At the first RCSC Candidate Forum from the recent election, I was both encouraged and inspired that a Board Member focused on “Competition” as the singular issue of concern for Sun City. He cited the growing number of 55+ communities in the Valley creating competitive pressure, the need for Sun City to modernize, and the need for Sun City to respond to Generation Xers. I’m also going to give credit for role in getting Board Meetings videotaped and reinstating the Long Range Planning Committee. As to competition, the new brand of 55+ communities are not centered around golf. The Generation Xers, to which he specifically referenced, want things like community centers and hiking trails. Golf is near the end of the list of priorities. I’m hopeful that actions, deeds, and leadership will match the words of a platform based on Sun City responding and changing in step with competition. It will take great courage to break from the status quo. I wish well in his laudable goal.
Everyone serves with the best intentions E; unfortunately they all too often get caught up in group think. They are quick to relinquish their leadership role to becoming the rubber stamp for managements agenda. And to be clear, i am not accusing the staff of anything wrong other than when you work in a small vacuum of interests, rather than a big picture communities input, you get their take on what Sun City should be. Hopefully the board will become the leaders we need rather than the caretakers they have been.
I am so glad you enjoyed Rich's campaign slogan of "competition". Rich is an "ad" man, a long time radio talk show performer who has honed his skill well. Yes, I agree, as has many before me, there is a great need for additional recreation activities in the community besides golf. Herein lies the problem: where do you put these desired amenities? It may not be well known, but the golf courses are deeded, in perpetuity, as golf courses. To take even a section of a "golf course" and turn it into a green space for other activities such as walking, biking or hiking, is not likely to ever happen. First, there are those who have paid premiums to live on a golf course. How do you reimburse someone who now would live on "green space"? The Maricopa County Tax Commissioner would have a meltdown, as property is taxed accordingly to proximity to golf facilities. Second, the lawsuits would go on forever as to the "perceived" loss of value from not being on a golf course lot anymore. Think of all of the people which have purchased their home specifically for the golf course view. What happens to that view if it is now a hiking/biking trail? Lastly, this is a land locked area, with the exception of the lot for sale on 99th and Olive, there is no more Sun City ground for sale to develop the amenities and features spoken about. Where do these greatly sought after amenities go? Several years ago, pre-board days, I suggested using a portion of Quail Run Golf Course and utilizing it as an archery range, biking trail, walking trail, Frisbee golf, and PERHAPS a small dog park. I was lambasted to pieces as it was construed to say I wanted to turn Quail Run into a giant dog park, plus other off the wall crazy things. Needless to say, the furor died down once it was explained there was no way to change Quail Run, or any other golf amenity into anything other than a golf course. Even with the slow, inevitable lag of golfers and their desire to play the game, it will take an act of the legislature to change the status of the current green areas. Yep, there are great needs for educational opportunities to be expanded in the Sun City area such as Rio Salado College, there are great opportunities to expand the technology currently used within the community, and there are strong needs for outreach and melding of the current resources to be viable and usable to all. We have been surpassed by other 55+ communities and the gap grows wider. Our competition is already here, yet the board does nothing to meet the need. Yep, great word "competition: a person or group that you are trying to succeed against." Are we edging ahead of the competition?
What happens to that golf course view when golf becomes unsustainable? Glimpse the future: http://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_743eb40e-6f31-11e8-b1de-37e1bf187380.html
"I predict the sheer number of communities dealing with this issue will number into the thousands over the next few years. Much of the litigation will linger for years as deed restrictions are fought by new landowners seeking to develop these infill properties, and as homeowners fight to keep what they feel they already paid for." https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...-golf-course-one-way-or-another/#17e89d712a47 "For HOAs struggling with a closed or failing club, be proactive. You can't create a win-win by pointing fingers and not being open to a give and take. If the course is still actively operating, reach out and offer a forum or even just an ear to bounce ideas. Your community will be much better for it."
