ADDITIONAL CANDIDATE STATEMENT...
This is my introduction to the members.
Hi! My name is Larry Raymer. I am running for a board of trustees position for the Surfside Home Owners Association. My qualifications are 15 continuous years on the association committees. I have been on eight committees and still active on four of them, cochair on one. I served one three year term as a board member for Surfside and am presently a member of the Pacific County Flood Control Board.
I am a past board member of Rebuilding Together Pacific County where I participated in trainings with other RT boards from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. I attended training put on by the Secretary of State, explaining the fiscal responsibility of the Boards of Non Profits. I understand county operations and have a very good understanding of how the rules and regulations are supposed to work for Surfside.
I feel that Surfside needs to be brought into the 21st century and taken out of the dark ages. We need to stop unnecessary spending, we need to stop committee chair and board members from violating our covenants, county, state, and federal law. We have been in a steady downhill slide for the past few years. This is creating problems for the entire community. We need to be much more transparent and communicate much better than we have been. I know through my activities with the county and other activities throughout the community communications can be well done. Here in Surfside they have been poorly done and, in some cases, totally lost. I have had members come to me more than once asking me about some program or something that has been said. It is time to make improvements. It is important to make access to documents easier.
We need to review all Surfside documents to be sure that they comply with all current laws. If changes are needed, the entire membership should vote to accept or decline.
The current method of counting absentee ballots needs to change. It is currently designed to allow the board to choose themselves, a clear conflict of interest. Those who are voting proxies should be chosen at random from members attending the annual meeting rather than assigned to board members.
By law we need to treat all members equally. We all pay the same dues and assessments. I know the difference between dues and assessments. Do you?
I would appreciate your vote. I am sure that John Curran, Rhonda Christoph, and Cory Azon Harms would also appreciate your votes.
37 comments:
Looking forward to working with you Larry. Let's turn this place around for the better of all members.
During his last year or so on the board Larry would abstain when it came to important votes. Back when the Tech Comm was shut down he voted for it to be. He also filed complaints against a neighbor due to his messy property because it harmed his view. If he would had been living on J and not the east side you all would be going crazy and calling him names, so please help me understand why you want him elected and why I should vote for him?
Btw, there were at least 2 board members from J who voted to KEEP the precious Tech Comm and one current board member who did a majority of the work on it, but of course they get no credit for doing so.
But you all hated Deb Blagg when she was the one trying to get the tech committee going. You were all afraid of change and new people.
Oh and how many of you voted in the stupid water trailer....spend spend spend on useless crap
Larry can you answer one question. Are you in support of the tree covenant?
I generally like Larry and wish him well as a candidate for the board. Larry is a nice guy who wants to get along with everyone. That is what I like best about Larry and what concerns me most about Larry. Nice guys do not fair well in this age of conflict and uncompromising bullheadedness. Why do it Larry? No matter who is elected the board will continue to be treated with no respect and you do not need that at this point in your life. I wish you well in whatever you decide to do. Just keep in mind, you don’t owe anybody anything.
9:05 The question should be, Do you favor following the rules and regulations, even if you do not agree with them? Am sure his answer would be yes and that is what he has done for many years. The rules should apply to everyone and be applied and enforced in a fair way. When on the tree committee he worked with the members, not against them. He always gave the time and additional time if members needed to comply. He never ever told anyone to "cut down a tree" From my conversations with him, it is clear that he opposes the tree covenants. He lives in an area where he does not have tree covenants that apply to him in any way. Yet he is concerned about those who do. He favors a complete review of all covenants. He favors following the rules and regulations by all, especially the board of trustees. He will bring fairness and stability to the board. He has no special interest.
A few things that you may not know about Larry. He won't say them himself because he is not a bragger. He quietly works for others not wanting any recognition for himself. He and his wife have been for years, a regular contributor to the local food bank. They both work with Rotary, donating time and money for many good causes that help others. As a mother and father, they have had to bare unspeakable tragedy in their lives. Yet they continue to focus on others. He is respected by the County for his common sense approach to flooding issues. In all things, he searches for solutions, not finger pointing. With Larry on the board and if we are lucky, the next board president, he will bring out the best in all of us and we will find ourselves once again working together as a caring community.
