Time for change...
We really need some new faces. It is our best chance to turn this mess around and have an association that works in a fair way for all members. The following appeared in the "WeakEnder"
To All Surfside Members
2021 Board Of Trustees Election
We are now taking applications for positions on the board. Applications must be received at the office by May 7, 2021 no later than 1pm. The election will be at the annual meeting in July.
If you are interested; every trustee is assigned a committee for which they are liaison. If you currently are not involved in a committee and are interested in a position on the board, it’s in your and the membership’s best interest to get involved in a committee right away.
There are 4 positions open for 2021, Mark Scott, Rudd Turner, Gary Williams & James Clancy
Committees include:
Community Relations, Emergency Management, Fish & Waterways, Lands & Buildings, Water System Planning , Architectural Review Committee
75 comments:
They forgot to mention the Peg Olds "Kill Tree Committee" Don't let that discourage you from running. You might get lucky and not be assigned to that committee.
I agree, it's time for a change. Time for some of our constant blog gripers to standup and run, or shut up.
With Clancy and Williams gone, this community is positioned to fall apart..or will it?
Who in their right mind would ever want to be associated with these clowns? I will take a walk on the beach and dig clams. To serve on this board would be a total waste of time and a frustrating and disappointing experience. This community fell apart several years ago. Not much chance of putting Humpty back together again.
The blog is the only public venue for dialogue on community issues, and given that, commenters are exercising their right to voice their opinions. You obviously read and comment on the blog, so your remarks are no more sacred or appropriate than those you disagree with.
Questioning the BOT's judgement is part of the process of making community decisions. No candidate worth electing should have a problem with discussion pro and con, on Surfside issues.
Those who read the blog and bitch about members criticizing the BOT don't have even a thread of understanding of what the democratic process looks like, and consider opinions they disagree with to be "complaining, griping, hateful,divisive...." I ran for the Board and the BOT refused to appoint me to the empty seat they were obligated to fill. Rather than follow the Bylaws, they left the seat vacant, and screwed-up our elections.
I have interest in seeing community policy guided by practical needs and purposes, and not individual Trustee's pet projects. This focus on stepping-up enforcement pressure and adding new restrictions is misguided and useless.
The Tree policy has destroyed the community and has perpetuated a myth that we have a social structure that starts on the ridge, and that above all else in this community, we're about topping trees. The policy needs to be eliminated. Ridge owners can appeal obstructed views by validating their view is significantly obstructed, moving forward.
The current Board wouldn't even consider a tree-cutting moratorium during the Covid crisis, so we see that this is not considered debateable as a policy. Many if not most members disagree.
The Board has assured that there will be no more live open meetings in Surfside, by turning the community meeting space into offices. That is a blatant violation of the State RCWs, requiring open government and open B. Meetings.
There are some things that have been done well, and many that have been done badly. Clancy was ambitious and involved, but insisted on acting on his own, resulting in numerous disasters that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted revenue, legal defense costs, and fines. Williams has had his own misdeeds, and has been a loyal advocate of the status-quo. That prevents the community from making changes that can help make Surfside a better run community.
But free speaking members are not obligated to be candidates in elections. In my case, personal issues need to take precedence at this time. I may reconsider at some point, probably at least a year or 3 will be family and health related focuses.
We need 4 good members who want to turn things around for the better of the community.
We need to get a policy in place that a spouse of a board member cannot be on a committee, too much power and conflict of interest.
We need to vote no on the new lighting covenant.
Let's focus on all the community and not what's good for J pl
Exactly how do you appeal an eliminated policy? It is no longer a policy so there is nothing to appeal. That statement makes no sense.
What your question really reveals is the contradiction between verbally claiming that views are protected, and functionally refusing to state it in the covenants. (which establish WHAT is to be enforced). The Board has been comfortable with that. It doesn't strike me as legally enforceable, but the HOA has gambled on it, successfully at this point.
The HOA is expected to respond to member concerns or complaints, and mediate in issues between neighbors if needed. We hear noise about "pro-active vs. complaint driven" - but whatever they want to claim is THE Board's policy, the HOA is expected to help resolve disputes.
So show the compliance officer the obstructed view, and they can take a photo of it to prove the view is significantly obstructed.
How many do you think could be validated ? I'm guessing none. But at least it would be an honest and fair approach.