There is vacant land on 103rd north of Grand. I understand it is not owned by the RCSC but it has been vacant for years. It certainly is large enough to accommodate most of the activities mentioned. Purchasing raw land would be significantly easier than any other option. Maricopa County has an excellent bike path system, the New River Trail. It is accessible from SC . I access it by going thru Westbrook Village or from Greenway. For some cyclists the SC streets work well.
I applaud your courage to be lambasted, Carole. It is not easy to say the Emperor has no clothes. There really are two issues. One is the need for additional recreation activities/amenities in keeping with current trends. This issue is compounded by the opportunity cost of pouring resources into golf to the detriment of such activities/amenities. The second issue is the sustainability of golf at Sun City. Purchasing the raw land that fix proposes (which has merit worth investigating) ignores the sustainability issue. Is golf sustainable at its current levels at Sun City? Hardly, in my opinion. Without a forward looking vision and working with homeowners and legislators toward creative solutions, I trust the golf course homeowners will change their tune when their property values plummet 50%. When living on a golf course is viewed as a liability in America, the economics of the matter will take over swiftly. When the 95% who don't vote figure out they are over-subsidizing a dying game undesired by Gen Xers and Millennials, they will look for new candidates. These same people who lambasted you, will be crying for change and asking why nothing was done. Alas, it will be too late then. It appears Sun City is more than willing to kick the can down the road for future Board members and perpetuate the status quo. Interestingly enough, the Sun City West leadership, which I find far more progressive and forward thinking than Sun City, is at least willing to look at the sustainability of golf. I believe there are those there who already know they have a BIG problem: Sun City West Governing Board, October 5, 2018: "The Board already is looking at community transit and transportation; and plans to look at topics such as “Sustainability of Golf,” and “Alternative Income Sources.” "
The vacant land you speak of at 103rd and Grand is owned by Banner. They have zero intention to sell that parcel of land to anyone. The land deals Banner does has them keep the dirt and lease the or sell the building separately. This is how the Lakes Club is done. The college leases the building and Banner/Sun Health keeps ownership of the dirt. The building was available for negotiations a while back, but Banner refuses to let go of the dirt.
Many of us supported the idea back then, and in fact, I still do. As I recall, QR's deed restriction was placed on the deed by the RCSC due to an oversight of DW "forgetting to do so" when they transferred ownership to the RCSC. The action was, as I recall, done several years afterward. It is not true that restrictions can't be removed, and it is easier if the entity that placed the restriction is the one petitioning for it's removal (which is the case with QR). Regardless, it gets complicated if anyone with an interest in the situation dissents -- and we all know SC's propensity for maintaining the status quo even when doing so is absurd. Nevertheless, as global warming progresses the question will eventually come to a head at a point in the future when the cost (ie, our yearly assessments) of maintaining them as golf courses becomes untenable due to the cost of water. Eventually the 35,000 of us who don't golf will balk at funding the 5,000 that do golf -- it's just a question of when. At that point, if the deed restrictions can't be removed the property reverts to DW (now Pulte) ownership. I doubt they would remain golf courses under Pulte. I wonder if the adjoining lot owners would have any recourse at all in that situation?
IC is someone who gets it. Golf, at its current levels, is unsustainable in the long run at Sun City, whether it be a matter of water, cost, or simply lack of interest of new generations moving into Sun City. As he states, Deed Restrictions can be removed. Certainly, it is a process and takes time. It may also take working with legislators as some areas of the country are currently doing. However, you can deal with it now proactively or deal with it painfully as the Ahwatukee residents have done for over 5 years. Trust me, a hiking trail or other recreation facility or even houses for that matter looks real good to those sitting on that golf course with property values greatly diminished. I find it interesting that Sun City West is willing to look at the issue while Sun City maintains "the status quo even when doing so is absurd." If Mr. Hoffer is truly interested in pursuing his campaign slogan of competition, I would think he would want to put his well honed oratory skills to tackling this issue. For if Sun City wants to keep up with the Competition, it will need to reinvent itself.
All interesting comments/ opinions. Please don't take this wrong. It's not intended to offend. Why would someone buy into a community with 8 golf courses if they felt golf courses were not sustainable? It's like a lady marrying a man thinking she can change him.
