May 10, 2017 at 1:47 pm #3654
At the latest restaurant workshop held today, May 9, 2017, the bottom line of the discussions seemed to be following. My commentary will follow.
If a restaurant is to be opened once again, the GM and Tom Nissen recommend the following:
The rent, utilities, property taxes etc. are to be subsidized, starting with $14.00 per house hold per year. ($14.00 times 7, 144.00 homes =$100,016)
Gaming to be allowed in the bar area, license to be held by restaurant lessee.
All catering for SCA to be exclusive through the restaurant ONLY. (NO OUTSIDE CATERING).
The types of food were discussed and those present seemed to be in favor of Village Pub type, most were against fancy foods. Breakfast/lunch and after show or happy hour preferences were expressed.
: My comments
Let’s talk about exclusive catering first. We are a community of ADULTS and as such, it is about time our board and GM treated us as mature and responsible homeowners.
Adults are fully capable of making catering decisions based on quality, price and service. If an event is to be planned by a club or a resident and the food in the restaurant is pleasing, the first place they will go for a bid will be to that restaurant as they have in the past.
However, in the past, often the price, because the restaurant had exclusive rights to cater all events, was unreasonably high. The choices of dishes were not varied, so the client, having no option, went to other venues down the hill..
Even the Women’s Club, one of our largest clubs, finally had to start going to the M Resort due to the poor quality of the luncheons served by the last venue in Anthem Center..
As for a private function, I cannot fathom what I would do if my granddaughter had wanted her wedding on the north lawn, (voted one of the most romantic views in the city), but could not come to terms on catering because I would be forced to use a catering service from a restaurant, based at Anthem whose food she was not happy with or whose pricing was not acceptable. Catering needs to be earned like any good business not “a given” just because of the location it is in.
Place yourself in that position, as a property owner in this community, you have the right, and the standing to have a location like that for something so special and must reject it due to an outrageous rule made by an employee with no vested interest. And the board agreed to it, how would you feel?
Let us talk numbers of people in our clubs forced to accept this. You need 50 people to request a club charter, we have about 60 chartered clubs with rosters of some numbering in the hundreds. Imagine how many people you are now demanding exclusivity to the restaurant from, rather than following their own desires. What if a club wants a pizza party for lunch, must they go off campus for it, and why should they, since this is their home?
What about ethnic foods? Must the clubs who enjoy that go elsewhere rather than have it served here at home? Exclusivity is removing free choice from us all!
Several years ago, when the topic of gaming first came up I made calls to the gaming commission and asked what seemed like dozens of questions. I was told that if the public were allowed in the restaurant and any betting was allowed anywhere else in the building, example, Bingo, etc. we needed to make the rest of the building PRIVATE. They suggested a gate of some kind with perhaps a key-card entry, using our membership cards to open it. That would mean new membership card and the gate etc. and don’t forget the restroom doors in Anthem Center, one needs gate-key entry since it leads to the gallery.
The survey the went to all residents said 76% wanted a restaurant but they didn’t want to subsidize it!!!
Now that the board and GM wants to reverse that. Major changes to any element need a vote of the owners per NRS116, Mrs. Seddon is not an ownerMay 10, 2017 at 2:49 pm #3656
“Rambling…” “Blinding flash of the obvious!” “Death by PowerPoint.” Thoughts that came to mind listening to an entitled group that get their exercise jumping to conclusions. Facts as I see them:
The site is ‘tainted’ – 4 or 5 (who’s counting) restaurants and 4 or 5 failures – all subsidized.
Alternatives abound – Yelp reports 1,416 ‘restaurants’ within the radius of Anthem Center and the intersection of S. Eastern Ave. & I-215. Even overstated by a factor of 2, that’s over 700 alternatives.
Where are the marketers and economists? Supply and demand, average table spend, motivation to try and return – these questions are ignored by those who have no idea of true customer motivation and renention. Root causes and 1st principles, people!
Habits have been set – Buckman’s, The Village Pub, Black Mountain Grill, to name a few. Those who patronized Vic’s and those who came before, as I devotedly contributed and wrote frequently on Yelp, have found suitable alternatives – and may not – some will not – return. SCA fearless leaders are living in a “Field of Dreams” – “If we build it, they will come”.