People listen to this, this is what happened to us. Yes I live on J place, moved up there 2 years ago. Nice home with a great view of the ocean and beach in spots. Less than 30 days after moving in we received a survey from Pacific County asking us about our view. We complied and filled out the survey filling in that we had approximately a 160 degree full ocean view with about 20% obstructed. Mailed it in and within two weeks there was a county representative at the door verifying our information. When asked what or if there was a problem and they stated that your property location is considered a portion of the property value. A follow up phone call resulted in the same information from the county as up to approximately 30% of the property value can be for location. However having said that, another follow up call to the same county office would not verify that information? Every house is evaluated differently, personally I don’t think they want you to know their taxing criteria! So folks yes I live on J place, and yes I can afford the taxes that are higher on the property here than where we lived previously in the Seattle area. And yes, I would like to keep my view that I am being taxed on. Trust me , it’s a lot! We love it here, and no I am not pleased on how some of the lots below us have been treated. Not a fan of the lighting stuff either, even though we have a few lights below us that are definitely way out of compliance, doesn’t really bother us. No I’m not going to tell you who I am because we don’t really want to be blog bashed by some on here. So take it for what it’s worth, your location is being used by the county in property value calculations.
Taxes in Pacific County are high. Our Surfside tmt house taxes are considerably higher than our Lacey home. But we know the current tax rate when we purchase a home, and the County estimate of our property generally is significantly less than what the market value is.
Everyone wants a piece of us these days, and it feels like the vultures wait in the wings. The title exchange fee is another scam stretching any credibility. The HOA should have no problem keeping accurate records so that inspections by the HOA are not necessary. Homes are inspected at the buyers expense as part of closing anyway.
The HOA has no assurance of maintaining views or property values in the community covenants. Only the realtors pretend that "views" are protected in Surfside, and some on the BOT claim the same thing. The value you paid isn't likely to diminish, nor are your taxes. The view also isn't likely to change much, but nature and property development cannot be prevented from coming to bear.
For the brave members who decide to throw their hat into a run for the board, I congratulate you. Before you do so ask yourselves these questions. Can I physically and mentally serve as as a trustee?
Being a trustee requires preparation for and attendance at board meetings and committee meetings. Research is required as well as communication with professionals such s lawyers and accountants. Sometimes meetings can be contentious. You are asking the community to put their trust in you. Are you up for the job?
Do you have the temperament to unflinchingly be criticized and personally attacked by other members? Not everyone can stay in the kitchen when it gets hot. It is sad when someone asks for and receives the confidence of his neighbors only to quit when the going gets hard.
Be honest with yourself, do you have a single agenda or are you willing to work on all issues coming before the board?
Being a successful and productive trustee is not easy and many do not have the moxie required.
There is no such thing as a successful and productive trustee. All HOAs are dumpster fires. There's nothing that's going to change that in the near future. It may never change.
Well said 8:44...Our community would be better served with less trustee's, with the ability you describe. There are to many on the Board who do not have the qualifications or ability you describe and evidence that some do appear to have a "single agenda". Competition for a single vacancy on the Board could result in more qualified candidates.
8:44. Your statement is so welcome to hear! Sums up the first item that should immediately be taken care of: reducing the board to at least 5 members or less! Nine are in excess of what is needed in my opinion and I’ve been on other boards or served under them.
We need trustees who are not working for only their agenda and not the feelings of the membership. I don’t say this lightly or accuse all trustees. However going through our lighting complaint, our appeal and then the hearing for the new proposed covenant, I can tell you I had conversations with trustees about the proposed covenant and their minds were already made up before the hearing. This disturbed me greatly
I also agree with the above comments about stress, time devoted and being targeted. I know my health would not allow me to be in that position, so I cannot run for a position. I know I’m outspoken and have been doing my best to improve this HOA, but I’ve done my public service earlier in my life and that’s not what we moved here to do! I hope my views and opinions won’t be dismissed because I won’t run, but that is the best decision for my husband and I
I’m hoping some younger members will step up to the plate and return this community to the calm, relaxing atmosphere it was when we bought in 2008! Let’s enjoy our beautiful part of this country, walk, garden, visit and leave Mother Nature at peace!
You make good points for consideration, yet you draw a conclusion that can't be substantiated. If you had the courage to identify yourself we could establish your credibility, and if you are a former Trustee, judge your suitability to the role.
In the 5 years I have been a member, we have only seen one elected Trustee resign, who primarily failed to attend meetings, and seemed uncomfortable with the role.
Mr. Floyd served for a dozen years or more, failing to attend more than a few meetings in person over his last 2 years of elected service. He ran for re-election and was defeated, but was not formally reprimanded in spite of his clear lack of commitment or adequate contribution.
