7 MEMBERS HAVE FILED....
Annette deLeest:
Larry Raymer:
Full time @ 2112 303rd Place. (Skating Lake area on far East side) Home and property is neat and attractive. Larry is a past Board member and 15 years serving on most committee's.
Ronda Christoph: (Ronda F)
Part time @ 703 357th Street. ( Most Northern street in Surfside. Property purchased from the deLeest's) House and property in Surfside is neat and attractive. Full time residence in Graham Wa.
Cori Harms:
Part time @ 1007 306th Place. (angle across from Veteran's Park on I Street) Full time residence in Battle Ground Wa. House and property in Surfside is neat and attractive.
John Curran:
Full time @ 809 338th Place. ( Area South of the Oysterville Road) updated 5/12 He is full time, not part time as previously (incorrectly on Tax Sifter) stated.
Mark Scott:
Full time @ 30802 I Street. (about 2 blocks North of Veteran's Park on East side of I Street) Mark is currently serving out his first term on the Board. He is active in the Emergency Management Committee. His Surfside home and property is neat and attractive.
Gary Williams:
Part time @ 31010 I Street. The Williams's own 4 lots in this area. Full time residence is in Renton where he works for Boeing. Currently he is serving as Board President in one of several terms. His Surfside home is maintained in a neat manner.
NOTE:
Most of the above information has been provided by Pacific County Tax Sifter and is public information. I hope this small part helps the members in their candidate choice. Most important is their past history serving the members. Also important, will be the candidates statements in their own words. I invite all of them to make further statements here and be willing to answer member questions and concerns. Our and my thanks to all the members for stepping up to the challenge they will face in the months and years ahead.
110 comments:
Is this correct?
These are the members of the Nominating Committee?
Valerie Harrison (Chair), Louise Purdin, Annette deLeest, Mindy Harris and Michele Turner
Is one of the committee members also a candidate?
Does anyone know the scope of the duties of the Nominating Committee?
This is great. Some new ideas now have the potential to come forward. Thank you to the "newbies" who stepped up. RONDA, CORI, JOHN!!! Glad to see LARRY back!!! Very much appreciate your willingness to take the plunge.
The Nominating committee is nothing but an old policy holdover from the past. It's main function was to seek out members and encourage them to run for the Board. The only requirement to be on the Board is to be breathing and current with dues and assessments. In the past, candidates were not on the nominating committee. That would be a clear "conflict of interest". Do you want to elect or re-elect someone who does not follow the basic rules and common sense? Not me.
4 of the seven are former Board members and deLeest is a primary antagonost promoting a new wave of intrusive restrictions. The "new" Lighting covenant, is nearly identical to the one rejected by members in 2019, but without details and WITH full HOA authority to decide what light fixtures you need. REJECT IT.
It's good there are some choices, but Williams and deLeest are not interested in what the membership wants, and want to regulate the community to death.
They have promoted intrusive changes and intend to continue on that path.
Larry and Mark are pretty good, though very unpredictable. But they are experienced and not bent on micro-managing member lives.
Changes in the community need to be approached with only praticality in mind and not fussy micro-management to make our Recreational community "neat n'tidy". Less is more. A morass of restrictions creates a morass of enforcement conflicts and wasted legal spending.
I am glad to see Larry and Annette running for the BOT. They are two of the hardest workers I have ever seeen in this community. They are the only two that are running that have volunteered (OK, Gary and Mark has volunteered but Mark wishes to be Mayor of Surfside and Gary is Gary)
Btw, Annette voted against the change of the lighting covenant mainly because it did not include the east side of Surfside. I live on the East side and appreciated the fact that she wanted to includre us folks too.
I for one wish to learn more about Cori and John. My impression of Rhonda F is not very good. I admit, I only know her from what she writes on this blog but she seems to me to be a bit of a trouble maker.
On my.....we certainly don't want any "trouble makers".
step 1: get on the nominating committee to get the inside scoop on who submits an application
step 2: decide if there are too many new people or "trouble makers"
step 3: get worried that you might lose the majority and throw your hat in the ring to try and stop the "outsiders"
and please don't lump Larry in with Annette
@11:52. A trouble maker like everyone on here. Don't fool us with your I live on the east side bullcrap.
