Sun City Anthem Restaurant or Re-Purpose
Who Benefits from What ?
Restaurantmania continues exploring the 3 proposed restaurant venues that include rental agreements and miscellaneous monetary considerations, along with practical and impractical desires of Sun City Anthem unit owners.
We've discussed various costs of a new restaurant venue, and even the bureaucracy agrees, that no outside restaurant operation is capable of succeeding without some form of resident subsidy.
We've discussed various costs of a new restaurant venue, and even the bureaucracy agrees, that no outside restaurant operation is capable of succeeding without some form of resident subsidy.
Frankly, that alone, in our opinion, should close the book on another restaurant...especially after 5 "losers".
The argument that a restaurant enhances property values have been proven to be completely false. All one has to do is look at current prices of Sun City Anthem properties and compare them to those of 2015 and 2016, when no restaurant was in operation....
...they have substantially increased !
But...
One aspect of the "equation" has yet to be explored; namely...
Just who benefits from a restaurant versus re-purposing the existing space?
...and, perhaps, rather than examining any of these ideas from personal wants, the community in general should be considered...
...and who and what would be advantageous to the vast majority of the owners, rather than a select few.
As previously stated, it goes without saying, all are in agreement, that there is no way any restaurant option will be a profitable venture to any outside firm...unless it is partially funded (subsidized) by unit owner funds.
The "cry" from restaurant proponents saying it would cost each unit owner only an additional $12.00 each year is merely a "marketing tool" on the part of management to sell the idea.
That cost is a ...
...estimate that has no validity...and...assumes that it will remain constant year after year.
History has taught us the "the more we give, the more they want" and once an organization implants itself in Sun City Anthem Center, despite the renovation costs some are offering to pay upfront, any subsequent restaurant failure or lack of profit resulting, would cause the community a considerable amount of funds to "redo" what they "have done", if they decided to vacate at or before the end of the lease period.
This in turn...because the association is dealing with BUSINESS PEOPLE WITH EXPERIENCE compared to the INEXPERIENCE of current association leadership, would have a dramatic affect on the leverage they would have in lease renegotiation....
The result....to keep them....would likely involve an INCREASE in subsidization, which of course would trickle down to an INCREASE in owner contributions.
These considerations are VITAL to any intelligent thought process, but other than the financial aspect, in our estimation, there is a factor that seems to be overlooked by most, based on these very realistic facts:
a. We are a community of 7,144 homes with a population of likely in excess of 10,000 people.
b. The number of Community Clubs and their members have been expanding rapidly with increased demands on space for their various activities and planned events.
c. That such space, according to what we have learned, requires reservations being made a year in advance to accommodate those needs.
How is this problem being addressed during these discussions?
It's not !
...and that, in our opinion, is the single most important aspect that must override any decision.
Who benefits the most from what?
Looking at a restaurant option, just how many people will patronize it and/or the number of times each will do so? 100...200...500?
Those individuals have the ability to patronize many off site restaurants, and obviously they have, over the years.
Yet Clubs have but one or three options...Anthem Center, Independence Center, or Liberty Center.
...and as they increase in number and membership, without sufficient space, it obviously affects their club activities.
So before a decision is made, we are of the belief that while a restaurant benefits relatively FEW, re-purposing that space benefits MANY !
Back to cost for a moment....
It has been stated that approximately $750,000 will be needed to re-purpose that space...a number completely invalid and without verification as we are not aware of any specific bids or plans as to what was proposed should that option be chosen...
...just a drawing of what an Association Treasurer has imagined...
...just a drawing of what an Association Treasurer has imagined...
...a number that, without seeing any detailed cost proposals, according to both a professional contractor and real estate professional we spoke with, are highly inflated...close to double the actual cost !
Perhaps allowing OUTSIDE bids based on SPECIFIC plans can provide a more accurate picture, yet one aspect, no matter what the cost, cannot be denied....
Re-purposing will be a one time expense (subject to subsequent "refreshing" over time), as well as, eliminating an annual property tax of $25,000 (which will also likely increase under the restaurant option)....
...while a restaurant subsidy would be an annual AND likely INCREASING COST to unit owners.
One other factor...there has been another "cry" that re-purposing" would require a 50% vote in association CCRs.
We find that too, ridiculous, for two reasons:
1. A construction default lawsuit against Pulte had the same requirement; insufficient votes were obtained to go forth with the litigation, yet the board DID SO, on the basis that they believed it would be "in the best interests of the community".
