Golf is not a four-letter word

That's probably because no one understood it. I once read that an insurance policy has a higher reading level than Einstein's Theory of Relativity!

 

This just came to mind: Make one of them a disc golf course. The covenants probably don't delineate what type of golf course. I want to state that I am not advocating to close any of our golf courses.

 

“This just came to mind: Make one of them a disc golf course. The covenants probably don't delineate what type of golf course.”

Yes, very popular and has been suggested by members!

 

The search words I used were something like “what happens when golf courses are closed in communities” and a significant amount information popped up. The best resource I read to help determine the loss of the space is community involvement in the decision making process. The emphasis is on expanding the utilization of space to include dog walkers, walking trails and alternative uses such as frisbee golf, and items not applicable to Sun City for every course, such as children’s activities area.
I am not saying we are losing golf, but the picture can become bleak if more water restrictions become imposed. The community will have 8 large dirt bowls.
I found it most interesting to read word such as “space reserved for the elite” and “it’s time to rethink and repurpose how these large areas of land are being used.” They’re articles were from various golf centered sources, including the LPGA, USGOLF and other golf centric organizations. There are so many articles about ways to make better use of the water available that stress sustainability but also biodiversity. The more one reads stories about changing the environment to be inclusive of the people and animals that benefit immensely from well managed spaces, the better it becomes for everyone to coexist in the same space, reduce the carbon footprint, reduce waste and water consumption and the list goes on.
I truly believe we live in a time where we have the ability to decide to change the way we manage and utilize the available resources for the benefit of the entire community.
Problem is, no one wants to be proactive to help restore the environment of inclusivity and sustainability and really talk about different ways to achieve sustainable spaces, save water, make the space better utilized for the entire community and ask the community for input. That’s the recurring theme.

 

John,
Whomever responded to your request should not have been given to play with sharp objects. That said, you were correct that the D&O is a separate policy as I underwrote these for 24 years. The policy was generated by our Home Office as it was part of the policies “underwritten” by the branch but were issued by Baltimore. I would deliver the policies but never really had the opportunity to read them in depth as my regular duties took up about 90% of my time.

I can tell you that fiduciary responsibility was a major portion with errors and omissions covering the balance. I will also say that the company only issued for financial institutions, mainly banks to cover the officers and a separate rider covering the Trust Department.

Didn’t mean to make about me but there are only 2 other members familiar with this line as they serve with me on the Insurance Committee. If there are any others, please come forward as we need you. I just felt you needed a response.

 

ADWR will not get so restrictive that courses will close. We are talking billions of dollars to the local economy.

If SC closed any courses the lawsuits will never end. So, any talk of repurposing the courses is a waste of time.

They are making/planning changes to lower the use of water. How many times does this have to be brought up?

Disc golf has already been voted down.

 

Dave,
You are speaking of general terms from your working days, not what the policy is worded as one in place today, correct? Errors, in my opinion, would be similar to an accident or unexpected or unknown event. Omissions, in my opinion, would indicate something that was inadvertently forgotten or not realizing the full scope of a statement, for example.
If this is current level of coverage now, there could exist a gap in coverage, but I would be better off discussing this offline. No need to cause any more issues within the current topic.
Thank you Dave

 

Golf courses have been closed in other communities. I did not say my search term was close golf communities in Sun City. I also know comments have been made by golfers as to the current conditions of the turf in some courses in Sun City. Water restrictions could have an additional adverse impact as time passes and the cost of watering at the current levels becomes prohibitive.
The suggestion to involve the community in seeking answers and including the needs of the community as to their desires for additional usage of the space is an idea worth considering. The community will be held responsible for the costs associated with the increased maintenance costs, they should also be involved in the planning process of utilization as well.
There were several articles written about mixed use of the space. It’s only fair that everyone have input on how the space, used by about 8-10% of the member population, impacts the other 90% when it comes to maintenance costs.
The argument that it was known as a golf course community when you purchase here is fine. It can still be a golf course community that is inclusive of all the members desires if opportunity was explored and options discussed.

