The Good, Bad, and mostly Ugly
A few good things:
They did not raise the dues and assessments for 2021...Winegar and DeLeast are off the Boaed. Kimber and Heidi kept things going while another General Manager was fired. Reber gone is another good thing.
A lot of bad things:
Continue to spend 160,000 on no justification for replacing pipe.... Budget for a "Water Wagon"...Continue to kill the trees with beefed up enforcement with shorter compliance time and fines. ..The election of Gary Williams and worse yet, choice to be Board President.. Hiring a computer expert...Hiring a compliance officer....Spending member money for another study of RV/Compactor area...Another water study...Over spending on budget...Getting Fed money rhat was not needed or wanted by the members. .. Poor quality vidio Board Meetings. (The Board member li9cking the powdered sugar off his fingers while on video, is a classic) ..Secret meetings where decisions are made behind closed doors. ....eic., etc.
50 comments:
George and Cox, you will never end the tree height restrictions in the CC&Rs. Why would you not recognize people wanting the best view they can get? Neither one of you want to team up with others and put work and effort into things that haven't been tried. This blog could be used for good things, but George doesn't have time for that and isn't interested..
I do not respond to "Anonymous"
158 - you have your own propaganda rag with the Association website. Learn to use that, as opposed to trying to control this blog. This is still the only bastion of accurate information regarding the random collection of self interests known as Surfside.
This is a site intended to convey information and promote discussion on community issues. Why that concept is threatening, or why anyone pretends that we are trying to change policy on a blog is baffling. George has served on many committees and as a Trustee. I have served as an HOA vice-pres. For 3 years. We have both given service to our communities which only a small percentage of HOA members do. What have you done for your community righteous one ? And we need a name on that.
It has been said many times here by the blog host that anonymous comments are allowed to protect those that are concerned with potential responses by the board or the faction.
Why now the sudden push for names?
It is accurate that George has served in many capacities for Surfside. The same cannot be said for Mr. Cox who has not served in any capacity for Surfside yet often posts as if representing all.
You are just lame. No heroes, we're just talkin'n here.
Can already tell the start of a good year.
Yes indeed
Yes sir
Here's to another year of multiple GM's as the new one seems just as shady as the last and will also need to be bought off to keep BOT secrets, a Compliance Biddy that is compensating for anyone that has ever done her wrong in her life, the hope the Clancy will move so young girls will be safe, and Fred to be less henpecked.
Who in their right mind would hire job candidates with bad reputations ? Reber had been fired from his last job, as has the new Bus. Manager. This position pays very well. It seems far better to work around the vacancy, than to pay someone unqualified, extremely well. I know logic is an outdated concept, but really....do we have to do stupid again ?
5:08
😂😂😂😂the best on this blog yet!!!!
A couple of more bad things you missed George. The Old's FireWise tree top disposal sham. We pay for others to clean up their lots. The other is the sheriff BS. More wasted member money.
@12:42, so true! Why would we ever consider buying a new chipper, grinder for just a few? Let those who need to trim their trees pay for this trimming and removal themselves. Lots of good tree business guys here willing to do this. Lets support the small businesses, not raise our dues for this nonsense. Again, why hire a part-time fire guy, a total waste of our money.
Yes
755 - Steve hasn't served because the Board broke their own rules when he came up, Its just Board games, nothing new. More noxious behavior, which you support.
At some point, the ambivalence for that type of crap will be over. Hope you're still alive to see it.
Yes for sure! Never ever in our previous HOAs did anyone expect the cost of keeping up your property would be paid for by the HOA! Everyone should be responsible for their own upkeep. This Firewise thing was just a Trojan horse in order to serve as many tree complaints as possible! It needs to end!
The hoa should pay for you to cut your trees, that is the J Placer members should. Part of J Place dues needs to be a tree height limiting due. The trees are cut for their benefit so they should pay.
AND PROPERTY TAXES IS A SEPARATE ISSUE! I'm not talking about property taxes!
