Pros and Cons of living in Sun City Georgetown (San Antonio: how much, college)

[Trainwreck20]

Just sayin - apparently, Austin (a muni) is much lower over the course of a year than the private providers. Looking at 'the cost per kWh' for just one scenario or whatever is not nearly as useful as what you pay over the actual course of a year.....

[R4d]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Just sayin - apparently, Austin (a muni) is much lower over the course of a year than the private providers. Looking at 'the cost per kWh' for just one scenario or whatever is not nearly as useful as what you pay over the actual course of a year.....

The rates and totals for 1,000 kWh are averages that would apply for the year if the average usage remained the same. But usage varies. More electric energy is consumed during July and August, primarily because of the air conditioning load, than the other months of the year. The bills move correspondingly. So the total bill in Austin would drop during the low use months. The same would be true for any provider.

Not everyone benefits equally from the competitive market. For example, if a person signs a one year contract for an average of 500 kWh per month but breaks the contract before the expiration date, she will be hit with a penalty. So, if she believes that she will move within a year, signing a one year contract is not a good move.

The data that I presented was taken from a study done by Georgetown Utilities. It is biased. It does not include some of the lowest cost providers in Round Rock, as an example, and it includes data for electric energy providers that don't do participate in the competitive market in central Texas. Moreover, as I noted, the study just focuses on 1,000 kWh. It should have included a frequency distribution, i.e. comparisons by quintiles.

If you believe that politicians can make better decisions about the best electric energy service plan for your household than you can, then government ownership of your electric energy provider gets your tick mark. If you believe that you can make a better decision for your household and family, given enough market information and options, then you will favor a competitive market for electric energy.

For more than 85 percent of Texans, the Texas Legislature decided that most Texans are adults, and they can make better decisions regarding an electric energy plan than politicians on the city councils. So, why did the city owned public utilities in Texas not open their local markets to competition? Easy! Because they knew that they would have had their lunch eaten by competition.

So, at the end of the day it comes down to choice. Even if I make the wrong decision, I want it to be my decision. Not the decision of a hack politician on the city council who barely has an idea of how electric energy is produced, transmitted, distributed, and controlled.

[Snowpacked]

Originally Posted by R4d

The rates and totals for 1,000 kWh are averages that would apply for the year if the average usage remained the same. But usage varies. More electric energy is consumed during July and August, primarily because of the air conditioning load, than the other months of the year. The bills move correspondingly. So the total bill in Austin would drop during the low use months. The same would be true for any provider.

Not everyone benefits equally from the competitive market. For example, if a person signs a one year contract for an average of 500 kWh per month but breaks the contract before the expiration date, she will be hit with a penalty. So, if she believes that she will move within a year, signing a one year contract is not a good move.

The data that I presented was taken from a study done by Georgetown Utilities. It is biased. It does not include some of the lowest cost providers in Round Rock, as an example, and it includes data for electric energy providers that don't do participate in the competitive market in central Texas. Moreover, as I noted, the study just focuses on 1,000 kWh. It should have included a frequency distribution, i.e. comparisons by quintiles.

If you believe that politicians can make better decisions about the best electric energy service plan for your household than you can, then government ownership of your electric energy provider gets your tick mark. If you believe that you can make a better decision for your household and family, given enough market information and options, then you will favor a competitive market for electric energy.

For more than 85 percent of Texans, the Texas Legislature decided that most Texans are adults, and they can make better decisions regarding an electric energy plan than politicians on the city councils. So, why did the city owned public utilities in Texas not open their local markets to competition? Easy! Because they knew that they would have had their lunch eaten by competition.

So, at the end of the day it comes down to choice. Even if I make the wrong decision, I want it to be my decision. Not the decision of a hack politician on the city council who barely has an idea of how electric energy is produced, transmitted, distributed, and controlled.

Do not be so naive. The problem with politicians is that their interests are skewed towards profit because that is who they represent. PAC money is spent like drunken sailors with huge benefits going to the one throwing the money around. If politicians actually represented the common people they are elected to serve things would be different. Consumers should not have to wade through a bunch of crap just to get reliable electricity. Some things should be government managed and some not.
Dont forget, corporations make us pay for their mistakes while often getting government subsidy money up front.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by R4d

The rates and totals for 1,000 kWh are averages that would apply for the year if the average usage remained the same. [...]