Why would you buy into a community whose founding principles are self-governance and volunteerism and not even vote? The train is coming, but most do not see it. A few at SCW apparently do. No offense taken, but was your question directed to me?
No, not directed at you at all. I recall this same discussion years ago on the board that preceded this board. As someone who is very concerned about climate change and the effects it will have on things far more important than golf I don't have the answers. Wish I did.
I bought into this community because 1) is was the cheapest of all of the local Sun Cities, 2) It had the cheapest yearly assessments and 3) I believed I would be able to use the concrete pathways to walk amid the greenery when the courses were not in use. No one told me any different about the cart paths being unusable by anyone other than golfers. I would have never thought to ask as the assessment costs covered the construction of those pathways. I thought I would be able to at least walk my dogs along the major thoroughfares such as Sun City Boulevard, and not fear if they accidentally stepped into the grassy part for four inches. None of this was explained, and did not even find out about the "golf deputies" until I got on the board. They are supposed to keep people moving along on the courses, yet the feel their duties stretch far beyond normal golf patrol. So, this is why I purchased a home in an area with 8 golf courses. Would I do it again, with hindsight being 20/20, I honestly don't know. How about some prognostications (fortune telling) for the very near short term. I predict Dan will be president, Rich will be VP, Mike Kennedy as Treasurer, and I can't quite pick secretary. Ron Jesse will be brought back to fill the remaining year for Dave and he will take over the Golf Advisory Board. Just some fun thoughts based upon some of the previous posts from TOSC. I was really hoping for the board to create an opportunity for a fresh new voice and face to break up the humdrum of the usual way of doing business, but it does not appear this will happen. Am I surprised, no.
As I read the Quail Run Deed restrictions, they have expired and could be amended by the RCSC: http://www.annereport.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/quailrun-19980368850.pdf I'm not even sure they qualify as Deed restrictions, but rather a "Declaration" by the Board. It looks like the original Quail Run golf covenants were only for 20 years, which is why the above Declaration was made by RCSC: http://www.annereport.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/quailrun-19790362978.pdf There may be an opening here.... Think of the possibilities.... Note: I have no affiliation with the Anne Report or lawsuit whatsoever. Never even met her or spoke with her. Just used her site for some helpful research materials.
Exceptional comments gang. As i said in another thread, this fight over the number of golf courses will be played out at the private courses first. There are 11 courses in Sun City, more than a sport struggling to survive can support. At one time those private courses were owned by residents, most who lived on or around them. They had bought into memberships which gave them ownership. Country club membership was a big thing back in the 70's and 80's, but it became less popular around 2000 and each of the 3 private courses were sold off to investors. All have tried to make it work and each with varying degrees of success. All have relaxed their rules and opened the doors to outside play, and in reality, had they not they would be abject failures. The other thing they all have in common is they bought them at bargain basement prices. They were losing money and the members owning them just wanted out. The simple truth is, as raw land, they are probably worth 15 to 20 times what they paid for them. The challenge is if and when they try and sell off the land there will be ugly legal battles. The typical game is to close the courses and let them go to seed. Pretty soon those bordering them are looking for solutions that make sense. This matters to all of us, because if and when it happens, it could increase the numbers of players on the RCSC courses. More importantly, the land once developed could add thousands of new card holders with some of them being golfers (10 to 15%). It is the long term impact that may well save Sun City from having to face the bitter truth about the future of golf. The other upside is, as more newer developments open without courses, it will drive those looking for golf to at least consider Sun City. If there is a bright spot in the enormous amounts of money SC has shoveled at golf (both from PIF and capital expenditures), the courses should serve us well for years to come...assuming golf can at least maintain its status quo. The tragedy has been the shortsightedness of doing it all at once. Had there been a strategic plan where those same dollars had been distributed over a longer period of time, we could have been adding other important amenities along the way. The Lakes Club as a massive community center, adding much needed class rooms for life long learning, a quality theater for the performing arts and the always sought after dedicated club space could/should have been all part and parcel of that plan. Unfortunately during my tenure on the board i had zero impact in making those arguments as the GM and the majority of board members were locked and loaded on all golf/all the time.
