Maybe the Board President will give a report on all his unauthorized legal spending and secrete meetings held. Maybe the Vice President Flood will be there in person. Maybe they will explain why the contract with North Beach Water continues. I recall we were supposed to save money by having a GM that would run the water department. Maybe we can screw a member over a water leak. Maybe they will make a motion to post the meeting agenda on their web site (as in the past) rather than just the WeakEnder.
For a larger view, click on each page below.
22 comments:
They say they meet on Saturdays to accommodate those that live out of town? But, really, if I live out of town and am only there for the weekend, I'm not going to waste a couple precious Saturday hours in that cramped meeting room. They should video record these meeting and post them for members to view afterwards.
Great idea. They have cameras all over the place.
With the amount of people who show up it is anything but cramped. As for wasting hours from a week-end visit you are spot on.
Sorry to disappoint you George, they didn't screw a member over a water leak. I'm confident you will find a replacement to complain about.
I have no idea what this b.s. is about, but the State required the HOA to set a limit on individual water use. After messing around about it like they do rather than complying, they finally set a limit. That limit is about 20 times what a normal household uses, and is an absurdly generous amount, particularly considering that Surfside has a huge number of properties with serious water leaks.
Any limit set should be less than the 10,000 cubic feet limit that was set, and should be actively enforced. Instead, the BOT has decided that they won't enforce the limit, because a couple of turds threatened to sue the HOA if they were forced to comply. One of those turds is a former Trustee with his own personal golf course.
This is a State requirement, and we are obligated to show some social conscience in setting limits on a resource that IS NOT in endless supply, either here or anywhere else in the U.S.. Funny how different the attitude in enforcement when it comes to WHO you are in Surfside. That is the attitude that got us into serious trouble with regulators, and is costing the membership hundreds of thousands of dollars on fines and failed lawsuits.
I'm equally confident they found something else to screw us with.
Well stated, Steve.
Compliance is selective, with the J Placers and the special interests Board deciding who complies and who doesn't have to. You will see this selectivity in the tree and RV enforcement as well.
It's nothing new. Just another example of our dishonest Board.
The fact that the policy for covenant compliance requires a complaint to be made before action is taken causes the unfair enforcement of the covenants. This policy has created an environment of distrust and hate in our community that is unacceptable. Fair, timely and full enforcement of the covenants is needed to move our community towards fairness and friendliness. This complaint driven enforcement is a matter of a policy set by the board. It must be revised to work toward fairness for all members with the covenants as written or revised.
When you have restrictions that do not serve the community at large in any positive way, MORE enforcement will not put a happy face on needlessly adversarial rules. It is easily demonstrated that Board favoritism plays a huge part in enforcement, and both the Tree Policy and in particular the Shed Roof Policy, prey on RV lot owners. They are the prime targets of the new shed covenant, and that has been explained about 50 times on this Blog.
All HOA communities provide means for owners to make "complaints" or ask for Board action on matters of concern. Whatever the term used, complaints are part of running an HOA community. What should also be understood, is that making a complaint does not assure action. A "complaint" is a request for HOA review of a matter of member concern. It may or may not be considered a matter meriting enforcement action.
This is a big problem with the Tree Policy. We all know that the issue is "views", but there is no determination of views being blocked. All trees measured by their Laser measuring device, are sent violation notices and demands for compliance. In addition, all owners can make anonymous complaints, and given that, Mr. Clancy has bragged about filing as many as 30 in a month. The Tree and Arch. Committees write their own complaints to expedite enforcement.
Stupid adversarial rules that serve no purpose, do not become less stupid over time. And accept that Board members and their friends rarely are issued compliance notices, and feel free to do as they wish. On the other hand, independent minded Trustees get hounded by enforcement in hopes of getting the newbies to quit. This is just a fact. It's mean and more akin to teenage mentality.
B.S. 11:52
Yep, you have no real interest in acknowledging what goes on, or doing anything about it - so it's "b.s.". Not a persuasive response, but you undoubtedly benefit from the way things are, and don't mind that the BOT has screwed the membership by failing to manage honestly and fairly.
Is that all you're going to do now, sit in the corner and yell 'BS'?
Show me one inaccurate or untruthful statement. You can't because there aren't any.
Good on you Steve! And BS on the BS'rs. They act only on self interest anyway!
Water, then to trees. I'll just comment on the first.
One of the reasons to attend a meeting is to hear what is discussed about a topic first hand. If some people here did so it would save a bunch of typing and wasted reading.
Surfside and the board do have a policy for high water usage and do charge. The threshold was set high to start out and was planned on it being lowered over time. They are following what is mandated by the state. This was discussed at the meeting. There is no special deal going on to benefit any turds, no matter who they are.
