It's not fair...

It has been painful to watch as the site's number of posters has dropped. I get it; as we delve into the world of all things RCSC, some of you feel like you are over-stepping your bounds or worse yet, double-crossing those in management or on the board. Speaking out feels like you are peeing on the community we all love.

With that caveat out of the way, let me try and make some sense of what is going on and why it is so frustrating for some of us. I've now seen both house hearings. They were painful to watch as i heard misinformation, half-truths, lies and lots of stupid things said from several of those testifying. Not trying to be cruel, most folks are out of their element in a setting like that. Others have vested interests and are trying to make their point.

The one most glaring takeaway from both hearings was the RCSC's rationale behind the bill. Let me tell you what i heard: "It's not fair." Now that is an over simplification, but is essentially what their argument is. Historically we have operated under Title 10 and because we were developed before the Planned Communities Act became law so we should be entitled to stay under it. I think that is concise, and maybe even reasonable.

So i don't sound like i missed their other argument, their attorney makes the point we don't enforce declarations (otherwise known as deed restrictions or CC&R's). However, that isn't the main thrust of why we should be free of a judges misinterpretation of the law. What they are trying to do is simply get out from under a court order.

Here's the thing you don't hear and why it is almost karma-like when you consider what is happening. I have written often of the genius of John Meeker and how strident DEVCO was in working with the community at large to write documents that would stand the test of time. He knew some day they would leave and if Sun City was to survive, there would need to be safeguards built into the documents to maintain the integrity of what was created.

IC in another thread wrote an interesting piece on the various types of governance and the process they incorporate. My guess is, some of it went over people's heads. It shouldn't have. While it was deep to a fault, it was also well on point.

Let me break it down this way to fit where we are and how we got here...and more importantly why the RCSC's lament is so feeble. The current GM has been around 12 years. Over that time frame, she has dramatically rewritten our documents and the various board's have passed those changes. You very seldom see push-back when she does this.

We have documented those changes on this site numerous times because when it happened, it changed the very nature of the community. The most glaring was when we went from quarterly membership meetings when 100 people showed up, they could make motions from the floor. The board didn't have to act on them, but they did have to take them back to consider the impact on the community.

Essentially it was a stop-gap measure for the community to keep the board/management from doing things they may not agree with. It was tantamount to the checks and balances that is supposed to be in place in our co-equal branches of government. If they did something outlandish a group could show up and lodge a protest via a motion. The mere fact of its existence kept boards from over-stepping their authority.

Since that protection was taken away, we have never had a membership meeting (last one, Sept of 09). Along with it, they wrote language making it harder for recalling board members. The changes; while protested by a handful, were passed and the board and managements authority became far more insulated. Good for them, bad for the community.

Perhaps, now you see the irony in their lament "it's not fair." It is a demon of their own making. By changing the historical protections and application of the documents, they have put themselves in harms way. By giving themselves more power and control, they are now facing a lawsuit that should never have happened. To argue it's not fair is essentially the arguments we made from the floor as they wrote us out of the checks and balance guarantees that were in our documents to insure we had a louder voice.

Karma is a bitch eh?

 

Just finished watching the latest hearing and came away with these observations;

1. Only 2 communities are represented in this bill.

2. Supporters of the bill suggest that history should dictate that Sun City remain under T10 (status quo) yet they fail to realize change is inevitable. Change is usually not accepted very well by the vast majority of long term residents. However, if the change benefits the GM/Board (by law and other Sun City document changes) then it is acceptable to the GM and Board regardless of how the community may fell.

3. I think the only politician in that hearing room that understood the issues was Isela Blanc (and maybe Domingo Degrazia).

4. No one brought up the fact that all the remaining age restricted communities in Arizona have no issues operating under T33.

5. Green Valley had considerable trouble articulating how they would be forced to change under T33.

6. Rick Gray could not readily explain why he is opposed to Sun City being embraced under the PCA?

 

Lets continue this exercise to show you just how much an impact those changes made. I have written and argued with several ARS supporters the Preservation and Improvement Fund (PIF) was the greatest single action undertaken by any RCSC board ever. Those opposed to it argue residents should be able to vote projects up or down, which would insure most projects would never get off the ground. Some hate the funding stream and think assessments on a case by case basis would be better; which if passed, would hit those hardest that would be the least likely to afford them. It avoided all of that and put the point of sale fee on the backs of the new buyer (spare me the argument about whether they made the seller pay it because updating the facilities as they have increased home values in Sun City and the beneficiary is the seller).

