December 1, 2018 at 11:56 pm #4905Rana GoodmanKeymaster
Changes to the Design Guidelines
Among other things these changes were made by the Architectural Review Committee.
Residential lots will now have a minimum requirement of one tree in front instead of two.
Flags flown from the attached flag holders may now include sports flags related to professional or college teams.
Flags: On the freestanding flagpole, only the United States flag may be displayed, and its dimensions shall not exceed 4 feet vertical and 6 feet horizontal. On the flag holders, flags shall not have dimensions exceeding 3 feet by 5 feet and may be United States flag, Nevada State flag, other patriotic military service flags, flags appropriate for holidays or sports flags from professional teams or schools. No other flags are permitted. H. Holiday Decorations: Exterior holiday decorations appropriate for holidays determined by the ARC or 119 10 the Board may be displayed 30 days prior to a holiday and must be taken down by 30 10 days after the holiday.
Comments regarding the restaurant survey: The following comments were received from various readers and, in my opinion make some very valid points.
What a surprise to see how the “survey” was worded:
It’s no longer fun reading the poorly camouflaged, blatant bias so evident in the creative wording of the newest restaurant survey that has just been presented to over 7,000 homeowners as it attempts to sway community opinion in favor of another restaurant. Those who have been following this silliness know it’s a bad idea but still, having to keep fending off such bad ideas (and another in an endless succession of failed restaurants is definitely a bad idea), feels like dealing with argumentative in-laws who keep tormenting and just refuse to go away. The relentless insanity is exhausting!!!!
Wouldn’t it be great if they’d just stop and give it a rest?
It might cost $750K to convert that one-of-a-kind special space for some particular purposes. I suspect, however, that community members & some clubs in particular could think of ways to use the space for far less. Just one example: At a morning visit to a Del Webb club house in the Phoenix area several years ago, we saw something like an expanded version of the “coffee stop” we have. Lots of folks were picking up their coffee, juice, yogurt, etc, etc. The atmosphere was informal, & quite a large group were visiting, sitting at tables, eating & enjoying themselves. They didn’t have our great view though!
I figured this “survey” would be loaded and sure enough it is. They want to give away $250K a year of OUR money. The board seems to forget that they are giving away their own money or perhaps they are rich enough in their retirement that they don’t care. Some of us aren’t. Like you, I can’t believe it will cost us $160K to operate the space as meeting rooms. Rooms that we desperately need right now and will in the future as homes sell. We would not be paying taxes; the electric bill should not increase, and staff would be cleaning on their regular hours. Where that amount comes from is very questionable.
I am and always have been against another failed restaurant. In the 16 years I have lived here I’ve seen them come and go. They just don’t have the customer base in SCA to succeed. It’s time to drop this terrible idea and go forward with a more
I ask you all:
- What incentive would a restaurateur have to please SCA residents if they were subsidized?
- What incentive would a restaurateur have to even succeed in SCA if they were subsidized?
- What incentive would any of us here have to be our best if failure was taken off the table?
- What ever happened to the old John Smith axiom “if you don’t work, you don’t eat” rule?
I assume from their lack of any answers, they have none; there is no reason to launch another fiasco.
Maybe someone in our community could provide some reasonable answers, but I seriously doubt it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.