Our
thanks to Nona Tobin for providing us this update on the recent Sun
City Anthen Board Meeting regarding the decision to go forth with a
restaurant option in Anthem Center.
The
Sun City Anthem Board passed the following motions:
1. Approved
having a restaurant vs.
attempting to re-purpose the space.
2. The general
public can be customers of
the restaurant. It will not be limited to unit owners only.
3. No
smoking will
be allowed in any SCA facility, but there will be designated outdoor
smoking areas as exist now.
4. The chosen provider (there are two remaining....Village Pub & G2G)...will get exclusive
rights to catering in
ALL SCA facilities – Anthem Center, Independence Center, and Liberty Center.
5. Approved a restaurant subsidy to be paid by unit owners of Sun City Anthem properties.
6. Coffee
window to be closed while restaurant is open.
7. Restaurant hours will be limited to the hours the Anthem Center is
open unless there is a special event.
A motion to prohibit gaming failed.
Comment:
Apparently a mere 75 people attended the meeting...of the 10,000+ population of the Sun City Anthem community.
Apparently a mere 75 people attended the meeting...of the 10,000+ population of the Sun City Anthem community.
When a small number or residents questioned the reasoning for the choice, it was stated that due to what the Board PERCEIVED, the community would favor the restaurant option WITH UNIT OWNER SUBSIDY.
To our readers, we firmly believed this decision should have been decided by the membership...especially passing a subsidy that will be financed by Sun CIty Anthem unit owners, yet allowing the general public to patronize it...
...no matter what the amount would be !
We at Anthem Opinions had a difficult time understanding that logic and our co-owner, Allen Weintraub, made the following statement during the comment period.
"I am opposed to a decision being made on the usage of the space that has previously been allocated to a restaurant and has suffered numerous failures and at a tremendous cost to the members of this association.
We have over 7,000 homes with many of them able to provide opinions. I always thought that the board of directors are elected to represent the residents of this community.
With a decision on the usage of space that can have such a large financial impact on our community, I believe that our board should reflect the desire of the majority of the residents.
With a decision on the usage of space that can have such a large financial impact on our community, I believe that our board should reflect the desire of the majority of the residents.
The only way this can be done is by formally having a vote on usage of the space.
The opinions of our board should be valued after they have this more complete community information.
The opinions of our board should be valued after they have this more complete community information.
I have personally spoken with over 100 people over the last few months and have found that 70+ per cent of these people are opposed to try for our 6th restaurant.
Maybe my sample is biased based on whom I have asked, just as the board of directors may have a biased sample.
Therefore, I find it imperative that we have a vote of our community before a decision is made.
Maybe my sample is biased based on whom I have asked, just as the board of directors may have a biased sample.
Therefore, I find it imperative that we have a vote of our community before a decision is made.
We have been told that a vote for the restaurant will have a continued cost to our residents while re-purposing space will have an upfront cost that we can determine.
A restaurant subsidy for an outside independent business will not keep us in control of our costs.
Re-purposing the space may have a larger upfront cost but can control our future costs.
A restaurant subsidy for an outside independent business will not keep us in control of our costs.
Re-purposing the space may have a larger upfront cost but can control our future costs.
I encourage you to represent the community based on facts created by a vote and not just your unscientific opinions."
Though the restaurant option was subsequently passed; nonetheless, we at Anthem Opinions did our best to protect the rights of all property owners in the Sun City Anthem community.
Unfortunately, our worst fears were realized when the Board refused to allow such a decision to be placed in the hands of "the people".
And so, we will once again witness yet another restaurant, hopefully with better results than the previous five...
...but....should this venture not succeed...
...those who took it upon themselves to remove "the people" from the equation, should bear the complete responsibility for doing so.
As we have said again and again, those voting to remove "the people" from the decision included these incumbents running for reelection the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors.
...those who took it upon themselves to remove "the people" from the equation, should bear the complete responsibility for doing so.
