Interesting Articles found on Web re: Ek

Discussion in 'Sun City General Discussions' started by Poison_Ivy, Nov 19, 2021.

  1. Poison_Ivy

    Poison_Ivy Member

    WoW, this is talking about the bloated golf budget way back in 2008!
    (This wouldn't upload as a file, so link is below as well as copied article)

    http://www.annereport.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/081001arsindzeitlerekrebuttal.pdf

    RCSC should follow rules
    Anne Randall Stewart, Spokesperson for The Sun City Formula Registry, anne@annereport.com
    In her letter to the editor (Sun Cities Independent, Sept. 24, 2008), RCSC General
    Manager Jan Ek attempted to explain away newcomer Steve Zeitler’s legitimate complaint at not
    being allowed to use the facilities without showing his driver’s license first. It takes time to
    receive a driver’s license from the State and he wanted to use the facilities in the interim.
    The RCSC spent thousands of dollars on “Five Star Customer Service” training. Surely,
    Mr. Zeitler’s payment of $3,190 to the RCSC would deserve immediate accommodation instead
    of lame excuses. Ms. Ek claimed that the RCSC must eye-ball drivers’ licenses in order to
    prevent “investors” from over using our facilities. That blatantly contradicts her actions. After
    all, she opened the facilities to the public!
    Unfortunately, Ms. Ek’s disclosure that investors are barred from using the common
    areas is a damning public admission. It jeopardizes RCSC’s “common area” property tax
    exemption under A.R.S. 42-13402.C.4, which requires that “all … property owners … must have
    a right to use and enjoy the common areas.”
    The core problem herein derives from the illegal treatment of the investor member. The
    Articles of Incorporation require “equal” voting rights, “equal” rights and privileges and “equal”
    responsibilities. The Articles bar the board from writing bylaws in conflict with the Articles.
    The precursor to the changes affecting the investor-member occurred after an owner with
    60 properties voted 60 times against Norm Dickson, the force behind the redoubling of the
    “Patsy Penalty” (aka the property improvement fund assessment) paid by newcomers, investors,
    and beneficiaries. In retaliation, this member had all his votes removed and cannot use the
    facilities anymore, but still pays thousands of dollars in mandatory assessments. He is
    disenfranchised — “taxation without representation.”
    Due to term limits, Norm Dickson is gone and cannot run again, so it is time to reinstitute
    the rightful property rights of this owner and others in this bilked segment of our membership;
    reinstitute the rightful vote of the members for projects over $750,000; and hire a professional to
    control the proliferating, bloated golf budget. Check out the weeds in the greens, the fungus in
    the mushy fairways, and the rocks in the sand traps filled with water.
    Life would be much simpler if the board obeyed the Articles of Incorporation. Also, it
    would stop the addiction to “OPM” (Other People’s Money). Homeowner’s benefiting from the
    multi-million-dollar projects should have to pay their equal share.
    By bringing this subject to light, maybe some good might come out of the inhospitable
    treatment of Mr. Zeitler, after all.
     
  2. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Hey PI, long forgotten article for me. Over the years i met with ARS several times. Our discussions were always civil. She had valid points until she didn't. Most often it took about 15 minutes to get to the meat of her efforts. The end game was always the same; force the RCSC under Title 33 and then sue them into oblivion. If that wasn't bad enough, then she would go down the path to getting rid of PIF. My immediate response was, "then what?" "How would we rebuild an aging infrastructure?" Her answer was always the same, "not my problem." It would have crushed Sun City's future and she cared not. It was at that point i gave up with her.

    Like i said she had some valid points, golfs exploding costs being one of them. The mistake on the other end was to pretend there was no such thing. There was and there still is today.
     
  3. Say What

    Say What Active Member

    I guess we should have taken ARS more seriously. The problem at that time was most of her followers were all tea baggers and most of their train of thought in regards to Sun City was really off the wall. But had we all listened to quite a few things at ARS had enlightened us on we may not have been in the predicament that we're in right now! The world was in quite a crazy place back in those days wish I could get all those years back LOL.
     
  4. FYI

    FYI Active Member

    So does that mean that we really CAN collect signatures on RCSC property?
     
  5. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    Not sure what the Arizona statute says these days FYI, but most of the stuff out there from ARS is old. Interesting side note, most of the crap we are dealing with comes from the lawsuit, all push back by the RCSC.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2021
  6. aggie

    aggie Well-Known Member

    What if the signature gathering was to take place in one of the 2 County Libraries situated on RCSC property? The County can make the rules about that....right? Unless the County is afraid the lease will be voided.
     
  7. CMartinez

    CMartinez Active Member

    Per Arizona State Statute A.R.S. 42-13402.C.4, the language is written for the purpose of taxation of common properties and how they are registered by the "property manager". It does not provide unfettered access to any portion of common areas already designated as such by the property manager and deemed a "common area" for tax purposes. Should such p[roperty change in its scope of use as described in the Arizona State Law as "common use property" it can have a ripple effect in causing a different taxation value placed on the land as it sits, plus all other encroaching property.

    Included in the language for ARS 42-13402 is another Arizona Law which refers to property management agreements and how they shall be written and and administered. ARS 32-2173. Property management agreements; contents, termination. In other words there are several laws which cover the use of common area, as designated by the property manager and how the taxation rate is applied.

    In other words, No the common areas are not open property to be used as one sees fit, rather they are listed as "Common Areas" for the specific use and intent of the RCSC, as they are the property manager charged with paying the taxes and upleep on the property.
     
  8. Say What

    Say What Active Member

    I dare them to even think about going after the county if they would allow it. We all know how busy these libraries are. Maybe this is what it would take to get people to the meeting. And Carole thank you for your research and I apologize for my comments towards you. It was uncalled for.
     