2. Just who in our community would spend personal funds to sue Sun City Anthem to obtain a restaurant?
How should all of this be determined?
As we have previously stated, not by a 7 member Board OR General Manager, but by THE PEOPLE...
...in a formal ballot with inclusion of resident pros and cons as to the various options !
That...the people making the choice...is "in the best interests of the community !"
Got a comment?
Send it to us at:
There has been much said about the concept of once again opening the restaurant space and the question was posed, will the residents approve to subsidizing such a venture? The question, it seems was then answered just as fast by removing the first two contenders;
Village Pub because the principal wanted to open 24/7…. We were not told if there was any negotiation on this point, however most of us know that in a senior community we are almost all snoring away by 10 or 11:00pm anyway.
Annie’s is out of the running since her two other ventures closed and she did not seem to be financially sound.
Left standing is G2G who offers $1 per year in rent, demands that SCA pays all utilities and he will open only 5 days per week lunch and dinner only, although we all know, as the owner of Denny’s breakfast is a staple there. All SCA clubs must use G2G for catered events or go off site… (mmmm, not going to please many!)
Now I don’t know about you, but in my eyes, in meeting G2G’s offer we ARE subsidizing that plan a GREAT DEAL, does the board and GM really expect us to give more in addition?
By having a commercial venture in SCA we have to continue to pay the property tax, that is over $20,000 per year. I don’t know what the utility bills will be, but I can assure you they will not be cheap for a restaurant, kitchen (over 4,000 sq. ft.) running air in the summer plus lights etc. Since SCA was reimbursed (or was supposed to be) for utilities while the last tenant was there, they know those numbers…. Ask what that “subsidy” will be.
It seems to me that this should not be only a vote of the board but a vote of the FULL membership…. And this time the board should HEAR US.
In my opinion a ballot should go to each and every home owner and a written vote should be returned by a specific deadline. 7,144 homes explaining fully and truthfully what the cost will be, to have the restaurant, and let the owners vote and decide, not the handful who show up to a hastily decided meeting.
Lessons should be learned!!!
Yet, after 5 previous failures our current SCA board is again eager to revisit having a restaurant installed here at Sun City Anthem by increasing our monthly HOA fees to residents here.
To me, this is unconscionable!!!
Thanks Dick. I appreciate your effort trying to make a difference for the betterment of residents in Sun City Anthem.
Why do they keep resurrecting the dead?
Those of us that have lived here a long time have witnessed restaurants fail, one after another.
Can’t they see from history that this is not going to be successful no matter what restaurant comes here?
With so many other choices so close, this will be another failure that will cost us money.
And the exclusivity of having to use the restaurant for all catering is an outrageous demand that residents don’t want.
Another restaurant is unthinkable! But is there anything we, the residents, can do?
Those include NOT VOTING FOR:
Aletta Waterhouse
Robert Burch
James Coleman
There so many restaurants all over the place and more to come on Volunteer and down by Democracy a huge development is underway.
The Restaurant was sales promo that sucked from the start and only the old timers are crabbing about not having one, and when they get one, they do not go because the prices are too high.
It is high time to drop this stupid albatross.
Meanwhile the weight room in the gym at Anthem Center has had so much equipment installed that you bump into people all the time.
Use the restaurant space for something useful.
It appears the once again, Anthem Opinions has become the brunt of yet another disgraceful commentary on another publication.
Will we respond in kind?
NO, however, we stand by our analysis and our sources of information in terms of the costs of re-purposing the Anthem Center restaurant location.
Those sources will gladly be formally revealed should Mr. Quinn...
a. first publish his source.
b. provide a professional detailed plan to include full cost estimates.
c. allow our sources to offer an open and public competitive bid in response,
...and...
d. agree to allow the unit owners to make the final determination as to the choice of venue.
Responding to the crude and malicious commentary demonstrated on another publication in like argumentative manner accomplishes little, and would reduce Anthem Opinions to a similar insulting and condescending level demonstrated on the publication...
...which, while writing such insulting trash, also includes nothing more than reprinting articles that can easily be obtained through official community eblasts...where his and the small group of caustic commentors who populate it, can be avoided.
Other than that, any response to such an individual would not warrant a full article. He is a waste of time and energy as far as good people are concerned.