If a viable tenant is not found, the board CAN change the use by resolution.
See provisions and services.
Go to sca-hoa.net.
Go to governance/governing documents.
Scan down to page 46 7.9
“The board has the power and right to terminate provided services or to change the use of portions of the common area..”
(skip Declarant portion since they are gone now)
LINE 5:
“Any change shall be made by board resolution stating that; (A) the present use or service is not in the best interest of the community. B: the new use Is for the benefit of the owners, C: the new use is consistent with and deed restrictions and zoning."
If you do not reach your goal, just go back and do it again but as far as the SCA restaurant and the 5 failed attempts at being successful, we must learn from our failures.
This community is not the best place for an independent restaurant.
Do not try and try again. Five times was ample.
It is time to try something that is possible and likely.
So, why do we try and try again?
It is because so many of the residents here at Sun City Anthem are uninformed.
I am confident that the majority of the community does care, and if they paid attention to what is going on here with our board and our management, they would not be happy.
They just want others to make SCA a nice place to live and at a low cost of living.
There are so many of our residents that are just making it watching their pennies and just making enough to have the basics.
They do not seem to get involved. They just want to keep everything going as usual.
They do not pay attention to the gross mismanagement that is going on regularly.
Many of those neighbors cannot afford increases easily.
So I ask, why do they not pay attention to the decisions that are made as a normal existence?
Why do they not attend board meetings?
Why do they not vote in our elections?
Why do they not offer opinions as to whether or not we have a restaurant?
With the subsidies that WE have offered to potential vendors to open a restaurant, it will likely mean an ultimate DUES INCREASE.
Restaurants at SCA are not capable of making a profit unless WE SUBSIDIZE their income.
Yes, that uses our money to pay them to open and run a restaurant. So this will ultimately cause all of us to pay more money.
I have been fortunate to have a comfortable lifestyle after my many years of hard and financially successful working years. I can afford a dues increase and it will not effect my life style.
Not everyone is as fortunate as me.
A small dues increase for many people that are on fixed budgets, means they will have to cut expenses in another area. Sad but true.
Those households that remain uninformed and elected not to voice an opinion on the restaurant will suffer.
I feel sorry for those people who don't take even a few minutes of their day to show a real concern for their neighbors.
I noticed that some of the individuals that responded, mentioned that we should attend board meetings.
I have attended board meetings and found out the following:
1) You can't ask any questions on any of the reports or information reported.
2) You can talk if you have signed up to do so, but the board does not answer (some are whispering among themselves and some have even gotten up and walked out).
3) You get no response to questions you want answered.
4) To get anything done that the board is not interested in, is impossible.
So what is the point of wasting time going to a meeting?
I hope those who read what you've written realize that the only manner in which to solve this problem...is...change the people who treat you in that manner.
That means we need concerned individuals who also share these concerns to step up, run for the Board in the Spring, and change the current method in which "the people" are all too often ignored.
We are in deep need of a new philosophy in which owners make the major decisions, not 7 of them in a closed door session, while their weak leadership allows an overpaid General Manager control their every action that greatly affects all of our lives.
Another boondoggle that will benefit the chosen few!
What are they thinking??????
Renters have NEVER been allowed to vote on anything as they do not have a vested interest, yet Aletta Waterhouse admitted the poll included Renters Votes??
That, in itself, should Void the survey!!!
What next?
This is a prime example of incompetence on the part of the GM and the Board.
My heart goes out to you and all who Really Care about SCA as things will never change with the current General Manager at the helm of this sinking ship.
I have been following the restaurant/repurpose folderol for a while. It seems to boil down to one of two choices … try another restaurant or repurpose the space for use by chartered clubs.
Without being too factitious, how about this novel third choice:
Keep the restaurant facilities and create a new chartered club, “The Restaurant Club” to use what we already have. In other words, how about treating the existing facilities as a “Wood-chips Club for Foodies."
Let’s think outside the box! Almost anything is better than allowing the space to be unused.
For example, members of this new club use the existing equipment and engage chef/instructors (of course with TULIP coverage) in a variety of ways. "Restaurant Club” members would have to be certified (like Wood-chip members) if they want to use kitchen facilities.
The club can offer hands-on classes (like Sur La Table) during which a particular genre of cooking is presented and consumed afterwards.
