HB2374 (READ the BILL)

Interesting article aggie; so the net of the bill Payne proposed and was passed was if he wanted to set his BBQ truck up in front of a brick and mortar Dillion's he could. Free enterprise, or unfair competitive advantage? One person working in the truck, or dozens of employees making a living. A business paying property taxes, sales tax and wages to their employees that may well support their families. Nope, not against food trucks, they have become a fabric of our lifestyle. This bill was geared to allow them to set up shop so as to be in direct competition to existing restaurants and skim the cream off the top. And what we know from around Sun City, many of them struggle and often close.

And so i am clear, i do not know if Payne's truck was ever at an RCSC event. I do know he is on the approved caterer's list. In either case, it has the look of being a conflict. That said, i doubt the bill ever gains traction. Most legislators will see it for what it is; a shameful effort to protect a single community from following a judge's order. Not everyone in the legislature loves Sun City as most of us do.

 

It is interesting, actually comical, that the Bill amends Title 33 such that “this chapter applies to all planned communities and Associations that are incorporated or organized after 1973.” So is there something magical about 1973? If this legislation is such a great thing, wouldn’t you want to benefit all communities and Associations regardless of date? Or is this strictly about a special purpose carve out for RCSC to which we have case law saying Title 33 applies? Why do you think Title 33 was passed in the first place? Why has there been no public outcry about Title 33 until now?

 

Riggo, Public outcry? Why, who is going to listen to the membership? The RCSC management team complains about complacency within the community, yet it is the real reason none of the members care anymore, they don't have a voice. If you keep trying to have a say, and you are not taken seriously for years, how long do you keep doing the same thing? Isn't that the definition of "insanity"? Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome each time?

While on the board, the topic was broached more than once, and it boils down to no discussion ever occurred. It was Title 33 bad, Title 10 good. We got the extra costs spiel several times because of the additional costs to the RCSC to do mailings, other than that, the topic was dead about as soon as it was brought up. I remember trying to bring over the SCW program of community involvement with the residents learning the inner workings of the governing body and the rec centers. I was not spoken to again for almost two weeks, and then it was too tell me the program would be too costly and intrusive to implement. End of discussion.

In another thread, Bill explained that SCW had a tussle among the residents and after some debate and compromise, SCW decided to become T33. So apparently, even back then it was decided by that community to be of value.

So, T33 has not been an unknown all of this time, it has always been DOA because of the GM. Bill and I tried to bring forth many ideas that were outside of the golf loop. Every time the debate would get heated and ugly. Tempers sometimes flared, but we were two of nine and we had no voice on the board. The direction was set by the GM and the rubber stamp brigade approved it. It was exhausting to go to board meetings at times, knowing you had good ideas and they would go nowhere because of the members of the board and GM had already decided the outcome.

But, we do have public outcry now, and it needs to be paid attention to, at all costs. We have to give it the good fight, because even if this fake legislation passes, there is always the legal challenge which could undo the legislation and keep the issue alive. I am sure the Judge is aware of this latest attempt to derail and defraud the suit, the members of the suit, and the sham job the RCSC is doing against his initial ruling. It could cost the RCSC much more then the original cost of the class action, and this is something I am sure Jan is aware of. She has put all of her chickens into one basket and is gambling it all. The RCSC could go broke over this, but Jan and ARS will have had their day in court, and damned the rest of us.

 

Carole, when I referenced public outcry, I was referencing the many community associations that already fall under Title 33. Why is there no outcry from them? How come it works for them, but can’t possibly work at SC? Why is there no outcry from SCW? How come it works for them and they are a mirror image of SC? This bill is not only bad for SC, but the many community associations incorporated since 1973 that will no longer fall under Title 33.

 

Riggo, see my reply on Page 4 of the thread "Schmucks". It may help clarify where the outcry could come from, such as big money donors and other builders who build homes, condo's, townhouses,etc., who have an interest in how this could affect their bottom line.

 

So much layman's speculation on what this bill means for Sun City. There were two opportunities last week to get first hand information about HB2374. The bill was held in the House Committee on Government and could have been watched live as they stream most committee proceedings. It is now archived and can be watched at the AZ House Legislature site on the web. It did pass out of committee with a 6 to 5 vote.

