Re-Plowing Old Ground

Submitted by Jim Haar

The following four comments will be presented at the June 5 BOD Meeting with regard to Agenda Items 7.d  “Review and approval of Country Club Committee and Charter” and 7.e “Discussion on alleged violations of NRS 116 regarding the Country Club Lease Agreement”. Concurring or opposing views welcome.

  1. Given that the alleged NRS violations are apparently still an unresolved issue, I suggest it is inappropriate for the Board of Directors and the proposed SGCC Committee to enter into discussions or agreements with the Country Club regarding the proposed Lease Agreement modifications.  That is, not until such time as the violation of law issues are resolved.
  2. Based on Mr. Kanyr’s recent Lease Agreement cost/benefit analysis, it is clear that entering into the Lease Agreement was not a wise decision.  An obvious conclusion being that the millions of association dollars being directed toward the Lease Agreement should have been more prudently applied to other endeavors or returned to the homeowners via reduced assessments.
  3. Based on the cost/benefit analysis, I suggest the Board strongly consider termination of the current Lease Agreement and apply the saved funds elsewhere. The same applies if it is shown that the alleged violations of law have merit.
  4. I recognize that there are those who support subsidizing the Country Club’s operating losses for fear that it could go “brown”, thereby having a negative effect on property values, which may or not be the case.  However, this is a moot point as I contend that nowhere in the SOA’s governing documents does the Board have the authority to undertake independent actions for the purpose of protecting property values, especially with private entities.   If the Board wants to modify the Governing documents to include some sort of community membership in the Country Club and assess homeowners accordingly, then they should do so in a legal manner and submit it to all association members for majority approval.

As for Country Club members, if they honestly believe the Lease Agreement is all about providing a “wonderful opportunity” for homeowners “to access Country Club facilities and amenities”, and that offsetting operating losses is not the case, then they lose nothing by its termination.   However, I believe most know what the Lease Agreement is truly about.

5 thoughts on “Re-Plowing Old Ground

  1. Mr. Kanyr’s cost analysis was a ridiculous and futile effort to undermine an otherwise wise decision by the SDC and SGCC to add new amenities to the community, make the community as a whole more valuable and attractive to potential home buyers and keep our home values strong and growing.

    I’ve been to the pool once, NEVER played tennis at the tennis courts, and NEVER been in the community hot tub in the five years I’ve lived here, so the cost to maintain it must be astronomical if I were to look at it from my own selfish perspective like all the anti SGCC Somersett United people seem to do on such a regular basis when considering the SGCC and it’s agreement with the SOA.

    The underlying truth of the matter here is that there is a handfull of anti SGCC homeowners that have a personal vendetta against the SGCC and the SDC (Blake Smith) because most if not all of them bought into the country club when the cost was $40k (now $2500 for an equity membership) and most if not all of them bought homes when home prices were high and increasing exponentially and then subsequently lost all value of their purchase(s) AND also decided to quit the Country club when Blake offered to transfer it to the equity members. The reality is that it’s not Blake’s fault at all. Country club memberships and home values nationwide have plummeted. Just look up the road at Lahontan where memberships were purchased years ago for $175k and new members had to own land on the property. Now anyone can buy in and it’s $10k (a loss of $165k to those who bought in years ago). I wonder if there’s a “Lahontan United”?

    Last but not least, it is beyond belief that the handful of people here put so much negative energy into an issue that is so unimportant (It’s $15/month that isn’t even an increase in dues – I overheard a homeowner the other day say “I sure hope I never have to worry or spend so much energy about $15/month in my entire lifetime”) and self serving (driven by personal vendetta’s and bitterness). Don’t you have anything better to do with your time and energy? Seriously????

    1. Barry,

      You need to stop “Drinking the Kool-Aid” and get real. As an ex-country club member, I can assure you that the vast majority of homeowners opposed to the current Lease Agreement are not “bitter” ex-country club. You need to get factual in your responses to Mr. Haar’s comments and use more professionalism if you want to be taken seriously!

      1. In most planned communities, using the amenities is an option, not mandatory as it is in Somersett.

        The TCTC is always busy, based on the statistics provided. Aspen Lodge is too small to support the activities of 854 Sierra Canyon residents.

        I was wondering if Barry has played the Canyon 9 – this, based on the financial information provided by the SOA costs us all over $320K every year; to buy, maintain and run – green fees raise $60K . Yes it is public. I saw that Dan Kanyr also showed, that the Canyon 9 is an expensive luxury we are all paying for. At least, if one bought prior to 2012 you knew that you were going to have to pay for this.

        Paying for one failing golf course as a resident ? Paying for two without a community wide vote?

        I am not sure why it is a vendetta by homeowners just asking for a vote on adding a $435,000 + expenditure!

        After all the CC&Rs prohibit a relationship between the HOA and the private golf course

      2. Where are your stats that the “vast majority of homeowners are opposed to the lease agreement”? Last fall several residents from the Somersett United group ran as candidates for the board. Their position on the lease agreement was well known. Not one of these candidates was elected. It seems clear what the vast majority of homeowners want based on that alone.

  2. Nowhere in the SGCC SOA lease agreement does it state that SOA is subsidizing SGCC operations for the purpose of maintaining/enhancing property values. In fact the SOA Board denied any operating subsidies when discussing the Lease Agreement at Board meetings. The BOD said SOA was buying amenities and we were getting value for money. I asked if any cost-benefit analysis had been made on the contract and the answer was no.

    As Mr. Lazow correctly observes, the country club business model no longer works. For a decade or more developers built planned communities with golf courses and other amenities as a marketing tool to sell lo lots/homes. The long term viability of the clubs was apparently not well thought out. The country club business model was in trouble long before the latest recession, For example, an extensive article in the San Diego Union Tribune in 2002 indicated that every private club in San Diego county (except one) had a waiting list of members to leave. Membership prices had plummeted. The main reasons given were: many daily fee alternatives to clubs and club amenities were not worth the costs. Good restaurants, pools, tennis courts etc. were available in the community without paying monthly fees. By the way La Jolla CC was the only club with a list to join. At that time Phil Mikelson was a member of LJCC.

    So why do the SGCC Board and the SOA Board think that they can make the country club business model work against all experience of a decade or more? Other clubs are converting to semi-private or daily fee models to survive. Others have folded. The SOA Board needs to come clean on the issue of operating subsidies-how much and how long will they be paid?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s