I finally had time to listen to candidate forum #2. It seems every candidate is still go go golf. No one spoke to the future of what people might or might not want in relationship to golf. I’d also hoped the candidate who knows so much about real estate would have mentioned if it is possible to ever change a deed. I find it had to believe that land use could never ever be changed. Land use, zoning etc. does change through time in other cities so this really confuses me.*
I agree that in a perfect world we'd be able to look at other uses for at least one of our 8 golf courses. The uproar and lawsuits from residents that purchased properties with golf course frontage would be mountainous! There would also be a big change in property tax assessment that we as RCSC members would be charged if the usage changed for golf course property. Won't happen in my lifetime. Just think if we'd be able to drain one of the two lakes to create a beautiful park....same uproar would be expected.
As a former RCSC board member, who would prefer to see at least one of the courses changed into a park, it will not happen. All of the courses are deeded "in Perpetuity" as golf courses. Back in the day....golf was more popular and was a driver of the direction of this community. It is always refreshing to see and have a board which is NOT golf-centric, as it allows the board to explore other venues for the value of all members. So, to hear the latest crop of newbies are golf focused, makes me sad. We need folks who view the entire community and its value, not just what a handful of golfers think things should be like.
You couldn't drain Dawn because it's owned by the homeowners...and the RCSC is not spending residents money for it either. And I wouldn't want to get rid of all the golf courses, or even half of them, but certainly one could be turned into a park and still have plenty to golf on. I still don't buy that something can't be done to change the usage even if "in Perpetuity" is on the deed. I'm sure the "in Perpetuity" was meant so that it wouldn't be sold. Just because it's a golf course doesn't mean it couldn't be used as a walking only course or some such creative wording thing, even if part time. That would not change the homeowners frontage view...they would still have the same view. But like CMartinez, it's sad to once again have the entire board as golf-centric. Maybe when one day there are fewer golfers here, and that will happen, someone will get creative.
The only power we have as a community is to vote. The ultimate power is to run for office, or at least join a committee to offer suggestion and feedback in order to reach the board, and perhaps shape it for the future. I can't do the run for office thing anymore, thank goodness. And we are away so much now, I would not be a productive committee member. One has to be available to attend and follow up with their various duties and commitments required of a committee. We now have become "sunbirds" and spend the better part of the summer in cooler climes. Until such time conference calls attendance of meetings is allowed, it may be difficult for some to make every meeting. Anther option to explore?
There was such a conference call with a Board member voting via a remote speaker phone connection a couple months ago. We seem to be moving into the future with both live and recorded options available.
I'm sure that everyone realizes that when election time roles around every year the largest voting block in Sun City is the golfing community. Any candidate running for the Board is aware of this so why would any candidate purposely alienate golfers. It isn't a smart thing to do if you are serious about being elected. It doesn't matter if golf happens to be dropping in popularity as some say. The community has been built around golf and that won't change anytime soon. If it only takes 300 to 600 votes to be elected to the Board then golfs popularity will have to flat line at zero for golf not to be a factor. Also in reference to changing a golf course to another purpose. The value of a golf course is at least 10 times greater if the land were converted to residential lots. I would think that if there were a creative way to circumvent the deeded restriction it would have been done so by now purely from the financial point of view and most specifically in an inflated positive real estate market. I learned along time ago that golfing was not my calling but I do enjoy seeing all the green courses.....it is very pleasing to the eyes.
