Spending...It Divides a Community and it's Publications
If there was ever a manner in which to dramatize
the difference between financial responsibility and lack there of, one only has
to compare the commentary between David's Anthem
Journal, Anthem Today, Anthem Opinions, and Today's Anthem
View.
This community has a number of blogs/forums in
which people have the opportunity to express their views, but the difference between them is glaring in terms of
exercising financial
responsibility.
One merely has to read the commentary of Anthem Today, Anthem Opinions,
and Today's Anthem View and see that most
arguments having to do with spending association funds make a case for RESPONSIBLE SPENDING, while those on David's Anthem Journal, is quite a different
matter.
Rather than looking at expenditures through the
eyes of an individual who actually incurs them, that publication and those few
who comment there most often look at spending as a matter of
insignificance...that other factors are more important, that when looking at the
"whole", it matters little as to the amount being spent...because it will be
spread amongst a large number of individuals.
Whereas one blog's supporters have an attitude
of "your dues have not increased" or "the annual assessments are reasonable" , the others look at
the issue quite differently.
Those others...often
referred to as "malcontents" amongst other derogatory terms, look at spending in a manner that more closely reflects
"need" and "value" with
the objective of REDUCING expenses to obtain an
acceptable retirement standard.
In addition, those others...are portrayed as "wanting Vic's to fail", when in
fact...
NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM
THE TRUTH.
Those others wish him
success...but with HIS MONEY not YOURS.
And most importantly, those others look at unnecessary spending as draining a large pot that some day has to be replenished,
rather than "drain it now, and we'll let those who follow us
replenish it".
That "others" attitude
speaks more for the "little guy", the one who may
want a particular amenity, but may not be in a position to afford it. Those are
the people Anthem Today, Anthem Opinions, and Today's Anthem View look at
first....
...believing that those who do
have the means for "the finer things" should not impose their financial wants
on others, but instead accept a reasonable spending
standard in a homeowners association, while financing
their "extra amenities" themselves.
Whereas one line of thought
says "spend", the
other line of thought prefers "think before you spend."
What prompted this article was an email that I
received from a resident who looked closely at "spending" and placed our latest restaurant's need for public assistance in a
prospective, some of you might never have
considered.
Where individuals that have made comments on
David's Anthem Journal look at Vic's Restaurant in these
terms....
"I appreciate having a fine
dining place such as this to add to our upscale amenities list and maintain the
reputation of our wonderful community"
"The majority of us seniors
need to give them pats on the back and try to support them once or twice a
month"
"OK, let's compare the cost to
the $5 she spends on a slot machine when she visits her local
casino"
"Like Carol said, where are
the classy people in this classy community"
"We should all say how lucky
we are to have, not only this fantastic view, not have to drive miles for a
fabulous meal, and have people who are WILLING TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO KEEP US
HAPPY, here in Anthem. We should all be willing to support Vics, at least once a
month"
"Communities like ours,
whether they are country clubs or Sun Cities, invariably find it necessary to
subsidize on site restaurants, and this is something we should more actively
consider, This is especially true given our location and the competition Vic's
has to contend with. One of our directors, Jerry Gardberg, made a motion to
dispense with rent altogether. I think he had it right, Such a move would
proactively send the message to Vic's that we value having his restaurant here
and will do whatever is necessary to help him
succeed."
"Eliminating the rent
altogether would help them, cost us very little, and in the long run, we would
simply be acting in our own best interests."
...those comments made on Anthem Today or Anthem
Opinions address the subject in an entirely different
manner....
"The fact is, I don't know any Anthem Today poster who doesn't love
this community and our neighbors, the people living in
it."
"The sharply declining gross sales figures paints a dim picture of continued operation unless a gross monthly income of $60,000 will be profitable enough to stay in business"
"Don't forget...“we the people” of SCA must pay for all repairs and
maintenance of restaurant equipment"
"A privately owned restaurant is not an
amenity, no matter who says it is. If I choose to make an investment, that is my
choice not the choice of a bunch of people who want something for their own self
satisfaction."
"Whether it's a pack of cigarettes, a bottle of beer, or a coffee
at Starbucks---those are the things I choose not to spend on myself. But I am
forced by 7 people, who do not know
me in addition to any other concessions
extended to keep Vic's in
operation."
"The $24,000 reduction of rent is only a small portion of our yearly expense for restaurant capital improvements and reserves.or my situation from Adam, to spend it to maintain a business I choose under my own free will not to patronize."
"The $24,000 reduction of rent is only a small portion of our yearly expense for restaurant capital improvements and reserves.or my situation from Adam, to spend it to maintain a business I choose under my own free will not to patronize."
"My choices of what I spend my remaining retirement funds on are
decided by my medical needs, my mortgage requirements, my utility use, and food
and fuel - and should not be decided by 7 people who want a place close by to
get lunch at a discount for
themselves"
"The restaurant is owned and serviced by
Vic's. We own the property that we rent out. NO landlord supports a tenant with
payments for equipment and its' maintenance. No landlord rewrites the lease in
midstream."
"Thus SCA members are already subsidizing the operations of the
restaurant via the taxes. SCA pays the property taxes, Vic’s does
not."
I know a
number of the individuals in this later group...and in just about every
case....these individuals are in a financial position where dollars spent one
way or another, would not affect their lives to any major
extent...
But this 'OTHER"
group is quite different than the former....as
evidenced by the
commentaries.
...they know
that "Meals on Wheels" make increasing stops to Sun City
Residents...
..they know
that some residents have budgets that do not allow them to enjoy lifestyles of
"the rich and
famous"....
...they know
that achieving fiscal responsibility "for the whole" is more important than
providing "wants" for the
rich....
...and
consider those individuals not as fortunate as others, every bit as "classy" as some who look at "class" by examining material
possessions.
That..is the difference that separates
community blogs...and YOU, as residents must determine what is, and what is
not...CLASS
!
...those who only look at THEMSELVES...
...or...
...those who look at ALL TOGETHER as a FAMILY.
Dick Arendt
From resident....Josie...to Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteToday’s article on Vics was excellent and to the point. Unfortunately, the powers that be (and control) here at Anthem don’t take the facts into consideration when they spend OUR MONEY. Let them pay for subsidizing Vics if they want to keep it here and leave the rest of the owners out of it. People have choices of whether to eat there or not, and the “nots” seem to be the majority so why should they have to pay for those that want Vics to stay here? Let Vics raise their prices to the ones that want to eat there and leave the rest of the residents out of the mix. It seems clear that the majority of people that live here don’t want to eat there so that majority shouldn’t have to pay for the minority that do. That is what’s fair and equitable!