| Posted: Mon Feb 1st, 2010 04:15 pm |
|
1st Post |
| Posted: Sun Jan 31st, 2010 03:19 am |
|
2nd Post |
Say What
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 346 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
The fantasy world is annereport.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29th, 2010 02:51 pm |
|
3rd Post |
annereport
Member
back to top
|
It's possible we are telling the truth. If we are, then Say What is living in a "fantasy world".
See http://www.annereport.com/new.html
Scan down and see what our "fantasy world" is all about. We are the Paul Revere of the American Revolution. We are letting you know what's going on so we can stop the "British". We are for freedom. We are for watching the RCSC and keeping our costs and assessments as low as possible while still keeping alive "Our Retirement Dream Come True."
Join us in our petition drive, which will begin shortly. Keep abreast of our progress:
http://www.annereport.com/petition.html
Circulating petitions and voting is the American way!Attachment: RhinestoneFlag.gif (Downloaded 29 times) Last edited on Fri Jan 29th, 2010 03:02 pm by annereport
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29th, 2010 01:59 pm |
|
4th Post |
Jymw
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
The essence of community depends upon perceived fairness and procedures should never rule over objective. The original purpose of Sun City, yes, I remember the day ground was broken, was to establish a real community of people with common goals and aspirations for retirement years. Such a community could endure ad infinitum! "Community" cannot be maintained where there is perceived unfairness in the collection of fees or other differential treatment and application of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Any power group that is perceived by some to be other than egalitarian in procedures should reconsider action in light of purpose or objective. 
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29th, 2010 02:48 am |
|
5th Post |
Say What
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 346 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
What a fantasy world you live in!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28th, 2010 01:04 pm |
|
6th Post |
annereport
Member
back to top
|
Say What asks "What are they afraid of?"
The RCSC framed Anne Randall Stewart twice with false charges and perjuring witnesses. They have threatened permanent expulsion for a third event. Mrs. Stewart will not give them an opportunity to frame her a third time.
Also, another fear is that if you don't go along with unanimous voting you will be kicked off the board like they did to Ann Ullman, a duly-elected board member.
We are gearing up to circulate a petition to remove the board's ability to do that again.
Also, we will circulate a second petition to remove their ability to write rules that haven't been approved by the members.
There's a clique in charge and it appears Say What is in it. We're not. And we are holding the clique accountable which they abhor. Too bad. That's what freedom is all about. There are two sides to every story; there are opposing points of view. We live in America and anyone living here should be applauding the opposing views so they can make better decisions instead of just going along with the bad ones.
At the Membership meeting on 1/28/10, Noel Kasper will be asking the board to rescind their votes on the following decisions: 1) Increasing by 20% the PIF, 2) increasing the membership quorum from 100 to 3600, 3) decreasing the petition deadline from 180 to 90 days, and 4) removing CCWs. If they don't comply, he will request a recall petition to remove the six board members responsible.
Follow the petition drive progress:
http://www.annereport.com/petition.html
To help, call 623-933-6192 and email anne@annereport.com
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27th, 2010 05:40 pm |
|
7th Post |
Say What
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 346 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Once again, everyone asks where are these individuals when we need volunteers for Board positions? What are they afraid of?
Instead they circulate petitions against something they could be a part of!
Funny isn't it!
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 27th, 2010 05:20 pm |
|
8th Post |
justlivininscty
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 221 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Nicely laid out in simple language that anyone can follow, thanks Anne.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 26th, 2010 01:48 pm |
|
9th Post |
annereport
Member
back to top
|
Why we contend that the manner of assessing is illegal...
WHAT THE RCSC ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION GUARANTEE:
The RCSC Articles of Incorporation Article I states "Members of the Corporation shall be limited to homeowners or residents of Sun City, Arizona." Notice the word "or" and that Members are people not property.
Article VIII.1 states "Directors shall be elected by the Members at an annual election in the manner prescribed in the Bylaws." Notice Members which means "homeowners or residents". Notice that residents can vote; residents can be renters.
Article VIII.5 states "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." Notice "provided that" and "all Members" ("homeowners or residents"). Notice the repeated use of "equal".
