Sun Sets on Sun City
Anthem Liberty Center
Building Closed
Immediately
for Undetermined Time frame
At the Thursday evening, November 19,
2015 Members Meeting, a BOMBSHELL was
dropped on the audience.
Apparently, THERE
IS BOTH LEAKAGE AND A SEVERE MOLD PROBLEM associated with the building that has forced it
to close due to a potential health hazard.
For those of you who resided here when
that building was originally built on 2009 and opened in early 2010, controversy
has been a part of that structure for years.
The Sun City Anthem master plan
originally called for THREE golf courses; however, that was abandoned when the
real estate market collapsed.
Instead, the people of Shadow Canyon
and Desert Sky were supposedly promised a separate club house when that part of
Sun City Anthem was built; but when it was originally abandoned by Pulte, the
residents of those villages threatened legal action...stating they were promised
a club house as a part of the Pulte sales
presentation.
The building was built....but
amazingly, no board member or any resident was allowed to visit or examine the
site while it was being constructed.
And even worse, it was ACCEPTED by the
Board at that time "AS IS", without any verification as to the structure's soundness or
safety.
I do not know of any individual who
would consider the purchase of any property without having a professional
examination first performed, but once again, the INCOMPETENCE of that board,
chaired by the wife of an alternative blogger at that time, is perhaps the only person who
can answer that question.
What will be the amount of the damage?
That has yet
to be determined and will be presented at the December 3, 2015 board
meeting.
The lesson to be learned from this is
simple...
ELECT THOSE WHO ARE
COMPETENT and have the NECESSARY EXPERIENCE
and COMMON SENSE to make financially sound decisions.
Not doing so will only prolong these costly mistakes.
Anthem Opinions
Administration
Incredible!
I can't believe such people would be allowed to be a Board Member.
I guess we allowed this happen.
We deserve the punishment!
I commend you for the comment.
Yes indeed, we the resident voters placed such individuals on our Board in the past...and continue to do so in each succeeding year as evidenced by the many financial fiascos created as a result of incompetence directly related to complete inexperience that has been demonstrated again and again.
We, the voters are ultimately at fault; but the blame has to be shared by some others....particularly by those who parade themselves as reporters or unofficial "big shots" who do little other than endorse these same types year after year.
Last night I called on an alternate blogger to print the voting records of the candidates that may be running in the upcoming board election.
It was my belief that FULL KNOWLEDGE of the past, would provide GOOD REASONING for casting a ballot for a particular individual.
As usual, between his wife screeching "that's inappropriate...that's inappropriate" (the same individual who "appropriately" signed off on the "AS IS" Liberty Center building)...
...he, like a circus dancing bear, raced to the forefront to respond to my comment.
Unfortunately, instead of answering the challenge in a positive manner, he decided to make a statement that he wanted to debate me a number of years ago....that I refused him.
(What that had to do with the printing of voting records, I have no idea.)
My response was "NOT TRUE"...that my terms for such a discussion were not acceptable to him.
My terms...as he himself brought out...WE BOTH BE STRAPPED TO A LIE DETECTOR as we answered questions.
He did however bring out the fact that his printing such material could easily be accessed on the SCA website by checking the minutes of past board meetings....
...something I am sure all of us do on a daily basis !
Nonetheless, he never accepted the challenge of printing the voting records of candidates.
Perhaps that might have taken valuable time from reprinting Cafe V menus.
But he has a 100% record of endorsing all successful candidates in the past....
What an achievement !
From Elaine I...to Anthem Opinions
Who buys a house without an inspection and walk-thru ?
This is complete idiocy.
That board and its president should be held accountable and not the residents!!!!
The announcement fails to use the words "construction defect"
Roger Cooper was project manager and Roz Berman was president of the board.
I would like your opinion if the board would be liable and their
insurance for not doing their fiduciary duty?
My husband, Robert, objected to the process as long as he was on the board--but got no community support.
I question if the argument "construction defect" can be made, and I also question whether any warranty would still be available.
I was made aware by a reliable source that when the initial problems were discovered, that board made an attempt to correct them without checking the warranty....the result....as a result of trying to hide the damage from the public and using association funds to fix the original construction defects...well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars....that action invalidated any warranty.
As far as the construction defect argument, that too is likely to be a problem. I have an UNCONFIRMED opinion that Nevada law no longer allows an attorney to take such a case on a contingency basis....and...if that be the truth....my guess is that based on an hourly bill, the total would reach the $150,000 to $200,000 range.
If these sources are correct, it would appear that we, the resident/owners, will be stuck for the bill.
Now...add that to another comment made at this meeting that the budget passed has a substantial deficit, and that lead me to believe that the ultimate result of all of this will have to involve some form of increase in assessment.
