Just did some surfing & searching on the web about the RTS Program. It seems that there are any number of organizations that will sign you up through their group but I'm guessing that will also allow them to put you on their mailing lists. Very possible there is a person or persons that have an organized effort to sign people up at the Capital in order to post their position on bills....including SB1094.
Aggie, thank you for the cebv.us/rts link. For others interested, they have people at the capital that will register for you if fill out the cebv form.
Yup, I'll bet you're right Bill. Don Varenhorst predicted that in the "its not fair" thread -- the lobbyist most likely. And one of the legislators in the committee meeting had the nads to bring up the disparity in the count to imply everyone was for the bill. What shysters they are, cronyism at its finest since. I doubt the vast majority of them personally give a rats butt about the bill.
Interesting you say that IC; i noted the smirks by some of the legislators during the hearing. Almost like they knew the outcome of the vote long before it was ever taken. Politics at its finest. Perhaps we should have told people if they supported the bill they would lose their social security. That would have been on par with the crap about losing the age overlay.
Had coffee today with one of the folks who went down to testify. Great chance to talk about Sun City and what matters. Interesting take, because one of the things that so many of us want to believe in is a sense of fairness, justice and doing the right thing. That's not a complicated concept; it really isn't. I know you can rationalize almost anything. In the end, stacking the deck, telling lies to push people's buttons and sliding around in a slimy legislative process of deception and deceit is wrong no matter the rationale behind it. I think for those of you trying to shove this legislation down our throats, take a deep breath and recognize the cost of your actions. Everything comes at a price.
Are we, as members, allowed to make motions to the board in this "new" open meeting foray? Can I make a motion a search committee be formed immediately for a new GM? Or do I have to have one of the directors bring forth the motion? Just trying to understand the process, as it seems to be somewhat different from how T33 operates. I suspect the "open" meetings at the RCSC will never truly be open, and will continue to have the same slimy players pulling the strings.
When i do things, get involved with stuff or even when i write, i don't really care if the things i am doing or saying is well received or if people like me. It's just never been a priority in my life. I don't have many friends, try and get along with people, but if we don't, that's okay. So what i am going to say here is just me, being me. We all need to lighten up a little. Whether we are Title 10 or Title 33 isn't the end of the world. In fact, on a scale of one to ten, it's barely a one. Yes, T33 makes Sun City and the RCSC more transparent (that's a good thing, remember board members, that's what most of you ran on). It puts more people in play when the RCSC wants to do dumb stuff (like spend enormous sums of PIF money on golf while neglecting the rest of the needs of the community). It creates more opportunity to see how and why the RCSC is making those decisions. What is doesn't do is put the genie back in the bottle regarding restoring the quorum and annual meeting where we had a voice, where we could hold people accountable quickly and effectively. Too bad, but just the simple reality of what has happened. The funny thing is it was all about saving us from those who wanted to sue the RCSC...how did that work out for us? Back to my point: either the legislation will pass, or it won't. When the legal process continues, the judge will react one way or the other regarding our actions. I have no control over either and hence will lose no sleep over these issues. For the time being, i will give the board we elected the benefit of the doubt and see exactly how the changes will play out. There will be some bumpy roads along the way. It's pretty clear they are feeling their way as they go on this. If it when it breaks down, or if it works perfectly, only time will tell. I've said often, history matters. If you ever had a chance to talk to Ben, you would know what we are going through now is a pimple on an elephants ass compared to the old days. In the 70's and 80's there were half a dozen lawsuits a year filed. Residents homes were stoned, cars were keyed and people were literally driven out of the community regarding incorporation. Today's problem's is barely a blip on the screen, so everyone take a deep breath and realize, this too shall pass.
Looks like SB1094 has also died a slow death in the AZ Legislature according to information from Friday's Forum at SCHOA. Unfortunately any hope for reducing the $32 Highway Safety Tax on our annual registration has also disappeared. It is so frustrating to see what is actually passed and what important bills fall by the wayside. My take is that Ducey is using every method to squirrel away money from the budget to funnel into the border wall. Pretty cagey how it's coming from the Highway Safety Fund money, HURF transfers, education slight of hand budgeting and other slick maneuvers.
