I'm intentionally choosing this venue to post these questions instead of another social media forum (e.g. Facebook, NextDoor) because I've found the constituents here to be more informed, logical critical thinkers who are also thoughtful when interacting. My questions aren't at all centered around whether or not Sun City should allow underage residents(<19). I think it's very clear that nearly 100% of residents (myself included) are not supportive of that and we have CC&Rs specifically outlining restrictions related to minors. I fully appreciate this is a hot-button issue and there are vicsceral, often rabid, emotional reactions to the mere suggestion of even one child living here. BUT....shouldn't we expect age variance requests or violations?? Of course we should! And, quite frankly, the SCHOA should have a clear governance process for variance requests, approvals/denials, violation reporting, and enforcement. I see this group/board point out the well-demonstrated dysfunction of the previous RCSC board of directors but there is much more grace for deficiencies with the SCHOA. I've been a SC homeowner for 18 months and there have been 3 very public, very contested age variance requests. Frankly, there seems to be zero transparency about the SCHOA role and level of authority related to considering age variances or enforcing violations. Instead, it appears to me, they've relied on the emotional reactions of the citizens to point the proverbial gun at those who choose to challenge the rules while shielding themselves behind those reactions vs. taking a leadership role in defining and enforcing their own CC&Rs. Admittedly, many of the violators have brought this on themselves through fraud and blatant disregard for the community rules they agreed to. However, we should've expected that as a city of our size..... Enter this newest complaint that, using discernment, I see differently. Because I like to start from a place of trust, I'm going to assume the facts the homeowner have provided are accurate. If they aren't, I'd STRONGLY encourage the SCHOA to publicly correct the inaccuracies. The homeowner stated she met with the SCHOA before buying the property to seek a variance for her minor son. She reports the SCHOA recused themselves stating it wasn't their jurisdiction and deferred the decision to her condo association. WHAT?????? There are other complexities in this situation (i.e. potential ADA protections, condo HOA seeking legal opinion and eventually "not opposing" her son living with her) but my questions are specifically about the SCHOA role in all of this. One of the only stated responsibilities I've heard for SCHOA tied to all of this (from Bill Pearson, one of their best ambassadors) is monitoring and recording compliance with the 80% requirement. In my opinion, the SCHOA should be providing clarity as to their role, the legal hierarchy, decision making rights, process to request variances or report violations, consequences for violations, potential affect on age overlay and current SC compliance with age overlay, difference between SC and Youngtown situation, etc. In the absence of this clarity, much of the community has adopted a draconian "all or nothing", apocalyptic mindset that if a single child is living here, we'll lose the age overlay, be forced to incorporate, form and fund our own police agencies, build a school infrastructure and fund public schools in our taxes, etc. Yes, I'm slightly (and only slightly) exaggerating but you get the point. The reality is there will likely be an age variance exception eventually approved (perhaps this one due to ADA law).....do we really want the community to unravel because, in the absence of SCHOA clarity, they've believed all these inaccuracies and don't understand the true age overlay isn't threatened with a single variance. Fear and paranoia typically aren't the basis for a mature, healthy, and high-functioning society. Do better, SCHOA -- step in, educate, and lead! My apologies for the length -- brevity isn't my strong suit! I would also regret if my passion around this created a tone that unnecessarily ruffles feathers. My sincere hope is teeing up a healthy dialogue, not creating division without purpose.
Welcome SC Phx GenX.I'll be the last person to be critical of too many words. The reality is you can't discuss the problems without being able to articulate and define them. You've done a masterful job of spelling it out across the board. The snippets allowed on social media sites never is enough to get into the weeds and have mature discussions from both points of view; and to be really clear there are always multiples. If i could recommend one quick fix for SCHOA, it would be to take a page from our rebuild in 2006. They need to get their head around several questions resonating around the community. Here's a short list: 1). The relationship between the condos and SCHOA. 2). What they can enforce and what they can't (and why they can't). 3). As you noted, the stark differences between Youngtown and Sun City. 4). The likelihood of becoming incorporated. 5). The likelihood of being placed in a school district. 6). Exactly how the age restrictions work. 7). Why membership will never be mandatory. In 2006, the community was very angry with us (SCHOA). Membership was abysmal and we were getting ripped in the newspaper every day (back when the Daily News Sun published daily) and in the Independent weekly. We decided to rebuild from the ground up and in plain site. Better yet, we asked for the communities help. We published a magazine entitled "Compliance Matters." We dropped it on every door step (including condos), and by years end membership had increased by 30% (6000 to 9000). We had some 75 violations, some two years old we had let skate. We went after the most egregious ones and cleaned them all up. Members knew we meant business and quickly fixed the violations. SCHOA needs to begin a public relations/education campaign immediately. I would address every issue listed above and others i haven't mentioned. I would hire their attorney (who is brilliant) and have her oversee the project. Clarity is an amazing tool to begin to shut down the comments on social media that aren't true and only make matters worse. Home owners need to know the truth of what is and what isn't reality. Telling members and home owners the facts and not some bull shit goes a long way to quelling the anxiety. I cannot begin to tell you how many comments i have read that are just wrong. In my humble opinion, SCHOA has put way too much emphasis on their vendor program and their educational seminars and not enough on the reason they exist...enforcing the CC&R's. While the other stuff is a nice value added (sometimes), they really have to understand how frustrated the community is. Most of the anger is steeped in how little they know, and the feeding frenzy that happens on social media platforms. BYW, i have started to have this conversation with some SCHOA folks and i suspect you will see some attitudes be reshaped by what is happening within the community. Again, welcome and thanks for starting the conversation. Lots of work to be done.