Friday at SCHOA was the Legislative Forum where you could talk to our representatives and ask questions. Present at the forum were State Senator Rick Gray, Rep. Tony Rivero, Rep. Kevin Payne, Debbie Lesko's representative & Clint Hickman(our County Supervisor). It was sparsely attended but very informative.

Annual assessments per property give accurate revenue estimates. The PIF is needed to keep RCSC properties up to date with what residents want. Our Senior Age Overlay must always be protected. Bottom line for me is that the RCSC needs to take immediate steps to be more transparent in their actions.

Just my 4 cents.

 

ARGH!!! How I wish I could attend these meetings in person!! I asked to get Monday morning off to the attend the member exchange and can't, as there are too many people off already, and Mondays are our busiest days. I have some real specific questions I wanted to ask, but I am sure they will be answered in one form or another in time.

I support the PIF for the upkeep of the facilities and am definitely sure SCHOA needs our support now more than ever to work with the new community documents to make sure the age overlay is properly represented.

Aggie, your input is always appreciated by me. You are articulate and intelligent and always have great input to any and every situation. Thank you for what you do.

 

Wouldn't the member exchange meeting tomorrow be the perfect place to bring up the following questions and others:

Why was the email sent regarding HR2374?
Shouldn't the GM/Board have explained the differences between T10 and T33 before try to get legislation passed that only affects Sun City?
Why was this email sent to the community before its merits were discussed with the community?
Why was this email kept a secret from the community before sending it?
Why was there not a forum held similar to the forums that were held at RCSC facilities regarding APS and Epcor rate increases?
What makes Sun City so unique that it needs special legislation to skirt the law?
Who is really running Sun City?

 

I. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on their claim that defendant Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. (“RCSC”) is subject to the Arizona Planned Community Act, A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq. (the Act). IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the claim that RCSC is subject to the Act is granted.
The Act applies to planned communities. Sun City is a planned community

Question 1. The above order, dated 09-04-2018, states the RCSC is subject to the Arizona Planned Community Acts. Why hasn't the RCSC taken steps to adopt the act and do as the judge ordered?

Question 2. Why was legislation sought as an answer rather than asking the community of the merits between T10 and T33?

Question 3. Why does RCSC feel it needs to change the State Revised Statutes, which would affect every planned community in existence, rather than merely make the community a partner in the governance of the RCSC?

Question 4. The HB2374 uses language that is not currently is the corporate documents. Is there going to be more changes made to the documents to meet the RCSC desires to not become a planned community?

Question 5. Will the RCSC continue to fight the suit with an appeal in order to not be ordered to be a planned community? How much has been spent so far defending the suit and how much more do you expect to spend. What amount do you feel the judgments for the plaintiffs could be and is the RCSC financially able to pay out that kind of money.

This would be my list of questions if I could get the day off tomorrow. I did think about calling off sick, but since I made a stink about needing the time off, I am sure there would be repercussions if I called out.

If someone would have the time or energy to ask my questions, I would be tickled pink. DO NOT get yourselves in trouble trying to ask questions when they give the answer "I cannot answer due to pending litigation". The first question is an order determined prior to the continuance, so they should be able to answer it. We are not asking about the class suit, just the summary judgement from the first motion.

Personally, I would leave the "who really runs Sun City" off the table. It puts people on the defensive and then you will get nowhere. Just my two cents worth

 

I found this on the web under HOA Consitutional Government, authored by George K Starapoli. I find it an interesting read:


More government interference – AZ HB 2374
The following was sent as a Request to Speak to the Arizona House GOV committee this morning (restricted to 250 characters). HB 2374 seeks to overcome an adverse court ruling holding Sun City recreational center an HOA. It is an intentional government interference into private contracts to benefit the HOA.

Dear House Government Committee Members:

I strongly oppose HB 2374 as government intrusion into a private entity under a contractual arrangement.

Granting RCSC, and all such arrangements designed to favor the HOA scheme, not subject to the Planned Communities Act is unconstitutional. It violates the Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, Section 13. “No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.”

