The ballots wee returned by a number of misguided respondents, many on whom only read the fear statement on the letter and concluded that their only choices were between $250,000 annually for a restaurant or $750,000 without one.
They opted to support one without considering the fact that these estimates could be merely the tip on the iceberg if allowed to enter into such a venture that already failed 5 times.
Of the ballots sent out, 3416 failed to return them, while 2386 supported the measure as to 1216 opposed it.
Many of those favoring it, or at least those I spoke with, based their opinion that having a restaurant would be “nice” with little knowledge of it’s potential consequences.
Also since 30% of the properties are rentals and it is up to property owners to shell out the costs, and a board member allegedly reporting ballots accepted from renters, one must question the validity of the count.
Did the board go to the Assessor's office or a title company to get the owners’ current mailing addresses?
A restaurant would hardly benefit renters, as higher expenses would lead to higher rents.
The board president made a statement after common sense prevailed and G2G virtually got the axe; that the board learned from their mistakes from failing miserably in the last debacle, but their lack of experience was evident and the figures remain quite the same.
True, the 7500 sq. ft. or so is costing us being vacant, but out board tells us that the only option is a restaurant.
It could be used by clubs or meeting rooms, which would be non revenue producing, but has anyone discussed the feasibility to partitioning it into smaller tenants which would serve the community on a regular basis while paying rent?
Examples coming to mind are a dry cleaner, barber shop, hairdresser, shoe repair which are patronized regularly by many.
It would likely command too high a rent for office space, but offices like investment brokers not requiring foot traffic may be worth investigation.
A lot of smart minds living here could likely think of something worth considering.
Now that our CFO has left, a huge chunk is taken off the budget, Not that some in-house financial services are not needed, the high price tag seems superfluous, especially with the big bucks to the accounting firm we are seemingly committed to for 3 years, hopefully they can provide regular operating statements, tax work, projections, and other booking services.
Since I believe it to be the same firm we paid $85,000 to count the recall ballots, does this mean we should brace ourselves for another surprise when we get their bill to count the latest “opinion’ ballots?
How did the Board unilaterally decide to violate our by-laws by letting Renters vote for the restaurant survey??? THIS is the most recent example as to how the SCA Board blatantly ignores the 'rules' when it's to their benefit, and in that way, the Residents ALWAYS lose...…….they are NOT in charge of a casino where the house always wins !
SCA owners are being held hostage by a manager that has too much power and a Board that is dancing to her music. Owners have no voice in our community. The poll was a useless endeavor to make it appear that we had a choice in what the owners wanted.
Renter Activity Cards, (which was adopted by the Board on 10-23-2014)
"Renter activity card holders are granted all privileges associated with membership except the right to vote in Association affairs; to serve on the Board of Directors or on a standing committee or ad hoc group; or to attend Board or member meetings".
Has this ever been changed?
I could not find any documentation if it was; however, clarification would be more than welcome.
You have expressed the views of many, and the word "boycott" is becoming one that is being widely used as a result of the manner this Board and General Manager handled the "renters" admission.
Is that the manner in which an honest group of individuals handles such matters?
If they continue this, there's another word that might reappear...
From Robert Lachford...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteThe ballots wee returned by a number of misguided respondents, many on whom only read the fear statement on the letter and concluded that their only choices were between $250,000 annually for a restaurant or $750,000 without one.
They opted to support one without considering the fact that these estimates could be merely the tip on the iceberg if allowed to enter into such a venture that already failed 5 times.
Of the ballots sent out, 3416 failed to return them, while 2386 supported the measure as to 1216 opposed it.
Many of those favoring it, or at least those I spoke with, based their opinion that having a restaurant would be “nice” with little knowledge of it’s potential consequences.
Also since 30% of the properties are rentals and it is up to property owners to shell out the costs, and a board member allegedly reporting ballots accepted from renters, one must question the validity of the count.
Did the board go to the Assessor's office or a title company to get the owners’ current mailing addresses?
A restaurant would hardly benefit renters, as higher expenses would lead to higher rents.
The board president made a statement after common sense prevailed and G2G virtually got the axe; that the board learned from their mistakes from failing miserably in the last debacle, but their lack of experience was evident and the figures remain quite the same.
True, the 7500 sq. ft. or so is costing us being vacant, but out board tells us that the only option is a restaurant.
It could be used by clubs or meeting rooms, which would be non revenue producing, but has anyone discussed the feasibility to partitioning it into smaller tenants which would serve the community on a regular basis while paying rent?
Examples coming to mind are a dry cleaner, barber shop, hairdresser, shoe repair which are patronized regularly by many.
It would likely command too high a rent for office space, but offices like investment brokers not requiring foot traffic may be worth investigation.
A lot of smart minds living here could likely think of something worth considering.
Now that our CFO has left, a huge chunk is taken off the budget, Not that some in-house financial services are not needed, the high price tag seems superfluous, especially with the big bucks to the accounting firm we are seemingly committed to for 3 years, hopefully they can provide regular operating statements, tax work, projections, and other booking services.
