Why the Lakeview remodel will be so important

While so much of the discussion is about what will happen at the annual membership meeting, i am one of those who thinks the bigger, longer picture look is far more important. Sorry for not becoming enamored over potential bylaw proposals, these next ten years will be critical to get it right.

To be clear, 10 years isn't really long term planning. That said, it is essential what we do over the next ten years fits the expectations of those who will be retiring, or who will continue to work but will want to do it in the comfort of a community setting where all of the amenities are close at hand.

For those who haven't looked at the PIF 10 year budget, you can find it here. If you don't want to click on the link, the bottom line number is just over $115,000 million dollars. Something less than half of it is dedicated to golf and golf course out-buildings. Most of that is driven by the ADWR 2025 5th water management mandates.

I'm a little more pragmatic these days, as i see the picture more clearly than in years past. Let me be blunt with this first perspective: Mountain View has to get done, and done quickly. We've done the Arizona two-step far too long to just keep kicking the can down the road. It is one of our smaller venues that has always been driven primarily by those living near it. They deserve to get their needs met rather than waiting another 5 years as we try and scratch out a master plan. Sorry, but we are better than that.

Moving on, let me post a couple of excerpts from an article i read this morning. It is exactly this kind of information we need to get our head around and understand. Here's the first cut: "Generation X, sandwiched between the larger baby boomer and millennial cohorts and sometimes dubbed “the forgotten generation,” may be about to have a moment. While baby boomers have tended to garner the most attention, Gen X members are projected to outnumber boomers starting in 2028, when they will number 63.9 million, while there will be 62.9 million boomers, according to the Pew Research Center."

That shocked me, but data is indeed data and we have all agreed we must pay attention or we risk becoming irrelevant. 2028 may well be a few years out, but we all know just how slowly the RCSC moves. We also know, if you have bothered to look at the 10 year PIF budget, there isn't a lot of money committed to much other than golf, Mountain View and Lakeview,

So with all due respect to those arguing for a "master plan," over the next ten years, we aren't looking/planning on much of anything beyond what is targeted. A true master plan would be (in my mind) the longer look that would include Sun Dial, Bell and then circling back to Oakmont, which would entail the next 20-25 years.

My concern is that comprehensive a project would drag us out for years. Then throw in the vagaries of yearly membership votes and the revolving door of board members, the question is imply this: "will it work to our benefit, or not? After 22 years here, i am skeptical.

Back to the article, but before i post this, let me say: We know data matters, but those are just numbers. Beyond the data, the next push point is the research that should be even more insightful. It should surprise no one that DEVCO compiled mountains of research as Sun City evolved from the opening in 1960, through their evolution into the 70's and again in the 80's when they moved to Sun City West.

It should also surprise no one the coming Gen X senior community home buyers are being studied to death. Here's two paragraphs from a PULTE executive (Webb's new owners in 2001) and their remarks:
“Gen X is a fiercely independent generation and we’re seeing them reshape everything from how and when they retire to where they want to live and what they expect from a community-living experience,” said Sean Strickler, president of PulteGroup’s western Florida division.

“They’re seeking communities that offer both tranquil spaces for outdoor recreation and physical and mental well-being, alongside casual indoor venues for socializing on their own terms. This generation that grew up exploring neighborhoods unsupervised isn’t looking for rigid social calendars,” Strickler said. “They want welcoming environments that foster organic connections and preserve their independence, all in the backdrop of the resort-style, vibrant and luxury communities.”

All good stuff and exactly how we should be approaching our future. It's why the last time i stepped to an RCSC mic to speak, my comments were regarding the importance of getting the Lakeview renovation right/perfect. The other centers are down the road and my best take on all of them is we can easily repurpose so much of that unused flat space at a fraction of the cost to remodel from the ground up.

The beauty of the annual membership meeting (March 11, Sundial auditorium registration 5 pm meeting at 6 pm) is an opportunity for anyone interested to have their voice heard and to listen to proposals, ideas and motions. Once that is done, hopefully they will be able to vote for their choices/options.