  9. CMartinez

    CMartinez Active Member

    Aggie, I searched the Maricopa County Library District extensively as to their policy on having the property used as a location for the collection of Proxy signatures. While there is nothing which states it cannot or should not happen, I also read the Maricopa County elections take on a few items and it is to vague to be of use for this situation. What I did take not of is the availability of rooms which can be rented and used for gatherings for small groups which are available at the library. It is crystal clear to me there are no such rooms offered at either of the Sun City locations. It would be in the groups best interest to be able to reserve space to set up and be available to share information as well as collect proxies. Every thing I looked at for the Sun City branches offer no such information on line. The do recommend one can call to find out about space available and times to the local library personnel. I was really hoping the library was an open and closed case as far as being able to use these locations to further the cause. This is not anywhere in the information I researched.

    Say What, I was severly offended by the commentary you posted and was hurt that all I had done to provide information to all, to inlcude you, was demeaned in such a crude way. I accept the apology, but please understand if there is a significant trust and ethics issue that still lingers. I am sure this too will pass, in a few years.
     
    Poison_Ivy likes this.
  10. OneDayAtATime

    OneDayAtATime Active Member

    I did ask at the Fairway branch about a meeting room and was told that they didn't have one. I asked about the Bell Ctr. branch, and she said that there is a room for gathering but you can't have a "closed" meeting in it. It's more like a gathering room; people would be coming in and out. I did not drive to Bell to confirm that.

    I specifically asked the question at the Board meeting the other day about the fact that one could bring proxy sheets to a club meeting but the person who is signing would have to walk out to the sidewalk and sign it out there. The Board said that YES, that could be done.
     
  11. SCR

    SCR Active Member

    ODAAT - get that in writing.
     
  12. OneDayAtATime

    OneDayAtATime Active Member

    It was said and video taped at the last Board meeting. 2:31:15
     
  13. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    So here's the deal SCR; at least a couple of the board members are collecting Proxy votes to have in their back pocket just in case. They won't pull them out unless there is a board quorum and they need them to counter other proxies because they don't want their's to put them over the 1250. Cute eh?
     
  14. Poison_Ivy

    Poison_Ivy Member

    And the BOD wonders why we don't trust them. "Unflippinbelivable"
     
  15. FYI

    FYI Active Member

    Boy, if that doesn't convey to the Members that it's "us against them" then nothing does! That alone seems to be grounds for dismissal?

    So much for doing everything and anything in the interest of the Members!

    I guess when you see the term "RCSC Cardholder Services" and wonder what the term "service" really means, think about the farmer who purchased a bull to "service" his cows!

    I guess that means they're there to screw us?
     
    eyesopen likes this.
  16. IndependentCynic

    IndependentCynic Active Member

    Last week I believe I saw a rec center employee threaten to call the police if a canvasser who was trying to do exactly what you suggest didn't get off Fairway property.

    I think the gotcha is RCSC property is owned by the RCSC, not the "community". Ie, none of us have an ownership interest. It isn't community property according to AZ Law -- that was the biggest travesty of allowing Gray and Payne to pass a law exempting SC from Title 33. So by law, now, SC isn't covered by the very laws intended to protect us from an unscrupulous Board that ignores the membership.

    FWIW, in my opinion some elements of ARS's lawsuit had the potential to correct inequities specific to SC and provide safeguards afforded to all planned communities in AZ.. To suggest all the supporters of her suit were t-baggers is incorrect. To suggest some of her ideas were borderline vendettas is also true. By not supporting some of her actions has resulted in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

    The RCSC holds most of the cards which dictates the huge amount of money they consume providing more golf capacity per capita than, for example, Phoenix which has approximately 5 times as many courses as SC for a city that's 40 times the population of SC. Granted not completely apples to apples, but the RCSC is completely irresponsible when it comes to Golf. The RCSC is past due putting plans in place to shed itself of some courses and reducing the ever increasing spiral of money they spend to provide a small percent of SC dirt cheap golf fees. They can't continue the status quo with golf and not set the stage for s crisis as climate and water resources threaten golf as we know it.
     
  17. BPearson

    BPearson Well-Known Member

    I would be hard pressed to argue with IC other than to say i met with ARS several times to try and understand if there was any chance to work together. It became obvious to me why we couldn't move forward together; i wanted to fix it, she wanted to implode it. She was a force of nature and took nearly 20 years to end up with a failed lawsuit. In the end some sort of compromise (like Sun City West made with SWOOG) would have been far more attractive. Interesting now with the Dawn Lakes folk and whether we go back down that rabbit hole.
     
  18. IndependentCynic

    IndependentCynic Active Member

    I only stand up for ARS's tactics over two major items -- trying to get the Quorum restored to 100 and adherence to T33. While her motives were not mine, soldiers from different armies often join forces against common foes for varying reasons. Had we supported those two issues, especially T33, we wouldn't be where we are today, still fighting for our rights. I also thought back then, and still believe today that the PIF isn't a fair and equable concept -- BP and I disagree on this, but I believe we do agree that, all things considered, we know of no better alternative to the PIF.

    Personally, after 15+ years of 1)trying to get the RCSC to conduct themselves according to AZ law, their own AIs, and BLs, 2)years of watching the GM change the BLs, BPs, etc. to keep members at bay, and 3)years of being lied to by the RCSC, I believe the only way to get the RCSC to embrace a "kumbaya" relationship with the membership requires legal action. The GM/Board have become adept at doing just enough to seem they are trying to redeem themselves, only to then revert back to their autocracy. Quite frankly, from the 10,000 foot view, we members are likely viewed by independent observers as nieve suckers.
     
    BPearson likes this.

Share This Page