"Restaurant Club" members would get discounted tuition to participate in these classes and non-members would have to pay an increased fee to attend a/k/a watch a la carte classes.
If people don’t want to attend the class(es), but want to eat the food, they could do so as restaurant patrons.
Channel 99 could film the classes and broadcast them in a special weekly restaurant segment.
The “Restaurant Club” could invite and host other chartered clubs to have periodic regional/ethnic nights. In other words, the Chinese, Filipino, Chicago, Italian, etc. clubs could create dinners that are prepared by the aforementioned chefs and offered to the general public for consumption. The RV club could create “potluck” meal creations.
The first two points could be memorialized by the “Anthem Authors,” and turned into cook books for sale.
The “Restaurant Club" could create, prepare and offer meals cooked for home delivery to compete with the variety of services that are available but probably not used by SCA residents who might not be Internet savvy but would like to enjoy outside food.
The Community Patrol could add vehicles and manpower (hire resident drivers like the people who work in the various clubhouse positions) and dispatch and deliver these meals for a fee. Just think about catered Thanksgiving meals alone.
The “Restaurant Club” could manage the bar and subsidize its operation through permitted gaming machines. It would ensure compliance with Nevada gaming regulations.
Creative culinary ideas are limitless, and this “Restaurant Club” could be the filter through which these ideas pass. Who knows what might evolve? This is certainly an alternative to the present “either/or” scenario that is currently on the table.
From Barry Goldstein...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteOn Monday in Current Events, Aletta Waterhouse admitted that SCA management accepted responses from people renting units, not the owners.
They figured the renters would be patrons of the restaurant.
Just another manner in which the poll was "fake news".
ReplyDeleteWhy was that never admitted?
SCA owners were scammed once again.
I wonder if any of those renters who voted in favor of a restaurant realized that their rent will likely increase as a result?
From Rana Goodman...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteIf a viable tenant is not found, the board CAN change the use by resolution.
See provisions and services.
Go to sca-hoa.net.
Go to governance/governing documents.
Scan down to page 46 7.9
“The board has the power and right to terminate provided services or to change the use of portions of the common area..”
(skip Declarant portion since they are gone now)
LINE 5:
“Any change shall be made by board resolution stating that; (A) the present use or service is not in the best interest of the community. B: the new use Is for the benefit of the owners, C: the new use is consistent with and deed restrictions and zoning."
From Buddy Greenfield...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteIf at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
Have you ever heard that saying? It is true.
If you do not reach your goal, just go back and do it again but as far as the SCA restaurant and the 5 failed attempts at being successful, we must learn from our failures.
This community is not the best place for an independent restaurant.
Do not try and try again. Five times was ample.
It is time to try something that is possible and likely.
So, why do we try and try again?
It is because so many of the residents here at Sun City Anthem are uninformed.
I am confident that the majority of the community does care, and if they paid attention to what is going on here with our board and our management, they would not be happy.
They just want others to make SCA a nice place to live and at a low cost of living.
There are so many of our residents that are just making it watching their pennies and just making enough to have the basics.
They do not seem to get involved. They just want to keep everything going as usual.
They do not pay attention to the gross mismanagement that is going on regularly.
Many of those neighbors cannot afford increases easily.
So I ask, why do they not pay attention to the decisions that are made as a normal existence?
Why do they not attend board meetings?
Why do they not vote in our elections?
Why do they not offer opinions as to whether or not we have a restaurant?
With the subsidies that WE have offered to potential vendors to open a restaurant, it will likely mean an ultimate DUES INCREASE.
Restaurants at SCA are not capable of making a profit unless WE SUBSIDIZE their income.
Yes, that uses our money to pay them to open and run a restaurant. So this will ultimately cause all of us to pay more money.
I have been fortunate to have a comfortable lifestyle after my many years of hard and financially successful working years. I can afford a dues increase and it will not effect my life style.
Not everyone is as fortunate as me.
A small dues increase for many people that are on fixed budgets, means they will have to cut expenses in another area.
Sad but true.
Those households that remain uninformed and elected not to voice an opinion on the restaurant will suffer.
I feel sorry for those people who don't take even a few minutes of their day to show a real concern for their neighbors.
