Surfside Has A Tree Problem.....
A Surfside member has requested that I post the following...
The problem is a poorly written covenant that restricts the height of trees and vegetation in certain areas of Surfside.
When you read the restrictions you will find they have nothing to do with a view. It has more to do with forcing somebody to do something they should not do. We have had experts come in and talk to the members about topping trees. Each and everyone of these people have said the same thing.... "Topping kills trees".
Surfside has above average turn over of lots in this small community and new owners do not understand our restrictions and at some point in time they get a complaint letter telling them that their trees are over height. They are told they have to top them or cut them down. They bought their lot here in many cases because of the trees.
Something that has never been said to a member is that there are State and Federal rules concerning the destruction of property. You cannot make somebody reduce their property values in any way. But this is happening on a constant and regular basis. The members need to band together and just say "NO", we are not going to do this anymore. Yes they will threaten to fine you and take you to court. Do you think they will try and take a large number of our members to court?. I don’t think so.
We have a committee chair who decided to cut some trees down around Seabreeze lake saying that they were on Surfside property. The problem is it was only a guess and it may have been on somebody’s private property. This was a violation of a county ordinance and this person had Surfside pay for this. I feel that this person should pay Surfside back for the money that was wasted and replace the vegetation and trees that were removed.
The same goes for the chipping program member money that was used to pay for this. They say this is a fire wise program, but all it really is, is a tree topping program. Fire wise tells us that tree topping is something we should not be doing. They tell you to "Stop topping trees". Why does the board and some committee chairs feel they have the right to violate rules and regulations?, and then tell the members they have to comply with rules and regulations.There seems to be something wrong here.
The problem is a poorly written covenant that restricts the height of trees and vegetation in certain areas of Surfside.
When you read the restrictions you will find they have nothing to do with a view. It has more to do with forcing somebody to do something they should not do. We have had experts come in and talk to the members about topping trees. Each and everyone of these people have said the same thing.... "Topping kills trees".
Surfside has above average turn over of lots in this small community and new owners do not understand our restrictions and at some point in time they get a complaint letter telling them that their trees are over height. They are told they have to top them or cut them down. They bought their lot here in many cases because of the trees.
Something that has never been said to a member is that there are State and Federal rules concerning the destruction of property. You cannot make somebody reduce their property values in any way. But this is happening on a constant and regular basis. The members need to band together and just say "NO", we are not going to do this anymore. Yes they will threaten to fine you and take you to court. Do you think they will try and take a large number of our members to court?. I don’t think so.
We have a committee chair who decided to cut some trees down around Seabreeze lake saying that they were on Surfside property. The problem is it was only a guess and it may have been on somebody’s private property. This was a violation of a county ordinance and this person had Surfside pay for this. I feel that this person should pay Surfside back for the money that was wasted and replace the vegetation and trees that were removed.
The same goes for the chipping program member money that was used to pay for this. They say this is a fire wise program, but all it really is, is a tree topping program. Fire wise tells us that tree topping is something we should not be doing. They tell you to "Stop topping trees". Why does the board and some committee chairs feel they have the right to violate rules and regulations?, and then tell the members they have to comply with rules and regulations.There seems to be something wrong here.
48 comments:
This vague reference to "they" is unsofisticated and confusing. Also, look at the terrible anonymous post. Only those who state their identity are worth listening to. State your identity. Otherwise, we don't know if you live here or who you are.
Do your words apply to you? The truth is the truth, no matter who say's it.
Great post! I agree this tree destruction is out of control! There is no factual reason to put this restriction and expense on just part of the members. Don’t forget the east side has no tree slaughter.
It’s time for the board to ask the members what they want. And I don’t want to hear “you signed the papers”! Yes we did in 2008 and none of this control crap was happening then. You’d really have to come up with some valid reasons for destroying our environment and putting a financial hardship on members. A member said they had to spend $5000 to cut up their trees!
And now if that lighting covenant passes the board, members will have 6 months to redo their lights!
