I'm Yang Wang. I've served this board for close to a decade across four roles — currently as Treasurer — and I'm running for the January 2027 – December 2028 term. Here's where I stand on the issues shaping our community, and how to make your voice count this election.
I've held four different roles across consecutive years of service on the Dublin Ranch Golf Club HOA board, and I'm currently the Treasurer. My present term ends in December 2026, and I'm running for the term that follows.
Running for Jan 2027 – Dec 2028Better services and responsible spending should go together. I support finding practical savings, improving vendor performance, and using updated financial information before asking homeowners to pay more.
Read my financial position →The governing documents are ambiguous about permitted court use. My position is tennis-only, but the board should get a capped, independent legal opinion before it acts.
Read my court-use position →Residents and directors both need written standards: a clear reporting path, a graduated response, and defined criteria for escalating the board’s response.
Read my governance position →Nobody on our board would argue against treating every resident the same. The problem is that no written process makes it true. Without one, we improvise, and improvisation is where unequal treatment creeps in. It's also where good-faith decisions get misread, because no one can later show what standard was applied.
Values don't protect anybody. Process does. Similar situations should generally be handled similarly, unless the facts are meaningfully different. Past decisions can guide us without binding us. And a director owes residents the reasoning behind a vote, not just the vote.
What I want in place:
I'd rather hear this from you directly than guess at it. What do you think the board owes a resident who reports a problem? Use the private message form below — nothing you send is posted publicly.
Rule B-21 is unclear about permitted court use, making it difficult to apply consistently. Three of its subsections call the facility a “tennis/sport court” and refer to “tennis and appropriate sport equipment.” A fourth says it is for “playing the game of tennis only.” The CC&Rs and the subdivision map describe the parcel more broadly still, as a “Private Recreation Facility.” Two neighbors can read our documents in good faith and reach opposite conclusions.
My reading is that the facility should be treated as tennis-only — that “recreational” and “sport” describe a tennis court rather than authorize other sports on it. But that's an interpretation, not a plain fact, and a board shouldn't impose one on a divided community without having it checked. It's also the sound answer operationally: multi-sport play accelerates surface wear, and the noise carries to the homes along the court.
So I've put a motion before the board that would take the decision in two steps:
How I chose which firm to recommend. The first option reached us through our management company, which had used that firm for years — a fair place to start, but worth comparing rather than defaulting into. I asked for a defined scope and a fee estimate up front, three times over about six weeks, and nothing came. So I brought two more firms to the board, obtained engagement agreements from both, and arranged a call every director was invited to join. The one I'm recommending gave us a scope and an estimate before asking for a dollar, and builds its practice around keeping boards out of litigation. I'll name it once the board has voted.
The board didn't reach this in August, so it's expected on the October agenda.
The door stays open. The draft resolution says so explicitly: neighbors who want multi-sport use can petition, and 5% of the voting power triggers the membership vote the Davis-Stirling Act provides for. I'm not trying to end this conversation — I'm trying to make sure that if the answer changes, it changes through a process nobody can call rigged. And whatever the board decides, it should apply the same reasoning to every sport that asks, or be able to say out loud why it treats them differently.
One thing I want to be upfront about. The draft resolution also directs removal of the old basketball structure by the court, on safety and liability grounds. It's been there for many years, but the hoop itself was removed during COVID, around 2020, and has never been restored. If you have a different view on removing what's left standing, I'd rather hear it from you before the vote than after.
As Treasurer, I supported changing landscape vendors because homeowners deserve both good service and good value. The new contract is expected to generate approximately $37,000 in annual savings on landscape maintenance costs while improving service expectations. Good stewardship means pursuing savings when they can be achieved without sacrificing service quality.
The reserve study identified important long-term financial considerations for our community, including major future repair and replacement projects. At the same time, the study was completed before the landscape contract change that will take effect this year. Because that change materially affects annual operating costs, I believe the board should evaluate updated reserve projections before committing homeowners to long-term assessment increases.
Some directors favor increasing monthly assessments now, while others prefer maintaining current levels. My view is that those decisions should be based on the best information available. I would rather review an updated reserve study that reflects actual budget savings and operating experience before deciding whether assessments should increase and, if so, by how much.
My standard for the budget. Homeowners should not be asked to pay more unless the need is clearly demonstrated. Major financial decisions should be based on current data, transparent assumptions, and a clear explanation of how the money will benefit the community.
A resident reported a physical confrontation at the tennis court in which a wrist strap was broken and a phone was knocked to the ground. A police report was filed, and several verbal conflicts have also been reported. I want a written process for conduct complaints at shared amenities, so residents know how to report an incident and how the board will respond.
Written standards applied consistently, and major decisions explained to homeowners — so close votes turn on the merits, and look like it. When decisions affect shared areas, the entire community should have a chance to be heard before the board acts.
Two seats, two-year terms. The top two vote-getters win. Quorum is one-third of members (188 of 562), dropping to 20% (113) if the meeting is adjourned.
Summarized from the Association's 2nd General Notice. The official notice governs.
Whatever's on your mind — tennis courts, board fairness, or something else — I'd rather hear it directly than guess.
As I hear from residents, I'll summarize common themes here without naming anyone or sharing identifying details. These summaries will reflect informal conversations and messages — not an HOA survey, poll, petition, or official board record.
I don't discuss specific incidents or individual neighbors in writing. This is an open channel for sharing concerns and ideas that help inform how I think about board decisions.