Personally , I have witnessed the informal commitment to a specific agenda on the part of the seated BOT, marginalize and disrespect 2 newly elected Trustees, neither lacking in commitment or experience. I think that this is well known in the community, so I find it interesting that you focus on what you have, without identity.
Some members question the suitability of the current Trustees. I don't question their abilities, but I do question their ability to commit to welcoming new ideas, adjusting to changing times with changes in policy, and avoiding the common trap in HOAs of using authority to create useless hurdles and restrictions on members, because they can.
Thank you 8.44 for your common sense observations. Common sense does not need identity. Identity does not make right. A long winded comment with identity does not add credibility, especially, when he got the name of Mr. Flood wrong. Mr. Cox diminished his own credibility with his criticism of your common sense comment. Please continue with your comments, identity or not, they are appreciated.
I do not need to identify myself. Surfside has been home to me off and on since 2000. I currently do not reside in Surfside and my circumstances do not allow me to serve. If I was on the board I would probably not be well liked by anyone. I am one of those hated lawyers. Now retired and not seeking employment. I do not give out advice so do not ask. I love our home in Surfside. I keep our property well maintained, which includes trimming our trees. Over the years, we have replaced the taller trees with trees that limit out at about 20 feet. I do not consider the tree management a burden so much as a community responsibility. That said, if the tree convents would allow it, I might plant some taller varieties. I do not understand the polarized and uncompromising platforms that are so prevalent these days. People seem to put more importance on being right instead of being happy. Enjoy the nice weather this week. I think by Friday I will be wishing I was at the beach.
11:01....All of my comments are pertinent. You're stuck on the name accompanying my comment,ironically, and my slip on Flood's name.
I think that Surfside is locked into electing members who offer assurances that they won't rock the boat. If we eliminate the Tree restrictions we can focus on improvements that benefit the entire community like rebuilding the Water Dept. And its' procedures.
Emphasis on enforcement creates conflict unnecessarily, and wastes member funds on legal expenses. Trying to tighten the screws on members rights with detailed restrictions is a very negative direction and wasted effort.
You keep saying.."rebuilding the Water Dept. And its' procedures". What are you talking about now?
11:37....Just to confirm, I appreciate that your comments come from a place of experience, and are shared in the interest of candidates being realistic about the commitment and responsibility. Practicing Law as a profession is a fine thing to do, and experience that lends itself well to many different roles.
As I have mentioned, I think we have particularly challenging circumstances, where new ideas and viewpoints are not welcome. With 4 openings, it's possible to change that culture, but the voting block of around 12% of the membership is predictably against any progressive change.
I have mentioned that I think the Water Dept. has issues with conducting routine maintenance, and it is apparent that incompetence is the cause of repeated waterline breaks. BOT attention would be better focused on efficient operations at the Waterworks, rather than creating a morass of restrictive rules and an enforcement mentality.
Frequent water main breaks are not due to incompetence or inexperience. I have read reports from different engineers about Surfside water main breaks. They all agree that the water mains are failing due to bad pipe. Do you know more about this issue than civil engineers who have inspected the mains and interviewed our crew? What is your background? The only thing that is apparent to me is your arrogance. I would be careful driving near a Surfside service truck. Some of our crew may take your criticism personally.
I'd like to understand more about this "bad pipe". Why did we use "bad pipe" for our water system? Was the pipe good when it was originally installed and then turned bad? Was it a manufacturing defect? Surfside water has a lot of breaks. Our primary home has never had a break and we've lived in that home for 43 years. ???
The waterline breaks are due to improper line flushing according to other knowledgeable sources. The HOA spent a huge amount of money a couple of years ago on a new type of secondary pumps. They modify the velocity of the flow as the water climbs the hill from the wellfield, and drops quickly to the lower community.
When these pumps were installed burst waterlines nearly ceased. Changes in personnel might be a factor, programing of equipment might be a factor, but line blowouts have returned, and frequent. It's a real pain in the ass, and creates great doubt that water quality can be good.
The pipes may be particularly vulnerable to excessive flushing pressure, but communities all around us have the same composite cement pipe that is much older and these communities are not having constant line failures.
Our system requires frequent flushing which creates more opportunities for line failure.
I admit to being a bit presumptive that human error is at the source of these constant line failures. But this is the info I have, and it makes far more sense than the "olde pipe" theory which cannot be proven accurate.
So the Water Dept. guys will have to hurt me now ? You take this stuff mighty personal, defensive as you are. You insisted on baiting me on this, so sorry to have to say your engineers were looking in the wrong place. Other experts disagreed with olde pipe theory. The new pipe has also failed a couple of times.
