- This topic has 7 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There has been much said about the concept of once again opening the restaurant space and the question was posed, will the residents approve to subsidizing such a venture? The question, it seems was then answered just as fast by removing the first two contenders;
Village Pub because the principal wanted to open 24/7…. We were not told if there was any negotiation on this point, however most of us know that in a senior community we are almost all snoring away by 10 or 11:00pm anyway.
Annie’s is out of the running since her two other ventures closed and she did not seem to be financially sound.
Left standing is G2G who offers $1 per year in rent, demands that SCA pays all utilities and he will open only 5 days per week lunch and dinner only, although we all know, as the owner of Denny’s breakfast is a staple there. All SCA clubs must use G2G for catered events or go off site… (mmmm, not going to please many!)
Now I don’t know about you, but in my eyes, in meeting G2G’s offer we ARE subsidizing that plan a GREAT DEAL, does the board and GM really expect us to give more in addition?
By having a commercial venture in SCA we have to continue to pay the property tax, that is over $20,000 per year. I don’t know what the utility bills will be, but I can assure you they will not be cheap for a restaurant, kitchen (over 4,000 sq. ft.) running air in the summer plus lights etc. Since SCA was reimbursed (or was supposed to be) for utilities while the last tenant was there they know those numbers…. Ask what that “subsidy” will be.
It seems to me that this should not be only a vote of the board but a vote of the FULL membership…. And this time the board should HEAR US. In my opinion a ballot should go to each and every home owner and a written vote should be returned by a specific deadline. 7,144 homes explaining fully and truthfully what the cost will be, to have the restaurant, and let the owners vote and decide, not the handful who show up to a hastily decided meeting.
Sorry to sound like the broken record over and over, but the meeting for our choices was a near disaster. As I have mentioned, theonly option for a restaurant vendor is to have the “TRIPLE NET LEASE.” It exculpts us from all the total insanity we have seen the last four times. It allows us to have a “ARMS LENGTH TRANSACTION” and ends all the problems down the road we have dealt with in the past.
Oh sure, I heard the comments of having another fancy restaurant, but in reality it hasn’t worked in the past and I can’t think of anything that will make it work in the future. You know that the eventual fact is if the restauranture isn’t making what they expected, they’ll cheapen up on the quality of the food, again as we have seen.
Oh, as to G2G, apparently they own Coco restaurants, and as at least one person commented, “there is no consistancy in their food offerings, and we’ll see people complaining of that (and I for one can attest to that too).
I know the board is not happy about who came and what they wanted, and I’d bet they are still lookng for other vendors…but it isn’t going to happen.
Too bad!
Make it something else. I’m sure our over paid General Manager (you know, the one that makes about $60K more than the new GM of the city of Henderson can come up with something EVERYBODY wants)!
As I outlined over a year ago, I believe the board should explore the possibility of converting the space to a food court. This concept was provided to two of the (successful) board candidates last year, so I know they are aware of this but have totally ignored it. Every person that I share this concept with has stated it is a good idea that at least should be explored.
The bar could remain as is. The existing dining booths would be removed and replaced with 3 storefronts that would be leased to small, independent operators. Each operator would offer a different food style/type, which will result in a nice variety to residents. The board has expressed its opinion that the kitchen area is too large for the seating capacity. This actually is beneficial since each of the 3 storefronts would need their own exclusive kitchen and food prep area (to be done at their expense). Some of the remainder would be used as a shared common area for storage of dry goods (in lockers). By dividing the area into smaller segments, the rental rate for each operator would be reduced to a very affordable amount. Even $800/month would be very affordable and bring in nearly $40,000/year to SCA.
The existing seating would be a shared common area and maintained by a Common Area Maintenance fee. The CAM would also allow for a shared utility cost.
These small operators can operate on a much smaller revenue stream as they do not have to pay for a manager or franchise fees. They would compete with each other to provide the best food variety, quality and price point – a real benefit to the residents. Restaurants have a high failure rate and therefore, turnover can be expected. However, not all will fail at the same time and therefore, at least 2 would remain open until a replacement tenant is located.
Shouldn’t the board at least explore this concept before giving away $100,000 to $150,000 to an operator that will only be open a limited amount of time and have exclusive rights to cater to clubs – which provides no incentive to provide good food or service or reasonable prices ???
I was hoping to be one of the first to comment on this letter from F. Lewis…
It is, ABSOLUTE BRILLIANCE! So simple in both elecution of the letter, and also has the potential of simplicity of making this a reality without the need of to much money, something that the board and G.M. has too much of.
The proof of this concept is the exact same as the Las Vegas downtown operation of the Container Park idea. So if there are any doubters, just take a look at how well this is performing.
As to my comment of the Triple Net Lease, it too can be adjusted (with a fairly intelligent legal person, and without to much expense) to bring some “boilerplate language” to fruitition.
Thank you again F. Lewis…”You Done Good!”
YES! We certainly agree that there should be a resident vote, although some may not have direct experience with the past history of our restaurant failures & the reasons for our “recurring” concerns. There are many new arrivals in our community, and some of us that have been around longer may have forgotten some of the history. I don’t know how practical it would be, but it would seem good if a way could be found to provide residents something like a case history of all the restaurants. In the meantime, discussions like this should help.
We are dismayed that any consideration is even being given to the bizarre proposal currently being discussed for a restaurant facility at Anthem Center. This cannot be viewed as a serious business proposition by an entity desiring to operate a legitimate restaurant business and the very nature of the proposal should disqualify it on its face. SCA residents cannot be expected to subsidize the costs of such a venture and we will not support a business that is not capable of succeeding on its own. The very idea of having limited days and/or hours of operation and expecting the association to be financially obligated to undergird its financial shortfalls highlights the lack of a serious commitment or business plan and is nothing short of ludicrous. Ridiculous as it is, if that were to actually happen, the association would have to be considered a significant partner and should enjoy a share of any ongoing profit the business might generate. But the entire concept takes a road that goes far off the track and purpose of the Homeowners Association and we should avoid it like the plague. There is nothing that says we MUST have a restaurant in Anthem Center (ever) and we’ll be just fine if we NEVER have one … but making ill-fated business decisions can be severely detrimental to our community and anything that threatens our financial stability should be rejected.
Going forward, any reasonable proposal MUST be from a legitimate, reputable restaurateur who is willing to run a stand-alone business that is capable of success on its own merits. Until SCA receives a decent proposal from someone with a legitimate business plan, we will be better served for the space in Anthem Center to remain shuttered. But without a doubt, any decision of this magnitude demands a vote by the entire community.
Gary,
Are you talking about any of the original 3 vendors, or the one by F. Lewis. You didn’t say. Can you give us a clue? Oh, how about a suggestion too. I for one would be interested! This all assumes you (agree/disagree) about the membership to choose too, and of course of who has made any offers good, or bad. Seems to me if all of the choices, its all we are presented with.
Martin,
I’m talking about ANY proposal that is not accompanied by a solid business plan and especially any proposal that includes the need for the SCA Homeowners to subsidize it in <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>ANY</span> way, before during or after its startup. It would be foolish to support another inadequately capitalized restaurant experiment with Association funds, simply because a few misguided people have the romanticized notion that we need a restaurant … because we don’t. It’s critical that the SCA Homeowners have the final say in this and further, that we vote in our own self-interest. But if starting a business inside Anthem Center is not an attractive enough venture to entice an enterprising business person to do a feasibility study, put together a market plan, take the plunge and assume the risks (just as they have to do anywhere) and if there is not a reasonable expectation that the business can stand on its own two feet, it should not happen in the first place.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.