ALARM BELLS...
Minutes Fish & Waterways Committee meeting February 26, 2021
Present – on Phone call in – John & Louise Purdin, DuWayne Mott, Linda Flickinger
In Office – Larry Raymer, Steve Flickinger, Rudd Turner, Tracy Lofstrom
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 pm
Agenda
Runoff & Drainage
Lakes & Canal
Riparian Area
Fish
Larry discussed the first three agenda items - In General:
Flooding that occurred on Monday January 11th through Tuesday January 12th F Pl and G St 344th-345th with some water in garages, H PL 351st, I St across street at 351st – from 12 ¼” rain January 1st through the 6th saturating the soils, followed by 6 ¾” rain January 10th through 12th (heavy 3 ¾” Jan 11th between 8am and 8pm). Some areas of flooding were 6-8” of water, and water over septic systems, causing failure. Outfalls dug out numerous times January 3rd, January 10, 11, 12, 13, due to King tides and sneaker waves with westerly winds; including a wave that came up the Oysterville Rd. Beach approach.
A member on Seabreeze Lake granddaughter caught a 10” fish, very thin, only about 5 ounces, and questioned do we have healthy waters for fish growth?
Riparian area (25ft buffer area from waters edge) – Larry mentioned he observed approximately 200 lots that were in violation of Covenants and CARL, cutting trees and shrubs right down to the waters edge – and some lots just sand alone left to erode into the Lakes and Canal. Trees and shrubs in the Riparian area help to absorb water in the soil from runoff, filter water in the soil before entering waterways, and help to shade waters from getting too warm in the summer. There is a need to create areas for fish habitats to thrive.
Item 1: Runoff & Drainage
February 25th Larry attended the quarterly Pacific County Flood Advisory meeting. The County has hired a new County Engineer, starts March 1st. There is $250,000 in the County Budget for working on the two outfalls in Surfside; $125,000 each outfall.
There was discussion in two topics: 1. Drainage System (for flood control) 2. Two Ocean Outfalls.
Drainage System (for flood control). East of J Pl everything working well. J Pl west are the water drainage challenges. Does County have location drawings on installed catch basins and pipe draining to Seabreeze Lake and the Canal? (only recent, last 5 years or so). County has very limited staff. Should SHOA hire an engineer and make proposal to County – for a community wide Drainage plan. Should SHOA create a Land Use Program? Conclusion – Need a community wide Drainage system plan. Review I-Lane Agreement, May 1998 “Agreement between Flood Control Zone District No.1 of Pacific County Washington and Surfside Homeownwers’ Association for the Surfside I Lane Sub-Basin Stormwater Management Plan”. Work with the County Engineer, helping to make priorities.
Ocean Outfalls. Cost approx. $3500 each dig out, each outfall. January 3, 10-13 clean/dig out cost $50,000; equipment was left on location for days. See I-Lane Agreement regarding agreement between Surfside and the County. Both outfalls need improved. Rudd considered Tide Gates in 5 year Reserve Study, after discussion with Scott McDougall and Frank Wolfe, decided not to at this time. Conclusion, Rudd, “work with the County”.
Item 3: Riparian Areas:
Historically the State has RCW’s for buffer areas – the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58) – for ocean & bay & estuaries facing properties. Pacific County has Ordinance No. 183 Shoreline Master Program (adopted December 12 2017, effective January 14 2018) with a 200 foot from winter grass line buffer area. For Riparian areas (along streams, rivers, lakes) the State Growth Management Act of 1990 36.70A RCW was followed by Pacific County Ordinance No. 180 CARL Critical Area Resource Lands (adopted August 23 2016, effective January 14 2018) has regulations for plants & trees within a 25 foot buffer area of the water.
For those 200 lots of cleared vegetation Larry saw, should we try to enforce CARL? Perhaps consider educating lot owners on the waters.
Steve and Linda are working on a Plant list recommendations for Riparian/Shoreline areas, with mature heights (for our limited tree height areas), Native plant species, and deer resistant species.
The possibility of a community wide plant sale was discussed – no plans made at this time.
Item 4: Fish and Item 3: Lakes & Canal
Steve counted 596 lots on our waterways; see attached document.
