I am grateful for the recent comments offered by Ms. Ellen Kleinschmidt, Performing Arts Club President. Ms. Kleinschmidt’s comments concerning the proposed SCCCA entertainment facility are indeed welcome. It matters not a whit to many of us SCCCA members that she and other non-SCCCA residents provide their inputs on the proposed entertainment facility. We are grateful for the many outstanding contributions these PAC folks have made to our community.
I accept at face value Ms. Kleinschmidts’s assurance that the Performing Art Club’s advocacy of this project is not solely motivated by ego trips of its various members. For argument’s sake only, let us assume that PAC zeal for this project to pass is entirely due to its desire to stroke the ego of its many members. That hypothetical assumption deserves but one response, as follows:
Such motives, real or imaginary, are totally beside the point. Unfortunately, it was probably very necessary for Ms. Kleinschmidt to respond as she did to this allegation. Personal attacks are often prevalent in matters like these and, moreover, they seem to work. If not rebutted, these tangential arguments might cause damage to reputations of the parties being assailed, thus arguably to positions they favor.
I hope that all of us can focus on the pros and cons of the project and avoid personal attacks on those who disagree with us. To that end I submit that the main matter to consider is whether the proposed entertainment facility provides sufficient benefit to warrant reducing the capital fund by $3,500,000. It really does not matter much whether the necessary expenditures are borrowed or are strictly cash. Either way, a large outlay is made for this project; thus, that chunk of assets is unavailable for other projects. It behooves us also to consider the additional ongoing payments that will be required for maintenance and other expenditures after the project’s completion. Let us also ask this question: Is this project truly necessary or is it merely a nice thing to have? That question’s answer should have a strong bearing on the path the SCCCA electorate choose to take in December.
Finally, I am also grateful that The Observer provides its pages for open discussion of this important matter. I wish that the SCCCA Board would also allow official Observer and other media staff to attend the “closed” (i.e., SCCCA members-only) meetings. In general, media presence tends to make officialdom attempt to behave more objectively than might otherwise be the case.
James W. Moyers
Sun City Center
I am writing this letter to voice my opinions pertaining to the $3.5 million to be borrowed for a theater in Sun City Center.
There is a group of people in the community and a large group that does not live in the community pushing the Community Association to borrow this money. If these people want a theater so that they can enjoy putting on plays for everyone in the South Shore area, they should do this on their own. This theater, and shows in the theater, are not just for the people in Sun City Center, but the whole South Shore area. Let these people raise their own money and build a theater somewhere in the South Shore area and call it the South Shore Playhouse/Theater.
My understanding of the financing is that a lending institution will loan the SCC Community Association the $3.5 million dollars that will be paid back by the sale of homes at $1,500 each. The people that are saying that the sale of homes will cover the note may be right if a recession does not occur.
Right now the GNP was -2.9 for the first quarter of this year. If the second quarter is in the minus side, that means the economy is in a recession. If we have a real estate meltdown like we had 5 years ago, there won’t be enough homes sold to pay the note.
The bank is requiring that an escrow account be set up to cover a year’s payment on the note. If the market falls and we need to use the escrow money to pay the note, then what happens in the following years when there is no reserved moneys.
I don’t think the banks or the lending institutions will just allow the interest to keep building up with no payments. In that case the banks/lending institutions will come to the SCC Community Association looking for payment. The only thing the Community Association can do is put an assessment on everyone or raise the dues for every one.
There are people in this community now, who can’t afford to pay their dues and have liens on their properties. If the CA did raise the dues, there would be more properties with liens on. I don’t believe it is right that people could lose their homes so that a certain group of people can have a theater/playhouse for themselves.
According to the Sun City Center Community Association President, if this money is borrowed there will be no monies for the other 140 clubs in the community for the next 10 years! Why should one club get this kind of money and the other 140 clubs do without?
There are some people in this community that are pushing very hard for this loan to take place. I am wondering if there is a finder’s fee or commission going to be paid for bringing in a $3.5 million loan to the institution.
I know there will be some people that agree with me and others that will disagree with me. But, this is my understanding of the facts as I have been told. I think anyone that responds by agreeing or disagreeing with me should be a member of the SCC Community Association that would be paying the bill for the theater/playhouse and not outsiders, like the President of the theater group who lives in Ruskin.
I recommend that the Sun City Center Community Association members vote “NO” on the referendum and make anything done in the community on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Robert L. Wheatley
Sun City Center