There's never any real method to their madness aggie. Ducey has been given plenty of leeway and unless and until the democrats are able to win more elections we will continue to see bills often fall down along party lines. Curious on SB1094, but as i said all along, legislation that is so one dimensional is always tough to pass. I thought once they added the out for other associations they might get more support. Obviously it wasn't enough to push it over the top. What i am really looking to see is if the house passes on to the senate the no texting while driving bill. It would be shameful to not deal with it, but the last i heard that is exactly what they were doing.
From what I've heard watching the various debates on this issue they'd rather have this fall under "distracted driving" instead of specifically texting. They don't want to make it a primary offense to pull someone over for cell phone or texting unless they are causing a hazard on the road while doing something to compromise their attention. They also said this would cover shaving, putting on makeup, a dog loose in the car, eating etc. Sounds like they're afraid of working law enforcement too hard and maybe give more reasons to complain of profiling at traffic stops.
There's never any real method to their madness aggie. Ducey has been given plenty of leeway and unless and until the democrats are able to win more elections we will continue to see bills often fall down along party lines. Curious on SB1094, but as i said all along, legislation that is so one dimensional is always tough to pass. I thought once they added the out for other associations they might get more support. Obviously it wasn't enough to push it over the top. What i am really looking to see is if the house passes on to the senate the no texting while driving bill. It would be shameful to not deal with it, but the last i heard that is exactly what they were doing.
Aggie, do you have any more details? The last entry on azleg.com was that it had a "yes" for both the majority and minority caucuses on 4/9. I don't know what that means, but I fear this bill has become cat-like (9-lives).
Legislative Update 4/16/2019 After today there are only 6 working days for the regular legislative session this year. This will be my last legislative update while the legislature is in session. None of the three remaining bills affecting homeowners are on today’s calendar for legislative consideration. SB-1094. Attempts to redefine the definition of planned communities to exonerate Sun Cities Recreation Centers Association for non-compliance with the act for 25 years, but in doing so will significantly impact the protections afforded by the Planned Communities act to every other planned community in the state. The proponents of this bill simply claim that SCRC is not an HOA and is therefore not subject to the act. The fact is that SCRC is not an HOA and never was but is still a Planned Community subject to the act. There is no doubt that SCRC is a common interest community based on their deed restriction on any home or unit that mandates that each owner must pay all the support cost to SCRC. There are only three possibly types of common interest communities under property servitudes law based on ownership schemes established for that association: If the individual unit owners own their individual units and a proportional share of all the common property they are a Condominium. In this scheme the association owns no property at all. Title 33 Chapter 9 If the individual unit owners actual own no part of their unit and no part of the common property but by being a member of an association that owns all the property they are granted the right to exclusive use of a unit, they are a Cooperative. Title 33 chapter 20 Timeshares are a subset of Cooperatives. If the owners own individual lots or homes and the association owns all the common property than that association is a Planned Community. An individual home may be subject to multiple planned communities or a combination of a planned community and condominium. Title 33 Chapter 16 This is how state law is established and how the fundamental principles of Property Servitudes law exist. Proponents have argued that the courts have overreached in ruling that SCRC was subject to the planned community act. But based on the above it is my opinion that any court in the country would have ruled the same. Many of you have written your legislators asking them to reject this bill, as have I, along with individual meetings with both Democratic and Republican Representatives. I believe that we have the votes to defeat this bill in the house, but that is never certain until an actual vote is taken. I believe that I have the entire Democratic Caucus committed to voting against this bill with two possible exceptions for the Green Valley Reps. I than have the 4 republican votes committed to vote against this bill necessary to defeat the bill in the house. There are a select few additional votes that I believe will also be no’s but have not personally committed that vote to me. See My Talking Points We have one last chance to write all the Republican Representatives and urge them to honor the rule of law and retain the definition of planned communities as established for the last 25 years. If SCRC wants to appeal the ruling of the Superior Court they are free to do so to the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court of Arizona. Please do not miss this one last opportunity to convince the legislators of the damage this bill will do. rbowers@azleg.gov; wpetersen@azleg.gov; bnutt@azleg.gov; tshope@azleg.gov; rcobb@azleg.gov; nbarto@azleg.gov; ggriffin@azleg.gov; jkavanagh@azleg.gov; mfinchem@azleg.gov; ncampbell@azleg.gov; kpayne@azleg.gov; jlawrence@azleg.gov; wblackman@azleg.gov; mudall@azleg.gov; tgrantham@azleg.gov; dcook@azleg.gov; bthorpe@azleg.gov; ktownsend@azleg.gov; jweninger@azleg.gov; akern@azleg.gov; lbiasiucci@azleg.gov; broberts@azleg.gov; tdunn@azleg.gov; josborne@azleg.gov; jfillmore@azleg.gov; sbolick@azleg.gov; fcarroll@azleg.gov; jallen@azleg.gov; spierce@azleg.gov. I want to thank you all for your support in these actions and for your patience with my long communications. Dennis Legere
Can't give any more details. My usually reliable source was at the SCHOA Legislators Forum and present were Gray, Payne & Rivero. The information given was that someone was sitting on the bill and it wouldn't go forward.