Larry wants to test the waters for contaminants, he believes contaminants from storm water runoff may be in the waters. Are our bodies of water healthy to plant fish in? What do we want to test for? Linda recommended contact fisheries or hatcheries we buy from, or perhaps WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife? Tracy said she would look into, Steve said he’d help Tracy.
Fish last stocked/planted on or near April 2, 2020 and September 29, 2020; a larger number in the spring. Should we plant fish this spring 2021 was discussed, no decision.
Fishing Derby – from DuWayne – traditionally the last Saturday in May; not last year – Covid19 restrictions….what about this year…..will enough people be vaccinated to feel safe? Traditionally plant fish in March/April/May – hence no fishing allowed in March, April, May. Still do not know what Covid restrictions might be in place late May. Discussed possibility of moving to Labor Day weekend (discussion was probably not because of the potential presence of Blue Green Algae bloom at that time of year), and then discussed maybe 4th of July week-end. Traditionally DuWayne buys food stuffs (hot dogs, sodas) locally in March to May; he needs decision by May 1st to either plan for May event or let the Board know of when this year or not. Continue discussion next meeting in March.
Eating Fish caught from Blue Green Algae waters, was discussed. So far, the flier Oregon Health Department created seems to be acceptable.
Rudd mentioned he put in the 5-year Financial Strategic Plan a repeat of report “Surfside HOA Waterway Recon” by The Watershed Company, December 2018; so that someone remembers to have this done again in 2023; $10,000 cost in $2018, + inflation considered, Rudd put in rough $12,000.
Meeting was adjourned 2:50pm.
Next meeting March 26, 2021 1:00 PM
Submitted by Steve Flickinger, to Larry Raymer, Co-Chair
77 comments:
Not sure how we continue to call Seabreeze a lake. It is a retention drainage ditch and always has been. Go look at old photographs of when this place of developed. I wouldn't eat anything out of that drainage ditch. Carl's is a county ordinance not surfside, stay out of the county shit and let them deal with it
Steve Flickinger - EXCELLENT minutes!!!! Thank you.
Agree with 1:54 if correct about CARL being a county ordinance. If we have discovered violations in Surfside, report them to the county and let them handle it.
I’ve wondered for sometime now about the lots that have been stripped right down to the waterline! Not supposed to happen and for sure not good for the environment, but no worries to the HOA? Our priorities are a little strange
It was the HOA that hired Arbor and had the trees on our lot cut down along the shoreline at Seabreeze and left a ugly mess.
You can thank Peggy Olds for that. She should resign or at least be removed from the tree committee. It is also a conflict for her husband to be on the board. They are obsessed with killing trees and destroying the environment.
Agree with 1:54. I will add that it is also just an area for geese, ducks and gulls to hang out. If Lake Washington up north has bird fecal issues during the summer, how do you think the water here is?
To the trout. The only reason they are there is because we put them there. There really is no natural food sources available to them so it is impossible for then to thrive.
WRONG! They have thrived in the past. How do you think they grew from fingerlings to 18"? There is plenty of natural food, or was, until the trees and vegetation was removed. Increased runoff is also a factor. Any body of water has bird life. Fish also serve a benefit by eating insects. The problem is not the birds. The problem is poor management. You are obviously a kill the trees supporter. Shame on you.
A lot of lakes near saltwater don't seem to sustain good populations of freshwater fish. But the anti-tree mentality combined with the neatn'tidy mentality tends to ignore solid scientific knowledge.
We know that topping trees tends to kill them, and the riparian reqquirements support the knowledge that trees and bushes along bodies of water help cool the shallows and provide bugs that fish can feed on. Some degree of fallen logs and debris on the bottom provides habitat.
So we ignore these facts but are surprised by the negative impact.
Stop and think!
The lake and canals are just retention ponds due to the fact that there are no storm drains in Surfside, when we have heavy rains all of the water from the Ridge must go somewhere.
Along with that also all of the waste from all of the older inefficient septic systems needs to go somewhere, as per the old plumbers saying “sh*t don’t run uphill”!
For that reason, people should not eat the fish, swim, or allow pets in the canals and lakes. They are as stated by others, retention ponds that are polluted by septic waste. There needs to be State testing done monthly, with true reports released to all members!