Bill, I agree that the private courses will be the next to fail as they are not being subsidized by the bottomless pit known as the RCSC (aka homeowners of Sun City). Apparently, without a plan, the RCSC is not only prepared to subsidize day-to-day golf course operations in perpetuity, but throw more money at them beyond daily operations. Back to the SC private courses: It could get tricky and ugly when these courses do fail. Are there any deed restrictions (such as golf only) on the private courses? This is the problem with the Ahwatukee private golf course. The deed requires that only a golf course can go there. The golf course owner says you are not going to force me to run an unsustainable and unprofitable business. The homeowners on the golf course say that you must run an unsustainable business. The golf course owner says that amounts to slavery. Well, the litigation continues as it has for the last 5+ years and the golf course owners have the privilege of looking at a decaying wasteland with an ugly fence around it. Want to buy some golf course property in Phoenix? This is what happens when a community operates without a plan and ignores current trends. Let's wait and deal with it when we reach the last and worst case. Actually, I like IC's words even better: "SC's propensity for maintaining the status quo even when doing so is absurd." Back to Bill's words: "Had there been a strategic plan..." Alas, this is what the Long Range Planning should have been doing all along. However, it looks like the RCSC Board wants to bury their heads in the sandtrap.
I'm surprised my Quail Run observations above did not get any run. I must have made my point poorly, so I will go back to the well. I'm not an attorney, but I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. My reading of the Quail Run deed is that Del Webb (perhaps intentionally, perhaps mistakenly) only put the golf course deed restriction for 20 years and not perpetuity. After the 20 year period, the RSCS added a "Declaration" to the Deed in 1998 saying that it must be a golf course for the next 11 years (now expired). I truly wonder if that Declaration was binding or legally enforceable as one would think this type of Amendment to the deed would require a vote and other due process required under law for changing a deed. Nonetheless, the "Declaration" can be amended for a use other than golf. Bill: Do you know this history here? Carole: Who was it that told you that nothing but a golf course could go into Quail Run? I don't believe this to be the case - at least with respect to this golf course. Is it an immutable truth that only tennis courts can be changed to pickle ball courses and golf courses can not be changed out? I truly do empathize with the golf course homeowners, but what about the other 90%? Are their wants and needs irrelevant in the face of a decaying game? What about the competition, Mr. Hoffer? As to lawsuits, should we not convert or add other amenities for fear of lawsuit? Did that stop us from putting in a dog park? As to lawsuits, you buy real estate based on the deed restrictions, Declarations, and Zoning Laws in place. Do your due diligence and caveat emptor. Sometimes that vacant lot behind you gets developed and your perfect view changes. It happens. But if you follow the laws and regulations, you can't be held hostage by someone who wants to sue without basis. Does anyone have the deeds with covenants to all the golf courses at Sun City?
About 10-11 years ago, I discovered, and I don't remember how, Quail Run had the ability to be remodeled into something other than an executive golf course. It was on a chat board which I suggested some other amenities be introduced into the area, such as archery, walking/biking trails, frisbee golf, and a small area for a dog park. After the furor hit fever pitch, to include the paper taking a survey as to how they would like to see QR turned into a dog park, the RCSC came out with a statement to the effect Quail Run was a golf course, a deeded golf course, as all of the DW properties are, and could not be converted into a dog park. Hence, the idea Quail Run will always be an executive course. As I recall, I made a tongue in cheek statement about turning all of the golf courses into dog parks on this same chat board during a heated exchange, and the crowd went crazy. I was only trying to get some of the other amenities introduced in a forum for discussion. Who would have thought it would take on a life of its own, to include statements made by the RCSC about the golf courses being golf courses in "perpetuity". So, this is how I remember the Quail Run discussion going. It came to a grinding halt with the RCSC "perpetuity" statement, and the powers that be felt safe and content the RCSC had saved them from a "dog park" fiasco occurring in their backyard.