Let’s tone down this atmosphere and let us just enjoy these few years we have left
Poorly written. Assertions without references. Clearly biased. If this person is your mouthpiece for your cause, members will be removing “trees gone wild” for a long time. Why do you'll continue to say the same thing over and over. Are you gaining any ground regarding tree covenants reform? I do not see any. Due to your repetitive, dogmatic, and uncompromising rhetoric, your message has no convincing quality. Your message has no resonance and is becoming a joke among members. My advice, make a plan that clearly defines your issue. Identify your allies and your opponents. Identify your solution that includes what you will compromise and what you will not compromise. The implement your plan. Organize educate your allies to present a unified front. Understand your opponents position, reasoning, and objectives. Stop making it personal. Name calling or imputing evil to your opponents will kill your cause. For every problem there a solution. In most cases, the solution that leaves all participants not completely happy is a good solution. Be smart use your heads.
Blah, blah, blah. You need to follow your own advice, rather than attacking those who share the truth. Same old tactic of attacking the messenger, while offering no rebuttal yourself. Your just trying to hide the fact that you are a part of the problem and not looking for a solution. Shutting you up, would be a start.
Good post @10:46 - more of that type of thinking is required but likely will not be well received here as evidenced by @11:13's classy rebuttal.
Change comes with new board members, period.
The current board of trustees does not query the membership for their feedback. Clearly they have no interest in discovering what the majority of members actually want as it relates to the tree covenant.
Direct your energy toward recruiting and electing board members who share your goals and objectives. It takes 5 to change or eliminate a covenant.
This HOA has a COMMUNICATION problem. We should hire a communication officer instead of a compliance officer.
Taking from 10:46 post, a good communication officer can accomplish the following by DIRECTLY communicating with our 2000+ members.
- Define the current issue(s) affecting the membership.
- Identify solutions that include what members will and will not compromise.
- Understand members positions and objectives.
As 10:46 said, for every problem there is a solution. In most cases, the solution that leaves all participants not completely happy is a good solution.
Does the current board want to hear from the membership and then base their solutions upon the desires of the membership as a whole?
10:46....What a haughty bunch of insincere baloney. If you actually cared about this issue,you would identify yourself, and if you cared about this you would take your own advice and show some leadership.
You scoff at members discussing this issue on the blog, by talking on the blog. That's an absurd contradiction and no one needs a holier than thou lecture with no thoughtful input or suggestions.
You are not the first to recognize that organized resistence is necessary. It is very challenging in a largely part-time community, but IS a good idea. It requires patience and time.
I think that getting progressive candidates elected is sketchy, when the BOT is unwilling to enable members to have a fair voice in approving covenants. They have made every effort to block anything progressive.
10:46, You seem to be full of advice and directions, maybe you should get involved and do something besides issuing rhetoric. I'm sure with your knowledge you would get it done in no time.
Funny how people don't want to hear "you signed the papers", which you did. Yet they have no problem bringing out the "control crap", which is basically requiring people to follow the rules they signed up for.
There are many members who did not receive letters when the proactive phase went into effect. You know why? Because unlike those who did THEY kept their properties compliant.
To the OP, show us the figures that confirm your statement about the above average turn over. All I know is what I see and for the past years I have seen a bunch of vacant lots having houses built on them and original owners are still there. At least in my area.
So, I got the response I expected. I will not be getting involved because I don’t care. Tree heights do not affect me one way or the other. I read this blog for the entertainment value. I wish you all well and encourage you to take your own advice. Run for the board or join a committee. Get active, get involved. Don’t limit your efforts to just commenting on a blog. Keep in mind, your opponents are not evil or malicious. They are your neighbors. They have legitimate concerns and positions. I tried to help you see there is a very tried and true method of negotiating with others to achieve a desired result. Your opponents love the unproductive, and devise methods you are currently using. Your “all or nothing”, “personal attacks”, and “victim wallowing” tactics will never get you your desired results. No serious person will align themselves to you. Nevertheless, it is your cause. Proceed as you see best.