We need to test the waters. They are privately owned by us. The State does test the waters that empty out on the beach and into the bay. They are not testing for the safety of the fish to eat. That is the association responsibility.
@3:24, no spouse of a BOT should be on any committee! This needs to be changed. Peggy leaving the tree committee still leaves plenty of others, Betsy resigned due to the committee not being truthful in their minutes, another reason all meetings need recorded live and available to all members
Periodic testing of the lakes and canals seems a good idea. Pollution is widespread, but we don't have solid evidence that septic systems are failing.
So much concentrated human activity is bound to affect the lakes, as well as air pollution. Why anyone would ignore the riparian requirements or insist on cutting all the trees in Surfside down ?
Yes, Surfside needs big changes in our management values. But first is to somehow establish a requirement that puts members in charge of covenant change decisions. Not an easy hurdle.
Petitions for a vote of covenant change. It is, after all, OUR HOA right? If a person wants change, they would start a petition to get a vote on said change.
Time to take back OUR HOA.......
Yes, thanks to Steve for the thorough minutes. Members can learn what exactly took place. I would wonder if it's possible that the strange fish caught might have been a saltwater variety.
With only about 300 or fewer voters annually, and about 3/4 of the members part time, how would you propose this petition get hundreds of signatures ? It's not a simple matter.
Hit the streets, door to door, have a petition table outside our HOA building. Grassroots style, get out, summer is coming, time to unite! It's only complicated if you make it. Don't be defeatist mentality, it can happen if a person really feels strongly about it.
Let's write the petition and start collecting signatures. I'm in.
Things appear complicated because people are making money off the appearance of complicated. Example- I sold my last house myself, scratch paper deal, AS IS. Had realtor interviews who gave me market value figures, but didn't hire any of them because 6% commission in this market is stupid, houses sell overnight. Buyer paid for any repairs required by the bank, title company did their business, and it was the easiest real estate transaction I ever had, why? because the buyer wanted it more than anything, they wanted to buy the house. Now, I had an agent to buy here and the drama created by both realtors was astounding. You see, they get paid to make it complicated and to make you think you need their expertise but you really don't.
If you really want something, you have to put in the work. Sitting on the couch pounding away complaints on the laptop won't get anyone there.....
It has to be a direct mailing to all members with a postage paid return envelope and a cover letter clearly explaining the effort.
Ok 9;23, answer this. Why is it then we stock the water every year. If they are thriving as you say then we should be able to stop, right. And if you don't think that during the summer when there is no rain and the water is stagnant the birds don't have an affect on water quality then it shows you don't know what you're talking about. So shame on YOU for obviously spouting bull.
Shade keeps the water cool in the summer. Fish are stocked every year to replace those that are caught. It is difficult for fish to spawn without gravel and running water. The many large fish caught during the fishing derby are an indication that the planted fish do well, until now that is, when the trees are removed. Cut down all the trees and you won't have any birds. Spouting bull? YOUR A FOOL and you fool no one but yourself. Your a tree killer and want to blame the birds. lol
Bull? We are talking about fish!
Yes. You are correct. It has to be that way.
I'm in on the petition too. I'd walk around with them and ask people to sign.
Can put petition info on the SHOA Facebook page too.
I think it would be pretty easy to get a group together and obtain signatures. Any ideas on how to get started?
I think the petition idea is a great one. Talking to neighbors and friends, there are many against this tree covenant. How to contact each other? Any ideas? We have to be anonymous to start as we would be targeted I’m afraid
1:42 . I agree with you, I do everything myself, I might consult a real estate attorney occasionally, but if you get off your duff and do your own research you will saves thousand$$ over the course of your life. That said, most people just sit on the couch and pay pay pay...maybe they just can afford it, or possibly just lazy?
I have property all over the state. Do you recall a childhood where there was a clean stream and fish you could catch, or maybe a lake you could actually swim in? I am noticing a trend with the small lakes and neighborhood ponds that are now polluted. State agencies are also out there looking for power and overreaching to enforce half-baked solutions. They are very quick to blame septic systems, which moves the authority up the line to expensive sewers which are even worse. This is a big problem. It requires local response based on common sense and biology - which is also pretty logical. I suggest the local community take charge of this issue.
