What Can Be Done About The Ugly Restaurant Signs?
The board’s anointed blogger has launched his usual personal attacks against people for daring to challenge the board policies on anything. So, here are some specific facts on an otherwise confusing situation concerning the burma-shave style of temperary signage being used by the new SCA restaurant lessees. See this link at Anthem Today for more details and photos of the signs:
http://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1879&p=3061#p3061
1. Berman claims that none of the sign policies or authorities by any of the committees apply to the restaurant lease, and that the community manager can allow anything she wishes as an “administrative decision” without redress.
- Hogwash! We know for a fact that the CAM does nothing without permission from the board president, and when allowed to do so, the various standing committees do have jurisdiction over community property policies.
- So, if you hate the signs, focus your attention on Mr. Troia. He is solely responsible for the outrageous restaurant signs polluting our beautiful community. There are no “loopholes” in the committee structure. One or more can easily exercise authority over such matters affecting abuse of community property–unless the board president blocks them from taking action.
2. Berman’s buddies have suggested that someone other than me should remove the signs (undamaged) and deliver them to the CAM office for return to the lessee. In this case, I have to agree. If no one else is willing to do something tangible about removing the eyesores, than the various blog complaints will have no effect.
- I was challenged to prove that signage abuse on community property was dealt with in the past. Ok, there were some cases in recent years when real estate agents put out inappropriate and excessive numbers of real estate signs (similar to the burma-shave style), and they were required by the CAM to remove them. Some even involved Pulte marketing people during the late stages of home sales (they seemed to forget they no longer controlled the association). I know of one case where a board member removed some flagrantly abusive real estate signs and delivered them to the CAM. They were returned and the agent told to not do it again. That agent got the message, and it did not repeat its misbehavior.
- Since the Board President has apparently approved these ugly and inappropriate restaurant signs, it is always possible the board could object to unilateral removal and then charge a member with something ridiculous. But, as long as the signs were not damaged, it is unlikely there will be board action. Meanwhile, it is unlikely the same lousy signs will be re-installed on SCA community property by the lessee.
- One would expect the lessee has not gained any positive benefits from the signs, and it could agree to removing them, or at least allow a community member or RMI to take them down and return them to the company. And, the end result is that the lessee and CAM might use better judgment in the future.
- If not, we can look forward to many more such “garage-sale” type signage in the future. The conclusion is that people can put such temporary signs up on community property–as long as they are buddies with Jack Troia. So, for those of you who wish to advertise such Troia-favored events as Tall Mesa parties or Bowling Club events on community property, it appears you might get your friend, the board president, to allow it. Perhaps the board president is also indicating he believes he has the personal authority to erect his own, large re-election campaign signs on community property next year? Who would dare challenge his apparently unilateral power to do whatever he wishes?
3. On a different aspect, some of the business marketing experts in our community might like to comment on the value and low expected results from the lessee’s signage tactics? It will always be extremely difficult to attract tourists and others unfamiliar with the SCA area to locate the restaurant, and to seek it out–unless it become a world-class culinary experience like a Chef Wolfgang Puck type of operation. Perhaps that is the goal for the future? But, since an experienced, wealthy, and highly profitable restaurant operator like Victor Scotto of the famous “Scotto Brothers of Long Island” failed to do so within 5 years, why would the current inexperienced operator have a better chance in the current market?
- And, that previous failure is a key reasons why it should never have been opened to the public in the first place. Moreover, true success as a public dining destination is the worst possible thing that could happen to member enjoyment of Anthem Center. Imagine having to always have reservations to eat at normal times in our own facility, fighting over parking spaces, constantly dirty restrooms, and having to suffer the other gross inconveniences and safety problems of trying to police the disrespectful public and their children. The past proved that many of such public people are certain to be disrespectful and constantly trying to ramble throughout Anthem Center facilities, the pool, and other grounds! How could public success of that type ever benefit our community?
- Few potential customers of such a high-priced menu would ever be attracted to such unprofessional signage. Such people are not the kind of customers who would happen to stumble across the existence of the restaurant and its view, and finally decide to wander into the facility for a spontaneous dining experience. And, those who are heading to the restaurant specifically to eat there will Google it in advance, and should not need the kinds of signs we see. Of course, an inadequate/uninspiring web site sponsored by the lessee will also discourage visitors even more than the ugly signs.
- Either way, the temporary burma-shave kind of signage at the destination is never going to be effective. That kind of advertising would have to be more professional and attempted along the Eastern, St. Rose, and Volunteer access routes. Ask Pulte how difficult/expensive it was to advertise their close-out homes in SCA. The lessee has a similar problem.
- The destination, temporary, saturation signage approach proves how really inexperienced in business the board president and restaurant operators are. The lessee will not turn the property into a commercial success this way, and ugly signs crammed into resident faces every time they visit Anthem Center is the least likely way to attract and motivate our SCA members to patronize the new management.
