More...
From The
Mailbag
The closing of the Sun City Anthem Liberty Center brought a rash of negative reactions from residents who were astonished by what had taken place.
On November 23, 2015 we published a
"From the Mailbag" article by
Forrest Fetheroff, entitled "Sun City Anthem Liberty
Center Debacle...It Could Have Been Easily Avoided",
a man who from the very "get-go" was an integral part
of questioning....and...making every attempt to volunteer... his experience and
expertise that was sadly ignored.
That article was read
by 1,690 Sun City Anthem
residents.
Today, we have another article sent to
us that we initially considered publishing as a comment, but due to the large
number of residents growing on a day basis who make Anthem Opinions a part of
their day, combined with the substantial numbers who have read Mr. Fetheroff's
article, we instead decided to make this a feature article as
well.
We wish to thank an individual
named Yung Lee for taking the time to write such a
detailed and passionate piece, and we hope you will read it carefully as it
summaries thoughts for all of us to consider as we approach self-management and
an upcoming Board of Directors election in 2016.
A Members Meeting
Summary
and the Questions All
Sun City Anthem Residents Must Ask Themselves
by
Yung
Lee
Let me begin by saying I attended a portion of the
annual membership meeting and there was NO ATTACK by Mr.
Arendt on Mr. Berman. As a matter of fact, a number of residents
applauded him after his asking residents to take the time to examine the voting
records of candidates before they vote.
He merely asked Mr. Berman to post “voting
records” of candidates in the upcoming Director election next
year.
What seems to have been omitted from the story was the outcry from Mrs. Berman, attempting to interrupt Mr. Arendt, when she twice yelled "That's Inappropriate....That's Inappropriate" from the back of the room for all to hear.
What seems to have been omitted from the story was the outcry from Mrs. Berman, attempting to interrupt Mr. Arendt, when she twice yelled "That's Inappropriate....That's Inappropriate" from the back of the room for all to hear.
No board member chastised her for that interruption in any
way.
When Mr. Berman took the stand, he
immediately made Mr. Arendt the subject of his commentary, saying he had not
accepted a debate challenge made years ago.
It was then that Mr. Arendt interrupted Mr.
Berman by saying, "THAT'S NOT TRUE...YOU WOULD
NOT ACCEPT MY TERMS".
That was the only comment made by Mr. Arendt while
Mr. Berman was at the podium.
Mr. Berman told Mr. Arendt not to interrupt him,
but Mr. Berman also volunteered that Mr. Arendt had
DEMANDED BOTH BE STRAPPED TO A LIE DETECTOR TEST when questions were
answered.
Mr. Arendt said nothing to
that comment, but DID
apologize to both the audience and President Meese, if he in any way was out of
line.
There was NO APOLOGY from Mr. Berman, and it merely appeared that
Mr. Arendt was only trying to clarify a statement that Mr. Berman had
made.
And there was none from Mrs. Berman as well.
If anything, not bringing out
the full truth in Mr. Berman's initial statement, was an attempt to belittle Mr.
Arendt.
Mr. Berman then made the statement that voting
information could be readily obtained in the MINUTES of meetings on the SCA
site.
Who reads those?
Who can find them?
Our community looks toward blogs for most
information because of the confusion in finding such information on a site that
is difficult to find any information.
To look at those who are
unable to find any information and refer to them as LAZY in Mr.
Berman's subsequent blog article, was both insulting
and appalling.
When we receive bulletins from Ron Johnson, Anthem Today, and
Anthem Opinions, you can see the time and effort
those owners take in researching and writing their articles primarily on an
unbiased basis to give residents a synopsis of events they feel might be of
interest to SCA people.
Is that being lazy?
To call them "lazy" was unfair, childish, and
certainly untrue.
I also am absolutely appalled and disgusted with
remarks that David Berman's Anthem Journal is allowing his advocates to post.
Once again, they are disrespectful and nasty.
Once again, they are disrespectful and nasty.
We do NOT need to see this type of trash on any
blog; it takes away from information that may be pertinent.
FEW residents, if any, take time to navigate the
association web site or attempt to find and read the minutes of meetings or read
much of anything else on the sca-hoa.org web site.
Few residents take the time to attend meetings,
which was obvious at the annual membership meeting.
I think there were only about 60 people in the room out of 7,144 homes.
I think there were only about 60 people in the room out of 7,144 homes.
If the Tennis Club Members and Community Patrol
Members, who have been pitted against each other by the BOD left the room, there
would have been only a handful of us remaining.
Residents seem not to care, and feel it’s
pointless as our SCA board members will do whatever THEY desire. It’s like a
runaway train that cannot be stopped.
Information is only forthcoming AFTER decisions
are made and INPUT is rarely, if ever, asked from residents by the Board of
Directors. They are ignored.
As resident owners, we were not surveyed to ask IF
we desired to become “self managed”; that decision was made by a Board of
Directors, who have placed their egos and personal needs above all
others.
It disturbs me and so many others in the various
clubs that this pattern has continued year after year.
The restaurant is still
open.