Well see eh?

The link to the article can be found on MarketWatch with the link here.

 

I have written previously about the need to diversify our offerings as to the potential amenities we currently offer. Your article highlights the importance to review what we offer as a community and strategize for the short term future. We have the ability to make decisions that can keep Sun City as a top spot for retirement in the near and long term. I still feel the need to offer more options for the current owners as well as future owners. The only concern I have is the onslaught of investors buying here and not having homeowners taking an interest. Not looking to recommend limitations, but the need to reduce the number of rental properties and maintain a community of homeowners is becoming an issue.

 

How do you control that?

1. Older folks die, kids don't want the house, they sell to first reasonable offer not caring who it is.
2. People want to move and will sell to whomever as long as they get the price they want.
3. Snowbirds' allegiance will always be their original home especially if the kids and grands are there.

Bottom line is $$$ speak. People don't care who buys their home, car etc. Call me negative, it's actually reality. We don't live in Never-Never Land.

 

You are negative.

 

I know this comment isn’t exactly the most popular, but what about adopting covenants to help protect the community from falling deeper into a land of rentals. So if there were limits on the amount of rentals allowed in Sun City and made it geared toward homeowners, would property values increase or decrease? Would it make it more desirable to live in a place where rentals are less popular versus home ownership?
I realize I am suggesting covenants that control the allowable amount of property that are classified as rental or income property. I also realize this is a far fetched idea, especially since these types of property covenants do not exist now. I am in no way advocating for a change in the corporate documents, but I do have concerns about the amount of property being turned into rentals having an impact on the community as a whole. If there is no change in the amount of properties being turned over to rentals, we could easily expect to have a different situation on our hands shortly. When we have the bulk of the properties being purchased by investors, I feel we could lose our community feeling to one of being another place to live in temporarily. Who wants to purchase a home to live in as your primary residence if the bulk of the properties around the immediate area are rentals or vacant waiting for another tenant? No not sounding an alarm, asking about placing covenants in Sun City to promote home ownership by occupants who are purchasing to live here. I know this isn’t a popular position, just asking how to curb the tide of investors in the market locally.

 

Bill, I agree with you that Mountain View needs to get done and I will move up your timeline to NOW! Since it is a small venue and at the southern end of SC, it should serve the Members in that area of town. Not everyone will be pleased with what is included or not included, but RCSC can't please everyone's preferences.

 

Again:
How do you control that?

1. Older folks die, kids don't want the house, they sell to first reasonable offer not caring who it is.
2. People want to move and will sell to whomever as long as they get the price they want.
3. Snowbirds' allegiance will always be their original home especially if the kids and grands are there.

Bottom line is $$$ speak. People don't care who buys their home.

In 2003 Sun City found it too cumbersome to charge assessment fees per person so they changed it to roof top. How will they keep track of who is renting? How do you stop a snowbird from renting their home?

 

SCG mentioned, while serving on the board, we had both voted no on the GM driven/board supported motions we disagreed with. Like the saying goes, that and $5 can get you a Grande cup of coffee at Starbucks (adjusted for inflation). The point is our votes and opinions were meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

It as also at that exact moment in time we were running away from the membership and into the arms of "who cares what the members think?" We told them point blank, stay home and have fun; "we'll take care of everything for you." It's how and why we got here; to that place where the Mountain View remodel was just a figment of everyone's imagination.

Once the Marinette renovation was competed, it was all golf, all the time. And in spite of that commitment, we still have more than our share of issues regarding our golf courses, golf out-buildings and how we juggle the challenges of a sport that will likely diminish in rounds as we start attracting Gen X retirees. Less time as they continue to work, across the board (not just golf BTW), we will see more of the membership diversifying their activities rather than being fully committed to any one activity or sport as they are in retirement.