 

Doesn’t the deed restrictions require that the property remain as golf courses or revert back to the original owner?

 

Larry, RCSC Golf courses deed HERE
NO exclusive use restrictions listed.
Perhaps there is some other legal agreement document in RCSC records?
RECREATION CENTERS OF SUN CITY INC SUN CITY GOLF COURSE INC Q/CL DEED 9/26/1978 12:00:00 AM 19780335241 10 DEED: https://legacy.recorder.maricopa.gov/UnOfficialDocs/pdf/19780335241.pdf

 

Possible explanation from a Bill PearsonTOSC post,
“Very, Very Interesting
For anyone who watched the Sept 30 board meeting, my first trip to the mic was for one reason and one reason only. I asked the board if they understood whether they knew golf must be self-sustaining? They said yes. There wasn't any hesitation or hold back...nor should there be. It was one of two conditions the board took ownership of the golf courses in 1977.

The first was they needed to stay golf courses, for at least 25 years, with renewal periods after that. The second was as i pointed out at the board meeting, the members living here needed to know they wouldn't become "money pits." They were not to be subsidized by membership dues. You may not like that answer if you are a golfer, but those were the terms they accepted the golf courses under.

While serving on the board i asked the gm where those documents were and she told me spread around various places, stored in boxes and not quickly able to put their hands on them. I suggested we should get them centrally located and easily accessible. She said no; i asked why not. "Plausible deniability." I was stunned and never forgot that comment.

Now i hear a rumor. I haven't seen it yet, but there are rumblings they may be taking a new tactic, claiming that isn't the case any more with golf. I will await to see if i can confirm that, but if that is the case, we have a very serious problem.

Stay tuned.

#

Post is HERE

 

Additionally, RCSC CORPORATE DOCUMENTS have no reference to restricted golf course use of property or requirement to be self sustaining.

• Articles of Incorporation
• Corporate Bylaws
• RCSC Board Policies
Documents HERE

 

I believe the covenant's have to be renewed every 10 years.

I also believe, for instance, if a golf course is sold to a developer 5 years into the 10 year covenant, he can't do anything with the property until the 10 years is up.

That can be found in the Arizona Revised Statutes.

 

Just to clarify, my intent was to find ways to be inclusive with the amount of land the golf courses occupy and diversify their use. If there are ways to reduce the amount of turf requiring specific types of fertilizer and other materials, there is a possibility of saving money. If some of the acres can be repurposed for other activities and keep the golf course in play, then I think there could also be greater community support, reduction of costs due to the maintenance costs dropping and the community gains usable green space for activities besides golf. I am suggesting biodiversity activities on the current golf courses and looking for ways to save water, reduce costs and make the community participation much greater.

 

I too agree it is worth looking into. Incorporating a more natural setting around less golf greens but using very attractive low water natural plant environments could help us save some of the green spaces for the future.
Of course having more nature surrounding golf is going to promote more animal life to build homes right on the course, havelinas, racoons and coyotes. This may work better in other parts of the country, but over time and water concerns and just the revenue that it takes to keep up all the courses we may have to consider it. Tastes are changing at what retirement communities should look like and be. I think we should be having the conversation.

 

Carole,
Errors and omissions is one of the named perils in the policy, just like fraud and breach if fiduciary duty. The language of a policy rarely changes and then to cover changing situations, think Statute of Frauds (England 1666) or the 1941 171 line New York Fire Policy.

 

I think they found they couldn't do that when they wanted to make trails on Quail Run.

 

Old and tired, who was the deciding group as to determine there would be no walking trail at Quail. Run? Was the community asked for input? Was a complete picture looked at as far as land use and golf usage?
Just curious as to how the decision to prohibit activities is being debated and determined.

 

There is no safe place for a walking trail as long as golf is being played. Period.