Look at the post at 1:55. There seems to be a healthy contingent of folks who repeat this refrain, "you signed the papers". This is a handy excuse for never resisting, even in the face of abuse. No one signed anything agreeing not to protest abuse and indifferent policies that do nothing to help the community to strive to change for the better.
All of this intellectualizing of the process is just fine - but has been analized by members who have wanted change in the community, many times.
We can easily identify several roadblocks in seeking change, one being the large contingent of members who simply resign themselves to being complacent followers.
We DO have a communications problem, and attempts to address that have been rejected by the Board. Surveys of member opinion have been suggested, establishing online voting sought to have an avenue for surveys as well. A previous Trustee tried to get the Board to agree to enable members to have approval power over covenants-and that was rejected.
Their consistent efforts to recruit and maintain a J Pl. majority on the BOT, has also shown a commitment to prevent changes in Tree Restrictions and sharing of power.
The main roadblock is the block that prevents owners having a full say in community matters. Eliminating the group meeting space in the main building shows an intent to supplant open meetings with broadcast meetings.
So while the intellectualizers here may mean well, they like the BOT ignore the obvious challenges that face any progressive effort to change what is broken in Surfside.
No. That's obvious!
I reject your premise that the BOT discourage participation or that they hand pick candidates. First, the board is not obligated in anyway to poll members for their opinion. Nothing in the governing documents obligates them to do so. In addition, not one but two newsletters are sent to all members each year. What HOA takes the time or incurs the expense to reach out to inactive members in a futile attempt to get them involved. You must be a dreamer. The newsletters encourages members to run for the board. If you are concerned that the board has the support of the active membership then good for them. If the active members, ones who care enough to attend meetings and vote, support what they are doing, why should they change what they are doing? Are you telling me you believe the BOT should alienate their base to placate members who publicly belittle, insult, libel them on a continuous basis. Seriously! I thought you were well educated businesspersons who had more than a rudimentary understanding of adult behavior. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
Lest no one forget, the "rules" are not attached anywhere to those papers we all signed. If a compliance employee can be afforded and a $200 fee for violation inspection can be so easily acquired and charged, they should and must provide the buyer with a hard copy of said "rules" before buyers tie themselves to this lead anchor of mismanagement. I might consider this a bit of fraudulent practice? Hmmm,just might need to make a call.....
Fortunately, you can call the practice whatever you want. Your opinion is really worthless. Only a judge in a pacific County court can declare something fraudulent and only after the case has been duly tried and determined to be fraudulent in that court. I am certain the BOT is getting legal advice and that they are following it. Anyway, if you think you are right hire a lawyer and challenge them in court.
The committee chair who cut the trees down on private property on Seabreeze lake, would that be Peggy Olds and Pam Harris, both out of control who feel they run Surfside?
Oh by the way, a lake can have boats with motors and docks, drainage ditch and retention ponds cannot, so....
Well that’s not going to happen. I’ve been told it’s too expensive to provide you with a written copy when it’s all on the website!
A water company disguised as a HOA. Drainage ditches disguised as lakes, canals, and ponds.
Sirfside has a real racket going. They are masters of deception!
11:22....Okay, since we're talking about understanding how the world works, at your request (you were belittling and insulting), the governed commonly show disdain and disrespect for their government when they feel it does not serve their interests and/or is dishonest.
Some people are too unhinged to be taken seriously and néed to be ignored. But legitimate criticism tends to be conveniently lumped together with the noise, by the conservative base and Trustees, just as you are doing here.
Our HOA is not a party-affiliated machine with defined platforms, and voters elect volunteer candidates based on very little information. Trustees are expected to make decisions based on their overall benefit to the community. and not just the benefit to their neighbors who vote for them. That's where you are mistaken about the role of Trustees.