Doesn't keeping up your property include trimming your trees? If you did that there wouldn't be as many complaints AND the need/usage of the chipper would be less.
Trees do not require routine trimming or maintenance. Unless a tree shows ill-health or gets damaged, trees are not supposed to be rountinely prunned, and are never to be topped. Arborists advise to never do so. This covenant mandates permanent damage to the trees of about 3/4 of Surfside members costing several hundred dollars to thousands, about every other year. So around $20,000 at minimum annually. It benefits NO one. Houses and 20 ft. High dunes obscure views of the surf, now about 1000ft.further west than 50 years ago when the community started.
Anonymous 12:43. The complaints about trees have absolutely nothing to do with keeping up your property! Only to do with the current covenants which can and should be changed! If keeping your property up and nice looking, we wouldn’t have these unsightly properties such as on the corner of I and Oysterville rd!
No need for us to run a chipping business, that’s every individual’s responsibility!
Cox, thanks for the truth! Please get on the board and end the tree CC&Rs.
They hate trees!
Again, saying it benefits NO one is an opinion, not a fact. Same with the 20 ft, high dunes and 1000 ft crap. ANYONE who says that seeing the ocean isn't a benefit is not living in the real world. Even those who walk up on to J enjoy the view. And don't respond back that trees cannot block ocean views, it's been proven so by many who have eyes they can.
Same with saying trees don't need trimming or maintenance. Experts who deal with fire dangers in wildland urban areas like ours disagree completely with THAT opinion.
Also, many who have taken care of their trees properly still have them, as again anyone with eyes can clearly see.
2:10PM
Come down and look at my trees that were toped one to two feett by Arbor in Feb. they are now dead, your comments have no basis of fact.
Tree restrictions vary greatly on the westside of the ridge. Where heights are 24 ft. we see some trees that were topped decades ago that are healthy and attractive. only G St.has 24 ft. heights. Everywhere else in the community we see disastrous results, and where 12 and 14 ft heights are mandated, virtually all of the trees are dead or nearly so. Only pretending suggests this is not so.
You are not willing to identify yourself, so we don't know exactly where on J Place you live, but I'd bet you live on the ridge to be so defensive. All of the G St. properties from the south end of S.S. to Oysterville Rd., have a ridge (which has become 2 ridges in 5 yrs.) at least 20 ft. high, of sand that has been building up at a furious rate. We have a higher ridge on our property at 317th and G St..There are photographs available that show the surf about 25ft. from the back of the 4 Plexes at 315th/317th in 1970. The surf is now 1000 ft to the west, 23ft. dunes now exist, and the surf cannot be seen.
At this point, homes have been built on nearly every lot on G St., many about 8 ft. apart, and all, 24 ft. above street level. No one has said a view of the Ocean isn't nice, and yes, everyone likes the view from the ridge. But neither the homes nor the dunes prevent anyone from seeing the Ocean, and the trees would need to be about 75 ft. high on G St. in order to block OCEAN views. Unless a large tree is on a lot immediately west of a J Pl. window, it is impossible to obscure the view of the Ocean, which is visible at least 10 miles into the distance.
I state only what I know for a fact, so Mr. overconfident, you are incorrect, I am correct. From Oysterville Rd. north, the ridge angles off to the east, so much further from the beach, and the dunes are not as high as the other 80% of the Surfside coastline. The beach also tapers to the N.W. from that point on. There's really no legitimate claim to views for homes on the ridge further south, as well as anyone whose property is lower than 30 ft. above sea level.
This covenant does not benefit anyone in the community, while costing 10s of thousands of dollars annually, for those who have NO view what-so-ever. That is an f*ed up policy for all but the 2 or 300 homes on the ridge who never pay a dime for the trees they insist on having topped. For those J Place owners who oppose the Tree restrictions, do something to change the policy. J Pl. voices in opposition would make all the difference in getting this useless policy changed.
