Letters to the Editor

Editor:

I want to thank all the people who do not run stop signs, who stop appropriately at our new signal. I want to thank the majority of you who do not put wipes in the pipes.

And, for the minority of you who do not obey stop signs, use wipes, you are all making our GRF and Mutual fees increase.

We all have to pay for repaired pipes, repaired stoppages, speed bumps, new signals, etc.

We have to pay for your negligence.

If we want to reduce financial waste, then obey the rules. What amazes me is this is a choice. Being respectful, being diligent is a choice. I really am thankful for the majority who respect and choose to do the right thing. We don’t need more education. We need more respect for each other. I honestly wish we knew exactly who the culprits are so we could charge them for the portion of our fees that are caused by them. Thanks to those of you who help us be better. It’s a choice.

Nancy Tye Mutual 3 Editor:

I just read, with interest, that another traffic study is planned for the often dangerous streets here in Leisure World.

The whole process of this sounds very extensive and lengthy.

I find myself wondering why, given all that has been studied regarding careless driving here, another complicated study has to be done.

In the more than 18 years that I have lived here, I have had so many close calls from incredibly dangerous drivers.

I have also seen and heard several suggestions that could help with this problem.

Here are three. First, put up some speed limit signs.(This has been suggested many times.)

Second, give tickets. In the daytime. In high profile ways. So the bad drivers can see that there are consequences. We are more than one third of the Seal Beach population. Why do we get such a small portion of the law enforcement?

Third, strategically place some speed bumps on the speedway known as Golden Rain Road.

I can’t help but wonder if things could be improved by just doing some of the sensible things that have already been suggested in the past rather than spending more time on another study.

Mike Maher Mutual 3 Editor:

I attended the recent town hall on the proposed solar project and appreciate the GRF Board’s efforts to explore renewable energy options for our community. I want to be clear that I support solar when it is implemented thoughtfully and with appropriate protections for homeowners.

That said, I left the meeting with more questions than answers.

Contract terms of 25 and 30 years were discussed, yet no draft agreement or term sheet has been presented. Without seeing proposed contract language, shareholders cannot reasonably assess the long-term obligations, risks, or flexibility that would bind both current and future residents.

While legal review has been mentioned, there does not appear to be a plan for an independent financial analysis of the project’s long-term impact.

At present, there is no clear, side-by-side picture of actual savings versus total costs over the life of the agreement, particularly under conservative assumptions or changing utility and regulatory conditions. Key cost drivers—such as equipment replacement, especially inverters, and the implications of proceeding without battery storage—remain unclear.

Insurance and liability issues have also not been clearly addressed.

Shareholders should understand what additional insurance coverage may be required, whether those costs are included in projections, and how liability is allocated, particularly for rooftop installations.

Given the size of our community and the fact that any agreement could last decades, the current timeline—includstudy ing a stated deadline of June 30, 2026—feels rushed relative to the information available.

These questions are not opposition to solar, but a call for careful, transparent due diligence so any decision leaves shareholders informed and confident.

Jane Hamel Mutual 4