted in facts, not fear. We deserve messaging—and candidates—that stay consistent whether it's election season or not.