Steve is spot on.
Larry over Annette anyday. We don't need more destruction from the 3 stooges...pam,peggy and annette
Larry's back!!!! I love Larry
My vote will be:
Rhonda
Larry
Cori
John
As I previously stated it’s time to rid Surfside of the good ol boys club and actually start caring about what all the members want!
And I am sure someone will respond with, most members don’t care and we need to do what’s best for the community. ( J Place elitist )
Do mass email questionnaires, ask the important questions and don’t poo poo off the responses.
This is an HOA community, and HOA stands for HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
George. I have to clear up Annette came by and gave her resignation to me before she handed in her board packet. Also I have not shared any info on who had turned in their applications. I planned to share with the committee and all applicants this Monday at their meeting. Thank you for listening. George and Larry know I take my job or assignment seriously. Good luck to all the candidates. It is so nice to see so many volunteers this year. George, Larry and I can tell you this position is not a couple hours a week. It's more like a 10 to 20 hours per week position.
George, you need to print a retraction and remove your entire post. Annette is NOT the election chair! Louise Purdin is, is and Annette turned in her application to run before two others! Check your facts before to post. Your feelings against Annette go a long way back and it’s unfortunate that you continue to spread incorrect information! I don’t expect you to change your feelings at this stage as your mind is set, but I do expect you to tell the truth!
George is not wrong. Regardless of who is chair, de Leest had the opportunity to see applications before submitting her own. She should withdraw.
No one owes anyone an apology. I'm disappointed that Annette is running again, as she is a control freak and has helped drive intrusive HOA policies and obsessive tree cutting. She has been behind the Lighting cov.monkey business and no doubt wants to see it through. It's bad news and needs to be rejected.
I don't see the chair matter being of any real significance. She should run if she chooses.
She was chair the previous year. However, she was on the Nominating Committee, which gave her an unfair advantage. At the Jan. Board Meeting, the minutes state that by a vote of 8 - 0 Ric Minich was appointed Chair of the Election Committee (ECC) At the Feb Board Meeting, Valerie Harrison was appointed chair of the Nominating Committee. A vote of 8 - 0 It is a "conflict of interest" for a candidate to be on the Nominating Committee. I agree, she should withdraw.
Of course you are right George. It's just typical entitled behavior. Will anyone actually do anything about it ? I think not, but she should realize the impropriety and withdraw.
I will not even bother to vote. The outcome is a for-drawn conclusion with the proxy votes that give those on the board more than the one vote they are entitled to have by law. Do you really wonder why no one votes or participates in this sham of an HOA?
Of course it could be brought before the board at Saturday's meeting. The vote how everything goes. Let's see how they handle this
It should be brought before the board this weekend. Cheating is cheating, but cheaters never prosper. Besides, Peg and Pam need someone to do their dirty work
Control freak? pot calling the kettle black!!!!!!!
The bullies are not on this blog, but the true bullies are Peggy Olds, Annette and Pam Harris. They should be proud of how are community looks...UGLY
You obviously don’t understand the covenants! We have tree and building heights!
Never challenged in court or established to be legal.
The bullies obviously don't understand. They tell people to ignore county and federal laws. Excuse me, but wake up people! You don't need to take orders from a volunteer committee person. If they/she wants to order you what to do, go work for the county. Travis laughs at us.
Oh give me a break, we all know the REAL reason Cox is against deLeast don't we? And btw, you never seen her on here making false allegations and rumormongering against him but he has done so against her on more than one occasion.
Speaking of, to say that she is behind the Lighting covenant is just a lie. I was at the board meeting when this was proposed. It came from a committee that she was not the Trustee of. As someone has stated she voted against it. She was one of the board members that was pushing to put it before the members. Meanwhile at that same meeting Scott voiced his support for it, complaining about his J place neighbors lights. But of course he gets a pass.
I have mixed feelings about Larry. While it's nice to see someone from the East side I have a problem with the fact that when you look how he voted towards the end of his last term the majority of the time he abstained.
