Restaurant
Mania
It's Getting as Old as
Many of Us
..and...
It's Time We Get it
Right !
Part One of
Four
This is the first installment of our four part series discussing the feasibility of another restaurant in Sun City Anthem.
We'll take a deeper look into a
previous restaurant poll conducted five years ago; then ask you, our readers, if
you in any way would feel differently now, then unit owners in 2011, did
then....
...especially after the losses Sun City Anthem
sustained as a result of restaurant operations over the past five
years.
Association General Manager, Sandy Seddon, sent out a memo a couple of weeks ago mentioning that Sun City Anthem will again be "doing the restaurant thing" searching for ideas, and exploring yet another tenant or form of organization to fill the restaurant void that has existed for the past number of months.
She believes the time has come to consider various options, and
in doing so....
...evidently created a firestorm of
reactions when she included a statement saying...
"I think we can all
agree that a restaurant is needed".
We like and support the
work Sandy's been doing since she arrived, but in this case, we think she may
have stretched the truth a bit with this statement.
Add to her comment a "white paper" (A.K.A. con job) by another blogger, and the
topic seems to have developed a new life...
...a life we wish would DIE !
Let's take a few of the points
brought out by that biased article we previously categorized
as...
Not surprisingly , as usual, the "tainted con job" only told part of the story.
The blogger mentioned more than
80% of those who responded, wanted a restaurant, but he failed to mention that a
similar percentage also indicated THEY DID NOT WANT ASSSOCIATION FUNDS TO BE
USED in any way.
The actual
results were MUCH worse !
First, the surveys were mailed
IN THE SAME packet as the monthly Spirit magazine.
It has not been confirmed as to
the total number of "Spirit's" that were mailed in December, 2011, but by that
year, essentially ALL OF SUN CITY ANTHEM had been built.
That being the case, over 7,000 UNIT OWNERS were mailed the Spirit in
2011.
Of those 7,000+, only 1,643 VALIDATED
SURVEYS were returned.
only
23.4%
of unit owners
responded
Of that LOW
percentage...
77.8%
of the respondents (1,278) wanted a restaurant
BUT
THAT PERCENTAGE IS DECEPTIVE
That accounts for
only
18.3%
of total
unit owners.
Now let's consider the response
from unit owners when asked IF THEY SUPPORTED "increasing any assessment" to support a
restaurant.
Of those mere 1,643 validated surveys...
18.9%
of the respondents (310) had no objection
to an increase in
assessment.
BUT
THAT PERCENTAGE IS ALSO DECEPTIVE
It actually represents
ONLY
4.4%
of total
unit owners.
All remaining respondents
indicated they would NOT want their assessments
increased in any way.
Of course, none of this could in
any way be considered a valid statistical study, but nonetheless, when only a
meager percentage responded and less than 5% of unit owners favored
any subsization, a fairly accurate conclusion could be drawn
that...
Less than
1
of 5 unit owners
even cared about a
restaurant in any way
and
Less than
1
in 20
were willing to
subsidize it.
What should a RESPONSIBLE BOARD
have done when these REAL numbers appeared?
Common sense would have been
to...
Scrap the entire idea
!
&
Instead they ....disregarded the results of that poll...
...by
arrogantly spending thousands of your dollars over the years in order to buy time to
"cover up" what was to become one
of the most substantial FINANCIAL BLUNDERS in the history of our
association...
...the most
blatant of which was granting less than prime rate loans to Anthem Partners (the
restaurant) in the amount of $40,000 which became a TOTAL
LOSS to the association "as per their approved
settlement agreement" when they departed
months ago.
Now...this issue has again
reared it's head, and to further complicate it, a community blogger, known for
his reckless and senseless spending requests over the years, has presented what
we have referred to as a "white paper con"
suggesting we DO IT ALL OVER
AGAIN...
...this time....rather than
employing an outside contractor, but PAYING THE ENTIRE COST
OF A RESTAURANT OURSELVES.
Will Mrs Seddon make a
recommendation ?
Of course, that is her
job...
...but...don't think for a
moment that her actions aren't controlled by a Board.
They
are....
...the Board
members are the "ones behind the scenes", the ones who control the purse strings
to fund ANY VENTURE, and not only have the
ability, but have CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED they can and will
"bury" any restaurant losses.
How?
If
self-managed...by placing some form of
"restaurant item" amount in their budget to create the illusion that a dues
assessment had not taken place.
You see, readers...THE MONEY HAS TO COME FORM
SOMEWHERE...
...and that piece of cheese in the trap is none other than YOU.
...and the amount of that money will be covered in the 3rd installment of our series. I guarantee they will STARTLE
YOU.
So we ask you, our readers, some
simple questions:
Do you believe this current
group of Board members should increase your dues if Mrs. Seddon recommends a
Self-Managed restaurant alternative?
Do you believe the matter
of any restaurant in any way should be pursued?
If so, in what way...independent
contractor...self-managed through association funding ?
