Yikes, how the hell do i get myself in these positions? Seriously, i have days when i wish i was a cabbage living in oblivion and not paying attention to what is going on around me. Unfortunately i'm not built that way and so i always find myself stuck in the middle. When i was working, we were very often using techniques to convince others to believe in the positions we were taking. Clearly, fear was the easiest motivator, but seldom the best. In fact, we only have to watch what is happening in our country to see the shortcomings of an agenda attached to hyperbole. Years of interacting with thousands of people has taught me the vast majority of folks fall in the squishy middle. While that may sound sad, it's not intended to. Most people aren't hanging out on the fringes of far right or far left. The radicals on either side are always the minority, and in all likelihood, always will be. I was surprised when several people commented on my article in the Independent. They thanked me for writing a piece they could understand and made sense. I learned to write clearly years back try to insure those reading it knew what i was saying. I know, several of you are scratching your head going, what the hell is he trying to say? So here is my dilemma: Yesterday i ran into Rick Gray (our state senator) at the Bell gym working out. We had an interesting discussion. I asked him point blank if he wrote Kevin Payne's bill and he said no, absolutely not. I never felt he did, my guess is it was written by the RCSC's attorney. He said he felt compelled to write his own commentary and I suggested he add in the fact he didn't author the bill. After talking a bit, he said he needed to talk about unintended consequences. Further on, he implied if we fell under T33, we may well be faced with challenges to our ability to collect the PIF. I was stunned. Communities across the valley, the state of AZ and around the country have what are better known as impact fess. They've never, to my knowledge, been deemed illegal. It's how fast growing communities deal with burgeoning costs without taxing existing home owners to death. He suggested because ours are as high as they are ($3500) it would be some kind of red flag to attorneys and judges. Whether they are $500 or $5000 shouldn't be the issue. They either are legal or they aren't. T33 is silent on the matter, though there are limits to amounts collectible in other areas of the act. Sun City West has no issue with it and they are under T33. It sounded more like fear than unintended consequences, but everyone sees things differently. If it only ended there, i would have slept better last night. When i got home from the gym, i had a voice mail from one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. She left me a message asking if i had read the proposed changes in the 94 pages the RCSC board was proposing? Included was whether i saw the board was now saying the RCSC was now under T10 in their documents? The bigger question was did i read the board was changing back to a per person payment from a per property? I dug through both sections she questioned. The first, yes the board was adding the language; so what it is after the fact, The second, i didn't read that at all. This morning she called me back and I told her my opinion on both. As always, when we start talking we agree for about two minutes and then we go far afield. I know how strongly she feels about the PIF, and we are 1000% in disagreement. Without it we would be dead in the water. She blissfully thinks members would agree on yearly massive assessments to maintain "unsurpassed amenities." I found both arguments (Rick and ARS's) to be trapped in the outer regions of the absurd. Where the board lost control was when they agreed to condense the absolute decision making process to the confines of closed door work sessions. Where ARS loses credibility is when she gets caught up in believing fairy tail stories of passing huge taxes on themselves to improve the community. The PIF was passed by the board to improve the community without taxing those living here. New buyers who wanted in, agreed to pay the fee to buy here. Simple, especially since they would be the beneficiary of the millions of dollars pumped into our amenity package. And, that was the exact mechanism DEVCO used to build the facilities and hand them over to us. The lawsuit wasn't just about T33. It's why i was never onboard with it. It suggested, through the Plaintiffs' claims, the PIF was somehow illegal. That is utter nonsense...but then so was taking rights away from members voice in what and how the money was spent. Nope, i never believed they needed to vote on each item, but they should have had a louder, more clear voice in what it was spent on. Now you know why i sometimes wish i was a cabbage in the corner rather than listening and debating the merits of a pretty darn good system of governance that could be so much better with so little effort. Instead, we get dueling attorneys, state legislators sticking their nose in our business, judges who may or may not know what they are talking about and massive costs in both time and money. How dumb is that? PS. Sorry for the rant, writing out loud helps me clear my head from the fog of these kinds of discussions.
Probably didn’t say this but the answer to the header above is none of the above. The sky will remain exactly where it whether we are T10 or T33. On a scale of 1 to 10, in Sun City AZ very little ever exceeds a 1. Nice.
Impact fees have a set of rules governing their application as they pertain to building out of the community assets, such as parks, libraries and other cities amenities. In 2010, a law was passed limiting a city's ability to collect these fees without specific intent of use. A city cannot issue an impact fee for a project which has a predicted start date more than 10 years out. So, libraries or upgrades to a sewer system have to have a start date shorter than 10 years forward. Monies collected have to be for a specific project, not just listed as a new park. Builders clamored for and won this aspect for ongoing development in cities where some builders felt pressure to pay for items which ultimately did not benefit the development the fee was charged for. Makes sense to me. Now let's talk about the details. Impact fees are charged and collected by the community to the builder. The RCSC is not a city, and we do not have any other locations to expand to, yet. There's nothing in the law which states impact fees must be used for anything specific, just a ten year timeline. The RCSC has provided a list of desired projects, but as evidenced by the golf build out, the posted timelines are there amuse the reader. The projects on the LRPC list are those proposed, but do not have a dollar or firm date commitment. So where does the dropped suggestion of impact fees fit into anything the RCSC has in its plans? As suggested, it's probably another fear mongering tactic by another legislator to try and make residents fearful for their rec centers and community amenities. I truly wish people would be able to participate in ongoing discussion and keep it about the truth and facts. Why must it be win at all costs, no matter who is hurt or mislead in the process. I know Sun City will go on, despite the latest round of diatribe. Can't it at least be on an honest level using facts available? Why will none of the 'leadership' lead with the truth rather than provide falsehoods to try and win the day?
Well Bill, I am back having hosted one of my oldest friends (47 years) and his wife for the past ten days. That said, this whole lawsuit is one giant crap sandwich and nobody knows what is going on. I found it interesting that Rick Gray dais he didn’t authored the Bill but never said he had nothing to do with it. I once told Jan when she was stoking up support for it that I thought that Kevin Payne was not smart enough to dream this up or write it. Needless to say Jan told me to cut out the sarcasm. Fine but name one thing in that sentence that is not true. Sorry, still trying to master this iPad. ARS is essentially a boob because she pisses and moans about PIF then is she is cool with lower amounts. Had she attended the court hearing on her vanity suit, she would have learned the PIF thing was only addressed by the judge at the end of arguments saying that the question was whether or not PIF was tax or not. The other point he addressed was discovery regarding standing. But back to PIF, since we are not an incorporated city or any form of a body politic, we have no taxing authority. Simple argument because the RCSC only covers rec centers, golf courses and some other minor stuff. The question is will the attorneys realize this point since they flubbed the ex post facto argument. Carole is spot on regarding impact fees, so it is not that. Even HUD recognizes the PIF as a fee and not a tax, which was the sticking point on the reverse mortgages.