I think that putting in the newer pipe is a good idea, but isn't necessary.
I do not have any answers. Unlike others, I do not pretend to know things I do not. What I do know is there are reports written by civil engineers stored at the Surfside office. The one I remember the most is a plan the water system is required to do every five or so years. I think it is called a comprehensive plan but I am not certain. There was one report that was just about the water mains. Call the office, they will know where they are.
Has anyone ever considered the idea that the water tower needs to be at a higher elevation than the users down here on the west side?
Good question! Are there ever any water main breaks on the east side?
12:59....I don't think I am making such claims. The breaks are a challenging issue to analyze, and lots of money was thrown at it for "studies". But blaming the pipe doesn't make sense, when it isn't happening in other systems with the same but OLDER pipe.
What we do know is, the new plant was built in a wetland. The engineers who designed the building that was supposed to surround the plant, did not design it so that the huge carbon filters could be removed for replacement, so the building was not built.
Flushing the system as prescribed requires a holding pond, and ours was filled-in. Unconventional methods have been used to flush the filters, which is not efficient. Changing the filters has not been done as prescribed, and changes have been greatly delayed. Our water quality has slipped to marginal and below required standards - where we were when this project started. The existing tower is aged, and a flushing pond is needed.
Keeping water quality consistent is challenging because water use is low in Surfside for the distance the lines travel. Frequent flushing is necessary because much of the line is low and level.
What started this conversation was that I said that I consider addressing problems at the Water Dept. much more important than creating obscure restrictions on member's light fixtures, topping trees endlessly, or trying to set standards for "neat n'tidy".
And I would love to have a Trustee explain to the members, how the Water tank and trailer will be used or employed in an emergency. I find it a mystery, at a total of $30,000 with truck.
Rather than "knowing it all", I have "more questions than answers" as they say. I don't trust the water to drink, and I doubt many owners do. Household systems are spendy, and can be effected by the build-up in the system at large. I consider this a critical issue for all of Surfside, and addressing its' shortcomings more important than the HOA seems to make it. It has nothing to do with me, or what I think seems to be going wrong. These difficult issues seem to be only of marginal concern in the Boardroom.
I'll take Surfside water over the other water providers on the peninsula any day! Have you tasted Long Beach water? Oh my, utterly disgusting tastes like marshland water and they pay handsomely for it. As for the water line breaks, go ahead and boil water but I don't. The refrigerator has a high quality filter in it and no one gets sicks and the dog is still alive. All our skin and hair is still on our bodies. Seriously, people in other countries drink a lot worse. I'm sure everyone will survive. First world problem as far as our water department.
We definitely don't trust the water to drink. Are we really qualified to run a water department? We are asking 9 VOLUNTEERS, with varying degrees of experience in the field of water systems, to make crucial decisions about a million dollar (give or take) water system. It is unreasonable to expect them to donate the amount of time that is truly needed to become an expert on water systems. And these VOLUNTEERS change from year to year. Take some time to read the WATER SYSTEM PLANNING committee minutes. It seems all of the attendees are doing their best to make the right decisions. Running a water department is clearly a very complex and challenging endeavor. With the results we are getting we may have outgrown our abilities and expertise. We do not confidence in the end product.
People die of waterborn disease in many areas of the world. Parasites are scary things, as well as diseases. The point being made is, about a million dollars in member funds were spent on the CTP, yet it has not been maintained as manufacturers intended.
Improper procedures seem to be the cause of the line blowouts as well. Our water is tested and chlorinated to the point needed to make it safe to drink.
What does the manager of the Water Dept. think is to blame for return of frequent breaks ? What changes are needed ? Does anyone care enough to focus on resolving the problems ? We can only draw conclusions from what we know. It will still be years until the lines are all replaced with plastic pipe.
Having talked with the water employees on multiple occasions, I learned they do a lot of testing of the water supply. I suggest you request a tour of the facility and learn the process of what happens up there at the plant before judging so harshly. All of the employees have been kind, prompt, and transparent. I have yet to see any data from death or illness by surfside water pollutants. I can guarantee, there are many bigger fish to fry-----
I too have had excellent interactions with the water department and am impressed with how quickly they respond. Having come from a place were the city water is highly chemical laden creating hard water spots on everything, I appreciate the water here. I'm pretty sure the contaminates from bottle water are higher than any tap water here and us humans put a lot worse contaminates in our bodies on a daily basis than Surfside water. It's gonna be alright, alright, alright- Go enjoy these sunny lovely days everyone!
