Will We Support Our Restaurant?
We face a very important fundamental question: Will we support a restaurant operating in the Trumpets location of our Anthem Center? Will we patronize the restaurant with regular or even irregular purchase of meals?
If the answer is no then regardless of the form any new restaurant takes it will fail. Regardless of the form any new restaurant takes unless we welcome it with open arms as a significant addition to our community and lifestyle it will fail.
Many indications are not very promising.
1. Members of Clubs are circling their wagons and digging in their heels by insisting they do not want any obligation to use the restaurant for their catered events. They want the option to go to other vendors of their choice. While this does not sound unreasonable at first glance it is indicative of a negative attitude. It certainly does not demonstrate an enthusiastic spirit of support for our restaurant. It is unlikely Club members who reject the restaurant for their social events will patronize that same restaurant for their personal dining.
2. Most members have personal ideas of how the restaurant should be operated. Too many members are saying they will only support the restaurant if it features what they want. That might be prices. That might be types of food. That might be operating hours. That might be ethnic dishes. Personal tastes are all over the map. This too seems to illustrate an initial negative attitude and does not get us off on the right foot.
3. It seems most members agree two of the major features of our restaurant are the convenient location, right here in SCA, and the gorgeous views of the Las Vegas valley. These sound good but they do not seem to be much real value or influence on us in practice. Buckman’s Grille at the Revere Golf Club offers similar features. Since the closing of Trumpets months ago there has been no big surge of members patronizing Buckman’s. Buckman’s still offers only limited dinners at the same frequency as when Trumpets was open. Members continue to dine out at various restaurants but generally are not choosing Buckman’s as one of them.
If we choose to not properly support our restaurant, then that is our choice. That would indicate we do not consider the restaurant very important or at least not important enough. But then what is the point of having a restaurant? Perhaps we should take a hard look at other uses of that space where it will actually bring benefits and enjoyment to most members.
2 Responses to “Will We Support Our Restaurant?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 30, 2008 at 06:31
Tim:
The Blvd. most closely mirrors the wants of the residents according to the survey results. Remember, most people are nervous because of their experiences with the old Trumpets. I think that SCA members are fair minded people and will give the new restaurant a chance. If the Blvd. does their job properly, the restaurant should be very successful. As for the clubs, they will do the same. It’s all up to the Blvd. to come through for our community and their bottom line. Don’t kill the goose before it is cooked :-)
Regards,
Bob
May 31, 2008 at 20:09
For Bob Sansing: The success or failure of a SCA restaurant in the future has nothing to do with whether SCA members are fair or not. Past experience proves that most SCA members are very tolerant. But, success with a community restaurant has to do with whether we have a viable business plan and contracting strategy, or not, and whether the Board can implement new and more effective management tools to avoid repeating the past failures.
Starting with Del Webb (the developer), Del Webb Community Management Company (the association manager selected by the developer), and every board member serving from 2000 to April 2007, this community was (in my opinion) defrauded. Definition: To deprive of some right, interest, or property, by a deceitful device; to withhold from wrongfully; to cheat; to overreach…
There may be no better word to describe the year-after-year failures to (1) collect rent and catering revenue shares, (2) enforce the service requirements, and (3) enforce proper care of our SCA premises. In addition, there is perhaps no better word to describe the outrageously flawed lease extension developed after years of meetings and strongly promoted by the 2006 Board President Favil West and his board collaborators. That ridiculous lease extension would have allowed gaming, rent cut by 50%, continued free utilities, and many other totally one-sided terms and conditions.
No, the burden of restaurant success should not be focused on the back of a new lessee or a sub-contractor. After losing well over a million dollars in the lease during less than five years, the critical burden has to be on the backs of the SCA Board of Directors and the CAM. Our members can not trust the business judgment of the board majority until it proves it can handle the responsibility.
For example, who can forget the serious conflicts of interest discovered among the trumpets working group leadership headed by Patti Shock and former board members David Berman and Bob Sansing? If readers are not aware of that outrageous stituation, review these items. http://blog.anthemvoice.org/__oneclick_uploads/2008/04/matson_report_8apr08.pdf http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/04/26/conflicts-of-interests/
And, what about the discovery that Mike Dixon NEVER owned and operated a San Francisco Restaurant (much less an “acclaimed one”) as he has frequently claimed since the during his board campaign and since? See this link for details: http://blog.anthemvoice.org/2008/04/27/yet-another-dixon-deception/
No, the success of the restaurant operations in the future must focused on the board and the CAM. There are more than sufficient grounds for members to continue to have low confidence in the old-board-member-driven processes.