Keep in mind, many that come on here feel there should be no limit and were the same making statements that the meter requirement was just a ploy to charge for water. I'm not one of those but I do understand the reasoning behind the high limit. But I also feel it should be lowered sooner than later. Carbon ain't cheap.
To 11:52:
Your statement that all owners who get their trees measured are sent violation notices is false. Only those who trees exceed the limits receive one. Keep your trees below height and you will never see one.
To your accusation that those on the Tree and Arch committees write complaints, how do you know? Are you privy to private info that everyone else doesn't have or are you just talking out of your backside? Even if it is true, so what? Are you saying that committee members and Trustees have to give up their rights as members along with the free time they lose while serving the community?
The bottom line is this. It shouldn't matter who makes a complaint, only if it is valid or not. Quite simple. To say that certain board members and their friends are free to do as they wish while others get hounded is just another baseless accusation. Prove it.
You want to talk teenage mentality? On one comment you criticize the board for giving a member a break on the water leak due to certain circumstances then on the next you criticize them for enforcement. Pretty much any topic turns into another chance for you to go on one of your "mean" rants. Now you have added making false accusations. So who's the teenager now?
Since the limit was officially set and announced about a year ago, it is likely this was discussed as a matter in flux. What the BOT says and what they do can often be found to be 2 different things. I'd say that a long time member and former Trustee who threatens the HOA with a lawsuit rather than pay for wasteful water use is a "turd".
The comments you address were based on sound information, but the matter is likely being revisited considering how much "hot water" the HOA is already in with State and Federal regulators. At any rate, glad there is the to intention to take this seriously and enforce this State requirement. That being said, we won't really know if it is actively enforced or not.
9:55....All of your points are misrepresentations of what I stated. Obviously, only trees over the established limit receive notices, and you ignore the point I was making, that tree limits were set to protect views, yet that is ignored and all trees over the random limit are sent notices. How many inches over is a violation ? What IS the objective, now that views are obviously not at stake ?
I know former and current Board and Committee members, so my comments on complaints filed and leniency granted to some, and not others, is based on knowledge of this by these insiders, and some in plain sight.
I have also made it clear that everyone in the community can file anonymous complaints, so the complaints can be generated by the committees themselves, or as in the case of Mr. Clancy, one Trustee can file 30 in a month (and feel full of himself). I have stated that all HOAs provide for owner complaints, suggestions, concerns, whatever you want to call it. It is a necessary part of an HOA community.
Mr. Smith was not granted leniency for a water leak. He routinely waters his massive lawn and objects to paying anything for water. Many properties have major water leaks, and that is what I emphasized as the biggest concern in NOT setting a more conservative limit.
You totally ignore the point I was making about enforcement of the Tree restrictions and new Shed restrictions. They serve no practical purpose to the community as a whole.
The shed covenant change grew out of Board member animosity toward Patrick Johansen getting elected, who had put a small porch on his shed by the canal. It was hidden in the trees on a little used cul-de-sac, and looked very nice. He maintained that the County allowed for the porch, which they do, and that he was otherwise compliant.
The HOA hounded some other RV lot owners over similar matters, losing in Small Claims Court over another RV owner's shed porch. He was forced to remove it, took them to Court, and the HOA lost. They were forced to reimburse him for costs of repair, and a Board member helped Mr. Durdell rebuild the porch.
Weirdly enough, these same Board members insisted on making a change to the covenants restricting "eaves", and the majority of the Board thought it was just fine to create a useless restriction that would cause conflict and intimidation by needless enforcement.
This attitude drives the obsession to top trees and sustain this conflict and systematic trashing of our community. There are numerous sites that have had all of the trees cut down, leaving nothing but stumps, in protest of this ridiculous policy. How does that enhance Surfside as a community ? This is a policy that has no upside for property values or quality of life in our awesome place on the map.
Kirby does as he pleases, over use of water, having employees fired when they expect him to comply with rules he signed off on. Telling employee he would have to be sued to comply with cross connection program. All proven facts if bother to research. He is prime example to others, what you can get away with in shoa.
Yes, we do have some bad apples who fancy themselves to be above the rules. I hope that comes to an end soon.
But Mr. Smith is very gung ho on enforcement where other owners are concerned. This is pretty typical of the BOT attitude.
Hey, Board Member, or servant thereof.
There are many things we don't know, as you people DO NOT communicate, except thru edict and complaint. There is no logic and a lot of self interest.
Why don't you come back when you have an original idea? Instead of relentlessly banging on the ones who do.
As to false accusations, prove it yourself. Your self serving crap grows old.
Mr. Smith needs to find another hobby. Rooting around in his neighbors business is not productive.
Post a Comment