Don't have any issues with the water department personnel. Not judging them at all. Sure they're doing the best they can with what they have. My point is we're asking a constantly changing BOT to make crucial decisions that are well beyond their expertise and volunteer status. What's the harm in reevaluating how we manage the entire system. Or even if we should be managing a water system. Think outside the box.
I would expect the board isn't making decisions on water quality. This would be a county/city/state governing regulatory issue. To deviate from those regulations would not be in anyone's best interest. The board members live here too and need the water system. Energy would be better used on some of the bigger issues. The water line breaks are just a petty annoyance in real day problems.
What's a bigger issue than the 10 year plan for a water system that thousands of residents depend upon? Doesn't have anything to do with regulatory issues. Don't agree that everything is under control because the trustees need the water too. Again we are asking an ever changing volunteer board to be responsible for a water district. The following is from the March, 2021 Water System Planning meeting.
Status of 10 Year Plan, update: Beginning to become urgent. The Monday before last, April working with Justin, completed or verified the data on the final residences regarding consumption data. Using this data G & O will complete the calculation for Chapter 1 and 2 and forward them to Surfside for review. This is becoming critical as the full report with 10 chapters is due to the department of health by July.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Having paid employees and volunteer board members is a good practice. The volunteers rely of the expertise of the paid and the paid rely on the volunteers to watch for fraud waste and abuse. You seem to have some "insider" knowledge, using employee names as you have. Please, tell us more.........
No insider info. Cut and pasted directly from the meeting minutes posted on the Surfside website. But you make my point. The volunteers don't have the expertise to do the watching. I'm not criticizing the board volunteers. They donate hours upon hours of their personal time to the HOA. I'm sure they make the best decisions they can. Again, not criticizing, just asking.
Once again, your response @ 2:25 makes no sense. If the tree policy is eliminated there will be no reason to validate if a view is obstructed by a tree or not. You're mixing up your typical tree policy complaints.
To 8:30 pm. Thank you for your comment. Some here, as silly as it sounds, like to make the claim there is no actual view from the ridge. Most people, like the County know otherwise.
The current covenants DO NOT PROTECT VIEWS. No one ever enters the owners home to determine if their view is slightly obstructed, nor do owners provide photos to verify same. Enforcement doesn't care if the trees you want cut effect your view or not. The enforcement is entirely based on tree heights which are keyed only to home height limits.
If the current Tree Restrictions are eliminated, it would be appropriate to offer owners an alternative action, written into the new covenant - that owners who want to file a formal complaint about neighboring trees have to verify they have a legitimate complaint.
However, there has been a huge hole in this approach to enforcement, that being that there is no specific criteria for what the "VIEW" is. But given that most of the beach is obscured by legal height homes on G St., we know that the only view that can be expected is of the distant Ocean. Along with the current undefined "view" is the lack of a list of qualifying addresses/homes that have enough elevation to qualify as a "view home". So might want to set a minimum elevation.
But as I said at 2:25, a neighboring tree nearby that is growing right in front of your viewing window, is an issue the HOA can act upon without needing to have a destructive and maddening covenant. When one member intentionally ignores their neighbor's wishes by planting a tree where a tree shouldn't be, the HOA needs to insist on the tree's removal.
In a community this dense, it is to be expected that neighbors won't intentionally abuse the rights of their neighbors, be it with noise, smoke, barking dogs, bags of garbage or waste, junk cars, or trees,...But I don't think it needs to be spelled out in detail. Owners have a right to have their concerns or complaints heard and acted on if appropriate. That's part of the Board's job. The BOT can have their compliance officer and be "proactive", but owners are still left to file a formal complaint. So the Complaint System is just built in to having an HOA. They have to respond. That's part of paying dues to the HOA.
And as I said in 4:33, if there is no covenant in place the HOA cannot make a member comply. Exactly how can a HOA insist on a removal of a tree when there is no rule in place that says the tree cannot be there? Same thing with the barking dogs, garbage, junk cars, etc. Your opinion that it doesn't need to be spelled out is a fantasy, specially in this current climate. You have members that don't follow written covenants now, what makes you thing that having them removed would change that?
Again, that makes no sense.
You didn't read what I wrote. If the Tree Restrictions are removed, there should be a statement in its' place, saying that Tree height restrictions are no longer in force.
Any issues that become contentious need to be refered to the BOT to resolve or mediate. Trees that are planted directly in front of neighbor's view windows are subject to removal by the HOA. An interview and inspection must validate that their view is significantly obstructed. I explained this in detail if you actually READ it. Not a big deal really.