It's actually an interesting overlay, had someone in 2010 proposed a "master plan." The question is simple: Would we look like we do had we had developed a comprehensive, strategic blueprint for the next 20 years? I would argue, it wouldn't even be close. And to make it even more intriguing, what if we had passed a motion to make all the "big stuff" need a vote of approval by the members?

A short list of big stuff: Off the top of my head: Marinette renovation; North course; Riverview course; Willowbrook/Willowcreek courses; Lakes East/West golf maintenance/storage building; Grand Center; South course pro shop. There might be more, but i suspect all of them would qualify as "big stuff"; how many of them would have survived a vote by the membership? Better yet, how many of them would have been on a "master plan" ahead of the Mountain View remodel?

All yesterday's news, but all part and parcel of understanding what impact motions to be voted on may/will have as we approach the annual membership meeting on March 11. My fear/concern is anything done that delays the MV renovation further is just shooting ourselves in the foot; frankly, we've been doing that for far too long already. Had we done the MV renovations back when it was due to be done, our costs would have been less than 10 million dollars and we would be looking at everything wholly different, rather than wasting time re-plowing the same ground year after year.

We all got caught in the vacuum of the board/GM knows best. Do they? Did they? Given where we are, i know my answer. That said, the balance of power/control should always in my mind be a shared responsibility, not one where either party overrides the other.

The March 11 annual membership meeting will clearly an interesting study in human nature, and more importantly, set the tone and direction of where we are headed as a community.

 

With all due respect, I think the real question is being muddied by all this "hypothecation". Boiled down to its bare essentials the question is whether we would be better off designing something at MountainView without a member approved expertly developed master plan in place or with an expertly developed member approved master plan in place. Stated in historical context, would Del Webb had been better off winging it or was he better off for having an expertly developed development plan?

I think (my opinion only) a master plan would probably not be as critical if Mountainview was simply a beautification/remodeling of existing space for existing users. This type of plan is relatively inexpensive from a capital and operating expense perspective and recognizes that the best Recreation Center we have (Fairway) is less than a mile from Mountainview. However, I don't believe that is the case.

To date I am aware of at least 6 different plans for Mountainview and none of them have a reliable cost estimate associated with them. Some want to keep all amenities to remain intact. Some want all the amenities except the pool to be scraped. Some want many more pickleball outdoor courts. Some want a large venue for indoor pickleball. Some want the Mountainview auditorium expanded by 30%. Others want it kept the same with retractable seating. Some want an orchestra pit in the theater with sloped floor and permanent seating. Some want to scrape the auditorium and build a large gymnasium like structure with a stage and retractable seating.

In addition, we have set aside $1,500,000 money for an air conditioned 9,000 square foot indoor dog facility, $14,000,000 for a 10,000 square foot special purpose theater to be built somewhere, a $6,000,000 complete redo of a nine-hole golf course, $1,000,000 for something called POP golf and the list goes on...

And what do I want? An expertly developed member approved master plan that takes into account current and future recreational needs THAT RCSC COMMITS TO FOLLOW!

 

We need to blow who knows how much money on a plan that we would have to pay for every year because it is to be updated annually. Then we need a Board to follow it, I guess no matter what. What happens if they don’t follow the plan? Do we draw and quarter them in public at the Sundial parking lot? Do we arbitrarily and capriciously end their terms? Do the members stomp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue?

Essentially there are no guarantees except forking out money to an expert. Am I wrong here?

 

If people would take the time to read and at least try to understand what I and others are saying you might realize we are agreeing with you. I am not ashamed to admit I am not qualified to run a city. I am not afraid to say it appears those who step up to volunteer are not either. Remember what Sun City looked like 20 years ago both aesthetically and member involvement. Look at it now. People in charge are loving this city to death. How much money has been spent hiring contractors to do things that just upset the members? John told me to go walk Lakeview which I have done many times as I already said, yet they want to plop a 2 story concrete building right there ruining the one peaceful area in SC.

I think it was Stephen M. who is trying to get people to understand we need a professional to come in and evaluate what has gone wrong and what to do to fix it. That would be money well spent. As far as the rabbit hole it's where folks go to hide and do things in secret (eg libraries and now the by-law amendments), and then wonder why members don't trust those in charge.

