In Sun City Summerlin there is currently in process a ballot to approve a change to the CC&Rs so that the Board of Directors has the power to negotiate the transfer of land to the City of Las Vegas without a vote of the members.
This Ballot is based upon a misrepresentation of facts.
The Board obtained a legal opinion that this is the appropriate procedure because they were informed by either Director David Steinman, or the LV Fire Dept Fire Chief that the City will not enter into a long term lease for the property required to build a fire station in Sun City. Thus the "attorney opinion" to have an amendment to the CC&Rs evolved which denies the association members their rights to vote for the specific conditions of any transfer of land.
Since the Ballot has been placed in circulation along with considerable misleading information, it has been discovered that the LV City on October 15, 2008 approved a 40 year lease of land elsewhere for a fire station.
It is this members opinion that the very basis for amending the CC&Rs has been shown to be either intentionally or inadvertently misrepresented to the Sun City members. We do not have to give the land away as a gift. A long term lease with agreed upon equitable consideration is practical. This situation could probably have been avoided if it hadn't been that Director David Steinman who is also a member of the Las Vedas City Planning Commission was the lead negotiator or liaison with the Fire Department. If there had been a small ad hoc committee performing this function in response to a letter request from the LV City it is most probable that this ability for the LV city to enter into long term leases would have been exposed.
I personally believe that regardless of the current ballot progress, and ultimate results, this Board should meet in an Emergency Session and cancel the Ballot because it is not based upon facts.
An ad hoc committee should be formed to confirm the LV Cities requirements and negotiate a long term lease for presentation to the Board for approval. It does not appear to me that this requires a change to the CC&Rs.
If the Board continues on the current path, following up on the Ballot; regardless of whether the required number of votes are received for approval, it will expose the Association and possibly the Board Directors to some legal action.
We should be able to avoid this and I am confident that our honorable Mayor Oscar Goodman would not want to be a party to this flawed Ballot.
Bernard Silver
Copy: Mayor Oscar Goodman
===================================================
Frank Beers <fbeers@cox.net> wrote:
Al, Seems to me the operative words in your diatribe to Richard is “I would guess”. If you really want answers, why ask on the chat lines. Do you really expect an answer to such accusatory questions on the chat line?
Frank Beers fbeers@cox.net
*************************
From: SCSCS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCSCS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Al Kopania Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 10:16 PM To: SCSCS@yahoogroups.com Cc: SC-SCOOP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SCSCS] Precedent
Mr. Post--I am not an attorney either, BUT I can not believe "the Law requires" is a true statement (in your previous post). I certainly can understand the a Board decision, either with or without expert opinion, can be a disaster for the Association. What assistance was received from the SC Legal Committee? Why wasn't that published to the residents? If "our Legal Counsel advised that we could not transfer land under this provision for a fire/rescue station" then why are you and the Board trying to do exactly that? How many legal opinions did the Board receive? What law firms were solicited for opinion? Which one's responded? Someone previously posted that we had two opinions and the Board did not agree with them and that a third was being sought, That will still be a 1 - 2 opinion which should still fall short of a common sense decision. If the Board is not utilizing the first two opinions, seems they are useless to you, and should have been attached to the ballot for our information. If there is "nothing fishy about it" then why is there such an odor about this whole election process? First we have a Board member privately negotiating for this station. Conflict of interest since he also holds a position with the planning commission. Not a single Board member will answer the question who contacted whom about this matter; this should be a public matter on record. I would guess the LV Fire Dept.didn't approach SC since they stated they didn't have the money to do this, I guess that means the land. Then we, the residents, find out that the Board didn't like(???) the first two opinions, Then you state that your doing what the law requires. WOW I am confused. Since we, Sun City has transferred land on two previous occasions without any voting, CC&R changes, etc. why can it not be done that way again? I request that you provide access to or copies of the legal opinions that are the basis of this election. I also request that you stop the election process and have a meeting with the residents and provide a true picture of this matter. You have allowed the RF with their tent sign to incorrectly state that this vote is for the fire station when it is really about changing the CC&Rs. I believe that is called misrepresentation.
Al Kopania -----
*****************************
Original Message ----- From: Richard Post
To: SCSCS@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [SCSCS] Precedent
Mr. Weiner, I seriously doubt that there is anything in this proposed CC&R change that a court would consider precedent setting. Article III, Section I, (c) says that "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board shall have authority to transfer to such public agencies, authorities or utilities such permits, licenses, and easements for public utilities, ROADS, etc." (Caps and bold mine). Our legal counsel advised that we could not transfer land under this provision for a fire/rescue station. The Board is doing what the law requires, getting expert opinion to guide it when it lacks expertise in a given area of responsibility. Nothing fishy about it. Why would we want to keep the Cheyenne property, it is worthless and troublesome.
Richard Post -----
************************************
Original Messag,e ----- From: lvweiners@aol.com
To: SCSCS@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [SCSCS] Precedent
Richard, this you do not know. Courts may rule this is a precedent. Why Cheyenne, this costs us very little, there are other things the city should do for us. Also why a change to the CC&Rs now, when we did the same thing a few years ago without changing the CC&Rs, The only answer I received was, that was then, this is now. We did something wrong then or we are doing something wrong now. Smells like rotten fish to me.
Phil Weiner
**********************************
In a message dated 11/23/2008 12:22:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dimako@cox.net writes:
The CC&R proposal before the membership for vote permits the Board to execute a deed/contract to transfer land for the fire and rescue station at the northeast corner of Del Webb and Sundial and the undesirable strip of land on Cheyenne to the City. It is does not allow this Board or any future Board to do anything else. It is not precedent setting.
Richard Post
********************************
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
===============================================
Bernard Silver 
