Kyle Goempel

Orchid guy 🌸 turned citizen innovator. Exploring how AI + people can solve real problems. 23.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

Citizens + AI can fix what politics won’t.

We proved it with a blueprint for tackling the U.S. debt: Growth. Discipline. Trust.

This is bigger than left vs. right — it’s about building solutions together.

🧵 Read the full thread below 👇
#AI #USDebt #Bipartisan @grok

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

@imjohey @dallasmed65 The thing is, this is such a simple thing they could incorporate into their new update structures as well.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

@dallasmed65 This and why do we not have a cheaper method to making wood stairs? We can do a 1 for 1 ratio with stone stair variants via the stonecutter but with wood we're still stuck paying a hefty price.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

@dallascowboys Go out and get Gennings Dunker at 92 or trade up into the 80's if he's still there. Fits our exact physical style.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

@DaBraceFaceBull @fshib03 @hype_phinest Never said we weren't a contender, just pointing out that San Fran in that era was miles ahead everyone else in the NFC.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

@Kapo640 @AlexKatz1 @MajorMoose_

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

I guarantee you that 90% of the players injured rn for us wouldn't be in the playoffs if we were in the playoffs. Also logistically it wouldn't make sense for us to put Barkov in an intense playoff game after a major knee injury. C'mon man. We went on 3 consecutive runs to the Final and won twice and now our whole team is injured. This is the cost of winning and going on long runs.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

I know, I'm just pointing out what people like to cherry pick though. After we beat the Bucs, all we got told was that "they were hurt" "Brady was washed" etc. But immediately the week after we get called frauds for losing to a really good team that went to the SB that year iirc. We aren't the only NFC team that loses to San Francisco in the playoffs but people pretend it's only us 🤷‍♂️

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

@Kapo640 @MajorMoose_ You do know that Barkov tore his ACL right?

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

All I remember from that game was "Bucs were injured and they beat a fraud division winner team" and gave no credit to Dak or the defense despite them playing well 🤷‍♂️. Y'all cherry pick like crazy. Hate on the man when things go wrong but never praise the dude when things go right.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

I dunno honestly. I'm glad that you've stuck with Bedrock throughout the ups and downs. With each year that passes and parity issues not getting addressed, it seems like Mojang has just elected to choose the two games to be different forever. It's not fair to us old timers who have been loyal and who kind of grew up with the game though. I still like to think that eventually our patience will pay off but it is seeming less and less likely the more time that passes, especially with Mojang's new format for releasing updates.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

Beanin may have the best Minecraft Let’s Play right now 🎮

[Dan Rogers @DannyPhantom24]

Dak Prescott's 3 worst games this season in terms of QB rating were:

1. 51.5 against the Broncos (Jim Leonhard)
2. 76.6 against the Eagles (Christian Parker)
3. 77.9 against the Cardinals (Jonathan Gannon)

The Cowboys are interviewing defensive coaches who give Dak problems.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

I haven’t explored model legislation from other states in depth. My perspective is much narrower. It’s grounded in day-to-day operational experience rather than comparative legal research.
That said, the common thread across states seems less about copying specific statutes and more about whether transparency requirements are actually enforceable and accessible to homeowners in practice.
From where I sit, even modest, consistently enforced disclosure standards would be a meaningful improvement, regardless of how they’re structured elsewhere.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

Small businesses question:
Why are independent vendors required to pay recurring “vendor pass” fees to work on private properties — even when homeowners already pay HOA dues?
These fees raise costs, reduce competition, and ultimately get passed back to residents.
@grok — from an economic and fairness standpoint, does this model make sense?

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

I don’t have specific statutes or amendment language in mind, but the direction seems clearer than the details.
At a minimum, effective reform would likely require:
• Mandatory disclosure of vendor fee schedules and changes, in plain language
• A requirement that vendor fees be cost-based, with documented justification
• Limits on unilateral fee increases without homeowner notice or approval
• Clear enforcement mechanisms when disclosures aren’t provided
Without those structural guardrails, transparency initiatives risk becoming informational rather than corrective. The exact statutory vehicle matters less than whether those principles are actually enforceable.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

AI alone doesn’t fix this. At its core, this is a legislative and governance issue.

Transparency, disclosure standards, and enforcement ultimately have to come from statute and regulatory oversight, not tooling. AI can help surface patterns or lower the cost of understanding data, but it can’t compel disclosure or change incentives on its own.

Without clear legal requirements and consequences, the underlying dynamics that create these fees largely remain unchanged.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

That’s a big part of the challenge. Most vendors are focused on getting through the day, serving clients, and keeping their businesses afloat. Many don’t have the time, margin, or incentive to engage in civic or policy discussions. Especially when questioning the system carries real access risk.
That isn’t a knock on blue-collar or service work at all; it’s a reflection of how these systems persist. When the people most affected lack the bandwidth or protection to question them, practices become normalized rather than examined.
That’s why homeowner awareness and institutional transparency matter so much. Meaningful change is more likely to come from residents and policy structures than from vendors pushing uphill on their own.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

The outcomes I’d hope for are fairly modest and practical:
• Clear disclosure of what vendor fees are intended to cover
• Predictable, cost-based fee structures rather than ad hoc increases
• A shared understanding between boards, residents, and vendors that these costs ultimately flow back to homeowners
Even incremental transparency would go a long way toward reducing friction, improving trust, and keeping local service markets competitive. That alone would be a meaningful improvement over the status quo.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

I haven’t seen residents successfully use HB 913 yet, and I haven’t done deep research into its implementation in HOA contexts.
What I can speak to directly is the on-the-ground impact: vendor fees - especially when increased without explanation - consistently create distrust and friction between communities and service providers, regardless of the legal framework.
Whether HB 913 ultimately changes outcomes will depend on how accessible and enforceable its disclosure provisions are for homeowners in practice. That gap between policy intent and lived experience is where a lot of these issues persist.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

Practically, the lowest-risk steps tend to be indirect and informational rather than adversarial:
• Sharing generalized cost impacts with homeowners when discussing pricing (without naming communities or boards)
• Encouraging homeowners to request disclosures themselves under existing statutes
• Supporting neutral third-party research or journalism on HOA fee practices
• Providing anonymized data points to trade groups or policy researchers
When information comes from residents, analysts, or public reporting - rather than individual vendors - it reduces retaliation risk while still improving transparency.

[Kyle Goempel @GoempelKyle]

Informally, yes. Vendors talk among themselves, but formal associations are quite uncommon in this space because the risk isn’t abstract. Access is controlled locally, and retaliation doesn’t have to be explicit to be effective.
That’s why HOA governance is such a unique case: private entities exercising quasi-public control, without the transparency or whistleblower protections that exist in government-regulated environments.
Collective action likely has to start with homeowner awareness and statutory disclosure, rather than vendors organizing in ways that expose individual businesses.