Speaking of voting, a test question for Cox or anyone else who keeps making the complaints about the Tech committee being done away with by the board. Between Annette and Larry, which voted yes to keep it and which voted no?
Who was involved with the tree destruction...Annette or Larry
Not that it matters, but Mr. Curran's place is a little south of Oysterville road, not north.
Don't understand the need for the descriptions on the conditions of the property. I really don't understand the significance of knowing Ronda purchased her property from Annette. Are you saying the reason it is "neat and attractive" is due to Annette owning it beforehand?
I love this blog. A little bit here and there from different people helps put the puzzle together for some of us. Please keep the dialog going and by all means remain respectful and try not to name call nasty vibe (besides distasteful, it will get removed) and the history and who knows who and what-for is helping make educated decisions, having had personal encounters and online encounters with some of the candidates.
Thanks!
Looks like every candidate had neat and attractive except Gary. He keeps it in a neat manner. Just watch and see, now that the 3 ladies have destroyed the community with tree destruction, they are going to write fines for not being neat and tidy or attractive or whatever they call it.
Only a fool would pretend to know "my real reason" for opposing deLeest's candidacy. I SAY WHAT I MEAN when I write blog comments.
Annette has been a working part of the obssessive drive to chop the trees of the community into oblivian. She has promoted the false narrative that there is a great need for increased community restrictions and HOA micro- management.
She was key in preventing my appointment on the BOT to fill the empty seat. But I don't think she is alone in her need to control the dialogue - that's been a major motivator for the J Pl. agenda. So I don't have a particular grudge against Annette, but I don't think she considers everyone's interests a primary concern.
Who cares about the Tech Comm.? It was a worthwhile effort that didn't last long enough to tell us anything, but how to waste a bunch of start-up costs, because the HOA prez got pissed-off at the Comm.chair.
Trying new approaches is a good thing. But you have to commit to a serious effort to learn something. That which doesn't work can always be undone.
Well said Steve and factual.
When deLeest was first elected to the Board, she invited me to her former home on 357th, to discuss with me, being on the Board. I brought my hard copy's of the Articles, Bylaws and Operations Manual. I discussed with her the importance of following those documents. She was attentive, respectful and friendly. I advised her to work for all members. She seemed receptive. Others expressed concern to me about her, but I told them that I thought she would be a good and fair trustee. I have nothing personal against her and was giving her the benefit of the doubt. During her three year term, I was disappointed time and again by her performance. I guess our several hour chat was a waste of time for the both of us.
Over the 15 years that I have been here, time and again I have seen new members on the Board, who went on there wanting to do good and make a difference, only to see them quickly become a part of the gang of them against us. I think a lot of that has to do with the lack of leadership at the Board level. I have also seen new members that were committed to improve things and question many things, and then give up in frustration. This also can be attributed to poor leadership.
I was actually on the Board three times. First time was appointed and the other two times was elected. I was Board Secretary twice and known as a stickler for follow the rules. Out of frustration, I resigned twice. The old saying applies.."Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". I was even dumb enough to give them a second chance. Board leadership again was lacking.
At some point, some of these board members will need to be deemed "non-essential" and removed the best way possible. Maybe we need some Seattle style "peaceful protests" to help.
Totally agree 2:43. This HOA needs to reduce the # of trustees to about 5. We need to reduce some committee members and our manager needs to put her foot down to the micro managing of our lives.
I just say, as many people as possible and interested in this community need to vote come July!
Be it in person, by proxy, by mail, online, whatever is available, it’s time to take back the community and bring some new and realistic ideas to the community.
It has been 50 years since CCR’s were written and all need looked at and adjusted for the good of the community, not just a few members.
The tree killing and stupid lighting plan need to be eliminated.
Did the nominating committee hold interviews today
Valerie, per Tracy, in an email today, you have contacted everyone regarding their interview with the nominating committee. Neither myself or Cori has been contacted by you or anyone else. I cannot speak for the others
Doug you are correct. The only way to change directions is to change the board members. We have been here for a very long time and have found that when the board over steps or refuses to evaluate the covenants based on ALL member interests, the result is more participation in the annual meeting and voting. So here's hoping the shenanigans of the last couple of years get members motivated. As many have stated, most people just want to left alone to peacefully enjoy their property. The tranquility and landscape of Surfside have been destroyed by a handful of people. Our vote will be for Ronda, Larry, Cori, John.