No, that was the actual bills paid over the course of the year.

[Old JO]

We moved here 9 years ago, and love it. I don't find the houses closer than where we lived previously, nor the rules onerous. It is a place where people are friendly and there is more to do than you can imagine in a single visit. You can be as active as you want, so I'd say it is for people who want to be active and participate in activities. If you aren't a joiner, you can still enjoy the area, and there are lots of places to volunteer. It is the Hill Country, so central to many day trip areas. In addition, the Community Association and some of the clubs offer both day trips and extended trips at very reasonable prices. The two fitness centers (soon to be three) are very nicely equiped, and the pools are well maintained. Lots of fitness classes to choose from if you are interested in those. Can't imagine us anywhere else. It was right for us.

[Pretzeltwist]

I've seen a ton of talk in this thread about rules & fees, but like Old JO, I'd like to vouch for it being a nice place to live. I'm too young to live there, but my mother and my sister's in-laws have lived there for the past 10 years, so I visit regularly and also hear about it from them. I'm a teacher and for a few years I did summer work as a camp counselor at Sun City's community center, and also sent my son to the Sun City camp one summer. So I know from experience how nice their community center is, and the wealth of activities that are available.

I'm an Austinite and like living here, but I'm glad my mother is in Sun City, because it's pretty, peaceful, safe, and offers her lots of different activities and opportunities to do volunteer work. It isn't all about golf. There is swimming, tennis, pickle ball, bocce ball, woodworking, a huge communal gardening center, ballroom dancing, etc., etc.

If you want to make major changes to your house or get imaginative in your garden, then it's probably not the place for you. If you're going to get really upset over paying fees for the various community offerings, and are picky about which aspects of the community you do/don't want to pay for, then it is probably not the place for you. But if you can accept that there will be fees & that those fees will likely increase over time (just like the cost of everything else), and you want a low-maintenance home & garden and a lack of the zillion neighborhood problems that less restrictive communities have to deal with, then Sun City might be right for you. It's a pleasant place to be.

[Ohio 95]

Observation from one who has just scanned the posts. If SC is doubling its size from 5,000 to 10,000 homes, is it also doubling common facilities like pools, tennis courts, etc.? Won't this increased occupancy create an increased demand for scarce facilities?

Also, a lot has been mentioned about all the activities available. Is there a list of at least the generic types of activities provided?

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by Ohio 95

Observation from one who has just scanned the posts. If SC is doubling its size from 5,000 to 10,000 homes, is it also doubling common facilities like pools, tennis courts, etc.? Won't this increased occupancy create an increased demand for scarce facilities?

Also, a lot has been mentioned about all the activities available. Is there a list of at least the generic types of activities provided?

I think you meant Pickleball courts(answer is yes). Tennis is SO 2015

[nana51]

I don’t mind most of the rules but I am wondering about cars. We have 3. Two will be in the garage at all time when not being driven, but different ones will be in the driveway depending on what car we are driving that day. Is it verboten to leave a car in the driveway if it’s driven every day?

[BijouBaby]

Originally Posted by nana51

I don’t mind most of the rules but I am wondering about cars. We have 3. Two will be in the garage at all time when not being driven, but different ones will be in the driveway depending on what car we are driving that day. Is it verboten to leave a car in the driveway if it’s driven every day?

It is not "verboten" to park a car permanently in the driveway, but it is discouraged because it detracts from the aesthetics of the street. Let's face it, cars parked permanently anywhere outside the garage (driveway, street, etc) just looks worse than properties that house their vehicles in the garage.

My street (in SC) used to have very few houses with cars parked in the driveway, but many of those people moved and sold their houses to new owners who keep pickups, cars, whatever, parked in the driveways and it has definitely made the street look worse.

Why the heck do people need THREE cars anyway?

In my opinion, the section of SC that I live in has gone down in the few years I've live there, and this is one reason why. New residents don't seem to have the same pride in taking care of their properties as the previous older, often original owners did.

For example, the two houses across from me both had their cars parked in the garage. New owners now have their older pickups parked in the driveway every day because they're using their garages to store crap. Same goes for other "newer" owners on the street. Just looks cheesy and brings down property values in my opinion.

I wish the CA did not allow vehicles to be permanently parked on driveways. (and this opinion is coming from one of those younger, "newer" owners).