Grandfathering...

What a header...in a community filled with old guys better known as grandfathers, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with guys who had kids and then they had kids. Huh?

Confusing? Of course and is why it's a great lead in to why grandfathering is almost always a poor way to get something done. For those of you who worked under labor agreements, you've probably seen the technique used in similar ways as folks did in Sun City in 2003. Essentially it "protects" existing people and changes things for those yet to come to the party.

Budgets and how to pay for a massive community of 40,000 plus have been an ever evolving struggle for those serving on the RCSC board of directors. In the 80's there were battles for seats on the board as people argued for and against spending more or spending less.

I mentioned in another thread there is some history of moving back and forth between single payment to a lot assessment. As someone pointed out, in 2003 the board came down on the side of being able to consistently budget by moving to a flat rate lot assessment. Consequently, anyone who purchased a home after the change paid the flat rate whether there was one or two card-holders in the house.

To accomplish that end, they "grandfathered" all of the people living here. It had been done with the creation of the PIF a couple of years earlier and obviously placated some of the grumbling from the masses about the change. They argued those older single (most often widowed) women would be faced with a sudden doubling of their fees. And for those yet to buy here, they would be able to make a conscious decision knowing they were paying a flat rate and could simply elect to live somewhere else if they didn't want to pay it.

I'm not arguing it was either the right thing to do or whether it's fair. I understand why they did it and it has worked well from a pure budgetary standpoint. From a community bonding perspective, it has been less than satisfactory. Singles paying the flat rate are almost always feeling like they are getting the short end of the stick.

Theoretically, the argument was all those pre-2003 folks would die or leave and everything would even out. They even projected how quickly it would happen, though it missed the mark by a fair amount. Home sales in Sun City average between 1500-2000 per year, so if you do the math, in 10 years potentially we would see better than half of those residents gone. In 20 years, better than 30,000 home sale would have taken place and the turnover would be complete (there are 27,000+ households in Sun City).

I happen to know most of this stuff only because as a second generation Sun City resident, I was stuck square in the middle of this exact problem. My folks bought here in the 90's and were "grandfathered." They had a house in Phase 3 and loved it. In 2006 dad got Leukemia and died; 6 months later mom had a stroke. She battled back but was afraid to live alone. She sold her single family home and bought a place at Eldorado. She was still grandfathered and paid the single rate. 3 years later (2010) she was doing better and wanted her own place. She sold and bought a quad near Bell Rec Center and signed a new "facilities agreement." At that point, she was told she had to pay the flat rate, her "grandfathering" died when she signed the new facilities agreement.

I knew several of the former board members from 2003 and asked them if the changes they made were for the property or on the people living in the home? To a person they said it was on the person, not the property. After confronting board members, they argued they had made the change to the property, claiming it wasn't clear from the records and they were simply clarifying it. Right.

That got me fired up enough to run for the board. Mom pays the flat rate and i'm not trying to change it. I am trying to insure we (the board) don't do things that divide the community. I've not been as successful as I would like, but therein lies the pitfalls of serving on boards...the majority rules. Hence my argument: Corporation first/community first?

That said, we have made significant inroads towards a greater sense of community. There's lots of work left to do, and I am hopeful this coming election with more candidates than spots we will be able to find people looking to keep those changes moving forward. That's the great thing about Sun City; if there are things you don't like, get off your butt and get involved.

Sorry for the length but understanding the history of the community and how we function will only make all of us better able to work towards a brighter future.

 

The RCSC Articles of Incorporation:

Article I: "Members of the Corporation shall be limited to homeowners or residents of Sun City, Arizona." [Properties are not Members of the Corporation; Members are people. A non-profit corporation is not a government and does not have taxing authority.]

Article VIII.5: "5. The Bylaws of the Corporation shall prescribe the qualifications of Members and the terms of admission to membership, provided that the voting rights of all Members shall be equal and all Members shall have equal rights and privileges, and be subject to equal responsibilities. Such Bylaws shall also provide the method for determining assessments to be paid by the Members."

Article VIII.3: "3. The Directors shall have the power to adopt Bylaws not in conflict with the Articles of Incorporation."

**************

Mr. Pearson's mother is a Member and should be paying what other Members pay, which is $225, not $450. A couple pays $450 and gets two votes. This flies in the face of the "equal responsibilities" requirement of Article VIII.5.


The "unequal assessment" is one of the many causes of action being brought in a class action lawsuit against the RCSC. The RCSC board and counsel has not answered the letters sent to them by our attorney. .

Getting elected to the RCSC Board of Directors does not mean the board can vote to disobey state statutes and the community documents. "Majority rule" does not work in that case. The RCSC Board of Directors must comply with state statutes and the community documents and Superior Court is the only mechanism to compel compliance.

 

Just to refresh our memories, when did the attorney for annreport send the letters of request to the RCSC and/or its attorney for explanations or justification? This seems like really old history and something that annereport has been stating for a really long time? We keep hearing about the class action suit. I don't recall the answer as to how the suit is progressing or as to when it will be filed if it is still a pending concept

 

There were three letters sent to RCSC's Statutory Agent, James Hienton, from our attorney, Nancy Mangone. No response from RCSC at all. That leaves the members to fund the class-action lawsuit. We need $44,000. We're at $16,000. Fundraising is continuing. With cash on hand, we are preparing the complaint and collecting the declarations of those harmed by the illegal actions. Since non-compliance with state statutes and community documents is ongoing, so is our fundraising.
This is not old news.

The lawsuit must be carried through. In September 2013, the board approved $30 million for projects without a membership vote. They must be stopped. Only the members can stop them by going to court.