Letters

Povey: Restriction was primary reasons for Sun City move

Posted 12/30/22

In regard to the (well-written) article (“Overlay decision in Limbo,” Sun City Independent, Dec. 7, 2022) and various letters prior to that, I don’t understand why we in Sun City and possibly other age restricted communities must continually deal with this issue.

This story requires a subscription for $5.99/month.

Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here.

Otherwise, click here to subscribe.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $5.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor
Letters

Povey: Restriction was primary reasons for Sun City move

Posted

In regard to the (well-written) article (“Overlay decision in Limbo,” Sun City Independent, Dec. 7, 2022) and various letters prior to that, I don’t understand why we in Sun City and possibly other age restricted communities must continually deal with this issue.

Who do the Maricopa Board of Adjustment people think they are that they can stand away and say that our rules don’t apply to certain people when Del Webb’s original intent was a community for people age 55 and older — and still is.

I was never issued a copy of the Sun City CC&Rs and I don’t know the legalities, but age restriction was a primary reason I and many others chose to make a home in Sun City. The rule of age restriction is the rule we all agreed to when we bought in here. No exceptions.

As to the  people who are already violating that rule, SCHOA should have an effective means of enforcement to force expulsion of the “underage residents” after 90 days, and they should be able to take definitive action. Even 90 days is more than generous and who is to say that the young person/people couldn’t move out for a week and then move back in to restart the clock? Hopefully the CC&Rs specify 90 cumulative days in a year.

Perhaps there should  be a monthly monetary penalty, which, if not paid immediately and with no action taken to rectify the situation, becomes a lien on the property, collectible certainly when the home sells.

We older people don’t like being hit in the wallet. If I’m reading the situation correctly, SCHOA has the responsibility but not the power to deal with violation of the age restriction rules and if we don’t give them the tools, we will all travel down the same road that Youngtown plowed.

Restriction, primary, Sun City, move