COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002						The Sequoias
C00005 00003				  The ad-hoc Pool Committee
C00016 ENDMK
C⊗;
					The Sequoias
					July 14, 1979

To
Mrs. Elsie Jones      	17-P
Mrs. Caroline Johnson  	17-N
Mrs. Evelyn Cuthberson	22-A
Mrs. Amy Fowler        	22-B
Mr. and Mrs. James Borst	23-A
Mr. amd Mrs. Clinton Croke	23-B
Capt. and Mrs. Charles Ross	24-A
Prof. and Mrs. Dan Smith	24-B

The ad-hoc Pool Committee has been critized for not again asking those of
you whose homes are contiguous to the possible pool site near building 17
for your wishes in the matter (there was such a question on the original
questionnaire).  We thought (perhaps erroneously) that you would like to
have all of the facts that the committee had collected and that you might
like to see how the proposed site would look before finally making up your
mind as to how the choice of this location would affect your own privacy.

May we now suggest that you write a brief note to the Resident's Council
outlining your reasons for favoring or opposing the use of this site so
that your views may be properly considered at the special meeting of the
Resident's Council on July 26 th.

As you know the ad-hoc Pool Committee is now recommending an alternate site,
but this matter is sure to come up for discussion and it would help if the
Resident's Council had your considered opinion as to what would be best for
The Sequoias as a whole with due consideration for your own interests.

						Very truely yours,




						Arthur Samuel, chairman,
						The ad-hoc Pool Committee.
			  The ad-hoc Pool Committee
			       July 20, 1979

A critique of the petition that has been presented to the Resident's
Council opposing the construction of a pool and jacuzzi at The Sequoias.

We would like, firstly, to make a formal protest regarding two aspects of
this petition.

1.  We object to the conditions under which the petition was circulated
both because this was in clear violation of the policy of not allowing
solicitations except as provided for by the constitution and by-laws of
the Resident's Council, and because residents were not given all of the
facts available at the time the signatures were requested.

2.  We further object to the wording of the petition, which was written in
such a fashion as to induce residents to sign if they objected to any one
of three conditions that are enumerated and yet the wording is such as to
actually mean that the signers were objecting for ALL three reasons.

The petition is reproduced below with specific comments interposed.

(We, the undersigned par.)

Who is to give this guarantee?  The Resident's Council can not do so.
It has neither the legal authority nor the funds to guarantee anything.

What the petition is trying to say is that the signors would like the NCPH
Inc.  to take all reasonable steps to see that their enumerated conditions
are met.

The proponents of the petition have stated that their demands are not
negotiable, as if the ad-hoc Committee or the Resident's Council had any
power to negotiate.  All the Council can do is to make a recomendation to
the Board of Directors, and we can only hope that its recommendation and
the Board's final action will be in the best interests of the present and
future residents and of The Sequoias as an on-going institution .

(Their paragraph # 1)

The ad-hoc Committee's present site recommendation, i.e. the area near
the croquet court, satisfies this condition.

(Their paragraph # 2 first sentence )

To object to having the users pay for their use of the pool and at the
same time to insist that "all residents, now and hereafter, shall be held
free from monetary assessment" is highly unrealistic.  Who, after all, is
to pay for it?

Should the individuals who contribute to the construction costs be
required to underwrite the maintenance costs in perpetuity?  No endowment
fund, in today's dollars, can be deemed adequate in view of continuing
inflation.  Retirement Communities that guaranteed lifetime care for a
fixed sum have nearly all gone into bankruptcy and the court-appointed
administrators have levied charges against the residents regardless of any
guarantees to the contrary.  The only reasonable way to meet future costs
is by future assessments against future users.

If there are some residents who should use the pool for health reasons but
who cannot meet their share of the maintenance costs, it seems to the
ad-hoc Committee that it would be preferable to assist these individuals
privately rather than to have their plight revealed to other residents
through the remission of the pool usage fee.  Either situation would involve
charity and charity should be a private matter.

The contributors to the capital cost will not, and can not, be given any
special priveleges in return for their contributions.  Contributions will
irrevokable gifts and can be so reported for income tax purposes.

( their paragraph # 3 )

This requirement is self contradictory.  How can any individual, group of
individuals or even the NCPH Inc. guarantee protection against
catastrophic expenses except through insurance and a guarantee is
requested for expenses 'beyond' insurance coverage!  Do they mean beyond
existing insurance coverage?  Obviously, the existing coverage would be
extended to include the pool and the cost of doing this (quoted at $420
per year) would be considered a part of the operating expense.

The liability because of a pool is small as compared with the liability
now incurred by the NCPH because of the food service, continuing health
care and the Sequoian Coach. If the signers feel that the NCPH's present
coverage of $4,500,000 is inadequate then they should ask the NCPH to
increase the coverage and they should be prepared to pay their share of
the increased premium.

						The ad-hoc Pool Committee
						Paula Burr
						Betty Hone
						Ray Kelly
						Jack Mansfield
						Ray Pierce
						Charles Ross
 						Arthur Samuel, Chairman.