It seems to me that SCHOA has and continues to drop the ball. Bill, does each condo association have the authority to issue variances regarding the age overlay? And why doesn’t SCHOA have the authority to enforce violations? And now I read about a new garage that was built that apparently is a blatant violation of the CC&R’s. Is there a lack of leadership in that organization or what is the problem?
A couple of different topics and both have been given varying responses Larry. First off, regarding condos, they do have their own CC&R's and at least one of them said they could sell to whomever they wanted to. The reality is each association is run by the owners/residents and functions under Title 33. There are strict obligations under state statute as far as voting and passing changes to their documents. The likelihood of them wanting to dump their protections provided by the age overlay is slim and none. I suspect in the case causing the latest shit storm the board took a very passive position given how close the woman was to her "child" reaching 19. As i noted on a social media site, SCHOA yearly reports that age overlay percentage to both the state and feds and it includes both single family homes attached housing. Obviously they have jurisdiction on the overlay when they have to include them in the reporting. There are other issues where the condo's CC&R's are enforced by the their own association. The bigger issue is the ADA claim. It's a new wrinkle we always knew was a possibility we might face someday. Not sure why the woman wanted to raise her teen-age son in a community with no other kids around him; other than it's an inexpensive place to live. The good news is with her being over 55, the property is in fact included in the homes counted in the percentage of properties being age appropriate. So it has no negative impact on the 80/20 requirement. Plus there's zero concern regarding us being shoved into a school district. The garage question is more tricky. This is where SCHOA needs to be abundantly clear: As long as the owners satisfy the set-backs in the CC&R's and meet all of the requirements set by the county (in their permitting) they can build it. You know Jim Hunter (former SCHOA president) led the drive to rewrite the "clarifications," which included the suggestion by their attorney the height of the garage could be no higher than the original height of the house. That way it wouldn't be a new CC&R, truly just a clarification. So you know, their attorney told us to pass new CC&R's would take 100% approval while the clarifications would take 50% plus 1 in each of the 50 plus units across the community. Hopefully someday SCHOA will restart that effort. Part of the problem was self-inflicted as a SCHOA board or two passed clarifications that weren't enforceable. While they sounded good, if and when push came to shove they had no teeth. So we are clear, the legally passed CC&R's are 100% able to be enforced and SCHOA has standing to take violators to court. Their goal is not to do that but when there is no choice they will do it. Hope that helps clarify. SCHOA just needs to become more vocal and more visible in what they can do, and what they can't do. Hence the suggestion for a community magazine addressing all of the issues i mentioned above.
I agree totally. Thanks for posting. I wrote a Letter to Editor of Independent trying to calm people down but it probably didn't meet their "civility" requirement Regarding garage, current CCR's already state "garage or carport may not exceed roof line of residence" (Section 5, Board resolution clarification 5-25-2011) so I'm not sure what's going on with that.
Just to clarify the ADA/school district issue: Students with disabilities are eligible for special education services until age 21 or when they have graduated from high school. There are transition programs that teach the students life and job skills past high school. Usually that is a choice of the parents whether to take advantage of K-12 programs. This is mandated by the federal law IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). At one of the Special Education Law Conferences that I attended, one lawyer stated that IDEA is the second most litigated federal law. Judges have typically ruled in favor of parents/students. Fortunately there usually is just a change of programming, not monetary damages awarded. So, my point is that a 19 year old may still be attending public school through the school year when he/she turns 21. Most states allow students to attend public schools until age 21 even if they don't have a disability. Not sure about Arizona.