And again, you are not READING what I have said. If there are no height restrictions any longer, what would the HOA base it's decision on to make a member remove a tree? Even with the tree rules now they don't make someone remove one because it isn't part of the covenant, just the height restrictions. Using your logic, if someone across the street from me was to paint their house some crazy color could I complain and the HOA then could make them change it?
Just more double talk from you. I'm done with it.
To this elevation thing you came up with and your fixation on what a view is. Can you give an example anywhere on the west side of J that doesn't have a view? The County knows what a view is. The realtors know what a view is and certainly the buyers do also. The only person who seems to be confused about it is you.
The house color is just a personal choice that you don't like. A high wattage exterior light a neighbor has pointed at your view window is unnecessary and abusive of a neighbor's rights.
If you filed a complaint about a 150 watt spot shining into your family room, the compliance officer would come to the site and verify it. Action would be taken.
If you file a complaint about a neighbor's tree obstructing your view, it would need to be verified by the compliance officer by looking out of your window or looking at a photo out of the window. It would be quite obvious and need to be nearby to significantly alter your view. It makes no sense to be cutting tree tops on G St. For the sake of ridgetop views. A 24 ft. tree is only about 3/8" high from that distance.
It is equally absurd to suggest that homes below the ridge have rights to preserve views. A view of a naturally developed tree 2 or 3 blocks away is also a beautiful sight. Having a hilltop view is nice, but it doesn't substitute for standing on the beach looking at the horizon.
You are fixed on this privilege and have been able to enjoy it for some time. Nature changes, and the surf has moved at least one hundred yards west.
But the fact remains, the covenants have never specified that a specific "view" is protected, nor has it ever delineated what addresses would be the chosen few. In fact, NO VIEWS ARE PROTECTED in the covenants. I live on G St.westside where the previous owners could see the surf 50 years ago when it was built. We have never had a view in the 5 years we've owned here, but to use YOUR reasoning, we are guaranteed a view.
Adjust your thinking to one that accepts that whatever happens to the trees, you will still have a view, though it may be different, and you own a property in a beautiful area, the Longbeach peninsula.
Right on 6:37. I agree with you.
Cox has said something true that can be verified. We own property in Long Beach Peninsula. Although, I believe it is three words, not two. Maybe he will tell me that's my opinion.
Hey, good for you! I generally use 2 words. But that's a nice contribution to the conversation.
No one is guaranteed preservation of a view. If you have windows, you have a view. The community tops trees a quarter mile away from the ridge, fact, supposedly to protect views, fact ? And how big is a 24 ft tree as viewed from a quarter mile away ? Check it out with a ruler, by standing on J Pl.. It is absurd to suggest that tree can obstruct a ridgetop home's view west.
You people are so deeply in denial it is shocking. Getting rid of the tree restrictions would stop the forced expenditure of tens of thousands of member dollars on unnecessary maintenance. It would stop the waste of thousands of dollars of office hours, processing forms and information about enforcement efforts, thousands of dollars in legal assistance fees, and thousands of dollars employing a compliance officer. About 95% of Surfside enforcement efforts are Tree related.
About 3 years ago, the office manager handled compliance as part of her job. Stepped-up enforcement increased so substantially that it became more than a fulltime job. That is wacky.
Delete the post by 12:00 George. We need to protect Steve Cox. He is our only hope to end the tree policy. He speaks very effectively that a 24 ft. tall tree is really an eighth of an inch tall.
I said 3/8 of an inch, as viewed from 4 blocks away. You do grasp that visual fact don't you ? It is called perspective.
So the ocean or beach is 0 inches? It doesn't exist? I know the ocean or beach exists and the view of which can be obstructed by trees. That I know.
We were talking about looking at a 24 ft. tree on G St. As viewed from standing on J Pl..I think we should understand that any home on J. Pl. above 25 ft.elevation, is going to have great views. Trees in the distance of no significance.
The tree height covenants are safe. You are wasting your time.
Yes they are. The tree policy is safe and reasonable. The tree policy will never be ended. Write all the petitions you want. The board will never let member petitions convene a special meeting, NEVER!
That has been my assumption, and probably most member's as well. But reminding members it need not be is not a waste of time. Member's passivity leads the Board to want to put many more foolish testrictions in place. Enjoy !
When I read the statement "You do grasp that visual fact" I almost drenched my keyboard with coffee from laughing so hard at the irony of it. Same with you saying you generally use 2 words. And yeah, I do realize you were talking about misspelling Long Beach.