Article VIII.3 states: "The Directors shall have the power to adopt Bylaws not in conflict with the Articles of Incorporation." Notice "not in conflict".
CONCLUSIONS:
Consider that the bylaws and board policies the board created without membership approval conflict with the promises of the Articles of Incorporation. The board cannot write ones that conflict with the Articles of Incorporation.
Consider that "Homeowners or residents" are equal so both should be mandatory members paying equally. Nowhere does it say the property is assessed as a property tax. Assessments are a Membership fee that pays in equal shares among the "members" the cost of maintaining and refurbishing the facilities.
Consider that the more mandatory members there are, the less money paid by each one.
Consider that when the board created "Members" and "Privilege cardholders" the board created two classes of members who pay a convoluted assessment schedule that is so unequal that it is impossible for them to issue a rate schedule.
Also, ask people if they have paid the PIF. If everyone has not paid it, then it is illegal because all Members ("homeowners or "residents") have "equal obligations."
We have talked to people who have paid the PIF as a Buyer and then as a Seller in order to unload the property in a depressed real estate market. There are kids who inherited who could not get reimbursed the PIF when the house didn't sell within a year because of a depressed real estate market. And the PIF has routinely increased just about every year $300, $700, $1600, $2,500, $3,000 with talk of it going to $5,000, shortly! Yet, there are members who NEVER PAID THE PIF AT ALL!
Also, the board removed the voting rights and facility usage from "homeowners" who have "their primary Arizona residence within 70 miles of Sun City". That board policy was changed AFTER the homeowners moved here! The board changed the contract without their permission. Also, these homeowners have to pay mandatory assessments just like other homeowners. Remember the word "equal"; the board's change to the contact is not "equal".
Then the board inserted the word "spousal". Consider, you have two "homeowners" who are not spouses who are paying the double assessment but get only one vote and one rec card; the second "homeowner" has to buy an additional rec card and doesn't get a vote. However, "spousal" homeowners get two votes and two rec cards. Remember the word "equal"? The board created unequal treatment to homeowners who are married and those who are not.
The illegal RCSC board-created bylaws and board policies have created "inequality" here and as a result unhappy people. Also, some could consider the PIF as a form of highway robbery to pay for the wants and desires of those who aren't having to pay for them.
This is why we are preparing to circulate petitions to change the articles of incorporation with a membership vote.
See http://www.annereport.com/petition.html to follow the progress.
We want to remove the ability of the board to write bylaws and board policies without coming to the members for ratification.
Sign and Circulate petitions. Call 623-933-6192.Attachment: FeatherPenSignature.jpg (Downloaded 61 times)
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24th, 2010 01:34 am |
|
10th Post |
Say What
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 346 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Nothing remains the same! Look in the mirror. Even your house does not look like it did in 2003.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23rd, 2010 07:52 pm |
|
11th Post |
SillyBen
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 67 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Great imagination for a nonagenarian! Keep it up!
Last edited on Sun Jan 24th, 2010 07:12 pm by SillyBen
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23rd, 2010 07:31 pm |
|
12th Post |
Jymw
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
It seems it is about time for me to start thinking about paying the annual RCSC fee for my house again. I had a long talk with my house last night and it believes that since it is charged $400 a year to use the ammenities provided by RCSC it would like to go and exercise as its forty year old joints are a little creaky. It also thinks its picture should be on the rec card instead of mine. I just don't know how I can get my house to the Bell Center to exercise. My house also is willing to pay a green fee if it can be moved from green to green some afternoon. It just seems reasonable that since the fee is said to be for the "property" and since I live alone we, my house and I, are not getting full benefit for that cost each year. I understand that some single people only pay half as much as I do and I do not understand how they define half a property but maybe that is because I am in the latter part of my 9th decade of life and I have missed something in "new" math. Now up until 2003 the fee was assessed by person; now that makes sense--two people would pay twice as much as one, that seems logical and equitable. But oh yes, this is 2010 and we no longer use logic in the decision making process and what is equity when the issue is raising more dollars. I have to keep reminding myself of that. Have a nice day and I will try to console my house for having to pay but not use the facilities.
|
|