And if you favor
self-management, tell us how you might provide the funds to operate such a
venture.
Dues increase? Budget
addition?
Send your comments to:
Tomorrow...Part Two
Planning
We DO NOT NEED a restaurant in SCA. Time has proven that it will undoubtedly become a financial disaster.....and PLEASE cut the nonsense about how it is needed to enhance or increase our "property values":
A data sheet included in the recent "Spirit" magazine (courtesy of Proudfit Realty) shows that the median sold price of a home in SCA in July 2014 was $176 per square foot; the median sold price of a home in SCA in July 2016 was $178 per square foot.
THUS EVEN WITHOUT THE RESTAURANT, THE MEDIAN SALE PRICE OF HOMES IN SCA HAS INCREASED
SO - if someone is grasping for a justification to, once again, have a restaurant, the "property value" spin is untrue, false, and misleading.
We would like to clarify that position.
First, the editing we do is simply to REMOVE COURSE and ABUSIVE language and correct spelling errors so not to cause embarrassment to those who choose to comment.
Ridiculous comments that do nothing but harass others IS NOT TOLERATED and is HAPPILY REMOVED.
We don't need readers bad enough to condone BAD MANNERS, an example of which was a recent comment made by an individual named "Michelle" (no last name) to the incorrect information recently posted on David's Anthem Journal regarding Bob Frank and Tim Stebbins:
"Well, if we are lucky, they will spend all their money. Be even luckier if their home gets foreclosed on and they leave SCA."
Perhaps those who read that publication find that form of discourse, entertaining or enlightening...
We find that LOW CLASS AND OFFENSIVE...and gives a strong indication as to the NASTINESS of one who would make such a comment...and worse, A BLOG THAT ALLOWS IT...
..especially one whose preamble states:
"you are free to express your (respectful) opinion"
Obviously Anthem Opinions and David's Anthem Journal disagree on the definition of "respectful".
Do we allow criticism. Yes...if...reasons are provided as to the purpose of such a discourse.
Posting items such as "he's a jerk" without explaining why HE IS A JERK, is offensive and removed.
Second, our blog policy FROM DAY ONE, since November, 2012, has always been NOT TO ALLOW ANONYMOUS postings.
Our feeling is that if a person is not willing to be recognized for their comment...THE COMMENT IS WORTHLESS, as evidenced by many in other publications, often in BAD TASTE.
Third, we do not allow commenting from those who are not subscribers for a very good reason. It's common sense that we would have thought a man who once called himself a lawyer, would have realized.
A blog is responsible for its content...and if an anonymous comment is made that in any way harasses another individual, that blog can be held responsible.
Our position, knowing that fact, is that IF YOU CHOOSE TO HARASS, and such commenting is allowed, that is a reflection on us, and to have such trash published without knowledge of WHO would jeopardize our reputation, creates an undue liability WE WILL NOT ASSUME.
We hope this clarifies our strong position in our posting policy...
..a position that has been readily accepted by the 1,500 readers who visit us each and every day.
I absolutely do not think any more money should be spent.
We have Buckmans at Revere, and lots of very close restaurant options.
We deserve this type of reaction when we reappoint members who were not qualified to their position in the first place.
A treasurer who did not do his job in protecting the financial position of this community , then gets reelected ?
A president who spends community funds as it was her own, gets elected to another post on the board !
I don't know what percentage of house holds read the SCA Opinions pages , I think there needs to be another way to reach more households.
Maybe a section in the Spirit?
We agree with your assessment.
We also want to make you aware of a rule made years ago that DOES NOT ALLOW community blogs to advertise in the Spirit.
Anthem Opinions would have GLADLY PLACED an ad in the Spirit to promote readership.
Obviously, the "old guard" knew that various publications would disagree with a number of Board decisions, and it was obvious to us that the reason for not allowing them to place an ad, was merely an attempt to "stonewall" differing opinions.
Perhaps Mrs. Seddon could revisit this decision?
Or...do any board members continue to oppose it?
We'd love to hear from them...and if they still oppose placing an ad in the Spirit, the reason WHY why do ???
On another related topic, when Anthem Opinions commenced operations in November, 2012, we spent a tidy sum preparing colored glossy fliers to place on the tables of Anthem Center and Liberty Center.
The next day, they were GONE, so, we left a second batch, and the next day, they too, were GONE.
At first we surmised that "we were the new Toast of the Town" until a monitor told us they were forcibly removed by FSR employees.
We questioned that decision, and was told that "there was a rule against such flyers", but after questioning as to WHAT RULE, it turned out NONE EXISTED.
We then confronted an FRS employee named Maurice Talley who informed us that he, at the direction of then Community Association Manager Feldman, was told to do so.
That did not sit will with us considering we had spent $150 to have the flyers printed.
As a result, we contacted both Talley and Feldman to immediately return the brochures.
Talley then informed us that they HAD BEEN DESTROYED at his and Feldman's DIRECTION.
Our response to Talley and Feldman was simple and to the point.
