Your moment of truth...
With just a little over a day left, the deadline for filing as a Board Candidate, only four have declared.
Cory Harms, John Curran, Mark Scott and Gary Williams have filed.
If no one else files, they will all be elected, If these are the only ones to file, why even bother to vote? 4 positions and 4 candidates. The moment of truth will be if there are enough who really care, to step forward. Two have. Two are for more of the same.
56 comments:
Hey Gary! Would you finally repaint your house. I almost wrecked my car again from being temporarily blinded. Good grief.
So do you want a covenant that pertains to house color? Go and propose it to the board then.
So, the worm turns. It looks as if the members have spoken. Very few are concerned enough about your issues to do anything about it. You are going to have to wait on the revolution a little longer. In the meantime, keep your trees trimmed, dim your lights, and for goodness sake’s, pay your dues and assessments. Without money we are just another poor community in the poorest county in Washington State.
I could be wrong but I believe it is Cori Harms.
Since they refuse to mail out the notice, they control the release of info. Who uses online or reads the weekly regurgitation of same info in the surf-n-turfsider.
Makes a person wonder how many candidates may have applied if there had been an ALL MEMBER email blast about the subject with the application forms attached.
First, "your issues" are tree height restrictions which affect about 70 % of member households, waste of HOA dues and assessments, new proposals to put unnecessary and intrusive restrictions in place (the same lighting covenant proposed as 2019, without details, but granting full discretion to the BOT to decide who needs what fixtures), increased remoteness of the BOT, continued lack of full transparency.
Who do you think is responsible for oversight ? Yet times are challenging on individual families, and a commitment of time to the HOA is not workable for many who do care and follow issues in the community.
Your eagerness to put a thumb in the eye of members who dare to criticize but not volunteer their time is very evident.
Those who speak in grandiose terms of change in the community aren't tuned-in to what needs to be done to make practical changes. Change that is well designed, is a sign of thoughtful progress and not something to fear.
Honestly, it's just easier to sell and move. Apply to be on a board and get bullied and hated, disparaged, told NO with no explanation, misinterpreted, frustrated and overall sad.
A person could have stayed working to experience all that. At least then there's a pay check at the end of the week.
This HOA is so dysfunctional and should be abolished or outsourced to a third impartial party.
How is it that those who do not even live here, run their big mouth telling us who do, how we should live our lives. Mr. authority on everything needs to shut up or step up and run for the board. I think he is just afraid of the low vote he would get. Just another big cry baby that has done nothing for anyone.
I wonder how many people would have still bought their property without an HOA to begin with? That would be an interesting survey.
No one here is telling anyone how to live. Our objections are to the ways in which the HOA is seeking to micro-manage OUR lives, intrude, add useless fees, waste community money, and create unnecessary restrictions that do not address existing problems or make things better for the community.
It's those outside agitators, yeah, right. We can assume that none of us, including the HOA Board has a clue how much time any of the members spend at their Surfside property.Those who don't spend more than a few weeks annually, aren't likely to be following the blog, the only place for community discussion.
But anyone who cares about the community has a valid opinion, and most only want to see the community run with fairness and restraint from over-regulating.
Maybe I am confused but micromanaging our lives is the same as telling us how to live. Please explain the difference to us less educated bloggers.
The HOA and Mr. Cox are both telling us how to live. Both are nothing more than BS talk and talk. The board gets some things right and some things wrong, but at least they do more than just talk, which is more than Mr. Cox does. He seems to have plenty of time to spend on here. He should get on a committee and do something for the members rather than call them "fools and idiots". Oh, thats right, he doesn't call people names.
I completely agree 2:30. We all know why Cox didn't get appointed to the board when Chandker resigned.
George will delete this post in 3, 2, 1...
So anonymous3:47 your answer is just to let the board choose the board? So we just get rid of elections? That’s progress alright!
Well since members wont run you end up getting the same people voted in again and again. The bylaws leave it to the board to decide how to fill the seats that become vacant before the term ends. Personally I agree with 3:47, I can see why they didn't put him on the board. But you cant really complain about the board members if no one else is ever going to run. With over 2000 members there are typically 4-5 candidates that run and that's on a good year. I believe that if people thought things were as bad as people here seem to think we would have more people running and voting, but with little participation from the membership you get what you get
The possible reason for little participation from the membership is because there is extremely limited communication with the membership. Why wasn't there an ALL MEMBER email blast about the board openings, with the documents needed to apply, attached to the email.
If there were more direct emails to ALL MEMBERS about a variety of important issues we would be probably get more feedback and participation.
2:30....You can't identify yourself but always come back with this same olde tired line. I pay my dues, have run for the Board and should have been appointed to Chandler's seat. We are still trying to overcome the void in the Board because the BOT refused to fill the position until about a month ago.
