“Competition”

Honestly, I did not mean to infer that you were suggesting the RCSC was correct. I have no doubt that the events happened as you say they did. Someone with authority states something as fact and, without fact checking, it becomes perceived as fact. I just wanted to point out that there may be an alternative view of the QR deed restrictions.

I thought your post was great, SCR and enjoyed reading your viewpoints.

 

I remember it differently -- maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall perpetuity having anything to do with it. My recollection is the pro golf community and the board ran a seemingly sham survey of (mostly) golfers which overwhelmingly voted to not pursue alternatives for QR -- and the board promptly quashed further discussion. AFAIK, the RCSC has not done a proper survey of the general membership about anything in the past 20-years. By proper, I mean a statistically random sample of sufficient members to conclude anything. I often wonder if my suspicion is true that half the membership makes almost no use of RCSC amenities. Title 33 would expose such truths.

As to 5% understanding Title 33, I'd wager the actual number is less -- and the same is likely also true for Title 10 -- ie, they don't know much of anything very factual about it. But through lots of hearsay and misinformation spewed by the past boards and management, 5% or better probably does believe that Title 33 is "bad" and Title 10 is good. SCW's progressive embrace of the key concepts of T33 is proof that the the SC naysayers are wrong.

CM is right, IMHO, "The magician behind the giant curtain needs to be exposed and have the entire operation open for review by the community." Only then will the membership understand how the board and management have effectively taken almost all power from the membership. And so, if/when costs escalate disproportionate to benefit for lower use amenities we will be stuck paying with little hope of recourse.

 

IC –

I was being generous with the 5% and I’m sure there will be others who have a different opinion. The point is that little to nothing is known about Title 33 or 10 by the community at large.



Title 33 is really a separate issue and should have its own thread, but I would just like to mention that the Title 33 issue came up as long ago as 2016. Since that time there has been no examination/discussion of Title 33. If I remember correctly, there was plenty of opposition to it and mainly because of perceived costs in being placed under Title 33. What are the perceived costs? Are they costs to the residents to Sun City? Are they costs to RCSC? What is the amount of the costs? Will those costs break the RCSC bank account? Will residents go homeless because of an extra cost to them? What objections if any does the board have against Title 33? These questions and many more need to be answered by someone fully qualified to answer them. Perhaps someone from SCW can answer these and more questions but the issue of Title 33 must be thoroughly examined and the results published to the community at large.

I am sure the RCSC board and its lawyers have looked at this issue and have and are making plans regarding 33.



Opinions expressed here previously about 33 are really just that – opinions (and everybody is entitled to their opinion). Without knowledgeable individuals chiming in, those reading this board will never know the pros and cons of each and how 33 will affect them.



I do believe you are correct when you say “AFAIK, the RCSC has not done a proper survey of the general membership about anything in the past 20-years.”. I do remember statements on this board or its predecessor to the effect that sending out surveys or voting forms through the US Mail would be cost prohibitive. Come on, how cost prohibitive is it? With the money RCSC has in the bank I’m quite sure they can afford an occasional survey. Also, the postal service does have reduced rates for certain mailings. I believe this was an excuse by the board to keep the community in the dark. I also believe the board has no real interest in hearing from its members. The consensus on this board is that the board has taken control of Sun City. I contend that the residents have unknowingly given up their control by lack of any participation in board meetings or member exchange meetings. Watch the posted videos and check the number of folks in attendance. I’m not a math person, but I would bet that participation at these events is less than 1/10th of 1% of the population of Sun City. Participation at these meetings will never grow as the only mention I see of them is posted here on this site and maybe on the suncityaz.org site. This site has pretty much the same 10 to 15 posters year after year. I don’t have stats on the number of visitors to the suncityaz.org site and where those visitors are from. Probably most are not from the general community.

 

It is an interesting and most assuredly a circular discussion within a small group of participants. So why bother? Because without it, we simply leave it to the powers that be to do more and more of the same. It's okay, i've always chased windmills and while there is an amount of futility attached, it is better than doing nothing. And so you know, board members and staff read this site. Ignorance may be bliss for some, but at least the potential to reach people is worth the effort.

The reality of Title 33 is pretty simple and my friend Ben summarized pretty succinctly one day over coffee: Most organizations and government bodies function under some state open governance laws and they do just fine with them. Bang, how simple is that, when you know that is the process, that is the process you follow. RCSC has long held it is easier and cheaper to be under Title 10, and while that may be true, it most definitely isn't in the best interest of the community at large. Being able to do what you want with little or no repercussions or anyone holding you accountable is always better for those in charge.

Here's the perfect case in point and as long as SCR has joined the parade, i will drag him and his knowledge into it. Several years back the RCSC leased solar panels for 15 or more of their properties. Excellent move from my perspective, in that it was progressive, had the potential to reduce costs and provided covered parking. All good so far eh? They had to lease because as a non-profit, they did not qualify for rebates or incentives. It was an arduous process and almost broke down several times. Finally the deal was done and as they went up, the covered parking became almost a bigger deal than the long term reduction is energy costs.