I was told Cori and Ronda were not able to meet Monday at 11am. I will be calling both of them right now.
How would you know Valerie if you never reached out to us to begin with? You're going off hear say
Question for Valerie.....who told you they were not able to meet? The best process would be to communicate directly with the candidates.
To all.....this should not turn into a referendum on Valerie. She is a volunteer and is giving up her personal time to manage the candidate application process.
But this is an example of our communication failures as an HOA. The best process is to communicate directly with all members on important issues.
Could someone please direct me to where the candidate interview questions are posted. Thank you.
Check your spam file! I had a couple of emails sent from the office end up there. I happened to check my spam and there they were!
I think the only email we have ever gotten from the HOA is the one about the water questionnaire. I'm just wondering what the goal of the interview is and if the questions are given to the candidates in advance or posted somewhere on the website for all to see.
Ronda, I left you a phone message to call me to reschedule even before you replied on this blog. Please call to reschedule. Trying my hardest to give everyone help on what to expect.
12:06 Do you mean the questions the applicants answered on their applications?
Nice chatting with you, thank you for reaching out. Looking forward to meeting you this week
When I applied some years back, you could tell Annette was seeing how an applicant would fit in, whether status quo and do the board's bidding, or have the ability to think for themselves. Being a bit younger then them, more educated, and experienced in problem solving proved not to be what they were or are looking for. I kinda feel sorry for most of them, as this control is the hilight of their lives, and them knowing they will be remembered for the destruction and animosity they have created, as well as the poor legacy their children/grandchildren will endure.
The sample questions are on the website. Under Governance, Operations Manual page 92
Valerie - No......I am wondering about the questions you would ask at the interview. I'm not familiar with the process so possibly the interview is just to review the application and there are no additional questions? Just trying to understand the purpose of the interview. Thank you.
2:39 I wondered why you are anonymous for this question? I verified everyone was eligible and then I explained the process from now on thru elections. I was a board member back when so I explained what happens after they are elected etc. Nothing much more than that. I will be doing again for any of the candidates that missed this past Monday on Friday at 11am.
Valerie -- Thank you very much for the clarification. So it's really not an "interview" but rather an information session. I think the problematic word was "interview".....it sent me down the wrong track. And thank you for volunteering your time!!!!
This organization needs new blood, not old retreads that have no other goal than to maintain status quo.
Over the last 4 years, this association has been a failure. Why should we reward incompetence by bringing it back?
You do know that the members elect new trustees each year, so there is no good ole boys club. Every year 3 seats become available, if no one runs then you get the same people so it is up to the members to run for the board and evoke the change they seek. I thank all the volunteers who give up their time to participate in the community. Until you volunteer your time to help the community you really have no room to complain.
Well it sounds like this year we do have several new people asking to represent the community. Hopefully they will get elected and then will be able steer this community in a more positive direction for all members.
10:34....This is a bunch of hooey. Only about 300 votes are cast annually, and many of the same people are re-elected over and over. They are not re-elected because they are uncontested, but because the same portion of the over 2000 households re-elect these members because they promise not to change the Tree policy, or adopt any progressive measures.
Jim Flood was finally deposed after failing to attend more than a couple of meetings in person over about 3 years - he had served for about 14 years. Williams has served for about 12 yrs. or more. Clancy served about 10 years. About 6 have resigned over the last 5 years. A couple of other perrenial candidates quit running, one had to move.
The last 5 years have been marked by numerous failed projects resulting in heavy fines by the State, County and Federal governments. The BOT falsely claimed losses that gleaned 2 Federal grants of $10,000 each, and they bought a water tank wagon and pickup truck at about $30,000 for some unknown emergency. How and when would this be employed ? No one has offered to explain.