We have 4 vacancies which is a tall order for Surfside elections. But anyone who is trying to add to the dialogue here, is doing more than at least 1900 other members. So Peg and/or Annette, whichever you are that always give me this crap, YOU are part of the problem and NOT part of the solution. The crazed tree haters have had their way, and it shows. And you still aren't satisfied with the horrid destruction. Good for you and your Tree Committee and righteous attitude.
The board does not appoint members to the board. Never has never will. The governing documents outline how members are to elect trustees. The board follows those guidelines each year. The board is not obligated to do anymore than announce the eligibility and opportunity to seek a board position. Members who are willing to obligate themselves can fill out an application and put their hat in the ring. Why has nobody from this group done so? Thomas Jefferson once said “We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” If you do not participate you have no cause to complain. By the way, frequently commenting on this blog is not participating. Recent history shows the majority of those who participate do not agree with the platform advocated on this blog. Is that a failure on their part or yours?
I just find it fascinating that the boards (past and present) have made a conscience decision to NOT try to communicate more effectively with the membership. Can't help but wonder why that is.
7:37 anonymous, check the rules before you make such a statement! Better yet go back through the minutes and see how many times the board has appointed a member to the board, as they are required to do!
To 6:09:
It was posted on the Facebook page.
It was posted on the official Surfside web page.
Then there is the obvious, elections happen every year.
So the communication is there.
To say that if an email went out in addition to these would get more people to volunteer is only wishful thinking on your part. The majority of people are part timers who spend just a small part of the year here and contrary to what some think are pretty much happy, so why put up with the work and grief from people who like to spend their time complaining?
I dont have a facebook, but I do get the newsletter every Friday.
We have a web page?
Why do they not communicate by email with more members
It's obvious. They don't want to communicate by email. They have no intention if being open and transparent. They need to hide their actions from the members.
Bye bye Gary. You're about to be ousted
That would be great. I hope so. He is rude. He is incompetent. His lean management talk is complete BS and makes no sense for an HOA or a water company. How is that going to happen? I thought people said it couldn't happen because there are four open positions and four candidates.
I am excited to some new names on the election form. I hear there are 8 running as of today.
@1:36, yes we have 8! It's time for new faces and a better environment!
Wow this is great news!
I hope we have 8 choices for the 4 open positions, it is time for the entire community to be represented.
Let’s get rid of the good ole boys club, move on from the Clancy spend, ignore laws, and overall destruction of the community!
All members need to show up and vote at the Annual Meeting, let’s break this Monopoly!
Like you 1:14?
@7:37...explain how Tom Newman, the newest member to join the board was appointed???
Members did not vote him in and he did not run in the last election.
He was appointed by our good old president Gary. A motion was made and seconded.
There are 8 candidates
I agree Doug! We are slowly getting rid of the good old boys bullshit. Our community is tired of the bullies and the destruction. Clancy leaving was a huge step in the right direction.
Was there any open discussion about the need to appoint him to this position? The vacancy was only from March until July. Why the urgency?
If he's been a good old boy, they'll rig the election for him. It's easier to rig a position when it's filled, not vacant. Ask Olds.
There goes Cox again @ 7:37 making the same accusations with no proof, just those little voices in his head.
And give me a break, you have done NOTHING for this community that doesn't involve typing, so don't go criticizing and insulting those "1900 other members". While you don't agree with their views the 2 ladies you mention have at least volunteered their time for our community while all you volunteer is your opinions.
Thas not cox @7:37. He signs his name. And those 2 ladies have helped destroy the stumpville. Those 2 ladies have done nothing but damage and they need to go
Hey Einstein, there are 2 comments @ 7:37, one which is SIGNED by Cox.
You may not agree with them or like them. But it doesn't change the FACT that both have given up their free time for the HOA.
And both have destroyed this place, along with pam
Why would we elect someone to the BOT whoblives full time in Arizona ? That didn't work with Jim Flood. No one should run who can't drive to Surfside in a few hours. That's my opinion.
Because they can't do any worse than what we have now. In fact, it may be better because there would be less chance of micromanagement. You would not have them hanging around the office disrupting their work, like we see now. That's my opinion.
I think these new candidates are just what we need. Maybe the time and micromanaging by the board can be cut down so they can lead a normal life! No one should have to dedicate their lives to making sure the covenants are followed
Although we have our differences in opinions I have to agree with Cox on this one.
And again, if covenants aren't going to be followed, why even have a HOA?
Right...They also don't have to be on a committee. The committee's can make a report and submit it to the Board and if important issues, they can appear at the Board Meeting for more discussion. With modern day communication, we do not need a trustee assigned to any committee. The committee should be able to make their recommendations without Board influence. The Board does not need to micromanage the committee's.
11:57..As I see it, the problem is not following the covenants, the problem is the covenants and how they are enforced. I think most members want covenants that keep a "neat and attractive" community. If it is kept simple, reasonable and fair, they will be followed by most members. The ego power abuse and self interest is destroying our HOA and community. I think a better question is...If you can't have covenants that are fair and beneficial for all members, "why even have a HOA?"