Failure rate is ignored – approx. 50% in the 1st year, 90% in 5 years – data may vary – http://online.csp.edu/blog/business/why-do-90-of-restaurants-fail-in-the-first-year
Too many constraints – exclusive catering can’t satisfy our Asian community to name only one segment.
Who’s gonna serve? We’re expecting food servers to drive up and down the hill – possibly 20 – 30 miles each work day to earn bupkus. Our community of parsimonious residents are not big tippers. Turn-over will be horrendous.
Gaming as a draw? You must be joking.
Conflict on a coffee shop? Don’t get me started with the FAS fiasco. Plenty of blame to go around on that one.
New attorney, new “restaurant experts” – but no new thinking.
I’d appreciate the benefit of inviting friends and family to our beautiful center if ‘the gang could learn to shoot straight’. I have no faith in a plausible execution after sitting through the paint drying exercise I endured yesterday. That’s an hour of my life I’ll never get back…May 10, 2017 at 9:23 pm #3658
Amazing how we could sit next to each other at the meeting and come away with such a differing view.
You did list pretty accurately all the points presented but they were presented as outstanding questions that would have to be answered or decided IF we are to have a restaurant. No one said we would have gaming. No one said catering would be exclusive. No one said what type of food or price would be offered. All items were presented as discussion points to be resolved.
As to gaming, apparently Tom had recently contacted the gaming board and received assurances that they would only be interested in gaming in the restaurant and not any private games that may occur in the center.
All in all I was very satisfied they have a process designed to get answers to questions they or residents may have. Feeling quite confident residents will get several opportunities to weigh in when they have more info.
In reading your analysis I felt you were forecasting events as you believe might occur, not what was presented yesterday.
WadeMay 10, 2017 at 10:45 pm #3659
Rana, thank you for forwarding me a copy of your report on the meeting this morning. As you know, I could not attend as I was down at the other end of the building attending to Entertainment Club business.
First of all, why must the residents of SCA subsidize a new restaurant which is, in fact, a private enterprise? My family has had rental property for generations and never once have we paid for anything going into the buildings. The lessee made any additions needed for their business and we were responsible for the 4 walls, roof and foundation. They were also responsible for all utilities and licenses associated with their business, including 2 tenants that required liquor licenses.
Residents have voted on several occasions we did not want a restaurant especially if we had to pay for any of it. Already this year our annual assessment has been increased. I don’t know if the BOD or management is aware that almost all of the residents are on a fixed income…..some more fixed then others. A good many of us have the major part of our retirement invested in our homes. It may come out to around $14 per home but to some people that may mean paying the extra or doing without a medication.
We also voted previously not to have gaming because of the element it would bring to SCA and the fact it would be very expensive to close off the rest of Anthem Center to the public.
Regarding exclusive catering. This is the worst idea I have heard. I know nothing about other clubs and can only speak as President of the Entertainment Club. We have an annual holiday show/dinner in December. If we are not able to choose our own caterer we would have to consider holding this event off campus. We want the freedom to choose our own menu from any catering service available, not be chained to a restaurant that may or may not have good food or service and that would charge us such an high price we would not be able to afford it. We have been able to keep costs low for the members of the Club and residents of SCA. In addition, we hold a Meet & Greet after every show and serve refreshments. Our audience is extremely pleased with this gesture which we cannot afford to have catered. The members of the Club take care of supplying the refreshments.
We have had 5 restaurants here in the 15 years since I bought my house. None have been successful and all have drained residents of a great deal of money. The residents will not support a restaurant here as there are too many other places just minutes down the road that we frequent on a regular basis. And, you will not be able to attract patrons from other parts of the valley. Your sole customer base is right here.
I understand that the attendees at today’s meeting seemed to be in agreement we should have a restaurant. That is an extremely small number compared to the 12,000 or so residents in the 7100 homes in SCA. No action whatsoever should be taken until a survey is sent to every home which should include what kind of restaurant they might want if everyone agrees.
President, Entertainment Club
From: RANA0527@May 10, 2017 at 11:00 pm #3660
I am concerned that when we previously had a tenant and gave him everything he took advantage of us and kept the restaurant open for many months or well over a year and never paid his rent. I think there should be something in the lease that states when they pay us, and what happens if they don’t.