Yes. You do have room to complain. We all pay the same and many are not able to volunteer. Many members are working and live a distance from Surfside. We have hired employees and we can expect them to do their jobs. We have over 1500 members and nine positions on the board. We can't all be on the board or a committee. There is no room for more than a handful of members to attend a board meeting and committee meetings are held during the work week. The problem is not the members, it is their misplaced trust in the board of trustees.
Steve, last I heard on the water truck when I inquired, was it was budgeted for, but not yet purchased. That info came from the office. If this is the case, I say let's not purchase it. We can use that money for something useful. Members should have water on hand.
Joanne has asked to have a copy of the covenents given to everyone, especially new members. She was told this is too expensive. Spend our money on everyone, equal,not foolishly.
The members trust in the board is not misplaced. They are failing to represent the entire community.
It is my understanding that the water wagon itself was budgeted but not purchased. However the truck to pull the water wagon was purchased at a cost of $30,000?
It costs absolutely NOTHING to send the covenants to all members (and yes, especially new members) in email form. If they want to print a copy they can.
Expecting the membership to continually search out information instead of sending it directly to them is not a good communication plan.
Speaking of the restrictive covenants, could we please get a table of contents so that one does not have to go scroll through every page when trying to find something? Thank you.
11:33 My apologies - I misunderstood your comment. You are saying the members should NOT place their trust in the board and I agree with you.
Not everyone has the internet leave alone a printer. My thought was to provide a printed copy to each new member and then there’s no question that they have the information readily available
1034 - after seeing the incompetence of the last four years, I have every right to complain.
If there is such turnover, why has Williams has been around since 2008? Is this deLeeests second or third term? J placers all.
The good old boys club is well, and in place, despite your lies to the contrary. Take your self-serving garbage, and file it. We know better.
We were given a copy from the office 6 years ago. It's all about priorities. Sadly, the BOT does not think about our members anymore.
Our covenents need a drastic overhaul, we need to rewrite our policies and bring back fairness for all. Let's bring our community back together.
CORRECTION: John Curran is a full time resident, not part time as previously stated. Information on Tax Sifter is not always current or correct. My apologies.
The problem with a hard copy is...The Board keeps changing things, especially the last two years. I have seen changes made that were also done under the guise "for clarity". As we get new Board members (hopefully) there will be many more changes. Rather than everyone get a hard copy, a compromise might be that those who request a hard copy, be given one. That being said, for sure every Board candidate and newly elected Board Trustee, should be given a hard copy and updates as they are made. Same should apply to members on every committee. Just my opinion as I see it.
Sorry George but I think even an outdated copy is better than none. The two people I helped this year did not have a computer and one didn’t have a printer. Much easier to pull out a hard copy and look up where your complaint came from and the process for appeal. There isn’t that much that changes every year. When it does change every member should be sent a hard copy or email notifying of the change.
I just know that when we received our hard copy in 2008 along with other information and gift cards, it was very appreciated
Use the water truck money for that attorney, I think his name is Sam, to revise the covenants to be updated to a more friendly community HOA. And everyone has a every right to complain about the behavior of the BOT and employees paid for by Homeowners.
I believe the $200 dollar sale fee should include giving a copy of current CC&R’s to the buyer. What else are they spending the money on? Couple more employees we don’t need, maybe another office remodel, maybe we can buy and put up a Circus Tent for our Annual Meeting!
Excellent point Doug!!!! At the very least the $200 fee could be applied to the cost of giving the new member a PRINTED copy of the covenants (34 pages). Maybe even include the bylaws (14 pages). Really how much does it cost to print 48 pages? $5?
This is the first page of the restrictive covenants posted on our website under governance. Clearly not accurate. Is this where members are supposed to go to find current information? Have there been NO amendments (changes) since August 28, 2018?
Restrictive Covenants
Amended August 18, 2018
Board of Trustees
Gary Williams - President
James A. Flood, Jr. - Vice President
Scott Winegar - Secretary
Rudd Turner - Treasurer
Annette deLeest - Trustee
Mark Scott – Trustee
Larry Raymer – Trustee
Chris Chandler - Trustee
Management
Laura Frazier, Business Manager
William Neal, Water System Manager – Gilbert Gonzalez, Field Superintendent
You state that it clearly isn't accurate but don't seem to know if there have actually been any changes?
