On the Fate of the Information Building

I recently editorialized on the subject of politics, the Security Patrol and the fate of the Information Building. That editorial had to do with the Security Patrol's proposal to the Board to use the Information Bldg. for Neighborhood Watch purposes. Click here to read my Editorial. In response to my editorial, Security Patrol Chief Dave Servello took umbrage to my comments and suggested that I was wrong in an article he prepared for David's Anthem Journal. A copy of Chief Servello's "Response" to my editorial appears at the bottom of this page.

I happen to believe there are real safety issues to address and that Chief Servello is sidestepping the matter in his "Response." Accordingly, I believe it would be beneficial to respond to Chief Servello and to readdress the safety concerns I had initially raised.

First, Chief Servello, former Chiefs, and Patrol volunteers should know that I have always supported the efforts of the Security Patrol. Our website has always recognized and encouraged residents to volunteer for the Security Patrol. And as members of the Patrol know well, we continue to support volunteer concerns about the absence of bathroom facilities in the Community Services Building (CSB), a long-term point of irritation for many members of the Patrol who do not look forward to being forced to relocate to a building that has no bathroom.

Chief Servello fully recognizes the political campaign point that I had made, namely that the issue of the Information Bldg. has become a campaign issue. I believe it would be fair to say that this matter has been one the several hallmark issues being touted by certain candidates who are running for the Board.  I have said no more than what the Chief has clearly acknowledged in his statement below. As Chief Servello has written in his “Response” to my article, “we are aware that various candidates would and are using the Patrol for political reasons.”

Chief Servello in his “Response” appears somewhat critical over my use of the term “need” as opposed to “use” in addressing the Information Building. Ordinarily, an organization does not formally make a request of the Board that a building “be assigned to the Security Patrol” unless some need is going to be met. I merely pointed out that the Patrol had no stated need for the Information Bldg. that could not be met elsewhere; that valuable volunteer efforts were needed for patrolling and were unavailable to sit idle at the Information Building; and that the establishment of information services at this site created an unnecessary and unwelcome risk to drivers and others who choose to visit the site or who happen to travel on Anthem Pkwy. Yes, Dave, that is a traffic hazzard that should be avoided.

It was unfortunate and regrettable to see that rather than address the reality of the safety issues I had raised, the Security Patrol appears intent on blaming the messenger of bad tidings. There are real and serious safet issues with the Patrol’s proposed use of the Information Bldg. Why the Security Patrol chose not to address those issues is not clear.

In reviewing the Patrol’s initial submission to the Board, one could easily get the impression that the Patrol was only peripherally involved in that process. To this naive observer, it appears that the genesis for the Patrol’s ill-conceived proposal came not from the Security Patrol but from ACE-supported candidates for the Board, who have incorporated this proposal into their campaign efforts for the Board. I say this because the Security Patrol’s initiative was first submitted to the Board not by Chief Dave Servello or a Patrol elected official, but over the signature of a candidate who is currently running for the Board. See the Security Patrol's initial submission to the Board: Patrol submission

While I can understand why some of those ACE folks might have trouble dealing with the issues I had raised, I remain hopeful that the Security Patrol will be better able to recognize the seriousness of the issues that were raised and concentrate less on casting blame on the messenger.

Ron Johnson, 19 April 2007

Security Patrol Response to Ron Johnson

I am very sorry that The SCA Journal felt compelled to write such a misleading article about the Security Patrol intentions concerning the use of the Information Booth. You could not be more wrong.

1. The Security Patrol's primary interest in writing and submitting our proposal for the use of the Information Booth was and has always been for the health and safety of SCA community. We had no political agenda or thought of a political agenda at the time.

2. You say the Security Patrol's proposal was promoted "with the suggestion that the Patrol has a real need for this building." We never said we have a "need" but rather an "effective use" for the Information Booth. You should be aware that we have no signs at any entrance into Sun City Anthem saying "Welcome to Sun City Anthem, Please Drive Carefully" or something stating that our residents care about their community. I ask why not?

3. You concluded in you article that our proposal "lacks merit; has a political agenda rather (than) meeting any real Patrol needs; unnecessarily depletes existing patrolling hours for unneeded information services; fails to realize that patrol resources are woefully insufficient to meet current patrolling needs; places homeowners who might visit the site at unnecessary risk; and lastly, unnecessarily places the Association at potential risk for financial liability in the event of site-related traffic accidents.

a. If our proposal appears to lack "merit" or to have a "political agenda" to you then I suggest that it is your opinion that lacks merit and may have its own political agenda. Your article did not mention the fact that we asked the Henderson Police Department what they thought of our proposal. They were very supportive and suggested they may be able to provide a "marked patrol car" with a dummy to slow traffic.

b. You talk about our Patrol resources as though we are a commodity. We are all volunteers. Every member of the Security Patrol knows that we must do the best we can with what we have. If you think our Patrol resources are being depleted then perhaps you should encourage more people to step up and volunteer? Better still why don't you volunteer yourself?

c. Are you really concerned that any homeowner visiting the site might be at risk? I think we both know that this issue has no basis in fact, because this argument suggests the site of the Information Booth itself is a traffic risk. If this is so then it should be torn down, because anything you put in there will propose a danger to our residents. Now if you are really concerned about the safety of our residents, then I would think that you would lobby for a 30 MPH or 35 MPH speed limit all along the 6.5 mile Parkway. At such an entry speed, would this not make the entry into and exit from the Information Booth more safe?

d. What real Patrol needs are you talking about? The Security Patrol has never fought for or argued for more space or a new building. We have tried to save and have saved community resources in every area possible.

If you want to know what real Patrol needs are then here are some suggestions for you to write about:

1. We could use more professional looking uniforms.

2. We could use reflecting devices on our shirts and hats as safety measures while conducting Patrol duties after dark.

3. We could use more support from the Board, the Spirit, your Web Sight, David's Journal, etc., for communication purposes, such that we could "alert" every resident in every village of increases in home break-ins and vehicle break-ins. Such communications system would enhance community safety dramatically:

4. We could use more pedestrian controlled traffic control devices on Anthem Parkway, and of course more reasonable speed limit on the Parkway that is based upon "line of sight" safety factors and not on personal opinions. We have had two deaths and one serious injury on the Parkway with the past 30 days:

5. We could use more or better lighting in our parking lots.

6. We could use clearly marked luminescent safety markings on our streets at crosswalks, and center lines, curbing, etc.

7. We could use more four way stop signs along the Parkway.

8. We could use clearly marked bicycle lanes and golf cart lanes on all of our streets including the Parkway.

9. We could use more well lighted walking paths and park type benches placed strategically throughout our community, and trash containers to help keep our community looking nice.

10. We could control the truck traffic, and automobile traffic that use Sun City Anthem as a race track and thoroughfare. We could demand a truck route be built around Sun City Anthem. Why not?11. We could install community signs at all entrances into Sun City Anthem advising all visitors that we care about our community, and that we expect them to respect our community properties, and to conduct themselves properly while visiting within or passing through Sun City Anthem.

The list could go on forever, but it makes our (Security Patrol) point that it is not JUST ONE THING (like the Information Booth), but the addition of a number of things related to the health and safety of our community that supports the health of the whole body.

I would like to say more about this Subject, and your article, but I just wanted everyone in this community to understand the Sun City Anthem Security Patrol does not officially support any individual candidate for office, but we are aware that various candidates would and are using the Patrol for political reasons. Our position on such matters has been and remains that what is good for the health and safety of our community and residents is good for the Patrol. I am sending this to all concerned so that everyone will understand our position on such matters.

Respectfully, Dave Servello, Chief, SCA Security Patrol