Could we look like bigger schmucks than this?

"C. The association may charge the member a fee of not more than an aggregate of four hundred dollars to compensate the association for the costs incurred in the preparation and delivery of a statement or other documents furnished by the association pursuant to this section for purposes of resale disclosure, lien estoppel and any other services related to the transfer or use of the property." Section 1806

"A Transfer Fee shall be imposed on the purchase, acquisition, transfer, inheritance, gift or any change in ownership of legal or beneficial interest in the title to property located in Sun City, Arizona pursuant to any deed, contract for sale, will or other instrument or document transferring an interest in such property, so long as the original payer of said Transfer Fee no longer retains a majority ownership interest in the property."

What is the difference between these two statements? They both state there are fees charged for any change in the use of the property.

BTW, SWC only charges $250.oo

 

This is a little jump back in this thread, but here goes anyway...

Getting people informed is hard because a lot of residents are just not open to listening to facts. They'd rather listen to what what they think is true. Getting them involved is harder. But nothing ventured, nothing gained, eh!

What avenues exist to disseminate info? The ones I know know are...

1. Forums, etc. like this – only works for people who have an interest – nuff said.
2. Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Neighborhood, etc) – works for those that enjoy it, but you have to build a following first – so it's somewhat the same problem as the forum.
3. Newspaper, TV, Radio ads – spotty coverage and expensive unless you can make it newsworthy for free coverage. (But imagine the fun we'd have had with a Super Bowl ad, LOL)
4. Direct delivery (USPS' EDDM type mail, flyers, door hangers, etc). Of these, mail/flyers are the most expensive because they need paper, printing, and postage. Hand delivery still needs the paper/printing, but can be less than mail if volunteers are available to deliver.
5. Email – a lower cost option if you have email addresses. (I'm sure the RCSC will share theirs, eh? NOT!)

But what if we had a sufficient number of email addresses in the 85351 and 85373 zipcodes? Would it be worthwhile if we could do an affordable email blast ourselves?

I believe one can purchase (from legitimate marketing sources) email addresses by zip-code for roughly $.03 cents per address. (The lists certainly won't have everyone's email address, and they would include some some addresses for residents outside SC in area 85373.) How many addresses would we need? 1,000? 5,000? 10,000? At 3-cents each, 10,000 email addresses would cost $300 – I'd kick in a share for that in a minute! But that's not the only cost – you have to send the email. And that's not easy when the distribution list gets large.

You can't send thousands of emails from a non-commercial account without it being considered spam. (Gmail limits accounts to 500 sent emails/day). So, we'd need a dozen or more accounts and send emails out over several days, and they would need to conform to US and, perhaps, international spam laws or they rish being blocked by major email carriers like AOL, Gmail, Yahoo, etc. There are companies (eg, Constant Contact, MailChimp, etc.) who would send emails we create to addresses we supply and worry about the spam issues. Some have free accounts for small distribution lists and a limited number of total emails (e.g. Mailchimp is 500 names, 12000 emails/month). If you need more than 500, their paid accounts vary, 10,000 names might run $75-100 per month.

Undoubtedly, I've missed other alternatives, so post any you can think of. If there's interest/consensus in investigating any of these further, I'd volunteer to participate in that activity.

 

IC, what great ideas, out of the box thinking, and great ways to support the cause!! I applaud your way of thinking, which is definitely a much needed idea.

Wasn't looking to do this a repetitive event. I think doing a one time mailing through a service would be enough, and I'll share my thoughts on that.

The HB2374 is an amendment to Title 33, Chapter 16, Planned Communities. So, you ask? This indicates to me the acknowledgement of Jan Ek, the management team, but more importantly, the attorneys, that RCSC is now effectively Title 33. If there was no fear of having to conform to the PCA, there would not be an attempt to modify the PCA by way of legislation. The order, which ruled the RCSC a Planned Community, and their arguments invalid, has actually been in effect since 09-18-18.

So, rather then having a discussion as to why we should become Title 33, the argument, in my minds eye, is when will the RCSC comply with the order, and begin implementing the PCA as well as the other dimensions of Title 33. We are, indeed court ordered to be a planned community, and we should be acting like one.

So, back to HB2374. Do we need to be in contact with the residents of Sun City or Property management companies, large real estate companies, and rental agencies? The changing of the standard affects those currently under the PCA in a much greater way than it does the RCSC. Can you imagine the fallout if all of a sudden all of the developments directly affected by the PCA have to adjust or change their documents because contained within their community documents is a sentence with both "recreation" and "facilities" in the same sentence or paragraph? Do we need a push to the legislators about their big contributors and their portfolios, as those which are heavy into real estate are not going to be happy with an amendment of the State statutes, putting planned communities at odds with their holding companies and owner-occupants?