The Majority of residents said (through a survey
quite some time ago) that they do NOT want a restaurant in Anthem Center IF THE
ASSOCIATION (OUR DUES) HAS TO SUBSIDIZE IT.
That certainly was ignored through the thousands
of dollars SCA residents were charged again and again, by reductions in rent and
low interest loans.
Wouldn't you like to know WHO VOTED FOR and AGAINST giving our money away without our approval?
Should that space be RECONFIGURED FOR BETTER NEEDS
that could benefit larger clubs ?
Perhaps the Tennis Club can use the existing
Community Patrol Space, eliminating the need to change the attractive outdoor
venue for members use, as one speaker mentioned at the Annual Meeting.
An architect or residents with professional
backgrounds could reconfigure the Interior restaurant space.
CLOSE THE KITCHEN, SELL THE EQUIPMENT (rather than spending $63,300 to replace or repair restaurant items
in 2016 (budget mailed to all but did not elaborate on what items would
be spent when the restaurant ONLY PAYS SCA $1,000 a month)!!
Reconfigure and Separate the large dining area by
putting up a wall separating a portion, thereby creating a LARGER space (needed
for the SCA Community Patrol) in the area closest to the back entry and
changing the remaining portion into additional space for mah jong, cards, etc.
There are MANY options for that space that the
Majority of residents could enjoy while taking care of our very important
Community Patrol and other Club Members. Event meals can be catered, as I
attended an Entertainment Club event recently that was catered in Anthem Center
by Buckmans and food and service were excellent.
WE DO NOT NEED A RESTAURANT AS FEW RESIDENTS USE
IT.
The SCA E-blasts should be
used by the Board of Directors, for announcing PERTINENT INFORMATION
(like CLOSING LIBERTY CENTER)…this announcement was made
AFTER the Annual Membership Meeting, as the president asked attendees to “wait a
few minutes after the meeting for an announcement”.
Was the announcement made
AFTER the meeting so it did NOT have to appear in the minutes of the Annual
Meeting MINUTES?
Before residents left the building that evening,
those who have access to emails on their phones, received an E-Blast about this
EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT.
My question to the Board of
Directors was WHEN did they get the information and WHY it was not an eblast
sent out PRIOR to the meeting?
Fear of residents reading
about the MOLD and attending the meeting to be vocal about their
CONCERNS?
WHY is there so much “secrecy” with our Board of
Directors; and we, as resident owners, are NOT made aware of things until AFTER
THE FACT?
I own properties in other HOAs and, while smaller
than the 7,144 homes in Sun City Anthem, their boards have EXPERTISE, OPEN
DISCUSSION, AND ASK FOR INPUT BEFORE MAKING
DECISIONS.
THEY ARE RUN PROFESSIONALLY, respecting all who
attend.
At the Members meeting, a young new resident in
Black Mountain Village asked, "WHY aren’t people attending? What aren’t people
getting involved?"
Perhaps the Board of Directors should ask
themselves WHY they are making these decisions that effect our entire community
WITHOUT asking for input from the thousands or residents in Sun City Anthem.
That might be WHY so few
attend.
Do not think, for a minute, that our HOME values
will “maintain or increase” as long as this poor history of decision making
continues.
Every resident in SCA should be concerned, whether they purchased in 1999 or 2015.
Every resident in SCA should be concerned, whether they purchased in 1999 or 2015.
Lastly, when you SELL you property, you have to
pay the association an ASSET ENHANCEMENT or NEW MEMBER FEE, the title of that FEE has changed over
time, but it still amounts to .33% of the gross sales price
of a home.
BUT there was an exception
that houses purchased on or before 2001, do NOT have to pay this fee.
IF one home has to pay the fee, ALL homes should have to pay the fee, but FRANKLY THIS FEE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AS IT’S UNFAIR TO THOSE PURCHASING AFTER 2001.
IF one home has to pay the fee, ALL homes should have to pay the fee, but FRANKLY THIS FEE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AS IT’S UNFAIR TO THOSE PURCHASING AFTER 2001.
I believe that in 2007, PULTE “built out”
(finished the final Village, Desert Sky South).
WHY were homes grandfathered under this ridiculous
PENALTY (not fee) to the rest of us?
Am I alone in questioning the actions of the Sun
City Anthem Board? Shouldn't major issues be shared with the public prior to
their deciding on them?
-------------------------------------------
We want to thank Yung Lee for the
thoughtful commentary.
Do you agree? Disagree? Got something
to add?
Send us an email
at:
Anthem Opinions
Administration
-
From Elaine I...to...Anthem Opinions
Yung Lee has it nailed.
We, as residents, are being taken by a very few.
I think we need a CLASS ACTION against Roz Berman and her board for accepting an AS IS building from Pulte.
Who in their right mind would buy a house wihout an inspection and walk through?
Shame on them!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
From Janet Marks...to...Anthem Opinions
I have been a resident of Anthem for over 15 years.
I attend the board meetings very frequently.
In response to the question, “Why don’t more people attend these meetings,”
the following, from my observations, are some of the reasons;
At the most, there are usually 30 to 35 people in the auditorium, including FSR and they are mostly the same people.