Tree maintenance begins the day you plant the tree. There are lots of well maintained trees in Surfside. Why would top your mature trees? It is well known that doing so will kill the tree. If you live in a community that has tree height covenants but refuse or neglect to progressively prune your trees you are the problem, not the covenants. It would be better to remove a tree that is to tall and plant another in its place than foolishly top it and wait for it to die. One dumb decision after another. Maybe you should evaluate your decision making paradigm.
So we have a chipper to benefit a few, a water trailer to benefit a few, can we get a area to dump solid waste? I know a few who could benefit, LOL. Perhaps invest in a riding lawn mower to hire a full-time employee to take care of the grass at properties that are neglected. LOL
I don't get all this negativity. The new manager from my point of view has a good record. Did you apply for the job if you thought you could do it. Be supportive of these people and quit putting them down before they have a chance to prove themselves. I have heard she has proven herself to be a good office manager already
Wildfires are not a Surfside phenomenon. Millions of acres burn every year in the Western states, but we know of only a couple of small brush fires in recent years in Surfside. The Tree restrictions covenant are what we are addressing as unnecessary however. There are no fire restrictions written in our covenants. Common sense sez, keep beachgrass, shrubs and trees, out of direct contact with structures.
Can we ask of the new Genera Manager to publish her background, previous employment and time periods, and if she has any controlling interest in any companies, and what those companies are, and that she will always put the interest of the membership first and never bend to the BOT?
It has often been said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This blog has for years been opposed to, amongst other things, the tree height covenants. Persuasive arguments about the unfairness of the covenant has been postulated ad nauseam on this blog. Character assassination of supporters of the convents have repeatedly and with escalating perjury been leveled toward said supporters. And yet, the the covenants remain. There is no concerted effort to eliminate the covenant. In fact, other than this blog, nobody seams to oppose the covenant. There is no petition, no grass root efforts of any kind to oppose this obviously hated covenant. Is it impotence on the part of the bloggers or indifference on the part of the membership that prevents opposition to the covenant from materializing? Regardless, the continued harping by bloggers, that has had the same results for years, is most certainly insanity.
If you have endured this discussion on the blog, then you should know the answers to your biased questions. Impotent? The membership has no direct say in the process of covenant change, and most on the Board support the restrictions, With as many as 7 out of 9 members on the BOT J pl. Owners, bias is clearly a factor in their lack of interest in opposing views. No one can guess what the overall opinion on this covenant is, as no attempts at surveying community-wide opinion has been made. It is obvious that only about 12% of the members vote annually, and like most HOAs, most members are disengaged from yet another level of governance. Changes in the covenants are a very challenging step, when the restrictions really serve no one in the community, and create conflict needlessly.
1039 - what is insanity is to tolerate the blatant self-interest that this situation has exacerbated. We all know the board members keep this alive for their own benefit. An indifferent membership doesn't change that fact.
One day, we may be out from under the thumb of the faction. That day cannot come soon enough.
To the person who cut several feer from your tree tops and they died. You have a legal claim in Small claims Court. The total filing fees are only a couple of hundred dollars, which you get back when you win. You can collect as much as five thousand dollars, which the value of your trees exceed. Lawyers are not allowed and you will also find out who made the original complaint.
Document evry thing and take pictures. Check comparable property values. Get a statement from Arbor Care as to why the trees died. You will win your case, and the tree topping will end once and for all. We will make sure your win is published in the local paper. The devalue to property values and damage to owners trees must be in the millions. I am not a lawyer, but you can consult a good one in South Bend. Good luck. You can be the hero of surfside.
Hey 1:52, we're just talking here.
How do you prove the $5,000 value of the trees?
If they win, why would the CC&Rs immediately change?
Once again Steve, please get the facts straight before spouting off
5 of the 9 DO NOT LIVE ON J, only 4 live on J Pl
One even lives back in Area 51 so we've got people from all over S.S.
To 4:33.
