Reply To: Why The Restaurant is an Amenity

Home/Reply To: Why The Restaurant is an Amenity

Reply To: Why The Restaurant is an Amenity

Home Forums Let’s Talk Why The Restaurant is an Amenity Reply To: Why The Restaurant is an Amenity

Rana Goodman

In rebuttal to Bob Burch’s point of view, although he states his were formed on research he did on the CC&Rs and the standing of amenity vs. what is not, I’d like to state my opinion on this and invite others to sate theirs.

A few years ago, when John Leach was the association’s attorney, there was a meeting where he was assisting in revising parts of our CC&Rs “bringing them up to date etc” he said.. I was always under the impression that the owners had to vote on that.

I recall leaving the meeting, phoning the Legislative Council Bureau and asking one of their attorneys for their opinion and whether that could be done. I was told it could be brought up to date per new law, but not changed.  I returned to the meeting and at the mike stated what I had just been told. My point is John Leach’s retort, and I quote “Ms. Goodman, that is just another lawyers opinion”….

That is how I feel about what Bob has written, because we know that the board can make resolutions to our rules, we know that, based on lack of vetting and the limited research that was already found on G2G, it does not look like these “tenants” are suitable. And we know that an HOA board MUST use “the good business judgement rule.” Accepting G2G is not good business in my opinion.

It is my opinion that changing the restaurant’s use to a full-blown financial amenity without hearing from the association’s owners, is in fact changing the purpose of the restaurant.

Although Del Webb ended up subsidizing Trumpets, that place was used to sell us homes. This time we are being forced to pay a huge part of the cost of running a private business and that is changing the purpose of the restaurant, thus requires a vote.

One can call an “amenity” any of the things we enjoy using living in SCA, however, they are NOT open to the public, the restaurant is, and we should not be forced to accept a financial liability of this sort without a voice.

I am not referring to a voice of a hundred people who raised their hands at a meeting, some because of peer pressure and fear of being criticized. I am talking about the voice of 50% plus 1, per the CC&Rs to place this issue to a vote of the owners, 7,144 of them,

THEN tell me the residents want this restaurant folly again.