But your statement of allegience to the status-quo conservatives who repeatedly elect the same J Pl allegiant candidates is confirmation of what I have been saying all along (as have most dissentors).
The crux of what we're talking about here is policies need to be built on the member's needs and circumstances. Restrictions address pervasive issues that effect all of the members, and not the personal preferences of a few.
You reject my viewpoint but offer no real acknowledgement of the details I have offered that demonstrate pure indifference to the overall membership.
So the fact that the covenants do not specify that the HOA must survey member preferences or needs, is your big excuse for acting with indifference and even scorn of the 80% of the membership that feels disenfranchised or ignored.
$30,000 can be wasted on a used truck and new water tank wagon, and the Fed can be defrauded by our "not-for-profit HOA" to the tune of $20,000, but you think it is beyond generous that the HOA puts out TWO newsletters annually, probably in the range of $6000 annually.
You don't make a convincing case supporting current policies or intentions to come.
Or the wetland mitigation was going to cost $100,000.
The intent behind the "you signed the papers" refrain is not to quell people from voicing change or to protest. It's used to point out that there are stated covenants that are there for all to see before they buy. So if you have an issue with one, the tree covenant for example, you are made aware of it so you can look elsewhere. Sure, you can go ahead and buy anyways and then try to get things changed to YOUR liking but until that happens you are obligated to follow them.
It is puzzling to many why someone would voluntarily move into an area that they know they will have issues with. Only they can answer that question. They also believe that the majority feel the same as they do, conveniently overlooking the fact the many who read those "papers" actually liked what the saw. But what ends up happening is they start out their time here frustrated and when the change they wanted doesn't come as quick as they like they become even more frustrated. Then it ultimately leads to a bunch of name calling and unfair accusations towards a group of people who moved here and are happy with the "papers" they signed.
1:17 - How does anyone know what the membership feels? The HOA never asks the entire membership.
As 11:22 said: the board is not obligated in anyway to poll members for their opinion. Nothing in the governing documents obligates them to do so.
I would be curious to know how the board members feel about that statement. I really want to believe that at least SOME of them are trying to represent ALL of the membership.
Again with the J place recruitment crap, which overlooks the obvious. ANYONE can run for the board. Is there some gang roaming the community forcing non J place members from being candidates? If so please report this to the Deputy asap. EVERYONE has a vote. Is there any factual evidence that people's votes have been suppressed?
But let's imagine for a moment your accusation is true, how exactly does the recruitment speech go?
Want power along with your view? Then run for the board. We can guarantee you will get elected and also guarantee that all the non J Trustees will vote the same as you. Now you will have to give up some of that precious view time to attend board and committee meetings along with other duties. Plus you will not only have to deal with constant criticism from ungrateful members but also personal and insulting comments along with being included into a few conspiracy theories. All with no pay.
Yeah, sounds great.
Love the various versions of denial of the obvious bias in our governance. Only 12 % of the membership votes, so in fact about 88% of the community is disengaged with the HOA. Why do we think that is ? We don't have a clue because no one makes any effort to find out.
Rather than admit that efforts can be made to try and reach out to disengaged members, you want to attack me for suggesting that it is worthwhile and possibly even a responsibility of the HOA.
It's funny that nearly every comment wanted to pick on the 80% comment. I said disenfranchised, suggesting that no one cares what they think. You all just proved that with your comments.
Most of you also think it is just unthinkable that some members would criticize the Board. That's what democracy is built on. Open dialogue, and seeking to improve our policies, governance, and the overall happiness of the community at large.
disenfranchised - a feeling in a person or group of having no power or opportunities, or of not being represented in the political system: A sense of disenfranchisement, isolation and desperation has pushed people to the edge.
Just because people do not vote doesn't mean you can assume they are disenfranchised or disengaged. They could just as well be happy with the status quo. I agree that likely nobody knows unless the entire membership is polled.
Nobody debates or says it unthinkable that people criticize the board. Only when opinion is stated as fact, as Mr. Cox often does, will some tend to push back.