Now that the proactive approach has made people follow the covenants I am able to see the dunes and the ocean from the dunes up to the horizon. Before the ocean view was barely half of that. Also, my neighbor on I pl is now able to see some of the ocean when before she couldn't. Seems that 3/8" covers a large area.
What is truly absurd is to say that trees CANNOT block a ridgetop view. If you want proof look past the northern border where there are no height limits. You not only cannot see much of the ocean but even the horizon is obscured. Anyone with eyes can see that, no ruler needed. So what's left to view, the sky? Apparently it is YOU who has a problem grasping visual facts.
And btw, I can view a tree anywhere, including on my property. You can't do the same with the ocean. That's why I moved here.
I know. The irony of it. lmao!
Have a good day 10:10.
10:10 said "If you want proof look past the northern border where there are no height limits. You not only cannot see much of the ocean but even the horizon is obscured."
And all others in support of the tree height covenant.
That is EXACTLY the argument that should NOT have allowed the condos to have higher trees. The homes on the east side of J Place at the north end canNOT see the ocean because of those condo trees. If the condo TREES were at 16 feet, there would be a view of ocean to the north of the condo building!!!
You are far too smug about an indefensible position. The "visual fact" I was refering to cannot be disputed. A 24 ft tree on G St. Viewed from J Pl. is about a quarter mile away. Things seen at this distance are quite tiny. You are also looking down from this distance, which makes the object SHORTER.
You are fixed on you personally, and obsessed with a nearly immeasurable fraction of your view having a tree showing. Part of the absurdity of this policy is exhibited in your comment that a friend's view on I St.improved.
No one is assured a view in Surfside. The covenants do NOT grant any protection of views. It is to be expected that were trees never topped in Surfside, properties over about 20 ft. of elevation would have nice views. So now we need to make sure your friends on I St. don't lose their view ?
Feel happy about the view you have and stop the whining about part of a decimated tree showing at the bottom of your window. Most properties in Surfside have no view of the Ocean, yet notice, there's about 1200 or more who feel life is still worth living.
Most of those folks would be thrilled if the Tree Restrictions were eliminated, they could replant some trees that don't grow over 30 ft. High, and never pay for topping, maybe even zero in tree maintenance costs.
It's all about you isn't it ? What you deserve at everyone else's expense. I think that most see that as a great inequity in the community, and not consistent with State RCWs governing HOAs. It's elitist crap in my book.
Okay George, this is getting old. Steve can only make the same responses a dozen or so times before they start to get old.
Please run for the board Steve. They won't know what to do when you get elected.
I've posted legal cases in the past that show HOA's are very powerful and the State of Washington DOES allow views to be protected when included in CCNR's. This is all common knowledge everywhere except in SHOA where Mr.Cox believes he knows what's best for everybody. I say shit or get off the pot Mr.Cox, get a lawyer and go after the HOA or "shut the front door"!!!
6:14PM Aren't you something, I suppose you are a lawyer, nothing in the Covenants mention views are protected. I think you need to stay on the pot.
6:14....I think 6:50 makes the main point that defines a big whole in your contention. Different HOAs, different covenants. While some Courts may tend to bow to the big money some HOAs wave around, there is an indifference that Surfside enforcement uses to intimidate about 3/4 of the membership.
A Court worth its' salt would actually examine the details, recognize the lack of view protection in the covenants, as well as the audaciousness and indifference, and dismiss this stuff as mean-spirited and counter-productive to nurturing a happy and united community that treats the members with respect.
Why did the HOA withdraw their Superior Court case against members over shed roof overhangs ? Small Claims did not side with Surfside HOA in the 2 attempts they made on the same issue.
I think many such cases are judged on the soundness of the HOAs restrictions, and their unwillingness to find their own resolutions, without seeking to bury their members in debt. I'm just saying, it's probably a "crap shoot" for either side, but I really think that it is far too common these days that big money expects to bury the little guy in debt, through litigation. That's ugly and detrimental to the society at large.
No one is entitled to a view.....period.
Create your own view with spectacular landscape. Relying on others is bound to disappoint even the lowest of expectations. Take a stroll or a drive if looking at the ocean is desired. Variety is the spice of life. Get out and enjoy the landscape and stop worrying about a tree somewhere down the hill. Life is short.
I had meant to mention, the two largest cities to our community,
Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA., both forbid neighborhoods adopting restrictions such as Surfside has. I don't know the details, but I've heard they are quite strict about it, requiring neighbors who damage or remove trees on neighboring properties to pay compensation.
