Has anyone been following the case?

Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by Emily Litella, Aug 19, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Emily Litella

    Emily Litella Well-Known Member

    Deleted.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2022
  2. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    I look at the case calendar sometimes but it doesn't tell much about what's transpired. It lists a ruling on 8/13 under Case Documents but 8/21 is listed as more oral arguments. Have you heard any underground info?
     
  3. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Hopefully this travesty will soon end and we can put the stupidity behind us.
     
    Emily Litella likes this.
  4. IndependentCynic

    IndependentCynic Active Member

    :cool:Travesty... stupidity... really?

    As I see it, for some it's a travesty that the board changed, for example, the member meeting quorum number without a confirming membership vote as required by the founding documents. For others it's a travesty that anyone would challenge what the board did. That's what court's are for... to adjudicate differences such as these when Rodney fails us...

    People, I just want to say, you know, can we all JUST get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?
    ... Rodney King
     
    Emily Litella likes this.
  5. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    I've been as outspoken as anyone regarding some of those changes IC. But then you know that's not what this lawsuit was about. This has always been ARS trying to get her pound of flesh over things that set her off back in early 2000. You were probably living here when they changed the "meandering stream" behind her condo to concrete gutters and she went nuts about it. It's been a forever battle that could have been fought in so many different ways. Now we all will be paying for the massive legal bills, even after we win. Does that make sense to you?
     
  6. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    I had to step away from the computer for a few minutes, just seething over IC's comments regarding the suit. I normally love reading his take on things. We often see eye to eye on many issues regarding the RCSC, but in this case, we couldn't be further apart. I suspect most people know virtually nothing about what is going on and why. I've read much of what ARS has written over the years, and went for coffee with her several times. Her whole shtick was that she was the defender of the oppressed. And while that plays well for some, the question from my perspective is how/what would you propose to make it better?

    That's where it always gets tricky. Anyone can bitch and moan about how bad something is. If you have read the complaints filed in the suit, the majority of them were about the PIF. Let me be clear; I think the preservation and improvement fund/fee was the single most important action taken by the board in nearly 60 years. It single handily allowed Sun City to rebuild itself without trying to pass assessments on any project costing more than $750,000; which is virtually anything of substance.

    Think about it; would Sun City residents have approved the rebuild of Fairway if they were looking at a one time assessment of $500 on top of their yearly fees? Less than one third of the residents live in phase 1, so what would it take to get an assessment of that size passed? The answer is it would never pass and without the infusion of dollars now collected in the PIF, Sun City would have withered and died. When i said things like that to ARS, she just shrugged her shoulders as if to say, "oh well."

    It was never about justice, or right or wrong...it was about getting even. The worst of all reasons. Hell, i've argued for some of the same thing she did; i'd be just fine if the RCSC functioned under Title 33 of the state statutes, which would make all meetings open to the membership. That quorums should be smaller. Had we been operating under some of those, we wouldn't have seen the onerous changes the board has made to the community documents.

    But this suit isn't about those things, the point here is the bigger picture: This is about taking away the ability to raise funds via the PIF and to shut down how Sun City rebuilds itself. The beauty of the structure now is new buyers pay for the coming infrastructure without burdening current residents who may not be able to afford yearly assessments they would face...and that's only if those kinds of assessments were to be passed. Which in my humble opinion is they wouldn't.
     
  7. fixj

    fixj Active Member

    I use the PIF and it's impact in a RE class I teach to Millenials and GenXers. Their jaws drop when I show the financial report and when they realize it's all for recreation facilities. It's hard to get them back on topic after that discussion.

    About 20 years ago a HOA in Washington State had a situation much like what the RCSC is facing. What might have been settled in a meeting with an unreasonable homeowner snowballed into a lawsuit ultimately with nine lawyers involved. The homeowner had to sell their home to pay ALL legal costs.
     
  8. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Spot on Fix; our PIF is a teachable moment, over and over again. I marvel every time i get the chance to talk about it. By 1999 Sun City was on the ropes as amenities were aging and there was no money to rebuild/replace them. They could not go in debt by more than 750K (in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation) which meant any efforts to do anything meant assessments and votes needed to be taken. The board got creative with what other communities called an impact fee. Simply put, it was a point of sale obligation to the buyer. The beauty of it was, it was no different than how the DEVCO paid for them when he built them. Ultimately he gave back to us what new buyers paid for when they first bought here.

    If you read the first filings on the case (when there were originally 70+ of them), you saw many of the complaints were there weren't dollar figures attached, They just said a PIF was owed at point of sale. The reality was all that information was told them by the Realtor and the dollar amount was listed on the closing documents. Realistically, if these plaintiffs didn't want to pay the PIF, they had an alternative, walk away and buy somewhere without one.
     