Thanks aggie. Dennis Legere’s report fairly well confirms that position. I stopped by the ars site yesterday to see if they had posted anything on it. Instead, I see the bullshit where they go after the PIF. It makes me freaking crazy to read their attempts to destroy the best funding stream we could ever devise. Without the preservation and improvement fee we would be a barren wasteland and your homes value would be in the toilet. That’s where the history is so important. Through all the years, those fighting for our future were always fighting to make it better, not ruin it. This crap in front of the judge isn’t just about open meetings or T33. Nope, it is pure vindictiveness. It’s why I could never get on board with her. Sorry, but crap is crap no matter how you package it.
I just read Aggie’s first listing names opposing the bill. Aside from Anne of Cleavage and her gerbil patrol, one name did jump out at me, Jonathan Desaussles. For people who do not to go after interesting but not necessarily useful info, such as myself, Jonathan is one of the attorneys handling the plaintiffs case against the RCSC. To take it one step further, since Annie’s $40k she extracted from everyone but herself and this money ran out a long time ago, Jonathan is handling this on a contingency basis. This means if the plaintiffs don’t get paid, he doesn’t get paid. Even further, I believe, after hanging around law firms for over 30 years, the firm’s billable hours are around $400k and the suit is far from over. My guess is at least another two years, not counting appeals where the money really racks up. Oh, he is a partner in the firm which means he gets his cut first. Agree with me CM as it is obvious that you know your way around the law without a paperback Black’s?
I was sure the RCSC had purchased an insurance policy to cover just these kind of costs. Was there limitations of coverage, or if you lose your case they don't pay? I believe the plaintiffs attorneys will be paid, just on the the pure premise of known testimony as to the documentation or lack thereof, of how and when the PIF was administered. Documentation missing yet still being told to pay, other documents missing key wording, and a general lack of cohesive order as to how to how the PIF would be administered. I also do not feel the PIF is in danger of going away or being retroactively undone. Too many communities nationally have buy in fees of some sort, and I don't see Brodman looking to set a national precedent over a babbling brook now cement pond. No, I do not have the judge's ear, but the Judge is a man of the law, and does not appear to be one looking to make a name for himself. I have researched, an nauseum, cases of buy in fees being deemed unlawful, unconscionable, or otherwise deemed illegal. All of the cases I found were blatant fraud of hustlers looking to make money off unsuspecting rubes by trying to sell what is the equivalent of the Brooklyn Bridge. Could there be monetary damages awarded, possible. But it will take some proof by those claiming to be injured to collect. Then, I would suspect the amount would be the PIF fee collected at whatever the amount was at the time. My argument to the named class plaintiffs would be if the PIF was so offensive to you, why did you continue to purchase additional properties in the Sun City community? The name of the game is pay to play, and this is what the PIF, buy in fees, whatever you choose to call them, gives you, the unsurpassed amenities you seek. Is anyone going to get rich of the awards from the suit, yup, the attorneys.