From attending these meetings, I’ve learned their names and I can tell exactly where they will seat themselves.
During the 2 minute comment period at the beginning of the meeting, certain people on a regular basis get up to speak.
The board’s reaction to some of the speakers at that time, appears rude.
Just observing some of the Board Member’s body language is a turnoff. Without mentioning names, one keeps looking at the clock, a couple start whispering to each other, one fiddles with papers, one looks totally bored and on and on.
No apparent interest is shown in what individuals have to say.
Why would I want to stand up and voice my opinion, when I feel there will be no response to my Questions?
It’s disheartening to hear about the restaurant fiasco and other decisions that have been made by too few. What is the sense in attending these meetings?
What ever happened to the Town Hall meetings that we used to have?
I realize that the majority of board members have expertise in their individual fields, but how about seeking advice from residents who have experience in other fields as problems arise? -
From Bud McQuillan...to...Anthem Opinions
Thank you Yung Lee, I appreciate you taking the time to voice many of the some thoughts I share. I wish I had answers and solutions to contribute.
Maybe your comments about "who reads the Spirit Magazine, who reads the email Blasts" is more thought provoking then first considered.
After all, if the Spirit Magazine was considered well read, then why would advertisers switch their advertising dollars to the "Sun City Anthem" publication as previously reported?
Still, the issue remains that apparently many SCA residents are not well informed.
As a sample, if 1,690 residents read Mr. Fetheroff's recent article on SCA Opinions, that laves approximately 75-80% not getting his insight.
How can those residents be reached, be informed, and be enabled to speak up?,
Until that solution is found I doubt the Board will change their behavior of lack of compliance, lack of accountability, etc.
Could resident volunteers or could USPS direct mail reach the 80%?
Just wondering. . . . -
From Marcia Kosterka...to...Anthem Opinions (1)
Here's a history lesson from 2008. This is a reprint of am editorial I wrote on the Anthem Today blog dated October 8, 2008 after attending a Board meeting.
As you can see, this problem started way back then, and even being new the community at that time, I could see this made little business sense.
The result...the problems we have today.
It shows board members: you can run, but you can't hide.
Actions like these will catch up to you and the community. It's matter of when.
See the reprinted article belowl -
From Marcia Kosterka....to...Anthem Opinions (2)
A Previous article on Anthem Today in 2008
"Yesterday, on October 7, 2008, at a continuation of the Board Meeting which was suspended on September 25, 2008, an excellent and thorough presentation was made to homeowners explaining the history and written settlement agreement between SCA and Pulte regarding Recreation Center #3. Also present at this meeting was Edward Song, an attorney from John Leach's law firm, who oversees contracts. He patiently answered questions pertaining to the agreement from any homeowner that wanted legal clarification about any aspect of the agreement.
There were some interesting developments which surfaced during this meeting, which in my opinion, added somewhat to the drama that developed. A homeowner suggested that the Board ask for a Performance Bond from Pulte to ensure that there would be enough money from Pulte to start and complete this project. Several other homeowners agreed with this concept. When Mr. Song was asked about this, he stated that they could ask, but seriously doubted that Pulte would agree. Board member, Bob Frank asked that the motion to approve the settlement include asking for a performance bond, but interestingly enough, there was no second to his motion. Here is where it gets sticky. It is no secret that most, if not all of the other Board members, openly dislike Bob and his methods and I received the distinct impression that this was one of the reasons no Board member would second Bob's motion, along with them not wanting any further delays in building the center. After questioning a Board member after the meeting, the reason given for not asking for a performance bond was that it would delay the start of construction. That reason is suspect because you can sign the agreement, and ask for the performance bond and the answer would simply be yes or no. Interestingly enough, when the subject of a performance bond was initially brought up,ALL the Board members looked at each other like deer caught in the headlights. Could it be that no Board member even gave this a second thought?
The second interesting moment came when Tim Stebbins, a homeowner, stood up and stated that he had a copy of the agreement and felt it was totally slanted in Pulte's favor. Mr. Song agreed that it was drafted in that vein. As a sidebar on this issue, a part of the agreement reads as follows: states the money will be paid "no later than ten business days after the date of the last party to execute this Agreement."
The last party being Pulte, gives them an option to drag their feet if they want in signing this agreement. No one knows if this will occur, but this language in the agreement was included for a reason!
A third revelation was witnessed when former Board member Kay Dwyer came forth to the microphone and accusingly demanded to know how Mr. Stebbins had in his possession, a copy of the agreement.
Roz Berman,stated that it was in the Board Book and he obviously went up to the center, read it and copied it.
The not so subtle implication by Ms. Dwyer, was that homeowners should NOT have had access to this document. This was clearly a throwback to the mantra of the previous Board on which Ms. Dwyer served, where everything was done under the cloak of secrecy and homeowners only found out after the fact if at all."
-
ON NEW ELECTIONS.
JUST VOTE THEM ALL OUT AND START WITH EXPERIENCED MEMBERS.
THAT’S THE ONLY ANSWER.