Is the board liable? That would be like suing ourselves. We, through our dues, would essentially be paying for their legal defense in addition to any legal fees we would also incur as the plaintiff on the case. It's lose--lose.
There is only one feasible solution, and I hope my article brought that to light.
LOOK CLOSELY AT THE EXPERIENCE LEVEL of those running for the Board positions. Failing to do that can only have one result....ADDITIONAL FAILURE.
A Chicken comes home to Roost
I read with abject horror and disgust the article regarding the closing of the Liberty Center due to water leakage and mold. It appears that the arrogant administrative incompetence of a previous HOA board has thrust SCA into a possible financial disaster. Depending on the extent of the mold infestation, remediation could cost tens of thousands of dollars. What was most disgusting was that the Board agreed to the proviso that “no board member or any resident was allowed to visit or examine the site while it was being constructed”. And to further this debacle, “it was ACCEPTED by the Board at that time "AS IS", without any verification as to the structure's soundness or safety”.
As properly pointed out in the article, NO ONE would contract to have a house built under the condition that inspections of the construction were not permitted. In fact, when you borrow money from a Lending Institution, inspections are required throughout the construction process: the Lending Institution forwards the loan in installments; the next installment IS NOT made until the construction is inspected by a qualified individual(s). So even a bank, with pockets deeper than the entire population of SCA combined, would take due diligence in such construction endeavors.
At best, this reflects Arrogant Administrative Incompetence; at worst, this reflects the result of a surreptitious financial gain for one or more individuals.
I fear that the Liberty Center debacle will be greeted with the same level of apathy so pervasive in SCA. Perhaps people will wake up when their monthly maintenance fees suddenly jump an extra $100?
Yes, I am aware that these actions were taken by previous Board members. However this rampant arrogant administrative incompetence, unfortunately, persists to this day. For example, if memory serves me correctly, a survey of SCA residents was taken prior to the current “Vic’s / Cafe V” debacle. The survey asked what type of restaurant should replace the former operation: a formal sit-down restaurant, OR an informal “hang-out” place where residents could meet some friends, have a burger, and maybe watch football on a big-screen TV. Insofar as I can remember the majority voted for the informal option. Yet, in complete defiance of the residents the Board was elected to represent, they went forward with a formal sit-down restaurant – and we all know how that turned out. Their decision has resulted in yet another ‘black hole’ of money for HOA funds that could be better-well spent elsewhere. And while on the subject of the restaurant, when and how was this SCA Amenity opened to the public? To use one of our pools, the Health Club, the Tennis Courts, etc. you MUST be a resident. Yet somewhere along the line the restaurant amenity was opened to the public – when and how? I don’t think the residents were every surveyed about surrendering one of OUR private amenities to the public.
It is time that the Board stops acting like Royalty. SCA is NOT your Fiefdom and we are NOT your serfs.
This man enjoys using the word "attack". It seems to be a word frozen in his vocabulary whenever someone disagrees with him.
And...as is always the case, this man feels an insecure need to "fight back" in a manner in which his delusional mind somehow allows him to see the world in a manner in which only he sees it.
Let me reiterate..NO SUCH ATTACK EXISTED...at least in the minds of those who speak the English language and actually listened to the words that were really spoken.
I NEVER rely on the Berman publication for ANYTHING in which I am seeking honesty and truth.
Let this be an end to this newest crusade on this individual's attempt to create additional untruths in order to restore his continual decline in readership.
And now I hope you enjoy the comments of this insecure figure who has little to say of anything other then report recent deaths, Cafe V menus, and reproductions of President Reports.
Have a pleasant day, Mr. Berman. Your words say it all !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I experienced somewhat of a surreal moment when SCA blogger Dick Arendt used his member comment time to call me out by name, leveling a verbal attack at me. Member comment periods are not supposed to be used for one member to attack another, but he did it anyway.
Among other things, Mr. Arendt challenged me to report the votes of Board members on various issues that come before them.
This caused me to respond at the microphone, which was not an easy thing to do because Mr. Arendt kept interrupting me from the audience and had to be told to be quiet and allow me my turn to speak.
Essentially, my response was that I DO report the votes of Board members on significant issues, taking pains to note which way specific directors voted when they are in disagreement. Mr. Arendt himself probably has to rely on my Board-meeting reports for information on this, since he rarely attends a Board meeting.
In addition, as I noted in my comments, the published minutes of each Board meeting, available to all homeowners on the SCA website and in the Board books, detail the issues voted on by directors, and how they voted.
Essentially, it seemed to me, Mr. Arendt was acknowledging his laziness and the laziness of others who choose not to access this readily available information."
..