As we have said again and again, those voting to remove "the people" from the decision included these incumbents running for reelection the Sun City Anthem Board of Directors.
Aletta Waterhouse
Robert Burch
James Coleman
We suggest you keep that in mind when you cast a ballot.
Got a comment?
Send it to us at:
-
From Robert Nusser...to...Anthem Opinions
Of course the SCA HOA "Minister of Information" will report how the majority of attendees welcomed the prospect of a new restaurant.
75 people certainly describes the correct attitude of an entire community, doesn't it?
If you tell a lie long enough, people will start to believe it.
-
From Pat Yeamen...to...Anthem Opinions
How can the Board even be considering G2G for a restaurant here?
They do NOT have a reasonable track record of experience, let alone outstanding experience in running a restaurant—especially in an adult community.
They do NOT want to invest in any renovations or upgrades to the restaurant space.
They do NOT want to pay rent, AND they want SCA to subsidize their restaurant!
On the other hand, it is my understanding that the Village Pub is willing to invest over $700,000 to making the available space suitable for and advertising for their restaurant.
They have NOT asked for a subsidy from SCA.
They offered $3,000 per month rent for the space. If my memory is even close to what I read in the restaurant bids, what is wrong with our Board???
Are they all nuts???
Respectfully submitted to you for review (although the respect goes to you, but NOT our Board). -
Pat, to answer your question...Given the two options, and subsequently choosing G2G...
YES they are !
A sign of a great bunch of business minds....
Someone hands you a check for $700,000, pays $3,000 in rent and then pay utilities, and then you refuse to cash it !
Remember that when you vote in the election...
..and who supports this insanity ! Based on the attendance at the meeting, somewhere around 70 people do...in addition to a Board, General Manager, and of course, a heavily medicated blogger. -
From Phillip Rosen...to...Anthem Opinions
If I subsidize any restaurant, than I feel that I am a part owner of said restaurant.
Owners do not tip other owners.
How will the waitstaff be compensated without tips? -
If I am forced to subsidize restaurant number six and it fails, am I allowed to SUE each of the financially irresponsible BOD to get my (and all other owners) money back?? I'm still trying to find out whether anybody bothered to file suit against Vic's establishment for the money owed to SCA. Given that Vic opened Seven Sinful Subs near UNLV, I'm betting the SCA $$$ was his down payment. SCA owners should definitely be voting on the restaurant and subsidy!!!
-
I THINK THE DECISION IS CORRECT..
IT WAS MEANT TO BE A RESTAURANT.
NOW IF THE BOARD WILL LET THE TENANT MANGE AND RUN IT IT MAY SUCCEED.
Do you or any of our readers believe the membership should have voted on this matter?
Let is know why you do or don't.
Thanks for ALL your efforts. While We are no longer owners, it saddens us to see the ongoing “reoeat performances of Failures.
Village Pub is able to provide Cheap food in massive quantities on plates of each selected DUE to the HUGE profits they make on their slots in the Bar area.
My neighbor, a smoker, has watched the amount of money coming out of the machine to be taken to the bank at least Twice per day while she gambled and it was staggering.
Folks don’t put tiny bills in the machines, lots of 20’s and 100’s.
Food is supposed to be Separated and not served in the bar area (county or state law) BUT you can sit at Village Pub’s bar area, order a hamburger “to go”.
They bring it in a "to go" carton while money continues to be added to machine gambling.
The "to go" bag us opened and gamblers eat.
I think this is illegal but may have to do with it allowing Smoking (?) as a Glass Wall (?) has to separate bar from restaurant.
Berman And his Breakfast Group dine there often.
Is Village Pub going to attract the Majority of folks who want to dine out???
IF they allow Gaming, they are giving Away Mullions of $$$ a year.
The ONLY way to get residents “aware and involved” is to send all SCA homes a letter outlining Allan's comments at the board meeting.
Expensive postage BUT effective!
Thanks for keeping me in the loop.
Good luck!
Texas hugs to all !