The BOT had not disclosed anything publicly about the State mandated mitigation at the time George and I brought it up on the blog. I had stated that the cost of the mitigation could cost a vast sum, and was/is a form of fine against the HOA's building in the wetland without proper permitting. I don't recall the top end of the fine range, but think it was about $80,000. A South Bend attorney who specialized in mitigation settlements was hired to represent Surfside in a legal hearing.
I had stated that it was not known what the final cost would be, and there was a range of mitigation penalties depending on the outcome of the hearing.
Surfside lucked out, and was only penalized $12,000 if I recall correctly. I stated what thevoutcome was, on the blog, and pointed out that there were other expenses like the attorney's fees, but said we were lucky to have been shown mercy.
I didn't mislead anyone, though you insist on ridin' my back about this thing and another. The truth is insufferable enough and another stupid blunder by Clancy, that violated laws/ordinances that had serious consequences.
The BOTstayed mum on this stuff, and just made mysterious referencces to "mitigation" in Board minutes, which few if any in attendance had a clue about. It was a cover-up that took nearly 2 years to resolve.
So, 80 % of the membership feels disenfranchised. How do we fact check that statement? Have you talked to those members about their feelings? I doubt that very much. What criteria do members use when deciding who to vote for. BTW, thank you for stating the obvious. Surfside does not have political parties. All the same, Surfside has issues and dues and assessments. Members have opinions and priorities about issues and money. Members take these opinions into consideration when deciding who to vote for. To suggest anything different would be ridiculous. Do you really believe the active membership are mindless robots that do whatever the board tells them to do? You certainly imply that in your comments. You must be reading “How to win friends and influence people”. Surfside has a bit more than 300 members who are intelligent and independent individuals who overwhelmingly vote to keep the trustees you disparage frequently. Surfside is not a government, it is a corporation. As such the members have voted or not voted, in accordance with its governing documents, for trustees that do not agree with you. It really sucks to be in the minority, doesn’t it.
5:54.... 88% of the membership doesn't vote. About that same percentage are forced to top their trees. The HOA has no interest in discussing this policy with the membership at large, so of course there is no interest in a community-wide survey of opinion.
The rest is your's to fuss about. I don't know a lot of people in Surfside, so I don't know how intelligent (or not) anyone is, and never pretend otherwise.
The HOA cares about the 300 people who vote each year according to a previous commenter who claims to represent the Board and their support group. The community shows it. The trees are decimated. So "Neat n' Tidy" is surely void of vegetation and vacuumable.
HOA governance is defined in the State RCWs. It is of a democratic nature. Being an officially incorporated public organization is not the same as a Business Corporation.
It is impossible for some people to reason with others on issues. Those who believe their position is right, moral, and unassailable will not participate in productive dialogue. The sad truth is that the tree height covenants do cause a hardship on some members. The frustrating truth is we live at a time when property ownership come with ever increasing and restrictive limitations. The overriding truth is Surfside convents include tree height limits. As such, the BOT are legally required to enforce them. The good news is that the covenants are not written in stone. They can be changed. The process is delineated in our governing documents. Recent boards have not been interested in changing these longstanding covenants. That is their prerogative. The most disturbing truth is that we live in a very hateful society. Your opponent is not just wrong anymore. There was a time when people would agree to disagree. These days your opponent is not only wrong, they are evil, corrupt, morally bankrupt. You are justified in wishing them harm or finding delight in their troubles.
BTW, chapter 24.03 RCW the Washington nonprofit corporation act established in 1967. That is the law that Surfside was established under. Chapter 64.38 RCW the homeowners association act was established in 1996. The governing documents of Surfside were established based on 24.03 and are still legally binding. Structurally, Surfside is a nonprofit corporation.
The Tree Comm. Chair-person has been chomping at the bit to cut every tree in Surfside, this one in particular. To say that the covenant "isn't written in stone" is technically true, but practically speaking, it might as well be.
