This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Thursday, March 25, 2021
boil water
THURSDAY EVENING... Alert from Pacific County for Surfside to boil water. Main Break
So reading the minutes this morning and seeing Kurt Olds response to Paul Crouches question about why another covenant, I’d like to have it more clarified. How many complaints have been received about the lights to have the board feel this change is necessary? All were are becoming is a “compliance” place to live. We need a full time building and compliance position for sure. I’d say it will take at least 2 people to keep us all in line and obeying the rules! Honestly I’m tired of living in this militant place!
There's no excuse for increased enforcement, and the lighting covenant is ill-conceived, poorly written, unnecessary and based on the lie we heard last year, that the HOA has received vast numbers of complaints. The Architectural Committee made the same claim, and when pressed to state how many, they said "5".
The Board ended the meeting saying they would leave it unchanged, but add a lumen restriction. The rewrite never happened, and now they're running the same intrusive crap back at us, but keeping very wuiet about the details which are alluded to in the Board meeting minutes. Lighting is a practical matter, particularly where it is often foggy. Our safety dictates what lights we choose. This is not the choice of 9 Trusteess to make, but an individual household's choice.
It's not because of complaints. As you say, that's obvious. It's a small change to benefit the community and the environment. A lot of times people heavily resist change. It's too bad. You may argue the details of the proposed covenant, but please reconsider heavily resisting small change to benefit the community and the environment.
Your contention that mandating poor lighting in a community that often has only about 30% of it's residents present full time, is ridiculous. You are envisioning a scenario only present in your mind.
If there are a few members who have annoying lights, address those handful of incidents. You are not the appointed purveyor of social conscience in Surfside, and you haven't gone outside much at night if you think the community is expending vast amounts of wasted light.
No survey has been made of what lighting members currently use, or what lighting members want or need. So you have no data on which to base any intrusive policy that mandates specific types of light.
No limits have been proposed on wattage, and no proposals have been suggested to limit nightlights or motion sensor lighting. The proposal is a total loser and needs to be rejected by the members and Board.
Safety is a primary focus of exterior lighting, obviously used at night often short term. We rarely leave our exterior lights on unless expecting guests. This is a power trip and nothing mote. Offensive lighting can easily be dealt with on an individual basis.
Great, who's going to purchase my new lighting? Not me! I just purchased the lighting on the outside of my home because the lights that came with this horrible purchase were so corroded they had to be pried off the house. They looked awful, had one burned out light, couldn't get the lid off to replace the bulb. I paid for very nice lighting, not cheap stuff.
Where was the $200 compliance charge when I purchased my home? I spent well in excess of $200 for new lights. Where were you before my purchase? I promise, the ones pried off were not up to "your" standard either. I'm not going to pay anymore for your likes and dislikes. I'm really starting to get mad!
The one of the main reasons behind the proposed change was due to the vagueness of the covenant, which made it difficult when addressing complaints against those "few members". Most reasonable people know not to install lights that illuminate the entire neighborhood and leave them on all night. Unfortunately there are also some selfish people who don't care about their neighbors and feel that they should be able to do what they want because it is their property. With the guidelines when a complaint comes up they will have a measuring device to determine if it valid or not.
The same happened with the sheds. Most reasonable people know what a shed should be and only need the dimensions. Unfortunately again you had individuals who chose to abuse the system and build what were mini cabins on their lots. So that had to be address by having the rules spelled out more for further guidelines so people couldn't abuse it further.
8 comments:
Again?
That is what? 6 or 8 just this year ?
So reading the minutes this morning and seeing Kurt Olds response to Paul Crouches question about why another covenant, I’d like to have it more clarified. How many complaints have been received about the lights to have the board feel this change is necessary? All were are becoming is a “compliance” place to live. We need a full time building and compliance position for sure. I’d say it will take at least 2 people to keep us all in line and obeying the rules! Honestly I’m tired of living in this militant place!
There's no excuse for increased enforcement, and the lighting covenant is ill-conceived, poorly written, unnecessary and based on the lie we heard last year, that the HOA has received vast numbers of complaints. The Architectural Committee made the same claim, and when pressed to state how many, they said "5".
The Board ended the meeting saying they would leave it unchanged, but add a lumen restriction. The rewrite never happened, and now they're running the same intrusive crap back at us, but keeping very wuiet about the details which are alluded to in the Board meeting minutes. Lighting is a practical matter, particularly where it is often foggy. Our safety dictates what lights we choose. This is not the choice of 9 Trusteess to make, but an individual household's choice.
It's not because of complaints. As you say, that's obvious. It's a small change to benefit the community and the environment. A lot of times people heavily resist change. It's too bad. You may argue the details of the proposed covenant, but please reconsider heavily resisting small change to benefit the community and the environment.
Your contention that mandating poor lighting in a community that often has only about 30% of it's residents present full time, is ridiculous. You are envisioning a scenario only present in your mind.
If there are a few members who have annoying lights, address those handful of incidents. You are not the appointed purveyor of social conscience in Surfside, and you haven't gone outside much at night if you think the community is expending vast amounts of wasted light.
No survey has been made of what lighting members currently use, or what lighting members want or need. So you have no data on which to base any intrusive policy that mandates specific types of light.
No limits have been proposed on wattage, and no proposals have been suggested to limit nightlights or motion sensor lighting. The proposal is a total loser and needs to be rejected by the members and Board.
Safety is a primary focus of exterior lighting, obviously used at night often short term. We rarely leave our exterior lights on unless expecting guests. This is a power trip and nothing mote. Offensive lighting can easily be dealt with on an individual basis.
I fully support the proposed covenant, I fully support the member who initiated it, and so does the board.
Great, who's going to purchase my new lighting? Not me! I just purchased the lighting on the outside of my home because the lights that came with this horrible purchase were so corroded they had to be pried off the house. They looked awful, had one burned out light, couldn't get the lid off to replace the bulb. I paid for very nice lighting, not cheap stuff.
Where was the $200 compliance charge when I purchased my home? I spent well in excess of $200 for new lights. Where were you before my purchase? I promise, the ones pried off were not up to "your" standard either. I'm not going to pay anymore for your likes and dislikes. I'm really starting to get mad!
Thank you 4:12. Excellent point.
The one of the main reasons behind the proposed change was due to the vagueness of the covenant, which made it difficult when addressing complaints against those "few members". Most reasonable people know not to install lights that illuminate the entire neighborhood and leave them on all night. Unfortunately there are also some selfish people who don't care about their neighbors and feel that they should be able to do what they want because it is their property. With the guidelines when a complaint comes up they will have a measuring device to determine if it valid or not.
The same happened with the sheds. Most reasonable people know what a shed should be and only need the dimensions. Unfortunately again you had individuals who chose to abuse the system and build what were mini cabins on their lots. So that had to be address by having the rules spelled out more
for further guidelines so people couldn't abuse it further.
Post a Comment