I agree. First, there has to be the will to take charge of the issue. We are lacking the leadership in Surfside to do what is in the best interests of the entire membership. As long as selfish interests rule, we will continue to have unresolved issues like disregard for the local environment. Surfside could and should set a good example of good stewardship, rather than the bad example we do today.
Anyone curious as to how soon the minutes or the meeting will be available to us members? This is totally absurd! We need an open meeting next month. We’re in phase 3, hold it in the school gym. We’ve been kept in the dark and left silent for a year now!
Regarding leadership, George, here's another way to circle that barn: How about the neighbors adjacent to the problem area meet up - that does not require any Board at all. They can discuss/plan. Sort out what neighbors can do, and what requires Board action. Take the actions they agree to - separately. Then make a presentation to the Board, with a copy to the Chinook Observer. I think you can do this.
Is there a reason for allowing people to take the fish instead of following catch and release protocol? Especially if there is a possibility that it might not be safe to eat the fish?
I do not respond to "Anonymous"
I've tried to outline the obstacles to changing covenants numerous times, not because I think it's too complicated to be worth doing, but with the goal of being realistic about developing a strategy.
Unlike most HOAs, ours enables only the Board to approve covenant changes. Unless the Board can be persuaded to voluntarily approve allowing the membership to do so, they can stand in the way of any effort to transfer some or all of the authority to the members.
Of the voting base of only around 300, a big percentage are fulltime residents, many are J place owners, very conservative, and favor the Tree Policy continuing unchanged. This group has already turned down an effort to eliminate the Tree Policy several years ago.
I don't think there's any question that at least 70 % of the membership would favor Tree Policy elimination as currently enforced - but how can the seemingly disenfranchised be reached (by mail), and motivated to participate in either a survey or vote on covenant change ?
This is the daunting challenge. It's not impossible, but it IS critical to making the kinds of changes people here are endorsing. I hate the Tree Policy and feel it has destroyed the landscape of Surfside. But I have no at-risk trees on my property, so am not in a position to legally challenge the rule.
Personally, I think there is an avenue to legally defeat it, if owner/victims band together to challenge it. Otherwise, mailings need to be done to the entire membership, being prepared to make repeated attempts at getting a response, whatever the covenant changes endorsed are. Mailings are expensive.
The Board would need to agree to allow a by-mail vote of the membership, the Bylaws approved for change to member approval for covenant change, and the Tree Restrictions entirely eliminated. A provision could be made for individual member complaints if views are significantly obscured, and it is documented.
I don't have any trees on my property either but I sure would like to have a couple. I feel confident signing any document to remove this covenant. Pretty sure, as a member of this HOA, there's no legality to challenging a policy/covenant for any member, for any reason. This is our HOA, GET THIS GOING, I'm ready to sign on the line.
Anyone else wondering how Clancy’s house is going to pass the HOA inspection? The “garage” doesn’t match the materials of the house!
The rules don't apply to board members.
It sounds like there will be two petitions. Who's writing them?
I’m ready too! So tired and sick inside every time we drive to town there are more properties cut down or butchered! And for what purpose? Just because the covenants say so? Let’s get rid of this destructive practice and be caretakers of our environment
There is a tool at change.org to create a petition. Creating petition and collecting a majority of signatures to present to the board to eliminate the tree covenant would be a start. The board, if they honor majority wishes, would then present to the HOA attorney, the one they use for other things, with our money, to amend or remove the tree covenant, would be the most simple approach and hopefully the only one needed. If the petition gets stonewalled at the board level, there would be other issues to deal with. It's worth a try for sure.
You aren't listening. No covenant will be in any way effected by a petition. At most you may garner a polite "thank you".
An inept attempt at changing the Tree covenant will result in another vote by the usual voters, who are mostly fine with the policy. It happened several years ago, which prevented it being discussed further until no one remembers it happening.
I agree with 7:33. We need to do this anonymously.
Has a petition ever been tried before? I think things have changed here and anything is worth a try. The sad, destructive, ugly result of this covenant is more than apparent now and I truly think the majority of the members would be happy to see this go away! The members aren’t able to vote on this, but surely the board could not ignore this issue.
We all know that the wording was changed so it did not refer to “views” it’s time to just live here and quit pretending it’s best for the trees! Look at the east side!
