Board
Incompetence & Breaking
Law
Could Cost Sun City
Anthem Unit Owners
As many of you know,
approximately...
...Sun City Anthem unit owners signed petitions calling for the removal of four Sun City Anthem Directors; Rex Weddle, Thomas Nissen, Aletta Waterhouse, and Robert Burch.
The following is perhaps the strongest
reason as to WHY we
believe, their removal must
occur.
...and...
If there was ever a reason to forward
an article to your friends and neighbors residing in Sun City Anthem, there is
no better time in doing so than NOW, because what I
am about to explain affects you, them, as well as, all who own Sun City Anthem
property.
After reading this, ask
yourself....
Should those Board
members be retained and a General Manager receive kudos and additional
compensation?
Conceit,
deception, and lying in order to go forth with a construction lawsuit regarding the
Liberty Center may have finally caught up with Sun City
Anthem...when...
A group of
individuals who were hell bent on filing a major construction lawsuit regarding
the Liberty Center...refused to listen to members whose experience in
such matters greatly exceeded their own.
...we have some advice for all who own
property in Sun City Anthem...
There have been a vast number of claims APPROVED by this Board...no matter how frivolous at times. We learned that our association has incurred 55 claims in the past 4 years, resulting in the insurance settlements of:
$1,600,000
Though insurers reserve
the right to settle claims, what most individuals are unaware of is the association's ability to object to payments if it feels the
claims do not have merit.
Judging on the past, an
attitude of "give 'em what they want, rather than be sued
attitude" has often prevailed resulting in insurance payments that have
had a negative impact on the association "claims experience" (the amount paid by the insurer as
compared to the premiums paid).
This is the #1 factor in determining the premium an insurer will charge
the association to cover the liability risk, and if found exceptionally not profitable to the insurer, the carrier reserves the right NOT to renew the policy.
That "claims experience"
created an initial problem for Sun City Anthem; however, the situation
became INTOLERABLE to the carrier as time
passed.
Remember when the Liberty Center was
shut down because of what residents were originally told was a "mold" problem? You know, the expected
$300,000 tab that blossomed into over $2,000,000 of damage and closed the place for over a
year?
Well now, we "ran
the insurance table" by filing a claim that reached a maximum benefit and
had to dig into the association coffers to pay the rest of the
tab.
Then...it was decided....the Sun City
Anthem Board determined we needed to sue Pulte to "punish them" for their deeds
in constructing a building that was believed to be
defective.
That action was filed despite what many believed would have difficulty in
prevailing, and NOT BEING
ALLOWED to submit any commentary as to WHY filing such action could work
to the disadvantage of Sun City Anthem owners.
We had a ballot sent out asking the
community if we should go forth with the lawsuit, and even had our
President, Rex Weddle, state the requirements to do
so.
Let's go back to January 22, 2017 and the article published by Anthem
Opinions.
Read it...and...weep
!
Despite Weddle's publicly announcing the "official" requirement to
go forth with the lawsuit and the number of votes needed, when all was said and
done, THE VOTE TOTAL DID NOT reach the amount needed to go
forth with the action.
Did that matter to the Board or the
General Manager?
They did it anyway.
...and
NOW...a problem that initially was solvable,
may NO LONGER BE SOLVED...
...a huge problem on our
hands...
... one that may dwarf ANYTHING ever experienced in the history of Sun City Anthem
!
Our association may have been placed in SERIOUS financial jeopardy as a result of that action.
We received a report from an attendee
at the recent finance committee that the committee "casually" informed the few
in attendance that...
Sun City Anthem is
having a MAJOR PROBLEM obtaining liability insurance as of their renewal date,
believed to be between October 1, 2017 to January 1,
2018.
Prior to that meeting, our "leaders"
boasted about how our liability insurance premiums decreased during the
year.
But...WHAT
THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU
was...
...that in order to perform that
"outstanding act of financial genius", claim deductibles
increased first from an initial $2,500 to $25,000, and NOW at $50,000.
Yes, you are reading this correctly.
Any liability claim filed means YOU and I have to "foot" the
first...
..before any insurance kicks in.
Ergo...less insurance = lesser
premium.
But...
Our insurer, CHUBB, is leaving the homeowners association market and will NOT be renewing our coverage at the end of 2017.
What was announced at the Finance
Committee meeting?
