The irony of irony...

Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

This is one of my favorite words. Kind of rolls off the tongue and prompts one to actually have to think a bit about just how and why it is an irony. I liked it so much in this case i used it twice, kind of like an exclamation point to amplify how odd this truly is.

And truth be told, it wasn't my genius that found it, nope, i think it was aggie who mentioned it. I just thought it would be lost i the folds of too many words in so many threads.

Think about this if you will: The vast majority of RCSC board candidates since i have lived here (2003) has campaigned on the same premise. The funny thing is it didn't matter if there were an equal number of open spots or if they were contested elections.

Wait for it (i will bold and capitalize it for emphasis): "THEY WANT A MORE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS WITH BETTER COMMUNICATION." That's a good thing and one that invariably gets followed up with the question; how are you going to do that? And that's where candidates often become tongue-tied.

Here is the irony; The best way for that to happen is for the board to embrace Title 33. Yup, it does all of the above; more open, more transparent and better communication.

So, you have to ask yourself, what is the one variable, the one constant from this happening over the past ten years?

And the answer is? You tell me.

 

Irony right now is that the RCSC pledges open meetings beginning in April but just look at how many motions will be voted on at the March meeting. Couldn't they have waited one month if they truly wanted transparency?

My answer is that management has mainly been static over the past 10 years but Board Members come and go....Do I win something?

Edited to add: Bill's commentary is on the Daily News Sun online webpage: https://yourvalley.net/yourvalley/your-life/pearson-no-danger-to-sun-city-age-overlay-from-pca/

 

So here's link to the article that appeared online today and i suspect will be in the paper i suspect Monday:
Pearson: No danger to Sun City age overlay from PCA

My congratulations to whoever authored the commentary entitled “PCA Bill designed to protect Sun City,” (Sun City Independent, March 6, 2019.

They did a marvelous job painting a picture of our incredible way of life in Sun City and the historic role we played in Arizona’s development. Where I lost all respect for the piece was when the innuendo, hyperbole and outright falsehoods seeped into the article telling us of the dangers of Title 33.

Let’s start with the good stuff. Sun City is a very special place. We are unique. We are a community built by the people who lived here and for the people who ultimately move here. We are self-governed, we have been since the Del E Webb Corporation left in 1978. Even while they were with us, they were nurturing and shaping us into a community that would endure all the trials and tribulations once they left.

We were the first age restricted community in the country that promoted “a new active way of life.” We are the model that has been poked, prodded and probed for more than 50 years. Every age restricted community that came after us wanted to emulate our success. We were, are and continue to be that good.

With that said, my frustrations over the commentary regarding how we will be changed evermore by having to follow the Planned Communities Act (Title 33) is absolute nonsense. We do not need to be “protected” from it, we need to be “protected” from people making up stories about its impact on us.

We will not lose our age restricted status because of falling under it. The Sun City Home Owners Association is responsible for the yearly accounting and monitoring of those living here. People already can buy at any age, we purchased our home when we were 51. We couldn’t live here until we turned 55. That stays the same under Title 33.

Children or younger people who inherit their parents home cannot immediately move into the community. The assertion that they can under Title 33 is simply not true. It is being said and written to scare you into supporting the bill Kevin Payne is sponsoring. It is fear mongering in its worse form.

There are valid discussions to be had over Title 10 (which the Recreation Centers of Sun City now functions under) and Title 33. There are some additional costs under Title 33, but no one from the RCSC has been able or willing to say how much. There are obligations to allow proxies that we do not currently have. There would need be a rewrite on language in the bylaws, but the management/board does that frequently. One could argue that the RCSC isn’t an HOA, but then Title 33 is called the Planned Communities Act, not the Home Owners Associations Act.

The most dramatic changes will be in how the RCSC, its board and management, has to function. All meetings will be held in an open forum (other than those covered under law). They will not be able to have private discussions among themselves to predetermine how they should vote. If the do that, they could be sued. Essentially, it makes a more open and transparent organization. Do we really need to be “protected” from that?

The 380-plus condo associations in Sun City all operate under Title 33. It hasn’t ruined them, and in most cases, made them more functional. Everything they do has to meet the statutes or they are held accountable for failing to do so. Pretty simple, at least in my mind.

Let me just close by saying, whether Sun City is governed by Title 10 or Title 33, Sun City will remain a spectacular place to live. Our history and those who came before us built it to insure we survive almost anything. There is one aspect we all need to improve on: We need do a better job of taking ownership. We need to pay attention, get involved and be a part of the process of self-governance.

That is the defining difference between us and the thousands of other age restricted communities that were built after us.

Editor’s Note: Bill Pearson previously served on both the RCSC and SCHOA boards of directors.

 

Spot on aggie, the GM is the one constant. For that you win my undieing friendship. Nice.

Over those 10 years, how many of those new board members do you think knew the differences between T10 and T33?

Better yet, at what point did they grunt and suddenly become infused with “T10 good, T33 bad.”