I knew the brain trust on this forum would be much more capable of an adult conversation (no offense to the very passionate albeit undiscerning, often ill-informed chorus on Facebook and NextDoor). BPearson – I appreciate the additional context and history with SCHOA. It sounds like there is a good foundation to build upon…. and I’m encouraged. Being a newbie here in SC, I seriously started to wonder if the SCHOA vision was self-governance. And, the obvious problem with that idealistic fantasy is that it won’t work. What also won’t work is governing half of the society (e.g., single family homes but not condos). That approach will be even less effective and escalate the mob mentality and community division we are already seeing. It left a bloody mess in Salem, Massachusetts and likely wouldn’t fare much better here. The hard reality is people need rules and governance. The steps you outline seem like a perfect start and something that should be pursued sooner rather than later. This deafening silence from the SCHOA will contribute to an even harder uphill climb and longer time to recovery. Please let us know how we can support these actions. I posted anonymously here but am willing to put my rocks down (ha!) and come out of the shadow, if it would be helpful for them to understand community sentiment. Jeb – appreciate your advocacy attempt with the newspaper –I empathize with how hard it is to just sit-back and watch an ill-informed community start to implode. As somewhat a “crusader” myself, I understand the compulsion to try to help. There is an imminent need and opportunity for SCHOA to clarify, educate, and lead so our community is better!
Hey Jeb: Not sure if you watch much 7 card stud poker on TV but for those that do, a great bluff is fascinating. A player holding a 2-5 nothing pushing it all in and watching the guy holding aces holding aces folding. That was in fact what those "clarifications" were; an effort to get home owners to do something that wasn't initially stated (at least clearly enough to take to court and win). I mentioned above SCHOA has an exceptional attorney they use and have for 20 plus years. She understands HOA state statues as well or better than most, it is her sole function as an attorney. I also mentioned Jim Hunter who is easily the best SCHOA president in a very long time. He is smart, well spoken, well written and has a self-deprecating sense of humor. Most importantly he was brutally honest with the membership. He became president after 3 or 4 years of being a compliance officer. He knew and understood up close and personal the challenges of trying to enforce "clarifications" that had no teeth. Bluffs only work when the other guy folds. As president, his goal was to address the changes that could legally be made and then pass them with a community vote. The attorney explained the significance and differences of new CC&R's versus clarifications that expanded on what the old ones said. Her point was simple, have the community approve them and they would standup in court. I worked on the committee and watched in awe as Jim responded to each and every email from members (200-300 of them). He was straight forward in his answers and didn't try to blow smoke up people's ass. It was refreshing to a fault and to this day we are still friends. I know many who think i am a jerk because there's seldom a doubt in what i say to people. Effective communication comes with total clarity. Jim was a man cut from the same cloth, perhaps a touch more personable. Every problem Sun City has/faces can be dealt with. Unfortunately little gets resolved by a handful of well meaning members, it takes a community to make it all work. It's exactly why the move to adopting the "Original Fun City" was such a gross misstep. As far as the age violation, the woman in question has posted the link several times regarding her "rights under the ADA" and the applicable court case; if you haven't read it, you should, at least before you beat your chest and tell her she is wrong. Having read the case, she may be right. The problem for me is understanding why she would want to put her and her son in such an uncomfortable situation. She did explain it this way, "where else can i live so cheaply?" Kind of says it all.
The gist of this argument is really plain and simple regardless of how the ruling comes down. Both pieces of legislation, the ADA and the Fair Housing Act refer to equal treatment. Neither grant prefer preferential treatment or access. Nobody under 19 can live in Sun City.
No matter what agency is cited in defense of this Mother’s actions, the key ingredient is the child is underage and the mother is expecting preferential treatment, not fair or equal treatment. If you think our reaction is over the top, so be it.
But Larry, that's just not true. It appears the original poster was trying to counter false statements just like that. If you didn't believe what Bill wrote, the CCR's explicitly state exceptions can be made (#2 Housing for Older Person; Age Restriction, Section 2a: "The Association may grant variances from the above restrictions..."). Wasn't this post trying to dispel inaccuracies just like you wrote?? Yes, almost everyone wants to keep status. We can, and apparently have for a long time, by granting exceptions where SCHOA deems ok to keep us at 80%. Why is that such a problem?
How can you say it’s not true? You cannot have a person under the age of 19 living with you. She received preferential treatment, not equal treatment.
Jeb is correct that battling misinformation and, quite frankly, an unwillingness for some people to consider facts is precisely what I was attempting to address originally. I wasn't intending to provoke yet another debate about whether we should allow this underage child to live here. There is plenty of that happening already. Rather, my point with this post was (and remains) concern with the rampant misinformation being shared due to a lack of clarity and/or possibly emotion-fueled blindness. I believe Jeb cited the "how" it can happen -- the SCHOA CCR's allow for variances as long as the 80% compliance is maintained. Should we do it is entirely another question that I wasn't intending to tackle here. I agree with Mr. Pearson that Marciopa County is the right decision maker on this matter. We can all use our voices to lend support or opposition but it is ultimately their call. Debating here is not fruitful, in my humble opinion.