From Barbara Sidary...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteI noticed that some of the individuals that responded, mentioned that we should attend board meetings.
I have attended board meetings and found out the following:
1) You can't ask any questions on any of the reports or information reported.
2) You can talk if you have signed up to do so, but the board does not answer (some are whispering among themselves and some have even gotten up and walked out).
3) You get no response to questions you want answered.
4) To get anything done that the board is not interested in, is impossible.
So what is the point of wasting time going to a meeting?
Great comment, Barbara.
ReplyDeleteI hope those who read what you've written realize that the only manner in which to solve this problem...is...change the people who treat you in that manner.
That means we need concerned individuals who also share these concerns to step up, run for the Board in the Spring, and change the current method in which "the people" are all too often ignored.
We are in deep need of a new philosophy in which owners make the major decisions, not 7 of them in a closed door session, while their weak leadership allows an overpaid General Manager control their every action that greatly affects all of our lives.
From Mary Lee Duley...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteAnother boondoggle that will benefit the chosen few!
What are they thinking??????
Renters have NEVER been allowed to vote on anything as they do not have a vested interest, yet Aletta Waterhouse admitted the poll included Renters Votes??
That, in itself, should Void the survey!!!
What next?
This is a prime example of incompetence on the part of the GM and the Board.
My heart goes out to you and all who Really Care about SCA as things will never change with the current General Manager at the helm of this sinking ship.
Mary Lee,
ReplyDeleteAdd...
The Association Attorney she personally recommended...
The auditing firm who demonstrated they couldn't count (obtained through the Association attorney) by giving them a 3 year contract...
...to her management abilities...and sneaky manner in which renters were included WITHOUT DIVULGING THAT FACT...
..and that adds up to the SCA's definition of...
the Diabolical Trinity...
...all endorsed by a Board whose actions will go down as perhaps the worst and weakest individuals in the history of SCA governance.
From Robert Nusser...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteOne definition of Insanity is:
Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different.
From A.Corso...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteOf course. Let renters vote!
After all "non-citizens " vote in the general elections!
I am now so old, I'm grouchy!!
From Fred Arnow...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteI have been following the restaurant/repurpose folderol for a while. It seems to boil down to one of two choices … try another restaurant or repurpose the space for use by chartered clubs.
Without being too factitious, how about this novel third choice:
Keep the restaurant facilities and create a new chartered club, “The Restaurant Club” to use what we already have. In other words, how about treating the existing facilities as a “Wood-chips Club for Foodies."
Let’s think outside the box! Almost anything is better than allowing the space to be unused.
For example, members of this new club use the existing equipment and engage chef/instructors (of course with TULIP coverage) in a variety of ways. "Restaurant Club” members would have to be certified (like Wood-chip members) if they want to use kitchen facilities.
The club can offer hands-on classes (like Sur La Table) during which a particular genre of cooking is presented and consumed afterwards.
"Restaurant Club" members would get discounted tuition to participate in these classes and non-members would have to pay an increased fee to attend a/k/a watch a la carte classes.
If people don’t want to attend the class(es), but want to eat the food, they could do so as restaurant patrons.
Channel 99 could film the classes and broadcast them in a special weekly restaurant segment.
The “Restaurant Club” could invite and host other chartered clubs to have periodic regional/ethnic nights. In other words, the Chinese, Filipino, Chicago, Italian, etc. clubs could create dinners that are prepared by the aforementioned chefs and offered to the general public for consumption. The RV club could create “potluck” meal creations.
The first two points could be memorialized by the “Anthem Authors,” and turned into cook books for sale.
The “Restaurant Club" could create, prepare and offer meals cooked for home delivery to compete with the variety of services that are available but probably not used by SCA residents who might not be Internet savvy but would like to enjoy outside food.
The Community Patrol could add vehicles and manpower (hire resident drivers like the people who work in the various clubhouse positions) and dispatch and deliver these meals for a fee. Just think about catered Thanksgiving meals alone.
The “Restaurant Club” could manage the bar and subsidize its operation through permitted gaming machines. It would ensure compliance with Nevada gaming regulations.
Creative culinary ideas are limitless, and this “Restaurant Club” could be the filter through which these ideas pass. Who knows what might evolve? This is certainly an alternative to the present “either/or” scenario that is currently on the table.
Any takers?