Now in fairness, I know at least two of us were passed over from garnering the infusion.

 

Heh, heh, we knew when we elected you two that you were allergic to the koolaid.

 

Now, that's funny. Rest in hell Jim Jones, you miserable bastard.

There was a point to this exercise and one that i tried to make while on the board. When the discourse was to reduce committees, my suggestion was to replace them with town hall type sessions where we could have legitimate discussions on topics like T33 versus T10, per property lot assessment versus per person and any number of other sessions where we could get a feel for the community's sentiments. Imagine if we had opened the can of worms on golf and its future, or the purchase of the Lakes Club.

Like so many of the things we felt had merit, made sense, it was shot down with barely a whimper. It's the beauty and the beast of working with boards. Majority rules. The problem of course is the majority may well not represent the majority of the community, but the minority of those electing the 9 person board. Nope, not whining, i knew how it worked when i ran. It's just such a shame that we didn't want to know the pulse of those living here. we could have become so much more than we already are.

 

A decade ago (circa the old LRPC) a number of us agitated (on the then forum) for the idea of a professionally done member survey. At the time, cities outside our walls were building dog parks, trail systems, open space parks, etc. in lieu of golf which had begun its decline in popularity. All many could think about was the cost of a survey; why a suggestion box wasn't enough. Most couldn't think beyond a couple questions about whether people liked what we have. And so, the autocrat/squeaky wheel methodology has continued.

Flash forward to today -- consider how surveys could benefit the new LRPC. Yes, there's plenty of literature available that guides cities in their decisions regarding recreational trends. I'd guess our GM reads some of them occasionally. What's missing is an accurate pulse of our existing SC population, particularly the difference between what our older residents want versus newer (younger) residents want. It's one thing to know whether residents like what we have -- their complaints tell us that. But it's an entirely different issue whether we have what they want. Eg, I might like that we have the Sun Bowl, but I want an indoor venue with comfortable seating, parking, and no mosquitoes. I might like our golf courses, but I want a movie theater because I'm physically unable to play golf anymore.

 

I watched the video of the Annual Meeting and heard Brian Duthu talk of redoing Lakes East/West Patios this year. Guess what? 2024: Lakes East/West - expand snack shop, patio and golf cart storage $1,200,000. I finally managed to find the LRPC and once again, the RCSC pours more money into what? Golf. It was originally scheduled for 2024, as seen in bold.

I fully support the idea of a survey to find out what the members really want. I am quite sure it is not more money poured into golf or golf facilities. I noticed the emphasis put on the mailing out the cards for the annual meeting and the cost. Makes me laugh, really. The GM wants to stress the cost of mailings, yet, it apparently was somewhat effective. What would it cost to send out a survey and have folks either mail it back or drop it off at any of the RCSC facilities? Pick a few hot topics, make it multiple choice with room to enter ones own wants and desires and ask for their input. The LRPC could pick a few topics to put on the cards and have them printed and mailed. Should the cards include postage so they can be returned via postal mail? My oh my! Spend that kind of money on members ideas? Yes, I feel it is about time the RCSC put the members wishes ahead of golf.

They could also post a place on the RCSC website to respond to the survey with enough space on the site to add ones own ideas. Want to hear the irony of that idea? The RCSC would probably place the forum for answering the mailing on their golf reservation site. The same one you have to go to for election voting and paying the annual assessment.

At what point do the members start to count as a valuable asset to be paid attention to? The questions about reducing the quorum and answered with being a "state law" which mandates the quorum be as high as it is, really? The gentleman trying to remember what proxies are was passed over as if he had not spoken at all. And my favorite, we will have open meetings, but you will be limited to three minutes. Yep, that right there sounds like an "open" meeting where ideas can be heard and exchanged towards the goal of having adequate member feedback. Lip service in an effort to make some feel as if the RCSC has heard and responded to desires of the membership.

I have not seen any new date posted for the hearing on phase 2 of the suit. I have looked several times for a new hearing date, with the hope of a reaffirmation of his ruling on the RCSC being a planned community. I am also hoping he reduces to judgement his ruling and makes the RCSC accountable for not abiding by the initial ruling in 09/18. The members need the rules and laws of T33 for their protection from a GM/BOD which sees no value in what the members want for the future of this community we love and live in.

 

There's no question, a real survey of people that went beyond surface scratching would have been/still would be of value. The cost of them is negligible when talking about 20 million plus dollar budgets. The bigger issue for me is finding ways to get those living here more involved. It doesn't happen by accident, it would take a strategic plan with defined goals. It would mean making it a priority and then actually listening to what people had to say.

The simple reality for all of us is we live in a structure where a small minority of the population make far reaching decisions for the vast majority of us. The massive expenditures on golf over the past ten plus years is the classic example. Getting rid of the long range planning committee was the best insurance policy to do it. They were the one impediment in the way and now we are all paying for it by having to play catch-up with all the other amenities that have been forgotten as golf was the priority.

There is hope though, and i will explain it in a new thread.