More of a carp's view of Sun City history

Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by carptrash, Aug 13, 2019.

  1. carptrash

    carptrash Active Member

    I am not worried about getting too many suggestions if you are not concerned about me not following them.
     
    Emily Litella likes this.
  2. carptrash

    carptrash Active Member

    Okay if I can get a good picture. More likely, if I can find one, a sign noting that Sun City is the "City of Volunteers." Maybe there is one on Thunderbird? Peoria?
     
  3. carptrash

    carptrash Active Member

    Thanks, I think I'll look over my bingo pictures at St. Someone church - that will appear in my pictures later as "Kassie's birthday." (I am working at that set now.) Please keep in mind that this (my additions to the wikipedia article on Sun City) is not a promo piece for RCSC but a glimpse into what life here is. I am going to the library at Bell shortly for my volunteer shift and might slip into the nearby billiards room, though it would be good to go when it is well populated. I wonder what time some club meets there?
     
  4. Well a few thoughts here on this thread.

    Regarding Duffeeland, I believe that there was a little Chicago style funny business regarding the purchase whereas the real estate agent handling this matter happened to be a Board Director who obviously collected a commission for this transaction. Certainly a really big conflict of interest, which nothing was done by RCSC, but sleazy actions by Board Directors ignored by management and the Board is nothing new.

    I will probably be outing myself here but I was Director at the time and that meeting, as Bill stated, paved the way for the dog club. Aside from dog owners wanting longer hours in the summer coupled with residents behind the park complaining about noise, things did work out in the end.

    As for the Phase 1 dog park, management took the line that until Duffeeland was sorted out, we could not take on another dog park. Well it has been sorted out for years, I brought it up again at a work session, of course no one was interested in discussing and management said that was that. Guess for future action we have to storm the barricades at the obtuse confusing Board meetings for something that has already been approved, unless there is some mysterious Board policy concerning statute of limitations.

    As for Trent Franks, since I arrived in SC in 2005, I immediately judged him as the ultimate back bencher of extremely low intelligence and a coward. I say that as all the abortion restrictions passed by the House of Representatives was authored by him, but had his fellow Rep and chippy, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduce the bills, giving him cover. His successor, Debbie Lesko is no better and I have made no bones that she is just a Koch Brothers lobbyist masquerading as a Representative.

    That should cover things for now.

    Facts are not biased.
     
    carptrash likes this.
  5. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    I hate to sound clueless, but when we bought Duffeeland, my memory is we dealt directly with Bob Knight, the owner. I don’t think we paid a commission to anyone. Had we, it would have been an issue of conflict of interest.
     
    carptrash likes this.
  6. CMartinez

    CMartinez Well-Known Member

    I, too, suspected a fly in the ointment, as it was the realtor who brought forward the possible purchase of Duffeeland. The realtor even stated, more than once, he was representing the owner of the park. This same realtor also was involved with sale negotiations and the price of the property. I remember saying something about this happening all of a sudden, just as we approve a dog park in phase 1. Duffeeland is a block from the same realtors house and he advised us all he regularly used Duffeeland to walk his own pet.

    As I recall, we were starting a board meeting, and the realtor walked in and stated to all of us, I've got great news, I found a better dog park, and its already built. Bob Knight approached me about a possible sale of the property to the RCSC." That statement right there indicates to me, there was an involvement beyond just a coincidence.
     
    carptrash likes this.
  7. carptrash

    carptrash Active Member

    So is this one of those "We'll-never-know" sorts of things?
     
  8. CMartinez

    CMartinez Well-Known Member

    Carp, so sorry for the hijack, never intended to derail your message or post. There are so many instances of things said and done which were neither appropriate or in one case, legal. One of these days, when I feel really bold and want to entirely cleanse my memories of board room antics, I'll let everyone know ahead of time. For now, I hang onto the vague and fading memories like old aches and pains. You experienced them, you wouldn't want to have them again, and most of all, you feel badly for those who had to suffer with you. The members of the RCSC are the real losers in all of these backroom deals, but alas, that is a different story for another day.

