Certain members of our HOA deserve as award for persevering when it is involved with their endless attempts to shove the restaurant at the Anthem Center down out throats. This time putting a little twist on their pitch, they are claiming the eatery as an “amenity” rather than a business for profit.
The obvious difference in the operation of such a restaurant would it would be easier to show less loss due to operations, as there would be no occupancy costs (rent) showing up on it’s operating statement.
Now what do we have to sacrifice for this?
All we have to do is put up all the money to repair or replace all equipment, furnishings, permits, licenses, etc . to operate the restaurant (estimated at $300,000 plus), have our dues increased, and, being owners, assume all debts (payroll, utilities, insurance, inventory, & whatever else).
Really?.
Excessive losses would require another dues increase or special assessment.
If it shows a profit, which is as likely as Chicken Little’s prediction being correct, the money remaining after bills paid would be good.
As many wonder why myself and many others have spoken with take such a negative view of its success and the main reason should be obvious, that being location.
Being pushed back in a distant corner, in a building well removed from the street and nothing to offer that a plethora of other eating places do, has at least one food in the grave.
As a scenario, we are all familiar with 2 established businesses, on high viability locations and excellent brand recognition and and easy access in Walgreens and Wells Fargo bank.
What if neither were there and someone wanted to open a no-name bank and/or drug store at the restaurant site?
They wouldn’t draw files.
It is a shame Mr. Weil and others put so much time and effort beating a dead horse.
Using Ms. Seddon for advice in the restaurant business is hardly advisable, because as reported, she admitted that the restaurants she allegedly ran, showed 6 figure annual losses.
A letter dated 11/8/19 to Ms. Seddon & Ms. Karrow from our CPA Ovist & Howard (O&H) was designed to show the tax impact on opening a restaurant.
O&H was quite clear that the figures used were given to them by SCA and purely hypothetical.
One cannot help wonder why projected restaurant annual sales was chosen as an unobtainable $1.2 million to carry any validity.
The letter also addressed a deferred $1.8 in sales that could have been taxable in 2010 and possibly could have had a tax burden of $160,000, that this was an issue that still has to be dealt with, requiring skillful tax knowledge.
Overall, the restaurant could still possibly lead to the most expensive hamburger ever tasted.
From Nancy Candee & Dr. Tim Chapman...to...Anthem Opinions
As homeowners- We have attended two of the meetings on the restaurant and I firmly believe it is premature to decide on this right now.
We feel specifics to the alternatives needs to be pursued.
We are opposed to the moving forward due to the Real uncertainty of its true cost. Too much money and too much uncertainty.
There are strong concerns about increased dues, insurance costs, increased liabilities to us homeowners, the negative impact to Buckman’s Grille and golf course.
We need to wait for the new board members and do much more work on ALL the advantages and disadvantages.
I take this as a very serious step and no one should have a gun to their head on this matter to move forward.
Stop any decisions and allow we the homeowners to speak and vote with FULL facts, figures and details.
This is not okay with me to push this decision through!
What is so refreshing is that almost all of the above comments are first time comments from individuals, all of which have used an identifiable name, unlike another publication who allows commentary from those unwilling to do so.
How credible is a comment from an individual who refuses to place a real name to it?
I have sat by for almost 13 years living in SCA and watched each failed and flawed restaurant attempt pushed forward WITHOUT a thought to being given as to what the homeowners want.
I say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
The last three presidents, Jean Capillupo, Rex Weddle and now Candace Karrow, all share certain negative traits which have led to a growing outcry AGAINST going forward with this latest debacle called a self managed restaurant.
Each one has repeatedly demonstrated the same traits of rudeness, arrogant attitudes especially towards homeowners, refusal to seek advice from homeowners who have had vast experience in the restaurant business and contract assessment, and have acted like spoiled petulant children who have temper tantrums when challenged on their highly flawed explanations which are not many.
They also have treated homeowner money as their personal bank account to push forward highly flawed expenditures.
They have also never shown an ounce of humility.The people in this community and their homes as well as the common buildings and grounds, are all aging.
Homeowners are faced with continuous replacement of equipment, and are mostly retired on fixed incomes.
Another impending restaurant failure costing hundreds of thousands of dollars just to start up, should be the LAST expenditure homeowners should have to deal with! Three things are important if you want change this in our community where homeowners will be treated with respect and their input is valued:
1. If you haven't signed the petition for another impending restaurant failure, please do so.
2. Attend the board meeting at 5:30 PM., Thursday on February 27th.
3. Be very careful whom you vote for in this upcoming election. Candace Karrow is running again.
Several candidates have flawed backgrounds and should not be elected.
From Robert Latchford...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteCertain members of our HOA deserve as award for persevering when it is involved with their endless attempts to shove the restaurant at the Anthem Center down out throats.
This time putting a little twist on their pitch, they are claiming the eatery as an “amenity” rather than a business for profit.
The obvious difference in the operation of such a restaurant would it would be easier to show less loss due to operations, as there would be no occupancy costs (rent) showing up on it’s operating statement.