I'm stating that the first page listing the names isn't accurate. I asking if the rest of the document is accurate. It's dated 2018. I'm asking if there have been changes since 2018.
Maybe if the committee people stayed out of the office until 15 minutes prior to their meeting,our employees, could get their work done.. when meeting is over,, GO HOME! We don't pay your salary to blah blah with comittee people.
What is not accurate about the list of names? Don't they represent the applicable personnel at the time of last amendment?
Last I heard, the office charges $1.00/page. A bit steep isn't it ?
I was expecting the list of BOT, Bus Mgr and Water Dept to reflect current status. But if it's supposed to represent 2018 persons that's different. Not sure why we would give a new member a copy of the covenants with names of BOT, Bus Mgr and Water Dept personnel who are no longer in those roles. But OK. So just to be clear there have been no changes to our covenants since August 18,2018?
4 of the B.members listed are still Trustees. Gil is now head of the Water Dept., not Bill Neal.
The signature page on the covenants reflects the personnel at the time of the amendment. It is not updated unless there are changes. Once there are changes there would be a new amendment signed by the current personnel in those roles.
Edited for clarity:
The signature page on the covenants reflects the personnel at the time of the amendment. It is not updated unless there are changes to the covenants. Once there are approved changes there would be a new amendment to the covenants signed by the current personnel in those roles.
Accustomed to seeing signatory pages at the end of documents so it didn't register as such. Thought it was intending to reflect the current personnel in those roles. Thanks for the clarification.
What was the change in the convents in 2018? Wish the changes were hi-lited or old text crossed out and new in bold or something
Does anyone remember what it was?
The change in reporting problems was changed in 2019 from complaint to compliance driven. Why was this never noted ?
I would like to see the same JoAnne. Unless the changes are identified there is no way to know what was changed. And good question about the change in compliance enforcement.
What would you have expected to see in the covenants regarding complaint or compliance driven. The requirement is there regardless so in a sense there was no change in the covenants, only that they are now being enforced as written.
I agree it would be good to at least see a revision page showing what changed in each amendment.
The change in 2018 was for the sheds.
Right 7:42 The covenant was not changed, the policy of enforcement was changed. The change would be in the "Operations Manual". A change in policy can be made by a motion by a Board member at any Board Meeting. It only requires a majority approval. A review of the motions should show the details of the motion. They are behind in posting the motions on the web. That motion would also be in the "official" minutes. Hope this helps.
Curious, if this was a change in policy and the manual hasn't been updated, does the manual currently reflect a policy of complaint driven? Asking here first before I go look it up :)
PS..The shed was a covenant change. The change to compliance was a policy change. There are three (3) ways to know what is happening. Be at the meeting and see and hear it in person or live video, Read it in the minutes, or find it posted on the web sight. Several other ways, but not always reliable or official is their Facebook page or even on a blog. All in all, a poor way and effort made to keep the members informed. Committee minutes can also help in giving a clue to what is happening.
I can't find in the manual a reference to definition of compliance or complaint driven. I believe the process has always been complaint driven. The covenants as written allow ANYONE to make a complaint, you don't even have to be a member of the HOA. What likely changed is people using the existing complaint process to force compliance. All my opinion of course...
8:13..I don't know if it has been updated and I like many, am not going to look it up. I spend more time here now than I want. I am not taking on the role as "fact checker" on everything posted here. My statement on that is below the blog heading "SURFSIDE CHAT". Do appreciate you or anyone who takes the time and effort to look things up and share with the rest of us lazy members. It might be that we get what we deserve. However, we have the right to expect the Board Members to make the effort to find the truth. Just part of their volunteer job.
In the procedure manual it only speaks of comments of complaints by members or anyone who wants to make one. You don’t have to be a member to submit a complaint. I could find no acknowledgement of the change voted in by the trustees to change to compliance driven. The motion was August 17, 2019 meeting.
I do see a difference between complaints and compliance. This compliance means committee members and the compliance officer are out looking for complaints to file.
Personally I think this is overkill, but for sure we need to have a meeting and discuss the covenants that members think need updated!