We know of no other similar communities to Surfside in our area who have similar intrusive policies.
HOAs can create a lot of conflict with policies such as this, and with it, a lot of nagging anger and frustration. In Surfside, no one can ignore the prevalence of dead and damaged trees, and total absence of trees entirely unharmed and natural. We are all forced to live with this strange indifferent attitude perpetuated by the HOA Boards.
Smug? Once again with the irony, lol. Indefensible position? Not hardly since it is plain to see to anyone who has eyes. If it is so indefensible then why don't you address it instead of twisting what I say to suit you? You said that trees cannot block views, I gave examples where they do and the only response you have is objects appear smaller in the distance.
So again, explain why those "small" appearing trees in the distance north of the border reach above the horizon? If trees cannot block views, then why is this so?
Again, explain why when those "small" appearing trees were trimmed I can now see all of the ocean to the horizon. If the trees didn't block the view, how did that happen?
And lastly, explain why after those "small" appearing trees were trimmed my neighbor on I PLACE can now see the ocean when before she couldn't. If the trees didn't block the views, did she grow a couple feet taller?
But you won't because you can't. So out comes the name calling to avoid the questions and to bait me to lower myself to your level with name calling too. That way you can go to the next step in the Cox SOP, playing the victim.
Thanks 10:50. Hope you do as well.
Steve is a guy who should be on board
George, I have question for you.. Who in HOA is monitoring our deputies when they are employed by Surfside? On Wednesday morning a sheriffs deputy coming out of Surfside on Oysterville approach drove a mile south, and sat for a hour before returning same way.
I’ve never seen Pacific county deputies on beach other than approach’s , much less parked on beach in Surfside
Protected views...change is coming and courts will uphold challenges.
https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/as-seattle-grows-up-views-can-go-away-and-take-real-value-with-them/
There will be no changing Steve’s point of view. His opinion remains steadfast and resolute. The good news is that his opinion is nothing more than his opinion. Arguing with Steve is like mud wrestling with a pig, after a while you realize the pig is enjoying it. I have owned property in Surfside for many years. I have seen people like Steve come and go. I expect Steve will eventually fade into one of the beautiful sunsets we enjoy here at the beach. People like Steve should not be elected to any board. They are unable to view, excuse the pun, issues from multiple positions or to be objective in deliberations.
As far as I know, SHOA has no say over the deputy. We just pay the bill. Just another dumb ass decision by a Board that has no qualifications to do anything, except spend member funds foolishly.
When the new board gets in I hope they withdraw the variance given to the condo trees. If you think the homes on the west side of J place are blocked it's even worse on the east side because those homes are lower. Don't understand why it's not accepted that people buy homes on the ridge so they can see the ocean. And not just the horizon. Granted some homes block the surf view. But there are lots of places where the surf would be viewable if it weren't for the trees.
Where is the agenda for tomorrow’s BOT meeting?
SHOA website----- first thing on the current weekender.
No one is entitled to a view in Surfside. All of the areas with height limits less than 24 ft.have lost about 75% of the trees originally planted, and the ones remaining look like umbrellas and are dying.
That's nothing to be proud of. Properties at higher elevation will always have a view with or without Tree height restrictions. But with the restrictions, all treed lots west of the ridge have suffered damage, and properties in the 16 ft zones are forced to have ugly lots and dead trees.
The Board has refused to approve changing covenants to enable the members to have approval power over covenant changes, and fear of losing their precious tree restrictions is the primary reason.
The Board has not modified the policy in spite of the obvious inequity of the policy or damage done in about 50 years. The value of ridgetop properties isn't going to drop just because the Restrictions are eliminated.
So I'm unreasonable and deluded, though the community could easily ease the pain, forced onto about 1500 properties, by paying for all of the topping, adding an annual assessment to "view properties", making the limit 30 ft. Community-wide. I suggested offering a complaint response requiring validation of obstructed views.
The supporters of the policy are unwilling to accept any modification of the standards, and are unwilling to verify obstructed views, which would also require defining what "view" is protected,and what properties rate "view status".
There has been no open door for members who have wanted to have the standards backed off and modified. So my stubborness comes out of seeing something very damaging to the appearance of the community, indifference to the financial burden, indifference to a desire for pride of ownership on dead tree properties, and J Pl owners packing the Board to prevent dialogue of change.
See the agenda now, just wast there earlier
JoAnne get's the last word on this topic which few talked about. The next topic is the Board Meeting Agenda.
Post a Comment