You didn't say how tall you let them get before they were topped. But to use your comment, come look at my neighbors and my properties where we have taken care of the tress for years. Except for one that started to lean and had to be removed, they are all still there.
Now to the Cox B.S.
Save your "defensive" remark, I'm disagreeing with you, simple as that. And notice that I did so without name calling, something given your immaturity you just can't avoid.
Was talking about the ocean, not the surf so your ranting on with you usual self proclaimed facts are irrelevant. Wasn't talking about the homes on G either. Because of the limitations on building heights they don't block the ocean so again, more wasted typing from you and wasted reading for us.
Since you brought up North of Oysterville road and that ridiculous statement about a tree being 75 ft, another fact for you to ignore. Look at the condos north. They block off the ocean view from those to the east. They are NOT 75 ft. The trees in front of them and to the north that are the same and some being higher are not 75 ft, yet they block off an ocean view except maybe for the top floors of the J place houses. In fact this was discussed during a board meeting where the tree height limits for the condo's where changed to equal the height of the buildings. So it appears YOU are the one being overconfident and incorrect.
Like I said, anyone with eyes can clearly see this and I suggest you go up to J and look for yourself before commenting further. But, and here is where I lower myself to your level, it would require that you take your ample backside out of the chair and remove your sausage shaped fingers from the keyboard to do so. Something you are obviously not inclined to do.
I'm in no mood to be Cox'ed further so go ahead with another B.S. comment with more name calling. I have better things to do.
He only cares about his facts 3:39 but thanks for pointing that out.
Same with his claim that there haven't been attempts at surveying community wide opinions. There was a well publicized meeting on the tree covenants a few years back just like the recent one on the lighting issue and the overwhelming response was to keep them. but since it disagrees with his opinion that fact keeps getting ignored.
Read more carefully to know what is being said. The height limits have been in place for a long time, and there have been opponents of the policy for just as long. I said that the BOT has opposed changing the restrictions at all. The Board has generally had a majority of the seats occupied by J Pl. owners, as many as 7 of 9 positions being J Pl. owners. It is a simple fact.
Only a survey of the entire membership will give us a legitimate measure of the majority opinion. A by-mail survey sent to ALL members, emphasizing the importance of replying, and an allowance of several months to follow-up with continued efforts to get at least a majority of responses, but preferably at least 75% of the membership responding will be a true meadure. The survey could address 2 or 3 issues, but simple and easy to respond. 2:10-Unfortunately you once again miswuote what I have stated, and don't understand WHAT I said. But you're not in "any mood" to try and get it straight in your head, and would rather bitch. So be it.
Where is area 51 located at in surfside that people refer to
There are no structures on G St. that block views of the Ocean to legitimate "view" properties- that is, properties at 30 ft. elevation on J Pl..At the same time, there IS NO covenant that guarantees views. It was an invention of realtors back about '65 to 1970. Tje covenants once protected views, but were changed to prevent lawsuits. The State of Washington does not sanction or approve of "view" guarantees.
Ask why the Board doesn’t put the tree height restriction on the ballot at the annual meeting for Members to vote on? This is by far the most contentious topic in Surfside. The CC&Rs can be revised and after 50 years some changes are due. They should establish restrictions that benefit the majority of the Members, not a select few. The Board refuses to put this to the members for a vote and has blatantly obstructed the attempts of Members and Trustees who have attempted to put it up for a vote. Surfside is ran by a bunch of self-serving wannabe Oligarchs - exert they are beer budget Oligarchs!