A covenant can't be changed (according to bylaws) without the Board's approval. No Board in the last 40 years has expressed a willingness to change this covenant to require member approval, so at least 5 Trustees must be willing to allow for such a change.
Does anyone see that happening anytime soon ? The barriers to a reasonable and civil path to a community-wide review of this covenant is the stone-cold unwillingness of the BOT to yield in any way to seeking a fair and rational resolution.
It has nothing to do with the divisiveness of the nation, which is the result of the rich and powerful embrace of racism, coupled with rejection of immigrants.
The same old drivers of war and conflict throughout human history.
Once again, another accusation without proof. Provide evidence that the Tree Committee chair or anyone on that committee has wanted a tree that was compliant to be cut. All that committee and the members who do keep their trees below the height limits want is for everyone else to do the same.
Since you like to talk about criminality on another topic, you just made a libelous statement. Not the first time, won't be the last.
Give me a break. The Spruce in question is NOT compliant. You are clueless.
The Spruce tree in question IS compliant. It was given a verbal and written variance years ago. It is in the records. Look it up. The truth is there, if you really want to find it.
My comment is a response to 11:08. There would be no discussion of this tree if it was compliant according to our restrictive guidelines. The variance allows the tree to be exempt, which is what is being contested by the HOA.
The Spruce we saw yesterday, appears to be on the lower level of a large ridgetop lot, beautifully landscaped as if in dedication to the beautiful semitry of an untrimmed tree about 30 feet tall. It's partially in view from the owner's home directly behind, but doesn't appear to alter the viewpoints of neighboring properties.
I agree that the HOA needs to make it official, that the tree is protected and exempt from mandatory topping. Making it shorter would serve no rational purpose.
The HOA surely wants no exceptions to their relentless manipulation of member's property, their trees. They would rather expand on it with more useless restrictions.
So if they grant a variance for this tree how would they enforce the tree heights around the hoa? Most members I've talked to moved here for the covenants so how would that affect them? From what I understand variances are only allowed for structures and that a tree height variance would require a covenant change.
Has anyone submitted a request to have the tree height covenant changed?
SHOA already granted a waiver for this one tree. It's documented. They're trying to undo what they already did. They also granted a tree height variance to the condos.
3:42. Where are your comments in HOA Review? Under what topic? I’m interested in any action to correct this mess
Yes, the board did grant a variance to the condos. No, the board didn't grant a variance for the tree. No matter how many times people say it won't change that fact.
@5:34, funny how the condos had to ask for a variance when the rule is tree heights follow building heights. They should have been allowed 35 ft. Selective enforcement again! But then again, J pl couldn't see, so....the rules are always changing. The rules need to change for the better of the community, not a few.
Excuse me 8:40, you do know that the condo heights are higher than what's allowed in our HOA, right? The tree height in that area is not 35 ft for members is it? For members the tree heights do follow building height. The variance made it the same for them. So your typical J pl and selective enforcement rant doesn't hold water.
The condo's are 35 feet tall. They made a variance for 30 feet high trees. How stupid is that? Guess J Place wanted to see 5 feet of the building above the trees. Same as they prefer to see roofs and outside lights, over seeing trees. What can we expect next, Peggy? Maybe a covenant on the color of roofs?
@4:52, yes it holds water. Long ago, these condos were built to 35 feet, and approved as such. Now decades later, you J placers want to change to rules to suit you...sorry, but Kurt and Peggy and the Harris family and Annette, you don't rule the community, but you like to puff your chests out as such.
You don't understand that without identifying yourself and offering verifiable information, no one has any reason to believe you. The fact that the tree was left alone by compliance, validates that there was a widely accepted decision regarding it.
This tree happens to stand where it is only in the partial view of 2 homes, one a block away. It's not a problem practically speaking, and it is struggling to overcome Spruce budworm disease.
It doesn't block views and will probably be removed if it dies. What's the big sweat ? Only the madness that drives this stupid policy.
Post a Comment