I would think it would be much easier to get a hold of email addresses for these types of companies as it is considered public information. Could the same type of emailing go out via a Mail Chimp or something similar and not be held accountable as being an agent of spam? How long do you think it would take for a process like this to take, as I am not sure when the bill comes up for a second reading, but I am quite sure it will be pushed through as an emergency legislation if it garners the approval it needs to be brought up for a vote.

So, those are my thoughts on the "getting the word out", as it is. I truly feel the management team of the RCSC knows they are bound by the Judge's ruling and are willfully and knowingly refusing to comply. More contempt of court charges against the RCSC and more costs being added for the members. I hope Jan's slush/emergency fund has enough to cover these unnecessary costs being heaped upon the RCSC.

 

Here's my nickles worth, no insider information but based on Carole's comments and the shear panic of drafting Payne to try and save the day. In my humble opinion, it won't work and the RCSC will be forced to embrace T33. Rather than doing it like they should have, they will kick and scream about how unfair it is. In the end, they will do so rather than jeopardize the rest of the case as Carole said.

Once enacted it won't be the end of the world, the RCSC will have to do their business differently and the community will be better for it. Here's the good news, the cost will be negligible.

 

One last time on my part.......the difference is "the information being disclosed". The $300.00 Transfer Fee by RCSC is for costs related to paperwork involved in changing their ownership records. The Resale Disclosure Fee of up to $400.00 is for the costs involved in supplying the information required by T33-1806 which is budget info, legal issues and a host of other items that are NOT included in the Ownership info covered by the Transfer Fee. An example would be like when you by a Condo in Sun City you pay the RCSC PIF Fee, the RCSC Transfer Fee of $300.00 plus the Condo Association Disclosure Fee that may be up to $400.00. (closed one the other day and the Disclosure Fee was $180.00). The Condo Associations are Title 33 entities.

In Sun City the Sun City Home Owners Associate does not prepare a Disclosure Report thus no disclosure fee (of up to $400.00) because they operate under Title 10 and are not required to follow the requirements in Title 33. SCHOA does charge $200 for an Inspection Report but that is for CC&R/other violation issues. That specific report has nothing to do with the disclosure report called for in Title 33.

The end result of this part of the thread is probably all for not and probably not worth discussing so I suggest we just let it die a peaceful death. At some future date when a member of this forum shows a concern about a new fee that popped up when they bought or sold in Sun City then maybe this information will be remembered.

 

Gary, please notice the first line of 1806:
33-1806. Resale of units; information required; fees; civil penalty; definition

A. For planned communities with fewer than fifty units, The wording of 1806 reads to me to be about "Associations" such as condo, townhouse, or other community association which works under the Planned Community Act documents. Just my interpretation.

 

Carol...Keep reading, don't stop where you did. Third line same sentence..."and for planned communities with fifty or more units the Association will......" basically do the same thing. The first 5 lines state that in essence small associations of 50 units or less shall have a "member" supply the report because a small association may not have staff to do the reporting whereby a planned community with more than 50 units will probably have staff so the "association" is responsible for supplying the report. It's a play on words basically as to who in the planned community is charged with being responsible to get the report out with some slack given to the smaller planned communities.......none of which changes the fact that the report has to be completed by all T33 planned communities regardless of size. If SCHOA operated under T33 they would have to supply the Disclosure Report and could charge a fee up to $400.00. And as always a bill could be introduced in the state legislature to increase or decrease those limits. There again this is a small issue but none the less could come into play if RCSC operates under Title 33. Like most of this there is a lot of moving parts in the T10/T33 issue and to most people it is not important until it is important.

 

Gary, here is the sentence that strike me with greatest irony:

7. A statement summarizing any pending lawsuits, except those relating to the collection of assessments owed by members other than the selling member, in which the association is a named party, including the amount of any money claimed.

I find it strange the last entry to the suit was a scheduling hearing back in October 18. Now nothing? No Notes, no updates, nothing being scheduled, especially since the Judge was asking for information to be submitted for the class action. Truly odd. I wonder if the RCSC asked for a gag order on the release of information and this is why we can't see what is proceeding from this suit? Pure conjecture on my part, I know nothing the RCSC may or has done as far as the flow of information.

Never mind, found my own answer: IT IS ORDERED granting plaintiffs’ request for extension to Rule 56(d) and allowing plaintiffs time to respond to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs shall respond to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment by March 26, 2019.