Attending the January 24, 2019 Sun City Board Meeting
A Message from a Concerned Resident
by
Robert Latchford
Sun City Anthem Resident
Having attended the open session of the 1/24 BOD meeting, several items were mentioned by board members confirming the belief that the current board members have no interest in listening to meaningful concerns of homeowners other than to show a superfluous air of transparency or possibly as required legally.
Virtually all items discussed had already been settled by the board (except a verbal commitment to try and get law enforcement involved with R-J delivery people throwing advertising materials in driveways, granted unsightly but a giveaway to announcing properties being vacant).
Could this be a task delegated to our compliance people?
Other than that, much of the meeting was spent trying to pacify the understandably upset Pinnacle Village homeowners about their Special Assessment of $1575 per unit for road maintenance, since the portion, not being dedicated to the city, is close to $579,000 over budget since going to contract, with the increase being attributed to increased asphalt cost, which may be, although no evidence was presented.
Then, goodbyes were given to the well compensated CFO who bailed effective that date, including a tearful display by our then General Manager to her co-worker of a few years.
Of course, the topic that perked up ears the most was the restaurant.
The SCA Board is determined to stuff this down our throats at all costs.
One board member claimed that since the majority of homeowners favored a restaurant on the site, because the ballots were sent to not only homeowners with vested concerns, but also to renters and who knows who else, the returned ballots favored spending $250K or a much higher figure (with no basis) with no other options other than supporting another sinking ship at our cost.
There was no mention of investigating alternate uses, but at the time the area designated for Mah Jongg, cards, and the like was jam-packed.
They did mention that their previous failures provided insight as far as leasing property, so advising consultants were hired.
They definitely need professional assistance. Such services can provide traffic counts, area demographics, commute patterns, etc., but being in an existing building, location and access cannot be changed.
The population of our community alone in all likelihood could not support a restaurant, unless they had an extraordinary advertising budget and even then it would be "iffy" at best.
Site analysis is only a small factor in leasing property.
Thereafter consultants can give all the needed information, but the actual lease agreement itself is not for rookies and merely consulting an attorney may not be enough.
What kind of liability insurance should the lessee carry?
If a customer falls and becomes injured in the dining room, lessee should be liable, but what if that fall happens in the parking lot?
How about if he/she had been drinking?
Or what if a cup of coffee spills in the lobby and someone else slips and is injured?
Proper wording in a lease agreement can alter liability.
We have a new political party regime in Carson City. Potential tax escalation must be considered.
Since the board was willing to allow a tenant to operate rent free, which was in essence the last proposal, could tax increases be grounds for canceling their occupancy?
How about quality control measures for a fully subsidized restaurant?
These are a few of the many issues that must be considered.
Looking at the restaurant as being a place to sit at a window table enjoying the sunset and city lights with a glass of cabernet, does not reduce the high risk factor we could face.
Remember, an election with the opportunity to replace some stagnant board members is approaching.
Fresh minds with newer ideas of better serving the community, rather than a self-serving approach could keep us from throwing good money after bad.
I don't believe we want a “PAY TWICE” restaurant:
One for the food and one for the subsidy (or more if excessive consulting fees are accumulated).
Got a comment on Mr. Latchford's observations?
Send it to us at:
-
From Angelina & Tony Orzada...to...Anthem Opinions
Good morning Dick,
Robert Latchford's comments were on the money. we ( the voting residents ) NEED TO GET OFF OUR DUFF & BOOT OUT THE INCOMPETENT EXISTING BOARD.
The restaurant is a no-brainer, If you think we need a restaurant than you have no brains.
Dick, keep leading the fight, we need Nona (Tobin), Rana (Goodman), Bob Frank, Barry (Goldstein) & the like to CHANGE the direction we are headed. as we age.
I fear the Board will be able to manage to keep BSing us & we will be less inclined to look for conflict.
If we don't do it now, the MACHINE will continue to run down Sun City Anthem to the basic fact that the value our retirement homes will decline in value as Sun City Anthem sinks farther & farther down of places one would choose to retire.
Keep up the good work. Dick.
Why don't we (you) work with Dan Roberts, publisher of Vegas Voice & also some of the other bloggers with the exception of the MACHINE blog ?
How things have changed since we moved here in 2001. -
Angelina and Tony,
Your comments are more than profound.
We try so hard to make people aware of the issues while "The Machine" and their "Mouth Piece blogger" continue to defend and/or IGNORE the destruction they have caused over the years.
Anyone who would consider our homeowners association as "well run" certainly either have their heads in the sand or would have to be ingrained in the propaganda the "machine" and their groupies spew.
You are so right, SCA is not what it was years ago. I arrived in 2005 and I notice you must have been here since 2001.
This group have sadly taken the "fun" out of our community with their reckless spending and rules that treat seniors as it they were in kindergarten.
As far as working with those you previously mentioned, all of them have demonstrated their best in trying to bring reform, but they can't do much unless we have good qualified individuals willing to run for the Board...and...WIN.
We have tried our best to work with government officials, specifically the Office of the Ombudsman in the Real Estate Division without success. That GOVERNMENTAL JOKE, in minds of any who have ever dealt with them, is the worst that a state can provide when it comes to protecting homeowners.
I thought Chicago was bad, but Nevada has taken a close note from the Windy City as to how a "machine" works...and...have perfected it over time.
In short, that avenue of government is a complete waste of time to seek any form of relief.
How do you change things?
You change the members of the Board. That's the ONLY avenue, and even that is questionable when you see the rules of the Election Committee which are PRIME for CORRUPTION in the manner in which the Ballots are going to be counted.
We'll address that issue at another time.
Until then, we hope that good, honest, and caring individuals will come forward to make our community the "fun" place it once was before the ugliness of "machine politics" took over.
The deadline for filing for candidacy is February 7th at 4:00pm.
Let's hope for the best ! -
From Pamela Blatzheim...to...Anthem Opinions
It sounds like Mr. Latchford would be a good board member. -
Pamela,
Yours was one of a number of similar emails received today.
Bob Latchford, are you out there ??? You have a large number of admirers !
-
Unfortunately there is apathy in SCA because owners feel that what happens here is a losing battle because the Board and manager do what they want and not what’s good for the owners.
It’s like constantly banging our heads against the wall to get what is good for the owners.
People are weary because their wants and needs make no difference to the Board and the manager who don’t care about spending our money and doing what benefits them.
The Board and management will do what serves them and not the owners.