SHAME ON US...
The Obnoxious Kill Tree Committee continues the usual member harassment. 137 members are threatened with fines and legal action. All over trees that exceed the height limits. What good does this covenant do to make Surfside a more enjoyable place to own property? Surfside is widely known for it;s butchered trees. We should be know as a clean, neat, green community.
At a time when members should be staying home, we have 137 members that are threatened to come and take care of tree complaints or be fined. Our members are stressed enough, without this added. Shame on those who promote this covenant and force compliance with treats and fines. Shame on us members for allowing this to happen.
TREE, BRUSH, VEGETATION AND NOXIOUS WEEDS COMMITTEE
November 6, 2020 Call to Order: Conference call; Meeting called to order at 1:00 pm.
Present: Peggy Olds (Chair), Annette deLeest (Trustee), Georgia Olson (Compliance Investigator), Valerie Harrison, Pam Harris, Betsey Nelson
Guest: Betty Ownbey
Introduction and Welcome: Peggy welcomed all members and guest. Old Business: --October, 2020 Minutes: The final October 2020 minutes were submitted and approved by the Board at their October meeting. New Business: --Member appeal Case #5195. Member Betty Ownbey requested an appeal of a fine she received related to overheight trees. Surfside’s interim business manager, Heidi Larson, requested a recommendation from this committee on this case. After considerable discussion of the facts of this long-standing case, the following agreements were reached: a) Ms. Ownbey will immediately document her tree plan in writing to Georgia; b) the committee and Georgia agreed to recommend an extension of her tree plan to complete all tree maintenance and debris clean-up on both lots she owns to comply with covenants not later than March 3, 2021; c) committee recommended Surfside management consider a waiver of some or all fees if full compliance is achieved by that time. Peggy will work with Georgia to document agreements and committee recommendation for business manager and Surfside records. --Tree Report/Discussion: Georgia submitted the November 2020 tree report. See attached compliance report. Thirty-two (32) cases were closed, 16 new cases opened. Peggy noted compliance done in the last two months is related to escrow and member-driven complaints, not Surfside initiated proactive field checks. We will not restart proactive field checks until 2021 due to Georgia’s increased compliance workload in other compliance areas. Committee thanked Georgia for the comprehensive compliance report. --Variance Policy Clarification: Peggy reviewed the memo from Heidi Larson, Surfside’s Interim Busines Manager, clarifying Surfside’s policy related to granting variances for tree heights. See attached. Meeting adjourned at 2:27PM Next Meeting will be Friday, December 3, 2020 at 1:00PM by Conference Call
19 comments:
9:49....Maybe you aren't aware, but there have been no public Board meetings since last March. Members do not simply ask for the BOT to take an action and it is granted. Maybe you hadn't heard that. Member questions submitted weeks before BOT meetings are rarely replied to, either by letter, e-mail, or comments in B. meetings (held in private). Members do not set policy, and so long as Trustees choose to ignore member comments, questions, or suggestions - there IS no avenue for member input or influence. So, easy to be a smart ass, but you're out-to-lunch. Generally such arrogance comes from Board members. That you ?
9{49 I can;t fix stupid, but I can remove it.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention over the years, the candidates who run that are for the covenants get more votes than those who run that are against. There was one time someone did make it on because a trustee left the area, but that was only a one year term.
Maybe you aren't aware that when there was a move to remove the covenant, the majority of members who responded by email and AT the meeting wanted them to remain.
Funny how the same people on here who point to the members response to the proposed lighting policy as proof that IT should not pass, ignore the other.
Maybe in YOUR head, all of the comments critical of the HOA policies or decisions are one person. Anonymous isn't a person, but many. (Just a clue) No one who has run for Trustee has been "against the covenants". Wanting change or revision of a specific provision is part of a Trustees job to consider. Stopping enforcement of tree restrictions would be temporary- a moratorium. The community as a whole has NEVER weighed-in on any single covenant or policy. The closest was the Lighting review.
4:56pm, In the 22 years I have lived in this HOA there has never been an open forum of the total membership
to discuss or vote on any covenant by the members of the HOA. The board has always controlled that process without the desires of the entire membership taken into consideration.
