I know folks have been walking on eggshells about the suit brought against the RCSC. Now that we know all of us will be paying higher rec fees, seems only fair to share the pain eh? Rather than have you digging to see if any of them are your neighbors, you can find the nearly 40 folks who are attached to the document below (which is public record). It is interesting to note some of the folks signed on don't live in Sun City, they just feel it is their God-given right to use the facilities. Here's the link to those suing the RCSC...another words, suing ourselves. Bloody brilliant. I took the time to read the explanations in the suit on each of the plaintiffs. It is curious to note the bulk of them are arguing it wasn't fair what happened, even though the RCSC had in fact executed an agreement they voluntarily agreed to (including the terms). Even better is some of them suffered no consequences but are worried what might happen sometime in the future. For anyone wanting to read the actual filed complaint, you can find it here. The good news is when this gets tossed, we'll finally be done with the nonsense once and for all. There is not a better managed community in the country than Sun City.
For the record: I am in no way connected to or part of the RCSC (other than as a concerned member). Any thoughts expressed are purely my own. That's right fixj, my blood began to boil while reading the list of plaintiffs when I saw a couple's name we used to take country dance lessons with that own a home in Sun City West. Apparently they bought a home here figuring they could then use our amenities. Oops, a little due diligence would have told them of the 75 mile rule. And before anyone starts down the you're grandfathered and getting two cards lament, let me put it to rest quickly with this analogy: Yes we bought before 2003 and we are grandfathered. We get 2 cards for a single lot assessment. However, we just bought a second Sun City property and signed a new facilities agreement. In it, we agreed to pay the $3000 PIF and should either one or the other of us die, we would still pay the single lot assessment rate. And, we get no rec cards (we don't live there), and our seasonal renters will most assuredly buy the monthly privilege cards. If you read the court filings, a good part of the complaints were from folks feeling they weren't getting what others were getting. The point from my perspective is simple: We wanted to buy another house (and there is a large number of Sun City residents owning multiple properties). We knew the terms of the purchase, including all of the conditions the RCSC has established over the years. We bought it anyway. The terms are spelled out in the facilities agreement and we signed it of our own free will; as did those people attached to the lawsuit. To argue now they didn't know, or worse yet, they didn't check is utter nonsense. To whine now about the fact the RCSC has modified the facilities agreements over the years (which they have a legal right to do) is pure crap. I've spent the bulk of my retirement years promoting Sun City; what it is, what it offers people of average means. I've been outspoken when I see things I feel should change, but ultimately my goal has always been to help make Sun City a better place going forward. This lawsuit does none of that, and if anything hurts Sun City. Shameful!
There you go E, you too have grounds for a lawsuit; back in 1960 when Sun City opened you only had to be 50 years old to live here. Come to think of it, we were 51 and we could sue as well. And therein you see the failed logic of this fiasco. The contention appears to be whatever was, can never be changed, and if it was, somehow it's a violation of the person buying into the community. If that was the case, the first buyers only were charged around $150 for their portion of the rec centers that were built into the cost of their homes by DEVCO. By the time they began the Bell Rec Center, the price had gone up to about $250 per property. Dang, more lawsuits in the waiting eh? Several of those signing on as plaintiffs are arguing their PIF fees were higher than those buying before them. Really? Think about it like this: You buy a new car in 2010, works great, but by 1015 you want to buy another. You go in and purchase that new car (for approximately $5000 more than the 2010 model). You agree on the price, pay for it and then find an attorney to sue the dealer because the price was higher than the 2010 model. Really? I don't like our legal system, but it's what we have to work with. I have lots of friends who are attorneys, but I often find myself at odds over how their profession works. I know I can do nothing about it, it is what it is. The interesting footnote here is this suit had a pretty good attorney working on it for the plaintiffs, but she walked away. Don't know the new guy, but after reading the suit filed in court, most of the claims are utter nonsense. There was an old adage we used when going to arbitrations; throw enough **** on the walls and see if any of it would stick. This case is the classic example of that. The argument the RCSC has no right to change anything ever is so far removed from reality, it reeks of someone chasing an ambulance; in my humble opinion. Every step of the way, even from the very first year, changes were being made by those helping shape the community's future. None of it was ever done out of malice or spite, they were simply trying to insure Sun City not only survived but flourished. 56 years later, when you put a microscope on the community you come to see just what an awesome job they did. Hard to believe we are even having this discussion. You need to know this: The RCSC, staff nor board members can or should talk about this suit. That is the advice any good attorney would give. Hell, they'd probably ask me to say anything but I hate the impression that leaves. Hence my comments are solely my take on this silliness before us.
Now, I ask you, How many of those over 55 are apt to have a spouse 19 years old?. Funny, funny, funny. I do agree with one thing. It does seem unfair to charge per lot rather than per person. However, when buying in to SC, we/I knew that. It will be interesting watching this play out.
When this gets tossed, will these 40 people be required to pay our legal expenses and will the rec center fee be reduced the amount it was just raised?
When this gets tossed, will these 40 people be required to pay our legal expenses and will the rec center fee be reduced the amount it was just raised? In all likelihood not. It is why I would have at least considered filing a SLAPP suit against those filing the suit. But that's just me eh? During my 12 years of living here, the boards have always tried to be judicious when it came time to raise the yearly lot assessment (rec fees). Most years we saw the hikes of $6 per year, some were a dollar a month and I think we had one with no increase. You won't see your fees cut if this goes away quickly, but I would look for no increase next year if they don't spend it on legal fees for this suit.
