O'Hara: Revising them does not protect Sun City status

I offer these thoughts regarding the revised CC&Rs for Sun City.

I look forward to the explanation how these revisions are necessary for the preservation of senior status in Sun City, since that is the only actual reason for their revisions that SCHOA stated in their insertion of themselves into the CC&Rs. In fact, that is probably why they issued their “clarifications” and “interpretations” that they now admit were not legal, though that didn’t stop them from keeping any money they made off of them in fees and fines.

Only property owners can revise the CC&Rs otherwise. It will be interesting to see how they explain that banning wooden fences somehow protects “senior status.”

It will be also interesting to see how attempting to extend the authority of the CC&R on each private parcel to cover public parking on county roads also protects senior status. After all, the CC&R covers the land the house sits on and the house, but does not cover the county sidewalks or roads.

I expect each mailed packet will have the subdivision name on it, so that each property owner in each subdivision realizes that he is “voting” only on his own subdivision, not the entirety of Sun City. As a homeowner, I have never been offered a revision to the CC&R that would dissolve my subdivision into the entirety of Sun City, nor would I willingly do so.

Finally, I look forward to seeing the name of the disinterested third party that is going to collect these “votes,” and tallies them in a public setting, so interested parties can guarantee the count, each to the individual subdivision, so that those subdivisions that do not agree will continue under their existing CC&Rs.

Tom O’Hara

Sun City