The bill intentionally negates the recent Sept. 4, 2019 Maricopa Superior Court’s summary judgment ruling in Anderson et al v. RCSC, and not appealed, that RCSC is subject to the Act.

“In conclusion, all Sun City residential property owners are obligated to pay assessments that RCSC uses to defray the costs and expenses it incurs owning and operating recreational facilities in Sun City and, as such . . . . RCSC is subject to the Act for the purposes of plaintiffs’ instant lawsuit.”

Aside from city/state “recreation centers” I can only find Sun City and Sun City West using this arrangement of recreation centers, both are Del Webb developments. This is a miniscule class of entities in view of the thousands of HOAs in Arizona. The bill cleverly redefines “association” to exclude entities whose “SOLE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.” That applies to only the RCSCs of Sun City and Sun City West.

The bill flies in the face of political claims to support the people. It favors de facto private government HOAs and is unquestionably unconstitutional. We are a democracy and the people are to be protected, not corporations that deny constitutional rights of equal protection of the law (14th Amendment). Do not pass this bill.

Respectfully,

George K. Staropoli

 

The guy calls a spade a spade IMHO. The musings on his website are insightful https://pvtgov.wordpress.com/

 

My guess is George doesn't have any friends on the RCSC board or management team. He is fairly critical of the makeup of Sun City and the little i could read from his "blog" (not really user friendly) made us sound like we were an awful place to live. That's where we part company. Sun City is as good as it gets and is far better than the single-entity governance arrangements out there.

That said, i do agree with his take on Payne's legislation. Unfortunately i am playing in a lawn bowling tournament just outside the social halls at Lakeview, been signed up for months and no way out of the divisional tournament. Just so you know, the rumor is there was no vote on this action prior to the email being sent and in fact had not seen or approved it. If they did it after the fact, i don't know. The board had some discussion about it, but that is it.

That is not how it is supposed to work...just plain wrong. The GM works for the board, not the other way around.

 

Huh. Honestly, I didn't get the same sense. Rather, with respect to SC/SCW, I only got that he was critical of the management structures (SCHOA and RCSC), how they work to get around the laws, etc. He is a crusader of sorts in the fight of residents vs the HOAs and the laws that govern them.

To be honest, I have always felt that way myself -- that the RCSC and SCHOA don't entirely function as I would like. I don't think that makes SC an "awful place to live" -- it's just not as nice as it could be. I see life that way, I guess. Aren't we all "me people" -- it's just that some of us have more tolerance and acceptance of compromise than others. In my case, I've trained myself to have relatively high tolerance -- but my acceptance is less so.

 

It wasn't so much the article on the site but when doing a search for Sun City articles he was more blunt in his thoughts regarding us IC.

 

Just received another email blast from JE. In it she suggests sending an email to the legislators that you support the bill.

If you do not support this bill, by all means send your email to all the same recipients to register your OPPOSITION.

As far as Sun City falling under T33, please do not get complacent. It is not a final decision yet.

 

What would happen if a person sent a letter to the judge asking him to reduce the ruling to a judgement? If this happened, the bill is dead in the water. If the bill passes, more than likely the RCSC would be held in contempt.

 

Well, got another email blast suggesting everyone write the legislators to register their support of HB2374.

I for one used the same email addresses that were given to register my opposition to the bill?

How many other on this forum have registered their opposition?

If there is no opposition, this bill will most likely pass, and it remains to be seen how the bill will affect the judges final decision.

 

I have sent vote no emails in response to each blast.

I notice Member Meeting video hasn't posted yet -- wondering if they delayed posting it it because it might change some members mind about supporting the bill?

 

I truly do not believe the 2019 Annual meeting video will be posted as there may have been commentary made at the meeting which Jan Ek finds countermand to her push to get this bill passed. So rather than allow the other side to be presented, she will just quash the other sides voice. Business as usual from the RCSC, and a spineless board which should demand the video be posted. Just as spoken, no edits, to allow listeners to hear both sides. So much for open meetings, eh?

 

It is curious to note they got the Board meeting held yesterday up with no problems. Of course that one lasted a half hour and the only comment from the floor was from a privilege card holder who was quickly told he wasn't able to comment. Come on gang, post the damn video, because it is beginning to look like you are intentionally not posting it.