  9. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    I've always said I think the PIF is fair and I support it. But I've also said 2 rec passes for a dual owner house vs 1 for a single owner house for the same price is not fair. I still feel that way. I believe that is also included in the case, but I'm not positive. In SCW each person pays the annual, but each person pays about the same as a couple in SC and that amount is seen as too much. Imagine a couple paying double from what they pay now. That kind of makes me laugh because if you think it's a high amount, it's the same amount singles are paying in SC and somehow it's not too high for them. I don't get that reasoning. Easier for the bookkeeping? I suppose it is but that doesn't make it right. And while I understood the PIF when I bought, and I understood the annual fee, I did (wrongly) think that untitled me to 2 pass per house. That was not clear to me. There are no attempts to even it out in any way by giving a single payer a visitor pass or whatever you want to call it. I've heard it mentioned at board meetings and they barely acknowledge the issue. It's just a shrug.

    A lawsuit is a not good idea, but it does seem as if the title 33 would be better for the community and make a bit less control from "the corporation." The idea that you walk away and buy somewhere else reminds me of "if you don't like America leave." A silly phrase and it's just not the way things are done here. Like it or not, we have a history of trying to change what we see as unfair and not just walking away. Maybe her intention was retaliation but what about the others who joined her...we're they only retaliating too?

    If there were a vote to keep the PIF people would likely want to keep it because current residents have already paid. If there were a vote to keep the annual payment as it is that would probably pass too because there are more married couples than singles.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
  10. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Damn, been a long time since i've had these kinds of arguments. Easy to get away from the philosophical and just settle into what is. So C, how do you feel about moving here and not paying school taxes? Logic says, no schools, no local school taxes. But that's not how it works in the real world is it. Nope, Sun City was built differently. We were invited out of the Peoria school district so they could pass school referendums in the 70's and has been that way since then. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it fair? How about red for ed?

    See, it always comes down to who's ox is being gored doesn't it. We're both bleeding heart liberals and there's times where i think we should be paying our fair share. That said, try and change it in the community and you's be invited to leave Sun City so fast it would make your head spin. And for the record, i never said, love it or leave it. What i said was if you don't like the way it's set up, don't buy here. Or if you elect to purchase here, you have another choice, get elected and change it to be more fair. Of course as you noted, fat chance, with the majority of home owners being couples.

    Sun City was built by those living here. For better or worse, it is what is is based on what people wanted. Hell, the reason i moved here was because of that. If i saw something i didn't like, i could get involved and try and change it. The reality is, it only changes when the majority speak out and push for those changes. I learned long ago just because i thought something was right or better, it would only happen when i could convince people to support my positions.

    The reality is that the structure in Sun City has worked far more effectively than SCW's single payer system. Nope, not the only reason for the huge difference, but when you consider 40% of the homes there are single payers, the revenue stream is impacted. And so we are clear, i'm not arguing it's fair, it's not. When they grandfathered those living here it was a recipe for disaster. It got far worse when they changed what they had originally passed and pretended it was what they originally intended

    Let me use ourselves as an example: We were grandfathered (pre-2003). The board said we would stay grandfathered as long as we lived here. The GM convinced the board they didn't intend that to mean those who sold their home and downsized. They actually voted this in 2009 and even when board members that had originally passed it showed up and told them they were wrong, they went ahead and said a sale would lose the grandfathering. So be it. when dad died, mom got stuck paying the full rate. We are grandfathered as long as we stay. When we move, we lose it and when one of us dies, the other will pay the full rate. I know that going in, but we are doing it anyway.

    The point here is simple: Knowing how Sun City works is important. If there is something you don't like, run, get elected and try and change it. What i absolutely hate is when people take the chicken crap route and do it with law suits that only make the attorneys rich. Win, lose or draw in this suit...Sun City is a lessor community for it. Hopefully their actions won't change Sun City in ways that will impact us for years to come.
     
  11. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    Every time this issue is discussed it eventually gets compared to property taxes. The annual fee is not the same as property tax; the annual fee confers rights of use. Property taxes do not give individuals any rights based on the number of residents in the house, on the deed, or the marital status of the residents. Laws are made by lawmakers because the majority does not always vote fairly if against their personal views or pocketbook; that's the only way minorities are protected.
     
  12. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    I don't see anywhere in my response where i mentioned property taxes C.
     
  13. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    Aren't school taxes paid through property taxes?
     
  14. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    That was hardly the point. Nowhere in Sun City are school taxes paid, at least for local school districts. The point was that Sun City has been built by those living here and the results are what they are. If there are things you don’t like or agree with, when you move here try and change them.

    This lawsuit can, has and will impact Sun City for years to come. And i am saying that feeling comfortable the RCSC will sustain its position. The legal fees have been passed on to all of us and in all likelihood will impact us again in 2019. Worst case scenario is a am wrong and the judge would rule the PIF to be illegal and they should be stopped. If memory serves me the plaintiffs were asking significant financial redress that could be devastating.

    Oddly enough there are any number of instances in our history where residents threatened suit and in some cases actually brought them. With all that said, my take is, having read our documents, the RCSC has the right to do almost anything, if in fact they do so in accordance to those documents.

    Arguing you don’t like them because they aren’t “fair” may get folks to send you money, but doesn’t make good legal standing. Hopefully we’ll see something soon.
     
  15. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    And my point was taxes somehow always get mentioned in the discussion of this issue.