Now what do we have to sacrifice for this?
All we have to do is put up all the money to repair or replace all equipment, furnishings, permits, licenses, etc . to operate the restaurant (estimated at $300,000 plus), have our dues increased, and, being owners, assume all debts (payroll, utilities, insurance, inventory, & whatever else).
Really?.
Excessive losses would require another dues increase or special assessment.
If it shows a profit, which is as likely as Chicken Little’s prediction being correct, the money remaining after bills paid would be good.
As many wonder why myself and many others have spoken with take such a negative view of its success and the main reason should be obvious, that being location.
Being pushed back in a distant corner, in a building well removed from the street and nothing to offer that a plethora of other eating places do, has at least one food in the grave.
As a scenario, we are all familiar with 2 established businesses, on high viability locations and excellent brand recognition and and easy access in Walgreens and Wells Fargo bank.
What if neither were there and someone wanted to open a no-name bank and/or drug store at the restaurant site?
They wouldn’t draw files.
It is a shame Mr. Weil and others put so much time and effort beating a dead horse.
Using Ms. Seddon for advice in the restaurant business is hardly advisable, because as reported, she admitted that the restaurants she allegedly ran, showed 6 figure annual losses.
A letter dated 11/8/19 to Ms. Seddon & Ms. Karrow from our CPA Ovist & Howard (O&H) was designed to show the tax impact on opening a restaurant.
O&H was quite clear that the figures used were given to them by SCA and purely hypothetical.
One cannot help wonder why projected restaurant annual sales was chosen as an unobtainable $1.2 million to carry any validity.
The letter also addressed a deferred $1.8 in sales that could have been taxable in 2010 and possibly could have had a tax burden of $160,000, that this was an issue that still has to be dealt with, requiring skillful tax knowledge.
Overall, the restaurant could still possibly lead to the most expensive hamburger ever tasted.
Would this be #6 failure?
From John Hilton...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteBad Deal.
From Joseph Orrico...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteI STRONGLY OPPOSE anything to do with a restaurant at S C A facilities.
They will NEVER be financially feasible or self sufficient and will result in our dues funds going to subsidize the operation.
Henderson has dozens of restaurants; NONE is needed at the club.
From Nancy Candee & Dr. Tim Chapman...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteAs homeowners- We have attended two of the meetings on the restaurant and I firmly believe it is premature to decide on this right now.
We feel specifics to the alternatives needs to be pursued.
We are opposed to the moving forward due to the Real uncertainty of its true cost. Too much money and too much uncertainty.
There are strong concerns about increased dues, insurance costs, increased liabilities to us homeowners, the negative impact to Buckman’s Grille and golf course.
We need to wait for the new board members and do much more work on ALL the advantages and disadvantages.
I take this as a very serious step and no one should have a gun to their head on this matter to move forward.
Stop any decisions and allow we the homeowners to speak and vote with FULL facts, figures and details.
This is not okay with me to push this decision through!
From Daniel Reichick...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteBad financial decision. We need new management and new board members.
From Veronica Savino...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would we need another restaurant? I have lived here since "Trumpets". It was a lovely restaurant, but couldn't make it.
What makes people think another restaurant would survive after so many failures?
What is so refreshing is that almost all of the above comments are first time comments from individuals, all of which have used an identifiable name, unlike another publication who allows commentary from those unwilling to do so.
ReplyDeleteHow credible is a comment from an individual who refuses to place a real name to it?
Not very, in our opinion.
From Marcia Kosterka...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteI have sat by for almost 13 years living in SCA and watched each failed and flawed restaurant attempt pushed forward WITHOUT a thought to being given as to what the homeowners want.
I say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
The last three presidents, Jean Capillupo, Rex Weddle and now Candace Karrow, all share certain negative traits which have led to a growing outcry AGAINST going forward with this latest debacle called a self managed restaurant.
Each one has repeatedly demonstrated the same traits of rudeness, arrogant attitudes especially towards homeowners, refusal to seek advice from homeowners who have had vast experience in the restaurant business and contract assessment, and have acted like spoiled petulant children who have temper tantrums when challenged on their highly flawed explanations which are not many.
They also have treated homeowner money as their personal bank account to push forward highly flawed expenditures.
They have also never shown an ounce of humility.The people in this community and their homes as well as the common buildings and grounds, are all aging.
Homeowners are faced with continuous replacement of equipment, and are mostly retired on fixed incomes.
Another impending restaurant failure costing hundreds of thousands of dollars just to start up, should be the LAST expenditure homeowners should have to deal with! Three things are important if you want change this in our community where homeowners will be treated with respect and their input is valued:
1. If you haven't signed the petition for another impending restaurant failure, please do so.
2. Attend the board meeting at 5:30 PM., Thursday on February 27th.
3. Be very careful whom you vote for in this upcoming election. Candace Karrow is running again.
Several candidates have flawed backgrounds and should not be elected.