Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by CMartinez, Feb 2, 2020.
Hey Carp, this picture more reminds me of what should be the fire lit under the management team. LOL
Yes, read the posting right before my picture.
Communities nationwide concluded 20+ years ago that DPs are good for both the dogs and their humans. Duffyland provides both an exercise and social outlet for both dogs and their humans. For some of our more elderly residents, Duffyland IS their only active lifestyle and, in many cases, their only social outlet too, other than their doctor's office. Many SC dog owners avoid the DP -- they have many reasons, but the ones I hear most often seem to be the owner wants the walk themselves, their dogs don't like other dogs, the fear of disease spreading, no grass, mixed big/little dogs, area too small, etc., etc. A better DP amenity could resolve many of these issues for many non-participants, but clearly one size will never fit all.
Duffyland is about 1.2 acres, give or take, and while the number of dogs at any given time ebbs and flows throughout the day, there often are 20-30 dogs there at once. That's roughly and area 40x40 feet for each dog, which is plenty if they were all small/medium sized dogs and no humans. But there are humans, and a range of dogs from chihuahua to 100lb plus dogs in the park, all at the same time, all off leash, all coexisting without issues. But there's really not enough room when the number of large dogs is high. There's nothing for the dogs to do but run at Duffyland -- no agility structures/apparatus and no areas large enough/well suited for ball and Frisbee workouts. When the park gets crowded to a certain point running dogs collide with the humans, sometimes causing falls/injury. I'd guesstimate someone every couple weeks gets knocked over, usually unharmed but there have been some significantly skinned knees, bruised elbows and wrists, broken phones, etc..
The idea put forth by some that Duffyland alone is sufficient for our SC community cannot possibly be based on any demonstrable facts. There are far to many variables involved -- number of dogs, size of dogs, size of park, park amenities, and probably a dozen other metrics which I'd guess have never been considered by the Corporation. We do know there is a sizable group of proponents for having DPs, and some nay-sayers, too. And we could say the same about many of our SC amenities, couldn't we -- Golf, to name one. I'd guess the number of households with dogs is greater than the number with golfers. I'm sure others disagree, but they can't avoid the reality that both dog owners and golfers are sizable in number, as in many thousands. That's Sizable! Yet the golf operation is readily funded and expanded, year after year -- and the DP isn't. The pools get remodeled -- and the DP doesn't. The Corporation buys property and spends millions on renovating facilities to accommodate clubs with at most few hundred members -- and the DP, with thousands of prospective user, nada! Well, over the years, most of what we've heard from the Corporation is "there's no place to put one", or "the residents adjacent don't want it there". Well, I say let the Corporation buy something if they don't like the options many of us have suggested over the past 15-years. Hell, many on the board haven't lived hear long enough to even know what I'm talking about, but that no excuse. The Corporation's Articles of Incorporation are clear...
I don't know how the board can continue avoiding first class DPs, especially to the membership's owners of 10,000 dogs, and especially given the huge budgets the Corporation is spending on facilities which benefit clubs and interest groups with member-numbers in the mere hundreds or less. Shame on the board, and especially, shame on the GM. It's time they stop the BS excuses, stop ignoring the issue. There very charter says they exist to solve the problem, not ignore it!
Unfortunately the board became so golf-centric there was no room for legitimate discussion about the rest of the short-comings we have. It's why we are now trying to play catch up. When we missed moving on the Lakes Club, we lost the ability to add 38,000 square feet of much needed space. Instead we bought a piece of property several years later that is just as expensive and inferior by 10 fold to what we might have had. Our Life Long Learning in the late 70's was 1400 residents strong, now we have 300. The theater we have talked about for 30 to 40 years, is still in the talking stages. Our use of technology is an abomination.
It was why the GM pushed the board to dump the Long Range Planning committee. They were in the way because they wanted to look at the big picture and that was problematic. It is why i will go to my grave disappointed in how we (the board) sat on our hands and watched the train wreck unfold. Yes, we needed to get our heads around the water use on golf courses, Viewpoint lake and the drainage issue but it all should have been part and parcel of a true long range master plan. But what the hell do i know eh?
Just got back from the BOD meeting, and stated what I knew to be true, which is there is already an approved motion to build a 2nd dog, so there is no need to refer it to the LRP, or do any more investigating, as it is already a done deal. Secretary Lehrer asked when the motion was approved and I stated the year I thought it was.
On an additional note, I also nominated Kat Fimmel as a replacement to Diana Greattinger, who will be leaving due to her extreme case of Valley Fever. I feel Kat has the knowledge and skills this board needs to be turned around technologically, as well as being kept honest.. I hope the board's great disdain for me does not smear Kat's chances.
CM, I certainly hope not in lieu of some previous Board member retread, as I believe we would be out of the running due to our “bad attitude.”
How’s that supremacy of statute working out for them?
And the BoD did not seem thrilled.
Separate names with a comma.