They also built it in a way the RCSC could avoid "indebtedness." That matters because our documents say the RCSC can not go into debt of $750,000 without a vote by the membership. By having cash in hand, they avoided being in debt. Some have argued that is BS, but realistically, it is how it works...whether they like it or not. And in my opinion exactly why they wrote the language the way they did. So far so good?

Here's where this all blows up in our faces. The PIF was essentially a massive piggy bank. The first years the dollar figure at point of sale was $750. It has climbed 4 or 5 times now to its current $3500. Every increase brought out realtors who told us the hike would shut down sales. That never once happened. The remodels, updates and improvements only enhanced the values of the homes and made them even more attractive. That said, when we had the potential for a "membership meeting" (every three months if there were 100 card holders in attendance), there was the opportunity for a motion from the floor. Effectively a powerful system for checks and balance.

Once that was removed, the piggy bank known as PIF (that was averaging some 6 million dollars per year for the past 5 or 6 years) became theirs (the board and management) to do with as they pleased. Sure, they showed us what they were doing, but their actions in doing it were done behind closed doors and if we didn't like it, so what? Hell, when the golfers at Willowbrook/Willowcreek tried to martial a petition against their course renovations (that weren't needed for another 6 or 7 years) they were told they couldn't sign them at the golf course. It was against the by-laws that had been changed by the board years back.

I've written often about the removal of the Long Range Planning Committee. I know, it's back, but it was taken down because it was in the way of managements plan for all golf/all the time agenda. I have to laugh because one of the arguments for it to go away was people got on the committee because they had an agenda. Really? What is it when 5 or 6 golfers get elected to the board and they buy into dumping all that money into golf that management is shoveling at them?

This lawsuit should have/could have been avoided. They had the same kind of issues in Sun City West and cooler, calmer heads prevailed. They voluntarily adopted T33 and every meeting became open. Nothing was done behind closed doors and the "resistance" movement died and went away. We (as board members) were assured a suit would in all likelihood never see the light of day and if it did it would quickly be dismissed. Silly us for believing they knew what they were talking about. We are now years in and are wasting huge amounts of money and time fighting the lawsuit and trying to pass legislation to get out from under it.

I've written it before, imagine if we had embraced T33 back in 2013/2014. Open meetings would have shaped community decisions on a wholly different level, eliminated the lawsuit because that was the one area vulnerable to attack, and the members would have been engaged on a vastly different level. Tragic, because that was the platform Sun City was built on.

 

Dang SCR, i was typing as you were posting. You are spot on, Isela asked exactly the right questions of both Rick and Jan. Both did an inept job of answering it. I was so impressed i sent her a lengthy email last night congratulating her for getting her head around the problem. Degrazia was on point as well in that he understood they were wasting the legislator's time trying to get out from under a judge's ruling.

I don't know for sure, but given the 6/5 vote, it probably came down along party lines. The republican's supported Payne's (and now it looks like Gray's) legislation; while the democrat's were opposed. I did note one of Gray's comments was regarding the PIF and perhaps if they didn't pass this legislation and the judge's order stands, that would be the next suit. He told me that was the "law of unintended consequences." I don't believe there's such a thing, but more people who don't know what they are doing and haven't thought the consequences through. I don't see the PIF being in any way illegal.

I don't know about you SCR, but after watching i felt an itch to get involved and speak out. I've been asked to do so several times, but i hate the lawsuit and don't want to be perceived as a supporter of it because i am not. I see there are no dates posted yet for the next meeting and maybe by the time they are the itch will have subsided.

 

Votes were definitely along party lines.

 

Here's the vote

 

Bill, speaking against HB1094 would not, in my opinion, have been as much about supporting ARS as it would have been about giving T33 a chance to give us open meetings. Politics makes strange bedfellows -- it's ok to be allies on one front and antagonists on another. I've taken that stance with ARS from the beginning -- supporting the parts I agreed with, opposing those I don't. There is always the chance of unintended consequences, but as the lottery says, you can't win if you don't play.