As I said, your blog is really making great changes George. Great Work!
The blog does not make changes, the Board and members make changes. I only have one vote, the same as you. The blog provides information and a forum for discussion. Some people don't even like discussion. Thanks for the compliment, but I do not see it as "Great Work", but rather as an avenue for the members to be better informed. Mt opinion and views are not as important as what the members think and say. I am really grateful to those who get on here and privide information and thoughtful discussion. I think we all benifit from it, except those who want to hide the facts and suppress free speech.
I don't see it as "Great Work" either. We definitely agree on that.
8:42.... As George stated, the folks who object to the Blog, are uncomfortable with the details of HOA failures, penalties for non-compliance to State and County regulations,and efforts to avoid community open dialogue about policy. George doesn't have the time and energy to constantly monitor and weed inappropriate remarks, and many folks are intent on being inappropriate and have nothing more to contribute.
Couldn’t have said it better Steve!
My new hoa of just over 4 years has trouble finding board members and those on the board have become increasingly frustrated at the increasing workload and the lack of gratitude (14 hours or so per week). We have opted for a management company for a one year trial in 2021. $$ to pay them will come from some minor tightening and $$ the management can save us. We will go to a 5 person board instead of 9. If we hadn't gone this route I doubt we would have found even 3 to run or continue in their thankless task. And no I have not chosen to run for a board position Kerry and I do committee functions so we do participate. We'll see how it works!! We only have 223 members and cabana's/pool and landscaping so not nearly the challenge SHOA would face.
Larry, I miss you and Kerry. Hope all is well and thank you for all you guys did for us when you were here.
For those that want to gate off Surfsise, I really appreciate you. Please convince the hoa to do that. I don't want to come to your s-hole hoa anyway.
MSGA! Right JoAnne?
To 5:31,
Once again you are making statements that aren't factual. To say that no one who has run for Trustee has been against the covenants is false.
I had a sitting Trustee on my doorstep telling me he was against not only the tree covenants but others too and wanted my vote or proxy for those that were running for the board at that time who felt the same. Within a couple weeks I had his star candidate on my doorstep verifying that was the case. They both made the mistake thinking that just because I didn't live on the ridge I would agree with them. And Btw, when you ran it was pretty well known that you were against the tree covenants as well.
The meeting I mentioned was similar to the Lighting review meeting, except it had a much larger response. Your statement about the community as a whole has NEVER weighed in is just silly. The community as a whole DOESN'T EVEN VOTE. It was easy to do this year since it was a mail in yet basically it was around the same amount who did.
The meeting concerning the tree covenants was well advertised to the membership and those who cared showed up and/or voiced their opinions which were overwhelming for them to remain. The Trustees did do their job, They took that response into consideration and made no changes.
8:00....I personally know Patrick Johansen and Deb Blagg, who both ran for the BOT, and neither proposed getting rid of the covenants. I've made no secret of my opposition to current Tree height restrictions, yet I received the most votes of the candidates I ran against who were not elected. What I have made more than clear is that the views of one Trustee on a single issue is not reason for the fear I hear in your comment.
Nine Board members must weigh-in on any given issue, a majority is required to move a motion forward, and ANY covenant change must be presented to the membership for review.
What would be proper, and IS policy in most HOAs, is that the entire membership should be required to have the opportunity to approve/disapprove of any proposed covenant change. Our covenants should be changed to require a by-mail vote to make any such change. There would need to be a threshold of votes cast, such as 75%, before the matter was decided, and it should NOT be up to the BOT to decide.
In most HOA communities, residents are fulltime, and signatures are gathered over the course of months. Surfside can't do that, and the HOA has taken undue advantage of that. Until fair-minded members are elected to the Board, who will move this action forward, the community will always be ruled by a Board which uses its' entitlements to benefit a few, at the expense of the many. That is the exact definition of how the Tree restrictions are enforced.
Dissolution today, dissolution tomorrow, dissolution forever!!!
"I received the most votes of the candidates I ran against who were not elected". That has to be one of the most stupid comments I have read on this blog, which is saying a lot.
And congrats for doing so two years running. Care to make it three?
Post a Comment