Negative Nellie's always have their place in a discussion and often bring up history which has value. Negative Nellie's cling to the past but we don't have to relive history. If you cling to the past and keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result it soon becomes mental illness. Listen to Negative Nellie's information but don't let it drag you down or depress you to the place where you are inactive. Everything is worth a try, especially if it hasn't been tried before. Look at the old tree situation. Now, new people say it has to go when before it was safe. New people bring different mindset. A petition is definitely worth a try!
If it's not about protecting the view, then what is the reason for the "tree" covenant. Does anyone know if the HOA has ever stated the purpose of the vegetation=building height covenant?
yeah, there's always that one person in the room who claims it won't work. You just have to move forward without them. They will either catch up or be left behind.
Where do I sign?
Whoa what? Is this true? Do they really use our money for an attorney to get advice against a member? Please tell me that is not true. How awful if it is, I don't know if I can bear the thought of such nasty.
i really resent the $200 charge to evaluate my property if I sell. why wasnt there a vote on this? adding charges to members should always be up for a vote. i suppose they can raise it to if they want more money.
11:14....If you read my comment at 2:20 carefully, you might have a clue. I've been pondering this for a couple of years, and have talked with some other folks with interest in eliminating the restrictions.
The Board has no interest in facilitating a serious effort to eliminate the Tree Policy, and have made every effort to avoid any discussion about it. They haven't shown any interest in what the members want in this community, and expect to make all of the decisions in a vacuum.
An office has been built in the main building, making it impossible to hold open meetings with members attending. The assumption is obviously to end open meetings, and expect their inept broadcasting to suffice for the State requirement.
If several hundred members could be urged to respond in opposition to the measure, the outcome may be negotiable. Otherwise you'll be doing what has already been done, and likely failing. Negative Nelly huh ? A poorly laid plan is a bad start, even if you have a good rallying song, motto, naive optimism....
We have seen that this board is willing to do whatever it want's. Do you think they will respond to a petition? There is nothing in our governing documents that state anything about a petition. They would be happy to see you wasting your time trying to get signatures. Yes, it has been tried in the past and failed. You need to get it through your thick heads that the power and opportunity for meaningful change is being on the board. You need to spend your efforts on getting a like minded candidate on the board. You have the legal right to make member motions at the annual meeting. You can also vote a board member out at that meeting with a simple majority. Get your candidates elected and vote the others out. This is where you have the power. Don't waste your time on a petition or listening to anyone who promotes it. They don't know what they are talking about.
Sure Steve, they are going to negotiate. You need to ponder this some more.
I second that. Ponder it some more Steve.
Get over it. Deal with it.
The tree policy is not illegal.
Choose another battle to talk about.
4:24....You obviously did not read / comprehend what I wrote. Mike Riley ? Probably. Just being an assh*le. Atta boy.
Hey thanks! Nothing I appreciate more than getting some unsubstantiated advice from an anonymous HOA lover. No one has challenged the HOA on the tree restrictions. It is based on the lie that trees block ridgetop views, and the lie that views are protected by the HOA documents. Neither are true. Hard to justify in Court, a policy that isn't based on facts and ignores equity among Surfside owners, all paying the same dues.
You can thank Peggy Olds, Annette Deleest and Georgianna for the ugly trees in our little piece of heaven. Oh and the big old tree up on J, Annette has relatives who bought next door and she promised them this tree would go away.
The big lie being repeated over and over comes from Mr. Cox when he keeps saying that trees do not block views. People have given many examples to disprove his keyboard theory and now that properties have become compliant there is even more proof. Explain this sir. Why is it I can now see the dunes and the surf breakers, something I haven't seen for years? Why is it that my neighbors down on I pl after many years were able to see the crab boats again this year like they did back when they first purchased their property? Maybe you should consider taking a break from that keyboard and go take a look before you continue with repeating false statements. Anyone with eyesight can see the real truth.
Speaking of false statements, to 9:19:
Besides your animosity, you seem to know a lot about Ms. deLeest's family and the conversations they have. Your fixation, I suspect, is probably due to her at some point putting you in your place and this is nothing but pure spiteful B.S.
Aha, the truth finally comes out! It is about the view!, The one we are not guaranteed!
