I am a Sun City owner/occupier and RCSC member. I am against removing the 14-day limit for the same guest visiting each year. As opposed to removing this qualification, I would propose changing the “occupying the property and living 75 miles outside Sun City” to “occupying a property and living 40 miles outside Sun City.” I definitely oppose non-residents being “members” of clubs.
There are a couple of reasons I am against the changes for membership. We homeowners have chosen to live in Sun City and agreed to pay the annual assessment. This goes for all homeowners, whether they become RCSC members or not. Removing the 14-day limit and the need to occupy property does one major thing I have not yet heard. It allows a resident from a nearby town to boutique shop our amenities. With the logic of removing a 14-day limit and residency requirements, why wouldn’t a homeowner here just say they wish to only choose to be “members” of specific clubs.
At the Exchange meeting and after, it came to my knowledge that some clubs (specifically mah jongg, bridge, model railroad, and Tip Top Dancers) have “members” who do not live in Sun City. They state their club cannot survive unless people from outside Sun City are allowed to be members. If my understanding of history is correct, Mountain View was designed with an idea towards roller skating. That activity has long fallen by the wayside. Interests come and go. There are many social clubs that host card and board games. If a single club cannot maintain a sufficient membership, there are plenty of options to enjoy their activities, including merging clubs, playing mah jong at home, or renting a room at one of the rec centers.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.
