Future of the SCA Opinion Poll

With all the ongoing dialog as to the future relationship between the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) and the Sierra Canyon Association (SCA), three options have been bantered about: 1) For the SCA to “secede” from the SOA master association and form an independent HOA, 2) Dissolve the SCA and merge into the SOA (one governing Board), and 3) Leave the SOA/SCA  Master/Sub-Association structure as is and work out differences.  Hard to tell where the majority of  sentiments lie, both within and without Sierra Canyon. Perhaps a reader poll could shed some light on the issue.  Therefore, we are asking all our Somersett Community readers to participate in the following poll:

Note that two identical polls are included, one for Sierra Canyon Owners and one for the Balance of Somersett Owners.  Please vote appropriately.





15 thoughts on “Future of the SCA Opinion Poll

  1. Maybe a first step, but how many SC and Somersett people access Somersett United? I don’t believe enough for results to be meaningful? Better the Joint Committee when formed do this as one of their first tasks. This needs to be as “scientifically” as possible. Suggest letters be sent to members of both associations by their respective boards.

    1. Joe – With a few hundred followers SU has enough to conduct a reasonably meaningful poll. This assumes of course that a fair number take the time to participate. The poll will run or one week and we will see. However, I agree that a more scientific poll should be undertaken by the SCA before proceeding with any action. Do not expect the SOA to spend any money on this endeavor, nor should they. – Jim Haar

    2. Joe

      Let’s see, a camel is a horse designed by a committee . If you want to limit discussion and thoughtful responses a committee is a perfect vehicle to table them.

      For instance I have repeatedly asked the Board, the Finance & strategic (before the Board took back this responsibility) committees to tell ALL residents what the Plan A and Plan B’s when the SCC fails now we own the CGC.

      We are all waiting …

      The only proposal that I have see is that Everyones dues may go up as much as $60/month (Tony Fakonas worst case scenario) whilst we were voting for the purchase agreement …
      “Let’s make a deal and buy a golf course”,
      It makes sense$!$!!

    1. Cyril – A reasonable question, but no credible answer available. However from high to low: Secede, Merge, Do Nothing! – Jim Haar

  2. Agree with Joe Bower (for a change) this is NOT the place for polls. Nextdoor might be an option but not here. Again, totally dislike all the anonymous posting done by Jim Harr (hint hint hint) .IF you want to make a difference sign your name.

    1. I think this is as good a place as any to poll whoever looks at the site..You can conduct your own poll on Next-door, if you wish.. Results can be compared.

  3. Time will prove me right on dissolution of sub-associations (plural) within Somersett being (1) doable; (2) best for all concerned; and (3) inevitabe. Proper re-drawing of documents will ensure no mass of illegals storming the pools at TCTC and vice versa at the Aspen Lodge. Present identities can be maintained with the costs of everything spread fairly across all owners/neighborhoods.

    When something is philosophically right, money should not stand in the way of physical implementation. Besides Somersett dues are not going to increase dramatically while sub dues will disappear. Not much money needs to be spent to see all that this entails before doing anything. Just have the Joint Committee sit and talk and plan what needs to be done and estimate how much. The first step has already been crossed and that is naysayer’s now know that it is legally possible and there are already State procedures in place that must be followed as far as it is concerned and State fees are “minuscule.”

    I hate to say this, but people who are not willing to examine all that is involved and simply say “not possible” and “will cost to much” probably would have supported the British in the Revolutionary War. Most of those who did did so out of loyalty (to Somersett) and in an effort to protect their own fortunes (dues they pay both actual and imagined).

    PS The Survey needs to include owners in The Vue and The Village, if it doesn’t already. I personally think the best survey is a manual one taken door-to-door.

  4. I want to add that the City approved Somersett to be built containing within it an active adult community which is designated as Village 5. Village 5 as the location for an active adult community will remain in perpetuity.

    The PUD does not require Village 5 to be a sub-association just that it be built as an active adult community. The builder of Village 5 made it an association (sub of Somersett) because all of their other (mainly stand alone) communities are associations. Building Village 5 and incorporating an association into it was not required by the City, just builder habit.

    The sub-association can be dissolved and owners in Village 5 will not need to pay dues to it when it ceases to exist and the Somersett community at large will be able to function more efficiently with a minor increase in dues to Somersett by Village 5 owners from what they are now paying to their own association, as well as what all Somersett association members pay to what is known in the accounting setup for Somersett as “General Common.”

    Do Somersett owners worry about how much their dues might go up as Lennar, Ryder, Toll projects come online? NO? A sharp finance person (or group of) can figure out how much more taking into account that Village 5 duplicate services would be eliminated, e.g. website; reserve analyst; landscaper; law firm; management staff; etc. etc.

    It doesn’t take any money for a Joint Committee to be formed and do initial investigative analysis.

    1. Joe, I asked you multiple questions about this plan that you failed to respond to. You are absolutely wrong when you say that SC can become a part of SOA and maintain it active adult community. You really need to check with Federal Fair Housing on this aspect before you start spreading false information. The second part of this is the SC has a lot of common area property that has significant value. You are asking the SC resident just to give away their assets because you believe you have a better idea. Not a better idea Joe… I have no desire to share my senior resident status and amenities with a bunch of kids during the winter.

  5. I think SU is as good a site to conduct an informal opinion poll of the wishes of SC residents as to their future with or without Somersett. I have already posted the information on Nextdoor so other SC residents become aware of it and vote as their wish.

  6. While I would love to see SC become it’s own entity/association without being tethered to Somersett, I realize that will never happen since the SOA and all other sub-associations would have to willing release us (and the income stream). So, the next best option for homeowners would be to abolish the SC owners association. However. . .I can’t see the SC Board allowing that to happen. As I see it, the Board is not a group of independent thinkers; they are very much in lock-step with the current president and what he wants to do, and I can’t see him, or the next president willing to relinquish control.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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