Josie P, Yesterday at 10:02 AM

 

I won't belabor this John, but i need to understand under your motions what the time line is for Mountain View to be started and finished by?

 

Dave,
Based on your response I am guessing you are opposed to having a plan we can understand. John

 

This is starting to get funny. Makes me want to re-watch the latest cult comedy Schitt's Creek again! Difficult to pick which character was my favorite! Probably Catherine O'Hara.

 

So did I! O'Hara's speech patterns and words were hysterical!

schitt's creek fans (@schitts_creek_lovers) • Instagram photos and videos

 

John,
Perhaps you missed this question from Bill. I, too, am interested in the projected timeline.
Thank You

 

SCG & Bill,

Timelines are difficult to predict without a plan and even harder to predict when there are many plans competing to the be the Plan. I hope you now see we have at least 6 different "plans" developed by volunteers with no experience. I know of one leader that views the situation as needing work.
And the path of least resistance is to let the architect tell us what the plan is. Which is fine but architects can't make up your mind for you. But urban planners can tell what would fit best with the community and if members endorse it what a great way to build a sense of community again.

As I listen to what is being said in the meetings, the one thing everyone agrees on is the pool and an outdoor spa. Since the pool is isolated from everything else could that be phase 1? Could an RFP be issued for that phase ASAP? I have not heard one person say they do not want the pool in the same shape and size and located in the same place. Just a thought.

The Master Plan would then begin with the question of what to do with the rest of Mountainview in light of every other center that exists. Just another thought.

I hope my response is sufficient to answer your questions on possible timelines. If I have correctly read between the lines, your concern is you can't trust the members to do what is in the best interest of Sun City. My question to you is this: If you believe this to be true why are you bothering to try and build a sense of community?

Best Regards,

John

 

Looking forward to getting some planning and insight on what we have for plans. There is no doubt that having a master plan, and a timeline is only going to help the community.

 

So we're clear John, your motion for a master plan has little to do with trust and more about the reality of what you are proposing. It's a simple question and one that can be broken down into segments. Let's just say we vote for all of your motions. What's the next step? Interview potential experts? Hire an expert? Let them do a full community analysis? Is the community/membership involved in the process? If so, to what degree?

Once that's done, if i follow your motion, you are suggesting the exercise results in the expert in conjunction with the committee and LRP committee, arrive at three plans, good, better, best. Then we move on to the membership approval phase...am i correct so far? I'm not trying to twist your motion, but trying to understand exactly when we can expect to see the fruits of your/our labor?

Will this process take one year? Two Years? Three? Because by then, the costs of everything will be higher, the golf course mandated 2025 water management plans will be shoved down our throat (you indicated to Harry, those were a given not needing approval?) and we will still not have done a thing to rectify the Mountain View remodel. My best take is not a shovel would turn before three years, so if i'm wrong help me understand how and why?

Oh and by the way, by then, the board will have fully turned over, we will have reached the two year limit on member voted and approved changes and who knows what will happen following that? We've all argued for transparency John, but it cuts both ways. Give me/us some idea when we can expect the MV remodel to start and finish under your motions? If your only answer is fix the pool, so be it, but let members know that.

And to be even more clear John, a sense of community doesn't rely on members getting to vote on "big stuff." It starts with relationships where we there is a commitment from all of the parties working in concert with one another for the greater good. Those relationships don't work if we are creating mistrust and distrust, either from the board/general manager or by the membership demanding they control the outcomes.

I'm perfectly fine with members deciding direction, which is the whole point of the membership meeting and having a reachable quorum (something i have been fighting for since the day it reached 1250 circa 2010). That said, please don't insult me or anyone else by claiming if we don't vote for your motions, we aren't interested in building a sense of community. It's simply not true.

I'm more than happy to listen to your arguments, but i suspect many of us are more than curious about the impact of what you are proposing?