    Again, so sorry for the hijack, I will go back to keeping to myself as much as possible, and allow the professionals to keep things orderly.
     
    carptrash likes this.
  9. carptrash

    carptrash Active Member

     
  10. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    I will be the first to admit, i don't have the best memory. I also tend to drift on topics, and i find it less obtrusive than most. Discussions are just that.

    For the record, and for my piece of mind, my recollections of Duffeland are the following: Bob Knight was sick and wanting to sell. Before C started the push for the dog park in phase 1, the RCSC had shown virtually no interest in it. Once agreeing to build a new park behind the softball field, one of the board members who happened to be a real estate agent and who used Duffeeland brought the idea before the board to buy it. Suddenly the collective mindset was it may be a good idea. Said board member found an appraiser who said the property was worth more than double what we would be paying Bob Knight. Sorry, still don't think there was a commission paid to an agent, though we did pay for the appraisal.

    All of which made the decision to buy it more palatable for most of the board members. It also provided an easy out for the park in phase 1, though it was never passed on that premise. Once we owned it, the folks living behind the park (2 guys really) started pounding on the RCSC to close it or police it better or whatever their goal was. The board used the argument for cover (pushed by management) to drop the plans on the phase 1 park until we/they found a viable solution to all the whining.

    The users of the park provided the solution that best served every ones needs. A club would be formed and the they do their best to control what was going on inside the fence. Upgrades were made and the park has worked out better than most of the non-dog people expected. There was a brief time when we had a monitor there and if memory serves me, the carded attendance was greater than the number of golfers on the newly opened North course during the month or so trial with a monitor (users hated it by the way).

    That's my story, and i am sticking to it. Unless someone can prove me wrong.
     
    carptrash likes this.
  11. carptrash

    carptrash Active Member

    It's a good story and makes me feel good about almost every aspect of the event except . . .......... but no need to go there.
    Today.
     
  12. CMartinez

    CMartinez Well-Known Member

    Bill,

    The dog park at the drainage area was passed and approved by the board. There were even preliminary plans for the park to include a large and small dog park, water, and fencing. It was after the addition of Duffeeland that the excuses started. No further development of the now called 2nd dog park until all of the effects of the first dog park were ironed out. As I remember it, at one of the public meetings, there was a gentleman that offered to help lead and host a dog club at the 2nd park.

    That is when we were told, by the GM, she had received two calls about a dog park going into the basin, and they were not happy. When questioned who the two people were, there was no clear answer. What else is new.

    We had presentations delivered about the look of the new park as well. There was going to be two sides, one for large dogs, and another for small pooches. there was also going to be water onsite as well. I wish I had kept the copies of the records and the approved vote, because a far as I know the vote was never negated and there are still approved plans to build that park.
     
    carptrash likes this.
  13. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Not disputing your memory of the dog park in phase 1, i think your assessments are spot on. My concerns were the suggestion a board member benefited by virtue of handling the purchase of Duffeeland. Had that been the case, every board member would have been guilty of a breach of their fiduciary obligations under state and or federal statutes. I spent the later parts of my work life teaching trustees about situational ethics and there's no question had that happened we would have all been in violation. The board member had some connections, but the purchase was between Bob Knight and the RCSC.
     
    carptrash likes this.
  14. CMartinez

    CMartinez Well-Known Member

    I agree Bill, the purchase was between Bob Knight and the RCSC. The whole timing of Duffeeland being brought out was always suspicious to me that's all.
     
    carptrash likes this.
  15. carptrash

    carptrash Active Member

    Suspicion is good so long as not everything looks so.
    I added a Duffeeland shot to the Sun City, Arizona wikipedia article, NOT taken during summer
    and
    before they cut most of the shade down. (grumble, grumble)
     

Share This Page