 

And that's how I feel about supporting SB1094. Let's see how the RCSC can function with open meetings, have the lawsuit dropped and then re-address Title 33 if necessary.

 

SB1094 - telecommunications fund; report; posting - 1094 is a catch-all for sneaky amendments to original bills under a different name (HB2374).

It is meant to keep the public in the dark on pet bills.

 

I know IC, it's why i am conflicted. I know if there are truly questions about whether to vote for or against i can make a world of difference. What i don't know is if they are just locked and loaded to support Payne/Gray because they are republican's then it is a waste of time. I did this crap for a living and hated it every time i had to get too close to politicians. Worse yet, had i gone down like Don did, registered to speak and then been ignored so Senator Gray could babble on i would have been crazed. It looked like Payne was calling those to testify.

 

How ironic eh?

The bigger question i have aggie is will the judge be so incensed by the RCSC's end run on T33 that he will stick it to us on the other aspects of the lawsuit. My guess is he will see their actions as just more of the same that brought the suit to the point it is at. Which by the way, it is.

As far as their "open meetings," under T10 they can still meet and predetermine outcomes away from the maddening crowd. Under T33 it is forbidden to the point if they do and someone finds out, suit can be brought. Here's how stringent it is, while serving on the board we agreed to have a joint meeting with Sun City West's board. We set it up to be a private gathering of the two boards and they told us point blank, it had to be an open meeting with the public from both communities invited. I almost peed myself as our board was shocked at the very thought of it.

 

Carole, that brought a little tear to my eye, lol. But I second your sentiment completely. Bill's knowledge, especially of SC history, would have been invaluable at that meeting.

 

I agree with you both concerning your comments about Bill. However Barring another unexpected turn, I believe that opportunity is gone. 1094 goes to the Full House for a vote then to the Full Senate for a vote without a stop in committee where 2374 was killed.

 

Anyone know where we can hire a lobbyist for a hundred thousand or so to stack the RTS System with against entries?

 

There's no more public testimony Don?

 

Regardless whether there is more public comment, you can still email all the legislators listed in the email blasts of 2/2/19 and 2/28/19 registering your opposition to this bill. You can present your arguments against the bill using your keyboard as well as giving oral testimony. However, I believe that face to face testimony from long time Sun City resident(s) with factual data would prove to be more convincing.

If needed, I can post all those email addresses here.

 

The email addresses follow below.

As for RTS opportunities, I could not find the next scheduled session on SB1094.

jkavanagh@azleg.gov,
kpayne@azleg.gov,
wblackman@azleg.gov ,
wpetersen@azleg.gov,
bthorpe@azleg.gov,
btoma@azleg.gov,
iblanc@azleg.gov,
ddegrazia@azleg.gov,
despinoza@azleg.gov,
jjermaine@azleg.gov,
lsierra@azleg.gov,
sallen@azleg.gov,
lalston@azleg.gov,
sborrelli@azleg.gov,
sbowie@azleg.gov,
pboyer@azleg.gov,
dbradley@azleg.gov,
kbrophymcgee@azleg.gov,
hcarter@azleg.gov,
lcontreras@azleg.gov,
adalessandro@azleg.gov,
kfann@azleg.gov,
dfarnsworth@azleg.gov,
efarnsworth@azleg.gov,
sgonzales@azleg.gov,
dgowan@azleg.gov,
rgray@azleg.gov,
skerr@azleg.gov,
vleach@azleg.gov,
dlivingston@azleg.gov,
jmendez@azleg.gov,
jmesnard@azleg.gov,
tnavarrete@azleg.gov,
lotondo@azleg.gov,
tpace@azleg.gov,
jpeshlakai@azleg.gov,
fpratt@azleg.gov,
mquezada@azleg.gov,
rrios@azleg.gov,
vsteele@azleg.gov,
mugenti-rita@azleg.gov

 

I do not know of any opportunities currently to speak publicly on 1094. Good ideas on contacting your legislatures now before the bill available on RTS. Thank you SCR for posting the list House Reps. If not too much trouble, will you post senate list as well. As information, the RCSC with the help of their lobbyist will post a thousand RTS responses FOR 1094 when it comes up for a vote. The vote on HB 2374 was 35 for 25 against 1 nv and was down party lines. Not time to throw in the towel!