Information Pages

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Think "Smart" Not "Big"


Miniature Golf....Why ?


On June 11th, the Property & Grounds Committee was approached with considering a miniature golf course at the Liberty Center where the flawed bocce courts are located.

We at Anthem Opinions have questioned this idea...from a number of aspects, and we would hope that as this concept proceeds through the process, it is given careful examination....as well as...approval by an electorate, rather than a handful of individuals.

We question objectivity when others will explain this concept in the following words: 

" a once in a lifetime opportunity"... 

Our take on this is quite the opposite. That "once in a lifetime opportunity" has remained in disarray since 2006, and words such as these, are merely a sales pitch; not fact, only personal opinion.

or...

"we need to “think big” and understand that a unified project at the site will take a lot of money, with very early estimates in the wide range of $150,000 at the high end to $75,000 at the low end"...

Why must we "think big"?   Would spending $500-$1,000 be preferable if an alternative is utilized? Is this cost figure a real cost, or is this similar to the old days of buying a car....with a heater being an option?

or...

"makes an argument that "ALL of these funds would come from the Asset Enhancement Fee (AEF) which is collected at the rate of one-third of one percent on the sale of SCA homes. Use of this fee, which is used for funding new capital projects among other things, WILL NOT lead to an increase in your SCA dues"...

Of course it would affect dues, perhaps not immediately, but maintenance and other miscellaneous costs are indeed financed by dues. And...the Asset Enhancement Fee comes from YOU...when you sell your home...a fee SOME PAY and SOME DON'T.

or...

"About 68 percent of respondents to my recent survey expressed a preference for mini-golf at Liberty Center...it was a necessary beginning that let me know there is interest."

Under 200 homes out of 7,144 responded, under 3% of entire Sun City Anthem population, none of which were given ANY information as to cost or FEASIBILITY.

or...

"I want to thank several individuals who have been very gracious with their time and advice in sharing ideas with me, engaging in extensive conversations, and  meeting with me in person. Thank you to Bruno Panek of Facilities; Project Manager John Casanova; P&G Chair Burt Davis and member Jim Jaworski; former P&G Chair Stan Lenci; and Lifestyle Committee Chair Ralph Saccoliti, a founder of the Bocce Club."

None of these people to our knowledge have come forth publicly in favor of the project. To do so without properly vetting the proposal would be imprudent and violate their responsibilities to ensure proper financial planning.  None of these individuals endorsed ANYTHING.

These above comments are merely words...WORDS that have a much greater meaning on the financial structure of Sun City Anthem, than you have been lead to believe.

Let me explain by way of....the past.


The idea of a "survey" was utilized a number of months ago over a restaurant in Anthem Center, that at best, was tainted.


Though a majority of residents stated they wanted one; what people seem to forget is that 81% of the same sample also said...WE SHOULD NOT USE ASSOCIATION FUNDS TO FINANCE ONE.


In addition, those who completed the survey, indicated that they wished to have a "moderately priced" organization. 


Just how was that survey interpreted?


Simply...by paying attention to the SUPERFICIAL aspects, not the FINANCIAL ones.


That resulted in spending THOUSANDS of ASSOCIATION FUNDS on a "5 Star" restaurant, operated by a TV personality, who in reality, NEVER OWNED A RESTAURANT IN HIS LIFE.


Over the short life span of that organization, to date, so many changes have taken place, that it has become obvious that "There are problems...problems that might have possibly been avoided, had an EXPERIENCED OPERATOR been chosen....by people who had PROPER EXPERIENCE...


...or had the 81% been listened to, rather than those who superficially merely said, "Yes, I want one", without having been made aware of the substantial association financial commitment made on their behalf.


We are now without options as to THAT LEASE, but there is a lesson that should be learned from it....


Namely....WALK, DON'T RUN, and don't jump into something that you do not have sufficient data AND COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE, before a major project commences.


We believe that information SHOULD INCLUDE a survey to the resident/owners completely spelling out the full pros & cons of this venture. Differing views add productive thought, and should be welcomed.

FULL COST, which must include architectural design, materials, contractors, insurance, etc., must be disclosed....


...vital  information that should be incorporated in any such survey in order to provide concrete reasoning from which to draw individual choice when completing a survey. 


Practicality should be included in a survey; namely....


Will YOU use it, considering the extreme hot summer weather?




Will GUESTS be able to use it? 


 If so, will they be charged?  Children WILL COME IN THE SUMMER, and would seniors be capable of tolerating the heat while supervising them?  Remember, current guest policy REQUIRES that use of facilities have a MEMBER present.

Will it be monitored properly? 

(ex. If an individual swings a club and hits and/or injures another person, WHO will be responsible?)

What materials will be used ?


Will any artificial turf be too hot on which to play? 


What type of footwear will be required to avoid burns?


What will be the annual maintenance costs of replacing artificial turf that will be affected by extreme summer heat? 


What will be the costs of putters and balls? 


...of repainting areas that will be marred by sharply hit golf balls and other negligence of players? 

Could there be a more feasible usage of that space that would cost a fraction of the amount?  (example, using the existing courts and merely painting a shuffleboard design).

At any rate, this should involve COMPLETE planning, and FULL DISCLOSURE of costs and attitudes of each and every resident, not merely the 2.7% of those who initially completed a survey without full disclosure of any and all aspects of such a substantial investment of resident funds.


It is very important to Anthem Opinions that this in NO WAY, criticizes any committee, particularly Property & Grounds; but we believe this measure is more than a slight change to our community...it is a MAJOR one, spending VAST  continuing sums.

...and in this case, because of the uniqueness of this project, we would like to believe that those on that committee would welcome FULL resident input by way of a detailed questionnaire, in order that they....


...as they previously did, a mere few weeks ago, looked carefully at an entire picture, and made a decision that "thinking big" in developing a "personalized" Dog Park, was not in the best interests of an entire community.




We shall see....but please...allow us to see the FULL PICTURE.

No comments:

Post a Comment