From one Washington Law Group: https://brandtlawgroup.com/tree-removal-tree-topping-disputes-washington/
While there is no blanket or automatic view right, tree height restrictions are allowed. From my perspective it is implied that the restriction is to protect views but that doesn't mean that the reason for the restriction needs to be explained in the covenants.
Your View is not Your Right
Owners of real estate in Washington have never been afforded any blanket or automatic view right. This can be frustrating to many homeowners in this area, as we have some of the best views to offer. However, the only view rights that are available to homeowners are those that are provided in covenants, plats, or appropriate agreements recorded against the property or properties in question. We often see such covenants in homeowners associations that protect views within the community by limiting the height of homes, certain ancillary structures, foliage, and/or trees.
Yes it is JoAnne. What else would it be about.
I read something years ago, in a real estate law book, a parcel owner owns, all the ground space and air space to infinity of their four corners. I may be remembering it wrong but it's something I think I remembered reading. ???
Thanks for the clarification 8:49! I remember, you have provided this in the past. We need a refresher now and then.
6:11....I drive through the community often, and know that a 24 ft. tree on the westside of G st. is about 1/4 inch tall as seen from J Place. I also know that views of the Ocean from J Place homes at 24 ft. elevation or more, are unaffected by trees that are not within a block's distance.
All of the trees within your view have been topped repeatedly, so no more than 2 ft. were likely cut from the trees you are so happy were topped. The sections of Surfside that are limited to 12 and 14 ft., are all dead or nearly so. So thank yourself for this destruction, which has made this community an eyesore and ugly landscape.
The idea of "community" is that neighbors treat neighbors with respect, and try to cooperate with one another as much as possible. HOAs are expected to treat members fairly and with EQUITY, honoring their equal rights, their dues the same community-wide.
There is no rational explanation why trees should be required to be limited to the same heights as homes except to protect views. Yet nowhere in the covenants are views protected. We know of no instance where members have legally contested these restrictions, nor legal precedent showing that the HOA is entitled to enforce this foolish policy.
If a view is being protected, what are the details of that view ? There are of course, no such standards, nor any specific addresses who should be the recipients of rights that are not shared with the majority of Surfside members.
My home is on G St. and the building was constructed in 1969. It was one of the first structures constructed in Surfside. The surf was less than 100 yards away, and very visible. We bought 5 years ago, and had no concern that we have no view of the Ocean, as a one story structure. It's a short walk to the beach. Clearly we do not have any guarantee of views, nor did any of the previous owners.
Most of us grasp that nature is a powerful force and more is to be gained from respecting it than fighting it. The ugly specter of our community of dead trees is proof of that. Limiting the number of trees on individual lots may have worked better if it had become policy rather than the ridiculous policy that we are saddled with now.
It would cost millions of dollars to remove the sand that blocks my Ocean view. And where would it be taken ? We deal with a similar problem trying to dispose of tree debris.
There's no legal defense for the Tree Restrictions and I believe it needs to be eliminated. The community would be saved legal costs, HOA clerical costs, and owners would be saved 10s of thousands of dollars in maintenance costs annually. All of the animosity that comes with unfair enforcement would be gone. We would become a better community in the process.
Whoever wrote that the petition won't matter is correct. The 9 member Board makes the decisions for the 2000+ members. PLAIN and SIMPLE.
The question is...............Does the Board really want to know what the members think?
They have an opportunity to find out. The HOA will be sending a mailing to ALL members regarding the upcoming annual meeting and election of board members. The ballots are returned by mail to a 3rd party, not to the HOA. Or they are submitted by the member if the member attends the annual meeting.
If the Board is interested in hearing from the members, they can easily add one piece of paper to the mailing. Using bright red lettering to get everyone's attention, they can simply ask 2 questions.
Do you favor KEEPING the following covenant related to tree heights? Circle one: YES NO
2.16 Tree heights shall conform to the same maximum heights as the building established in Exhibit A (HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OTHER THAN 16 FEET) of the covenants.
Do you favor the proposed lighting covenant change?
Cicle one: YES NO
See attached to read the CURRENT and PROPOSED lighting covenants.
"There's no legal defense for the Tree Restrictions..."
Curious upon what you base this statement. Tree height restrictions are legal.
07:30. Again not true about the new owners starting this tree issue! How many times are you going to repeat this? 6:11 Here he goes again? Where are there 12’ or 14’ tree heights? Nowhere to my knowledge?