Since I believe it to be the same firm we paid $85,000 to count the recall ballots, does this mean we should brace ourselves for another surprise when we get their bill to count the latest “opinion’ ballots?
From Richard Inglefield...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteA point has been made that some SCA residents wouldn’t pay Buckman’s prices for the same fare in our proposed venue.
Assuming that Buckman’s operates as a profitable enterprise, there are only two (2) conclusions to be drawn from this:
The proposed venue, if it were to be somewhat profitable, would have to offer inferior quality food and service.
The proposed venue, to maintain good quality food and service, would have to be subsidized by all SCA residents.
Personally, we would not tolerate poor food and service, or wish to pay for someone else to eat, at a discount, on our dime.
This whole debacle smells of another boondoggle by our BOD and management by trial and error by our erstwhile GM.
From Robert Nusser...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteHow did the Board unilaterally decide to violate our by-laws by letting Renters vote for the restaurant survey??? THIS is the most recent example as to how the SCA Board blatantly ignores the 'rules' when it's to their benefit, and in that way, the Residents ALWAYS lose...…….they are NOT in charge of a casino where the house always wins !
Robert, my guess is that they called it a "poll" not a "vote".
ReplyDeleteJust another example of "speaking with forked tongue"?
What's new !
From Valerie Lapin...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteWell, we have once again been HAD!
SCA owners are being held hostage by a manager that has too much power and a Board that is dancing to her music. Owners have no voice in our community. The poll was a useless endeavor to make it appear that we had a choice in what the owners wanted.
We have been fooled again.
From Jim Mayfield...former Sun City Anthem Vice President...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteThere are 7,144 owned units in SCA.
Why were renters asked to participate?
They do not have any skin in the game; they won't be the ones to pay the special assessment or increased annual assessments.
I am also curious to know where SCA got the list of renters since its position has been that it doesn't have the ability to track renters.
Resident Rules for Association, under Section 8.3
ReplyDeleteRenter Activity Cards, (which was adopted by the Board on 10-23-2014)
"Renter activity card holders are granted all privileges associated with membership except the right to vote in Association affairs; to serve on the Board of Directors or on a standing committee or ad hoc group; or to attend Board or member meetings".
Has this ever been changed?
I could not find any documentation if it was; however, clarification would be more than welcome.
From Rana Goodman...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteGo to sca-hoa.net go, 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..”
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 Barbara Sidary...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteI also can't believe that many responses from the mailing were received.
It is amazing that we have to work to get the required amount to keep us a senior community and over 50% of the owners voted on a restaurant.
I find that really hard to understand.
From Richard Inglefield...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteWhat’s next with these ?people? running our community into the ground?
Including renters in a poll just because they might want to eat somewhere?
What about all the other Anthem Community Council members, they eat too?
I’m sure some McDonald Ranch folks feel left out as well as in North Las Vegas.
Including renters is no different than these other people, a flagrant abuse of power.
This whole thing reeks of self-serving authoritarianism, and possible criminal activity.
Look behind the curtain, and you’ll see a cadre of lawyers, some disbarred, at work.
Sadly, we have no one to blame except ourselves for letting them take over our lives.
We are fast becoming the laughing stock of Las Vegas, and things are looking to get worse.
Our only option is to boycott the venue completely, if it opens, and let the renters have at it.
They will soon tire of eating there, and will move on leaving a mess behind for us to clean up.
The clubs will tire of poor quality catering prepared by disinterested staff, and will move on.
The wait staff will diminish to a few down on their luck transients, and the venue will shutter.
From the beginning, this community used a restaurant as a sales gimmick for new home buyers.
No one in their right mind would believe that ‘old fools’ and ‘gray hairs’ would keep up the place.
Enough of the smoke and mirrors, open up another failure, but don’t pretend that we all want it.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteYou have expressed the views of many, and the word "boycott" is becoming one that is being widely used as a result of the manner this Board and General Manager handled the "renters" admission.
Is that the manner in which an honest group of individuals handles such matters?
If they continue this, there's another word that might reappear...
RECALL.
From Mary Lee Duley...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteRENTERS HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO VOTE.
THEY DO NOT OWN PROPERTY AND DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS AN OWNER.
THE RENTERS CARD ALLOWS THEM TO ENJOY THE AMENITIES BUT NOT ATTEND MEETINGS, NOT VOTE.
I THOUGHT IT COULD NOT GET WORSE IN SCA…IT HAS!
HEARTBREAKING
GREAT EDITORIAL EDUCATING FOLKS AND HOPEFULLY THERE ARE SOME QUALIFIED, HONEST, AND CARING RESIDENTS THAT WILL RUN FOR BOARD POSITIONS.
UNTIL THE LOSERS ARE REMOVED, RESIDENTS ARE IN TROUBLE.