We are having great difficulty obtaining replacement association liability coverage !
Now...a couple of
items you might want to think about while you ponder the severity of this
potentially catastrophic problem:
1. Wonder
why the General Manager is forcing Clubs to obtain their own liability
insurance?
Think she and the Board "stonewalled" this news?
Think she and the Board "stonewalled" this news?
Think she and the Board weren't aware
of this impending insurance problem?
2. Wonder
what happens if we can't obtain liability insurance?
The answer to
question #2 is frightening.
ANY SUBSTANTIAL
LIABILITY CLAIM IS UNINSURED AND UNIT OWNERS WILL BE HELD PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT and LEGAL FEES.
...or...to put it in terms that even
those who are opposed to the Removal ballot should understand as they staunchly
boast about "maintaining the SCA lifestyle"....
...it would mean
each and every unit owner could one day open their mail and see these words
staring them in their swollen blind eyes:
As our January, 2017 article stated, the decision to go forth with the construction lawsuit without obtaining the necessary voting requirement likely will cost unit owners the financial safety and security they believed they had when they trusted Weddle, Nissen, Waterhouse, and Burch, in conjunction with full cooperation from General Manager, Seddon, with their financial future.
In the absence of
holding EACH personally responsible for any financial losses sustained, we
believe they must BE REMOVED.
As we stated initially, we ask all our
readers to forward this information to all owners in Sun City Anthem. This action must be known to any unit owner in order to make an
informed and intelligent decision regarding the ballot removal.
Strange that a blogger who is all to often critical of this publication, admitted to being in attendance at that meeting, yet hasn't offered a shred of that information to his readers.
Draw your own conclusions as to why that was the case.
Got a comment?
Strange that a blogger who is all to often critical of this publication, admitted to being in attendance at that meeting, yet hasn't offered a shred of that information to his readers.
Draw your own conclusions as to why that was the case.
Got a comment?
Send it to us
at:
It might be the first one they ever agreed to by an individual who supports Anthem Opinions.
LOL
No special assessments for me as I will sue each and every member of the Board before I will pay for their mistakes.
This makes me furious and it's not what I signed on for when buying a home at Sun City Anthem.
How and when will it ever happen that we can take all the facts, put them on the table and discuss them in an honest way, open forum, allow us to ask the hardball questions too...oh, never! Unfortunately if we did the board and the queen would be gone in about a day.
The latest ridiculous nonsense coming from the removal opponents is so far off the wall, only their own Oscar weiners would be dumb enough to fall for it.
Newest reason is merely further intimidation ?
...that the cost of the removal could result in a special assessment, with a couple of other "geniuses" saying those who favor the removal should pay it's cost.
They have to be kidding.
I guess when you have little to defend...which never seems to be much by never addressing the actual issues, you try everything in the world to come up with something....even insulting other's intelligence.
So, you build your case, and this latest couple of jokes presented, might be the biggest AND DUMBEST ones yet.
This removal is anticipated to cost around $8,000; and somehow, if losing $40,000 in unpaid loans due to inept governance, the impending insurance crisis without having liability insurance, dumping $2,000,000 on the Liberty Center repairs (originally to be $300,000), and even those recent TV cameras that cost over $15,000 for a TV Station almost NEVER WATCHED, didn't create a "special assessment", why would $8,000 do so?
The other argument about making those who support it pay for it?
The only people that would seem to fool are other FOOLS who would actually believe that utter nonsense as well.
But...in fairness, I suggest we make them a deal...
..if that incompetent bunch would repay SCA for the $40,000 in bad loans they authorized and provided a restaurant operator who was constantly delinquent in just about every bill that was ever presented, we could take $8,000 of it to pay for the removal.
In that way, we'd be ahead of the game by $32,000, wouldn't we?
At any rate, how about our deal, Oscar weiners ?
You repay the $40,000 in bogus loans, and we'll foot the $8,000 for the removal?
Somehow I don't see them taking our deal, do any of you?
They expect removal supporters to pay for their hero's mistakes, yet they also expect us to pay for the removal costs as well.
Only in a "machine" filled with bureaucrats would that make sense.
Oh yeah, that's what were trying to get rid of, aren't we? "Machine bureaucrats".
Doesn't it drive you nuts when people present arguments that do nothing other than insult your intelligence?
This latest couple they tried, certainly do.