2 Responses to “What Can Be Done About The Ugly Restaurant Signs?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 16, 2010 at 13:58
I received a personal email from a member who was objecting to my comments on the signs; but, since she did not post her comments, I will only post my responses to her concerns as follows:
“Thank you for your candid and sincere response to my posting. Of course, you are right to state that signs work. I agree that good signs, properly designed, professionally manufactured, and installed can be very effective tools.
In the meantime, I believe a group of qualified individuals could easily prove that what the current restaurant operator is doing fails to pass the tests. If you read my comments and those of Rana and others carefully, you will see that most agree that “effective signage” could help the lessee become more successful. But, we do not have effective signage, and the current signs should be immediately removed as they are hurting rather than helping the situation.
Yes, I personally do not believe our unique facility could ever become a highly successful commercial success. It was never intended by Del Webb’s designers to be a commercial success. That fact can be easily and conclusively proved.
Just look at the foyer access and restroom facilities. Also look at the dining areas, kitchen, patio, gallery, and other Anthem Center areas. See that they were specifically designed for controlled access, members-only dining and SCA club catering services. There are no reasonable, cost-effective ways that our Anthem Center could or should be modified to make it commercially successful for public use. The Del Webb people and Pulte executives I have talked to over the years have agreed with this analysis. If there was ever to be a commercially-successful restaurant facility within the Sun City Anthem area, it would have been the old “sales center” facility.
That idea was approached while I served on the board; but, as you might guess, there was no way to convince DW/Pulte to allow that to happen. They made too much in profits from the final homes to allow any negotiations on leaving the sales center in place. Plus, the construction quality of the sales center was such that it would have been very expensive to convert it into something that could pass the city code for a commercial restaurant. It, as well as Trumpets, were never viable as commercial restaurants. The community would have had to suffer major increases in annual dues to fund such major modification for either facility, and neither was a likely prospect for such increases.
Yes, the currently unprofessional signs do intrude on my lifestyle–every time I go down the parkway and enter the Anthem Center. I find them intensely annoying and disrespectful of our community environment. They significantly detract from the upscale community style we have. It is clear in my mind that requiring the lessee to implement more professional signage in the future will enhance our property values–not detract from them.
Yes, I would like very much for a restaurant to be successful in our facilities by serving our members. I suspect I have invested hundreds of more hours into trying to find ways to achieve restaurant success than you have, but I could be wrong. I am intensely interested in having a high quality, reasonably-priced operation that operates on a break-even basis while serving our community. I am convinced that is possible if the board leadership changes and allows it to happen. Meanwhile, we all need to work together and make the best of what we have. My point is that tolerating poor signage does not serve anyone’s definition of success.
Concerning my interest in the long-range for a restaurant when I can not go long distances to eat out, I do not see going to Trumpets any easier than going down Eastern and Horizon Ridge. When my wife and I can no longer drive ourselves to get food (groceries and patronize area restaurants) we do not expect to care much about whether the Anthem Center has a restaurant or not.
Thanks again for the opportunity to communicate with you. While we may not agree on everything, I hope you agree it is useful to have respectful discussions and to share knowledge. Unjustified blog attacks against individuals do not achieve meaningful results.
Regards,
Bob Frank”
July 16, 2010 at 21:00
I wonder if individuals who defend the signs have really studied the contents, and other important factors, before they rubber-stamped the lessee’s presumed need to put them up and keep them up on community property?
I would like to ask readers to look closely at the sign photos. In particular, examine the larger ones placed on Anthem Parkway on the corners of the Anthem Center block.
They are so poorly designed that a driver would have to slow down or stop their vehicle to read them. The signs are creating additional safety hazards at those already highly dangerous intersections. I suggest that because of the high risk traffic factors at those corners, neither intersection should allow any temporary signs.
Also, look the poor selection of fonts, graphics, colors and the extremely poor use of available space. Even if one could safely pull over and stop to read them, the total message is confusing and incomplete. Nothing about those corner signs reflect participation by a professional designer in the layout or content. Everything about those signs suggests cheap, unprofessional management of the company sponsoring them. Since the signs are unreadable at authorized parkway speeds and create safety risks–why are they allowed to remain?
Such poor signage also reflects poorly on the Sun City Anthem Board President and RMI CAM. If they failed to preview the signs and the projected installation sites before they were ordered, shame on [u]Troia and Carrero for such gross negligence[/u]. If they did review them in advance, and saw nothing wrong with them, shame on them for having such poor business skills. Either way, Troia and Carrero have been grossly negligent. They have damaged the upscale/professional image of both Anthem View and Sun City Anthem.
And, by the way, should we not also be told if the lessee has paid its $60 Henderson sign fees for each sign format? Since resident board candidates have to pay those ridiculous Henderson fees, there can be no doubt that the lessee is also required.