All u people on j place just want to spy on the people below . U know how many trees it would take and how tall they would have to be to block there view. Looks loo weirdos
The insanity continues. Why should the board do a survey of the membership? If you want to make the tree height covenant an issue with people who obviously don’t care then you do it, why should they do it for you. Surveys are not a very reliable way of getting people’s opinion anyway. Besides, if the survey demonstrated general support for the tree covenant you would not accept it. You would not like the way the survey was conducted or you would not like the way the survey was presented. You would call the survey biased and reject it. You want the board to do your work for you. You claim you are under the board’s thumb or that you are powerless to do anything. Has anyone of you ever tried to do anything other than whine on this blog? You all sound like conservatives living in San Francisco. Minority fringe dissenters claiming a moral high ground. Well keep it up. Nobody cares but you and your efforts are like preaching to the choir. At least you get a chance to stroke each other’s egos.
I think the insanity is requiring that members piss away tens of thousands of dollars annually to top trees that should not be topped, to preserve a view that is neither in jeopardy nor protected by the HOA covenants. The HOA is charged with managing the community, and doing so without bias. That can only be done by determining what owners want and need, and avoiding policies that serve only a small special interest group - like the Tree restrictions! The rest of your yarn is based on your claims to psychic powers - just b.s.
Put it up for a vote. Let members vote if they want to eliminate the tree heights. Simple enough to do at the next election. There may be other contentious issues that Members should be allowed to decide. Clearly matters of such importance should be decided on by the majority of the 2,700 property owners - not just the 5 majority members of the BOT.
Virtually ALL HOAs provide for the members to initiate changes in their community covenants, and vote on such changes. Surfside does not. Unless the Board of Trustees is willing to enable such a process, they can ignore any member intiative. A survey that allowed for several weeks to seek 60 to 75 % of the member households to respond, would be a good start. Only 250 to 325 votes are cast in community elections, of the approx. 2050 member households. This conservative block of voters will never approve of any progressive change. Remember, "progressive" just means "seeking progress". Change.
Obviously, most members are satisfied with tree height covenants. Despite years of complaining, there is no concerted effort to eliminate or change the covenant. Opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one. Opinions only become a problem when the narcissist considers his opinion, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as truth. The truth is, the members who care enough to vote, support the tree height covenants. The members who don’t care about Surfside enough to vote don’t care about the covenants. Now if you want to personally contact those members and try and convince them that your opinion is valid and secure their vote then go ahead, do it, it is a free country. Don’t expect others to do that work for you. After reading certain comments on this blog I am convinced their are some narcissistic members who refuse to accept their opinion as being fringe in this neighborhood.
The problem with a democracy is the will of the majority prevails. This may seem like a good thing as long as you are a member of the majority. A democracy is not required to protect the rights of the minority or the individual. That is why I thank our founding fathers for establishing a republic. In a republic the rule of law prevails and the rights of the individual is paramount. Surfside is neither a democracy or a republic. Surfside is a corporation. Unlike democracies or republics that are designed to establish and govern community behavior, protect sovereign territory, protect the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness by its citizens, corporations are designed to provide management of a collective entity to protect the viability and value of the entity for the owners. Corporate members, commonly referred to as stockholders, are given very limited involvement in the management of the corporation. Generally, stockholders are allowed to vote, in person or by proxy, at an annual meeting for directors or trustees. Directors are given the authority to manage the corporation as they see fit. If stockholders are unhappy, they generally will express it at the annual meeting with their ballot. By design, it is very difficult to make sweeping changes to the governing documents of a corporation. In most cases a two thirds majority is needed to change articles of incorporation or bylaws. Corporations formed to manage an HOA or a condominium often have protective or restrictive covenants. The corporations governing documents prescribe how changes to the covenants will be accomplished. When challenged, courts generally uphold the governing documents. Surfside’s governing documents are provided to each prospective member before they become a stockholder. Nobody can claim ignorance of what Is expected of them before they purchased property inside Surfside corporate boundaries. For those who are unhappy with Surfside, Your easiest redress would be to exit the corporation by selling your property. Otherwise, use the methods prescribed in the governing documents to effect changes to governing documents or covenants. Whichever you chose, keep in mind that the change you desire is not going to be handed to you on a silver platter. If you decide to stay, know you will have to expend funds and effort to achieve your goals.
Post a Comment