I also know for experience once we have the restaurant and it only costs $14 per resident per year, that amount continues to rise. Put a cap on it and I might be more favorable to the restaurant
I am not in favor of gaming in SCA. It’s going to attract too many visitors that we don’t need or want and besides there are plenty of casinos near by. We don’t need gaming.May 10, 2017 at 11:27 pm #3661
Listen up folks. I don’t know how many times I have said this over the years, but it called “a triple net lease” where the owners of the building have no responsibility to managing the costs of the business being run. It is a arms length transaction that has never been done here, why I don’t know other than to guess “our middle management team” has not known that something like this even exists. They have proven time in and out they don’t have a clue on how to run a business other than their past experiences that has nothing in their past lives to prove so (with great exception).
Why the past attorney group has not suggested this is of course beyond me, and I wonder about this new one. So where do they find these types of lawyers?
Five restaurants is too much for any intelligent person to comprehend so obviously they don’t know what else to do with the space other than use it for affairs for the community to use.
As a security director and owner for many years the cost to separate the rst of the business will run in the thousands so please consider this when the decision is made. All it will do is make us dig deeper into our pockets for the “temporary” board members.May 10, 2017 at 11:44 pm #3663
I too was at the meeting for the major portion of it. It appears that Wade has learned nothing about human nature, nor what any board’s fiduciary duty is all about from the time he was vice-president several years ago until now. I also gather from his comments that he is still jaded and feels that he was part of the “aristocracy” in SCA and is blind to the constant negative impact on the homeowners who fund everything here. What Wade is not aware of is the fact that policy should be made ultimately by the board ONLY AFTER there is real dialogue with homeowners, and not decisions emanating from a general manager who thinks she knows better than all of us who live here. She should not be making policy which she does. The ramifications of something so controversial should be discussed with EVERYONE who lives here. There is a pressing need to be given choices and non-slanted facts before the board continues to make blunder after blunder.May 11, 2017 at 6:21 pm #3666
I also attended the workshop and was disappointed that the only restaurant option was the same old full service restaurant idea — history has shown it is doomed to fail. However, this time the subsidy will be given up front so it may last a little longer. The board used the past survey to justify “the residents want a restaurant” but forgot about the “at no cost”.
The board stated “it will only succeed if the residents support it”. To help achieve this, the restaurant would also have exclusive catering rights and would be allowed to use the Delaware room to cater outside events. Great, the residents not only subsidize the operation but lose use of their property. The SCA clubs will be forced to use the restaurant to cater their events — even if it provides cold, overpriced and uninspired food — as was done in the past. There is no incentive for the restaurant to do otherwise. The clubs will then go offsite and when it inevitably fails, the board will say, “the residents didn’t support it”.
All of the above comments are valid and spot on and have greater insight than was exhibited by the board. Everyone wants something different: Chinese; American; hot dogs; pizza; or whatever with reasonable prices. Some want it open at 7:00 am for a breakfast snack and others want it to be open until 10:00 pm.
Clearly, no single restaurant will satisfy everyone. I believe the concept of a food court operation should be considered as an option. The existing booths would be removed and replaced with a storefront for 2 or 3 casual type restaurants. Typically, these are about 800 square feet of exclusive space and the back area would be a shared common area for food storage and maybe food preparation. The bar would remain as a separate entity. All of the seating would be of the casual table type in a shared common area. The cost for maintenance of the common area and utilities would be paid via a CAM (common area maintenance) fee.
There are a lot of individuals that dream of opening a restaurant, but they lack the funds needed. They are willing to work long hours and will do everything possible to please the customer. We could have a variety of food concepts – maybe a fresh donut, pastry and coffee shop that opens early for breakfast and lunch. Another might be hamburgers, hot dogs and pizza for lunch and dinner. Another might be Greek food based on old family recipes.
The point is, a variety of foods would be available and have a better chance of pleasing the residents. As is common, some will fail. However, they will not all fail at the same time and therefore, the others will still be open to serve the residents, until a replacement tenant is found.
Instead of a $100,000 to $150,000 a year subsidy I believe there is a number of tenants that would be willing to pay monthly rent for the opportunity to open their dream restaurant and will compete very fiercely to succeed – then the residents of SCA will be winners
This is by no means a complete proposal and after a more thorough review, it may not be feasible but I believe it should at least be given a look. I am disappointed that I provided this concept to two of the new board members during the campaign period and they completely ignored it.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.