Complaints and compliance can be confusing for sure. The real key word is "pro-active" That is the difference. We, over time, have had it both ways. Mostly it has been compliance based on a members complaint. Recently with the hire of a "Compliance Officer" , we became pro-active. That is..in addition to members complaints, we, the association, are now looking for violations and acting on them. It was thought that this would be more fair, especially with members who did not want to complain for various reasons, against their neighbors.
When the Board decided to hire a Compliance Officer, was probably when the enforcement change was made. It was probably done without a motion to change. It may have been implied with the hiring. I don't remember when that happened, but may be a clue as to when to check the Board Meeting minutes. As we have seen many times, they are lacking in following proper process and procedure. I do not follow as much as I used to do. I would rather be out digging in the dirt. I will now shut my mouth. Said enough.
The next person who has a litigious case against this association will make a lot of money. OUR MONEY! Think about that when you vote to replace the people who have failed us so miserably.
The change to "proactive" enforcement was Winegar's idea, and I think he was pretty pleased with himself. I believe that he has long been involved with law enforcement.
Requiring a written complaint verifies that something is seen as inappropriate enough to deserve attention. Many folks say they are afraid of being singled out as the "complainer", but someone has to be willing to speak-up.
"Proactive is a popular term these days, but in this case it just means that someone's job is to look for compliance issues, be they significant or nearly imperceptible.
If members can accept the responsibility, the complaint system is obviously better, and likely to only address significant problems in most cases. Paying an employee is a big expense, and not really a necessary expense.
Fewer compliance issues means less legal cost, and less member conflict.But the HOA needs to be willing to try and mediate conflicts between neighbors early-on to try and minimize greater conflict.
We have got along many many years without a compliance person. Look at what problems hiring one brings us. Let's work to go complaint driven only, and it must directly effect the complainant.
Let's get rid of a compliance person, it is wasted money
They are using this compliance officer for the $200 escrow fee when a place changes ownership. I know from owning and selling in other HOAs that the only item the HOA needs is the status of the dues at closing so it can be prorated. This $200 transfer fee is just an easy way to find any non-compliance issues that haven’t been addressed previously.
I was against this fee from the beginning, unhappy seller, unhappy buyer! If there is a noncompliance issue it should have been corrected previously. Don’t use this covenant to take in more money and have an excuse to find something wrong!
Once again it is about those damn trees. The Olds gang wanted a compliance officer so they could go after all the tree height violations. Miss Peggy said many times that trees should be the priority for compliance. Most of the complaints are about trees. The ugly truth that they don't want you to know is that a few members are writing most of the complaints. Deleast is a part of that gang and should not be elected again.
Deleest, Pam and Peggy are the top 3. Pam was behind the lot on I that sat with downed trees for at least 2 years
Oh Geez, Trees happen! Get over it, trees are everywhere. Please find something to do besides hate trees. I promise, at the end of your life, you will not be wishing you spent more time doing this nonsense.
Ugh, I'm so sick of this being a BFD. Just leave people alone and find something productive to do.
That's the problem, these 3 ladies do not have a life
There are tree and building heights in the covenants. You change the tree heights and soon you will have folks wanting to build homes taller than allowed in the different height zones! Folks you have no idea as to the can of worms your opening up! This is nothing new. Most of the trees were topped many years ago at least once, at least they were in our neighborhood, we just kept them trimmed with no problems. The issues arise when owners have done no maintenance for many many years and then get a complaint. Cutting a 25-30 foot or taller tree to meet the height requirement in some of our zones is usually a very bad idea but I sympathize with the folks who have maintained the proper heights and watch others do nothing! So here we are years down the road and we have seen this time and time again, lack of compliance is nothing new, we go in cycles depending who is on the board, just drive around and you can see lots of problem issues that bother no one until they get a complaint. Most of the time there are many other examples of the same offense but since there is no complaint on that property we do or did nothing! With proactive compliance they are trying to fix a problem that really should be handled between home owners but that does not work all the time. No one should accept a complaint from anyone if the problem does not personally affect them or their property. This would stop folks from writing multiple complaints. We can’t just blame the tree committee for some of the past non compliance, we must also hold the property owners responsible who have done nothing for years that allowed some of those issues. Same goes for the oversized sheds, and derelict properties. Do I think hiring another compliance person is a good idea, no I do not, but I’m also aware that some folks won’t fix their issues if we don’t have something in place to apply pressure to have them comply. A public meeting or survey is a good idea to get community input, we are a huge HOA and should have a decent community center where we can actually meet! What we really suck at is communication! Fix that!