That’s just what I was writing George. Why have covenants that make you feel like you’re being watched every minute and live in a ruined landscape? Of course HOAs have covenants, but not unreasonable ones that don’t include everyone.
I would love to see the tree and lighting covenent removed or at least completely rewritten for fairness of all members. The tree covenent for sure has created animosity amongst members.
People are being fined for having their tree branches laying in their yards. Is this not what happens at the chipper from May-Sept, in the driest part of the year??
Let's start letting the county do their job and let them enforce their rules and regulations.
Most HOA'S dissolve after 20 years. Maybe it's time our HOA dissolved.
Our BOT should be reduced down to 5 trustees.
Committee members should not be related to any BOT, its a conflict of interest and a power trip for many.
Just some of my thoughts on a few issues, if that makes me a trouble maker, so be it.
Why, when we live at the beach, the best place to be, would you be hanging out at the office?? Do these people not have anything else to do?
Ronda.....please add one more covenant modification to your list.
This should have been done at the last board meeting when Tracy clearly stated the problem regarding shed height and pre-built sheds. The board, instead of just fixing the covenant which would have taken 5 minutes, went ahead with the unnecessary variance discussion.
Pre-built sheds are built to Pacific County Code. The code clearly states sheds are to be 10 feet tall from FLOOR to CROWN. Our covenant states from GROUND to CROWN making who knows how many sheds out of "compliance". This is a perfect example of the board and architecture committee making a mountain out a mole hill. For what purpose? Just to harass?
Geeez!! No wonder we're in such a mess.
Laws are changed all the time in this great nation. Some people believe the HOA covenants are set in stone, this is a naive notion. This HOA's covenants need to be revisited in entirety. The people's ability to navigate within the laws of the covenants are impossible to meet and have become obsolete and misinterpreted by the current rulers creating a hostile environment.
Please exercise your right to vote! This can be pleasant place to live.
I think most of us agree with you. This is an example of our HOA not following county codes.
Just common sense you measure from the floor as you cannot put your shed on the ground.
I just have to shake my head someone is concerned about 3 or 4 inches on a 10 ft shed. Building height is at least 16 ft, so what harm is this doing? Yet some of the J pl houses are granted 9 ft variances...hmmmm
When we voted to extend the time for RV's it was for more time than the county allowed. So would you have been against that and wanted it to remain as the county stated?
To the recent shed issue which could be easily fixed. The Committee should put forth that the measurement will be of the building, not the distance from the ground and that the base cannot be more than 6 inches our some other agreed distance.
Many of our policies are outdated and need to be rewritten. County rules and regulations are always changing. As lot owners we always had our RV off by Oct 31. I know it is a pain to not be able to leave it here year round and many of you would like to do so, as so many on the east side are allowed to do. Personally, with the harsh winter weather we have, we would not leave ours year round if we could.
Covenants need to be equal and fair to all. RV's being left year round should be a personal choice, but then again the lowlanders would be an eyesore to all the higher ups.
Lets face it, many of you RV folks have Rv's better than some of the homes in Surfside.
I've heard this refrain several times on this blog. The one about how grateful RVers should be because the Surfside powers allow them to use their property more than the county does.
I decided to look into this claim. I scoured the ordinance and the only actual time frame I could find was related to when a septic system (or receipts from a dump site) is required. If an RV is used more than 7 consecutive days or 30 days in a year a septic system is required or you must be able to show receipts from a dump site.
I could not find a reference as to how days/weeks/months an RV is allowed other than it can NOT be a permanent dwelling for more than a year. So I called the Pacific County Department of Community Development and spoke to a representative to get clarity. This is what I was told over the phone.
The RV can stay on the property as long as you want. It does not need to be removed but it can't be a permanent dwelling. There is no prescribed time frame other than you can't live in it for more than a year. I asked as long as a person is not living there for more than 365 days in a row that is permissible? She said YES. I asked if there is a set amount of days/weeks/months a person can use their RV. She said NO. She also added that the county does not generally police this ordinance. The only time they would get involved is if someone filed a complaint about someone permanently living in an RV.
So take it or leave it. The accuracy of this info is dependent upon the person I spoke to. Obviously HOAs can do whatever they want but, if what I was told is true, maybe we should stop stating our rules are more generous than the county in relation to RV usage.
We allow RVers to use their lot 10 months of the year with the 60-day winter caveat being the RV must be occupied. We also require an HOA permit.
Seems our rules are somewhat in alignment with the county but with more specific delineated usage requirements. Not saying this is good or bad or if it should be changed. Just want to put it in perspective.
Thank you for your informative information without judgement. That is the true intent of this blog. Informed members make for better members. With that, you get the last word on this blog topic. Thanks everyone for good discussions.
Post a Comment