While still on the board, we approved the buyout of our lease 60 or 66 months in (this year). It was going to cost us about 4.5 million dollars but the savings once we owned would far outweigh continuing the lease. A year or two back that buyout went from 4.5 to 5.5 million dollars. In most cases, heads would have rolled over a million dollar error. Except, this is a non-profit where those kinds of errors can just be shoveled under the rug. But wait, there's more and this is where SCR can speak out. Seems the inverters on some of the systems have just plain been crap. The beauty of a lease is, those problems belong to the company owning them, not the lessee. Or at least so we all thought. Now there's rumors the agreement doesn't say that, hence the crappy inverters that are outright broken or functioning poorly are our responsibility.

Mind you, i'm citing this from off the cuff, so my facts may be off, that's why i am inviting SCR to jump in, or perhaps one of current or recently departed board members jumping in here with better or more accurate facts. The point is, under Title 33, all of this would be easily accessible and we wouldn't be sitting out here speculating on whether it's true or not. And when information is front and center, rather than buried, boards tend to be more proactive in dealing with matters that affect the community.

 

BP – the knowledge I have of the solar installations in Sun City is pretty much what you state here. My only argument against the solar project was that it was leased from the get go. Leasing may be fine for a vehicle, as you have the option to turn it in in 3 years and get a new vehicle. From what I know of people who have leased solar, their bills are only slightly lower or probably the same as they were before they had solar. Are you saying that buying out the lease in 60 to 66 months gained RCSC a credit? RCSC probably overpaid for a lease which cost them money in the long run. Buying it out now does make good sense, but how much more money would have been saved if the systems were bought outright excluding the 1M increase in buyout costs?



Has there been any data/statistics collected and maintained on savings obtained due to solar as compared to what electric expenses were before solar?



As for 10 Vs. 33, I’m still waiting to hear from anyone acutely familiar with the cost of each. I keep hearing that 33 is going to cost us money but no one has said how much. Is the cost of openness that extravagant that we cannot afford it? Which brings up another point. I’ve read as many documents that I can and can find no guarantee that once you buy in Sun City your daily, weekly, monthly and yearly costs for anything will never go up. Rising costs are a fact of life and they will continue to rise for the remainder of your life. I’ve also heard the arguments that Sun City is not an affluent community. At one time, that may have had some validity. Today, however, if you look around the community you will see individual house renovations everywhere, solar being installed on some house on every street in Sun City, multiple vehicles in garages and driveways, and high end vehicles replacing 5,10, 15, and 20 year old vehicles.



I do believe that talking about the issues covered in this thread is a good idea, but nothing is going to change in Sun City until you can get the masses involved in the governing of their community. How do you do that? I wish I knew.

 

It would not have been cost effective to buy the solar outright. As a non-profit, we would not have benefited from the write-off or incentives that private individuals got who file taxes. The federal government was trying to encourage solar instillation with these incentives so the only way for us to get them was to lease and then buy them out as soon as possible. Our tax liabilities as a non-profit are wholly different than a private citizen.

Here's the two areas where there were costs associated with Title 33 that i am aware of: 1). In some cases there's an obligation to notify by mail those affected. An inconvenience and a cost, but only marginally so given our 22 million dollar yearly budget. 2). This is the one ARS was drooling over; the penalties for non-compliance under Title 33 make it much easier to sue the organization than under Title 10. Following the statutes under 33 is mandatory where Title 10 is far more discretionary. Whatever the arguments against it, quickly dissolve when you see that Sun City West has been able to embrace it and make it work for them

Reduce it to this: If i was running the community, i would want to be under Title 10. As a resident, i would be more comfortable knowing they had to follow Title 33. Really pretty simple.

 

So what incentives are we getting by buying out the contract now? Yes, you will be getting savings, but you would have gotten them anyway if you purchased to begin with.;

 

Title 33 would be a start since it will pull back the curtain and expose information/actions that serve special interests/factions within the community unequally/secretly. Under T33 it is much more difficult for a board to be secretive and autocratic. The affluent side of SC doesn't much care about costs so long as they get the amenities they want. The side of SC living SS check to SS check cares a lot about cost and less about amenities. A community cannot sustain itself as a community over the long term if it seeks to operate in a position other than the middle ground between these extremes.

I can't deny that, but not everywhere. Look around a little more closely and you will see another side of SC. I personally know a number of people living in SC on less than $1000/month -- at the extreme, one told me they have $300 a month to live on after paying taxes, assoc. fees, and utilities. I can't comprehend that, but I believe it. The person gets rides to the senior centers and food banks for free groceries, no medical care, Goodwill and thrift stores for clothing, etc. Owners in this situation won't be renovating or even maintaining their property. These low income households aren't all housebound widows -- many are couples who moved here because they could survive here.

Member mass involvement used to be much more common, albeit not always focused on what was best for SC overall. When I moved to SC I asked why people didn't get more involved -- universally I heard "why bother -- they (the RCSC) do what the golfers and bowlers want and ignore the rest of us. IMHO, that's still pretty true today. As I see it, significant involvement hasn't been possible for well over 20-years because the board/management power grabbed by changed the rules to pretty much preclude member involvement... eg, changing the quorum to a relatively unachievable number, rewriting policies and changing and "interpreting" the bylaws to disarm member activism, neutering and eventually disbanding member driven committees, etc. Sure, there are member exchange meetings, etc., but often the board is just paying lip service so they can claim they sought member input when in reality they had already decided on their course of action based on special interest and/or management's wishes. Since a member meeting to effect change is no longer reasonably possible, a lawsuit is the only avenue of real change. The Corporation knows it has $millions to fight individuals who don't have $millions-- so they know they can outlast most court challenges. T33 might change that.