You are right 12:01, but the fact is, we are where we are. We can't go back, Further topping of trees will only kill more and worsen the situation. The tree height covenant did not work then and it will not work now. The building height was for the same reason as the tree height restrictions..A view for a few. The building height should also be abolished and return to County ordinance on building heights. That would allow many more members to gain a partial view than those who would have less view. Small square footage lots could have a home with a second story and have more usable space and a gain in value.
Let the county to their job! We have failed and will continue to fail
Yes, we are not doing such a good job with some of this.
The tree/building height, square footage and also the shed covenants need a new approach. We're destroying the landscape. We're sending fine letters to people whose shed is compliant with county code but 4-6 INCHES out of compliance with our code and then asking them to apply for a variance. Small square footage homes can look just as nice as larger square footage homes these days.
It is time to just eliminate these unfairly enforced and unnecessary covenants and just follow county codes.
The big question still remains----How many would have bought their property if there was NO HOA TO BEGIN WITH? The answer is in the silence. And we all would be happier right now.
I bought because of the covenant!!
Everyone complained about neighbors being pitted against each other, so they tried a proactive approach to remove neighbor conflict.
As I understood the fee imposed at the time of sell, was because people were adding bathrooms to sheds, or bunk houses in their sheds and numerous other infractions that are not visible on the outside. Realtors were advertising these covenant infractions as a marketing ploy. The only way to get a handle on it was to have a compliance inspection at the time of sale.
This blog is very disappointing!
Problem is we are not actually inspecting the property at time of sale. At best the compliance office drove by and looked from the street. To my knowledge she was not making inspection appointments with the sellers.
We bought in spite of the covenants. Will not be disappointed if they go away. This development looks like everything else on the peninsula. Some streets/lots look great and others look terrible. The only thing this HOA is doing at this point is sowing discontent.
And now with the tree massacre some streets look like a bomb went off.
If you bought because of the covenants, it sure isn't hard to see the majority of the covenants are not a priority. Therefore, the the idea of embracing those covenants before a purchase is not very convincing. No one goes into a home purchase looking around the neighborhood to see if compliance is practiced.
The blog is disappointing to you because like minded individuals are not here applauding your ideas. No worries, it will only take one injustice towards you to see the covenants are bogus and randomly enforced.
The only thing we find worthwhile about the HOA are the paths to the beach.
We would rather have our garbage collected in front of our house. But since we are already paying for the compactor through the dues we use it rather than double pay for garbage.
We do not feel safer because the HOA is paying a lot of money for deputy. Rarely see him driving by. Don't really see any benefit for the cost. He's essentially just doing his job. Why are we paying extra?
We'd be OK with paying for the amount of water we use if we are not paying the HOA $600+ a year.
As for the covenants, agree with the fact that they don't do much except maybe save a view for a few people who live on J Place. Other than that don't see what good they are doing. In addition, as 12:33 states the covenants are randomly enforced.
Do we really need this HOA?
There it is!
For every "You knew there were covenants when you purchased" there's the counter of "So did you, and it was obvious by looking around, covenants are not enforced"
I guess that worn out point is now moot. What's the next bully mantra?
I used to hate change. Change made me uncomfortable and fearful. But as anyone alive can attest, change happens, whether willingly or not. Some change ended up for the better, not all, but in the end, reflecting back, most change ended up better.
With that said, I now embrace change, seek it out, and pivot if it was the wrong change to happen. I'll be voting for all those on the ballot who have never served in the past.
Thank you for accepting the challenge.
Seems fitting that 1:14 get's the last word. Change is needed. Thanks to all for the over 100 comments. Seems we have many more questions than answers. We will have more discussion on the Board candidates as their information becomes available.
Post a Comment