Pay us $150 for the brochures HE HAD STOLEN at the apparent direction of Mr. Feldman, or WE WOULD FILE A THEFT REPORT WITH THE CITY OF HENDERSON and have both arrested.
The Result: within a week we received a check for $150.
Was this the end? No. Something similar happened to a Board candidate.
Last fall, Forrest Fetherolf, when he ran for the Board, placed some promotional items on one of the Center tables and they too, were SUDDENLY REMOVED.
Turns out they were removed at the DIRECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUN CITY ANTHEM ELECTION COMMITTEE...a staunch supporter of "the old guard".
When she too was informed "Return them or face prosecution", they suddenly found their way back to the Center table.
You see, Al, it's merely a "good old boy" network that will stoop to any depth to maintain their control.
Good observation and comment, Al.
It is obvious that the SCA Population would prefer to use Restaurants that are non affiliated.
Look at the people who are using the facility who bring their own food.
Are you going to disallow food other than being served by the restaurant?
It has been proven by history that restaurants do not work at the Anthem Center.
The 4000 square foot kitchen would best serve as a "gaming facility" that would bring revenue rather than pour money into a deep hole with no bottom.
Of course the board would have to pass the gaming board jurisdiction.
Could that be why it has not happened before?
When the original survey was published in 2011, that subject was addressed. The result was an overwhelming number of those who responded, opposed gaming in Anthem Center.
That may have softened over the years, but there are still STRONG ISSUES that must clear any hurdle, both legally and realistically, to look at this as "the
answer" to our problems.
We'll touch on that topic in our 3rd installment of articles.
If profit is the object rather than providing additional entertainment, it may not be as profitable as some would have you believe.
NO, NO, NO, NO, AND, AGAIN, NO. until such time we approve and vote for a Board we trust.
Let The Board get together and fund a restaurant out of their own pockets !!!!!!!!!
Enough is enough, people.
We purchased our home in 2013 when there was a restaurant on our community property, and considered it an important amenity. Having a restaurant supports the value of our home investment.
Most everyone I’ve asked wants a food service of some sort on our property. We want take-out, casual dining, and a bar.
People who spend time in Anthem Center, want to be able to get food and drink during their games or other activities.
On-site functions really need on-site catering.
Perhaps pool-side service would be useful, or picnic tables for take-out on our lawn.
I think food and bar service is a MUST for our community of 10,000 residents.
Casual and inexpensive.
The RIGHT KIND of place WILL be utilized. If our Association hires a Food Services Manager who will run it on our behalf, and the finances can work out to cover the cost of operations, great.
Or a lease to an experienced food and bar operator in our desired concept, great.
Or a membership model, where we pay an extra $10 dues to subsidize and guarantee overhead, but recoup that with usage (meal credits or discounts).
Perhaps the issue of allowing gaming as a source of revenues should be addressed again.
To me, the issue is getting the RIGHT food and bar service on our property again, with a sustainable financial arrangement, not IF we should.
The biggest question mark ?
Your final comment....SUSTAINABLE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of our series and let us hear back from you after we've shown you what we consider a very conservative projection of costs under the Self-Management concept.
I think you will be surprised that sustaining such an operation is a great deal more expensive then you might believe it to be.
Then again, I would hope that you also favor "allowing the people" to make any final decision after they have complete information in order to determine an intelligent decision as to what direction our association would follow.
Of all the people I have talked to, most want a restaurant, but not the kind we have had in the past.
Most people want something like an old fashioned diner...cheap good comfort food...a place to grab breakfast, a sandwich, a piece of pie & coffee, or a simple dinner like meatloaf or hot turkey sandwich.
Apparently a certain board member feels like that type of place would not "make money" for SCA.
Not really seeing how past restaurants have done that either!!!
My vote is that there should be no increase in our dues to pay for any restaurant and no subsidies to give that restaurant a free ride!
Any restaurant on Anthem grounds, should be a leased venture, which means, a rental agreement.
All liability falls on the renter, they merely rent the space from us.
The renter provides all supplies, pays all utilities, insurance, in other words the lessee is responsible for the business, NOT Anthem.
Unit owners should NOT have to worry about being sued if a customer falls, gets food poising, nor should we have to pay unpaid bills of the lessee.
If I wanted to go into the restaurant business, I'd do it on my own and NEVER in cumber friends and neighbors.
Do you believe this current group of Board members should increase your dues if Mrs. Seddon recommends a Self-Managed restaurant alternative?
DEFINITELY NOT!
Do you believe the matter of any restaurant in any way should be pursued?
DEFINITELY NOT!
If so, in what way...independent contractor...self-managed through association funding ?
DON'T EVEN WANT IT TO BE CONSIDERED!
And if you favor self-management, tell us how you might provide the funds to operate such a venture.
DON'T FAVOR SELF-MANAGEMENT!
Dues increase? Budget addition?
NEITHER!
NO! NO! NO!
I do not want my HOA to increase because a certain few want a restaurant.
There are so many eateries close by for them.