    I don't think the case is based on pure fairness, it's based on whether SC is a planned community or not and the rules that govern that. At least that's the way I understand it.
     
  16. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    That's a helpful link. Court reporters are apparently being replaced by digital devices so we can't read everything. Hopefully the judgement will be printed when it's finally decided.
     
  17. IndependentCynic

    IndependentCynic Active Member

    Bill, I'm sorry I caused your blood pressure to escalate. You know me well enough to know I mostly agree with you re: ARS's motives and that many of her complaints were trite at best.

    That said, you undoubtedly know my respect for the board ended the day they changed the quorum. They could have handled that much differently, but instead they decided to belittle the membership and slap them down by changing the quorum to a number which likely can never be achieved... can anyone remember when the last member quorum was achieved? For me that was a blatant abuse of power by the board. Attempts to convince the board at the time to restore the quorum failed. No board since has seen fit to undo the wrong, so other than a lawsuit, what remedy is available to the membership? Without a quorum the membership can never force the board to capitulate and restore the quorum. Catch22. In fact, without a quorum the members cannot challenge anything the board does. Does that seem like the intent the founders intended? Certainly, not to me. And yes, I know the age worn cliche that you can always elect a different board... and I know that will never work. BP knows the futility of it first hand.

    Will the lawsuit cost us all? Yes. For all those members that never participate, never vote, etc and who are now PO'ed about the cost, remember you had the chance to encourage the board to compromise. Instead you remained uninvolved and now the situation has come home to roost in the form of a lawsuit. It's an old story... the surfs revolt, the workers strike, the minions bring suit. Everyone loses and hopefully some wrongs get righted.

    The quorum is only one element of the suit. It's the only item I mentioned in my post. I did not mention the PIF and I won't since I don't have a better option to propose.
     
  18. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Hey IC, no worries, i was just engaging in a little trumpian hyperbole. The answer to your question regarding the last membership meeting with a quorum was Sept. 2009. I know, because i resent it as much as you do. I have written volumes on what i consider the "sins" of the board/management as they stripped those community safeguards from the documents written to insure the process of self-governance.

    That said, i never felt compelled to sue them. To play martyr for the cause. To beg dollars from folks who had too little to start with. To make wild eyed accusations of theft and corruption about board members and staff. To make promises that were off the charts. But worse than all of those things, the very thought of threatening the structure of one of the best run age restricted communities in the country makes me crazed.

    So we are clear, i have read the diatribes about "planned communities" and how we should be under Title 33, not 10. Hell, i would be fine existing under state statute 33; though the reasons for it differ. I think a more open governance process serves us all better, albeit slower. Their argument is, it is easier to bring suit than under Title 10. I just don't see the value in attacking the values of a community built by those of us living here.

    While changing them from within is difficult, it's not impossible. It would take a strategic plan, with a two year campaign of electing candidates with a defined platform that residents would buy into. It would take patience and a commitment that most are unwilling to engage or participate in. It would mean being able to articulate and then present a vision of a better run community. I still marvel when i see how Sun City West transformed themselves from their internal battles between the old guard and the Sun City West Residents for Open Government. It took collaboration, not a lawsuit (though i think several were threatened).

    A month or two back Gary Cotton and i had an unpleasant exchange on this site. I won't relive the point of contention, but he used the phrase "unintended consequences." I happen to believe in that statement, and in the case of this suit, i strongly believe it fits. While some are quietly cheering for Title 33 to be foisted on us, or that the judge will order the board to make lot assessments based on single payments to be the law of the land, one need look at the plaintiffs arguments in the claims they filed.

    The vast majority of the original 70 plus plaintiffs complaints were over PIF payments. It was their point of attack and consequently why i get angry when i follow this litigation. Any trial is a crap shoot, and while odds almost always favor one side over the other, nothing is a given. As i was reading through the link E posted, i noted several change in judges. Was one side or the other judge shopping? We'll never know. I guess if there is any consolation in this case, should the RCSC lose and the PIF is affected, there would clearly be an appeal to a higher court.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2018
  19. Cynthia

    Cynthia Well-Known Member

    On the flip side, if RCSC does win i hope they aren’t too smug about it and believe it gives them vindication to act in any one-sided way they choose. For the price we’ll pay I hope some learning can come of it. Or is that too Pollyanna.
     
  20. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Nope, not too Pollyanna at all. When this is over there should be no celebrating, one way or the other. The reality is this entire fiasco has been a blight on and to the community. It should have never have come to this. Sun City has always been a viable Utopia to me and the fact we let it get away from us with stupid moves where residents got so angry/frustrated they were willing to fund this type of suit speaks volumes. The fault never lies on one side. Sorry RCSC, there is culpability on both parties. Failing to realize when people are adversely affected is what happens when you pull away from using the resources within the community and take actions without working with and through those living here.

    I used Sun City West's actions as an example because they were on course for something far worse than what we are going through. Rather than marginalize residents back in the early 2000's, they engaged them to resolve their differences. In the end, the community was better for it. Too bad some are too stubborn to watch and learn from others mistakes, they'd rather blunder through their own.
     

Share This Page