I just explained that, while you offer no proof and no evidence that legality has been established in Court.
1) The policy is based on protection of Ocean views. The covenants do not state that is true.
2) A view of "what" is not specified, and the properties that have this protection are not identified.
3) The costs of maintenance are mandated to be paid by all owners with trees west of the ridge. Neither the HOA nor those who claim benefit pay a dime.
4) The HOA members are to be considered of equal status, all paying the same dues, yet this is a special interest policy, serving only about 20% of owners.
5) The HOA has used its' financial clout to intimidate owners, sending threatening enforcement letters, and demanding compliance. Owners who benefit from this policy occupy most of the Trustee positions, demanding compliance.
This has been used as a weapon to intimidate members and force a policy that is clearly unfair, on the HOA members. It undermines the quality of life in the community for about 80% of Surfside members.
I'm not an attorney, but I invite someone to offer a rational legal defense that would defend destroying the landscape at tree owner's expense, promising that Surfside will NEVER be an attractive normal community with beautiful natural trees, and members who can expect to be treated with respect, their property rights honored. Trees are private property.
Thank you Steve,
This is the best input to this blog of yours I have read, this same thought process needs to be presented to an attorney!
I have my own money to donate to the cause of trying to defeat these unfair policies, we as members need to stand up and fight.
All Anonymous posters who are willing to join, we have no way of knowing who you are!
To 7:30:
As 6:00 pm states, this wasn't about the new owners. It was part of the pro active compliance which the tree clearly violates. It's obvious it is just you who likes it so much, not "we all".
And btw, we all know it's you Ms. B so why not sign your name?
It is legal to have tree height restrictions. It is not hard to find this with a search. Here is just one example: https://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/ny-appellate-court-grants-request-to-enforce-height-limit-on-neighbors-trees/
Note that the covenant mentions only a vegetation height limit. The plaintiff wanted it enforced to protect his view but there is no confirmation that "views" need to be mentioned in the covenant.
All of us can have our opinions but be clear when stating so. You note you aren't a lawyer but like to speak in absolutes.
To my knowledge, your #1 and #2 above are irrelevant and not required although you may like them to be.
I anticipate a long response likely accusing me of being a board member, Mike Riley, elitist, or J Place conspirator. I'm not.
Another interesting read here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiYk9CAoc3vAhWbKDQIHbueB_MQFjABegQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.courts.wa.gov%2Fopinions%2Fpdf%2F707469.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1j4rJ-CCGt3nYzLrOtmgQr
@9:06..I am against the tree covenents too Doug, and by now I'm sure half of Surfside is.
Blah, blah, blah 11:32.
You made a false statement that trees do not block views. I gave just two examples where now there is more of a view, not only on the ridge but also down below, that you conveniently ignored in your mini manifesto. If you couldn't see the view before but you can now what exactly was the reason? The trees obviously, any reasonable educated person with eyes would agree. Anyone who would say otherwise is a ______, you fill in the blank.
But to make you feel better, now that people are compliant that false statement you have been repeating HAS become true. The trees are not blocking the views.
When one is wrong and can't justify their position, they turn to insults, ridicule, name calling, and repetition of stating their manifesto.
10:37....What I can say with confidence is that citing a few instances elsewhere in the Country where similar restrictions were upheld, does not establish that Surfside's covenant is legal. Each circumstance brings different factors to the question.
Beyond the legal aspect is the damage to the quality of life of Surfside members, where a policy that is 40 years old has destroyed the visual landscape. The shaved top trees, most dead and dieing, tell newcomers:"this community mutilates trees as a community policy." It isn't an enhancement of the properties with trees, and only serves ridgetop interests, about 20% of the owners. This is an unnecessary restriction that needs to be eliminated.
I'm quite sure that I have never stated that the policy is illegal, because only a legal contest would try to establish that. I have said that by using basic logic, looking at the RCWs and covenants, and considering human decency to be a value worth upholding, I don'believe a Court of Law would defend or uphold this ridiculous elitist policy.
Legal or not, it has been a disaster as a community policy, and has been a constant aggravation for about 2/3 of the member households. It has fostered resentment in the membership, and pitted the members against the HOA in conflict.
Post a Comment