Larry, would you be open to at least consider modifying the current tree covenant as it is a hot button issue?
"Deputy Bob". I have advised Larry and all the candidates, to NOT answer questions posed by non-named comments. Deputy Bob does not identify you. While your question seems valid, how many will be opposition members trying to cast a shadow on the candidate? The Board has provided a venue where identified members can submit questions to the candidates. That is what you should have done. That all being said, the candidates can do whatever they want, regardless of my advice.
Larry and any others can speak for themselves, however, my experience with Larry is..He will act in the benefit for all members and follow the will of the majority. You can expect fair consideration from him on all issues. That can not be said for many others.
Larry is one of the most knowledgeable elder members that we have, and a very honest and fair man. We are lucky to have him offering once again to serve on the Board of Trustees. He has never been a sell out which has been a sore point with the royals who thumb their noses at the members and the members wishes.
Vote for Larry and the new volunteers whose intentions are more focused on everyone's happiness, than regulating the "minions", as the righteous ones (Olds, deLeest, Williams, Minich) see it. We need good honest people who do not seek to "rule", just administer.
George, ty & no shade here - I support Larry, John, Rhonda & Cori and agree with you. I also agree with Mr. Cox that OLDS, DELEEST, WILLIAMS & MINICH may be fine people but new representation is necessary.
Oh and one final comment. Gary William’s amount of signs around his property self promoting is ridiculous & shrieks of desperation. Keep Shucking Gary
Just a clarification to your comment Deputy, no where did Cox call them "fine people". In fact he says the contrary every chance he gets, usually in a rude fashion.
How do you know that all members want the change you are expecting to achieve? Are you willing to keep current policies if, once elected, you discover most members are happy with current policies? I know you are convinced that the majority of members are unhappy but you have a very limited perspective. It could be only a small number of members are unhappy. If that is the case, will you fight to change certain covenants or policies even if the majority of members do not want the change?
You see the problem here ? The very word "change" makes this person quake with fear. New trustees with a different outlook is just a reboot. No real need for major changes, once the Tree Cutting is stopped. Presto! A happier community that doesn'f piss away 10s of thousands of dollars annually on attorney fees.
I was driving on I place yesterday and thought all those signs made surfside look trashy
How did you read “quake with fear” in those questions. I happen to like the tree height covenant and I do not live on J. One of your complaints about the current board is that they are out of touch with the membership. I do not fear change, I fear radical unpopular change.
How much do you want to spend on signs?
Exactly @6:45. Notice your question wasn't answered. Mr. Cox is so sure he speaks for all he cannot accept the possibility his position may be the minority. Some of these candidates state they want what is best for all members. How will they determine that and if it doesn't align with their stated positions will they support it?
@6:46, let them spend hundreds of dollars of their own money. It's an ego thing!
@7:58, change is needed to get member participation. How this will happen, I do not have an answer, but this community needs to work together
7:58.... I presume the question is posed to Larry, George and I, and whoever else mentions "changes are needed". Around 1500 homes west of the ridge are burdened by the tree policy, though by now, most have cut their trees down because they have died. Trees that have been topped a few or more times, will NEVER reach significant heights. The species tends to grow only about 25 to 30 feet tall if uncut.
But there's simply no rational excuse to continue this policy. It has been a fallacy from the start that trees 1 to 3 blocks away interfere with J Place views. The community is a disaster landscape-wise, and that is just a fact. No one believes that everyone is opposed to the Tree Policy, but what we do know is that it has run its' course. No more cutting is necessary - ever.
Trees need to be seen as private property, which they customarily are in most cities and towns. This policy has impacted all of our property values, in that the community looks naked and ugly, as a result of the policy having gone wild the last 2 to 3 years. Stepped-up pressure to cut was approved by the Board and Committee, and we now see many properties cutting every tree down to the ground.
Tens of thousands of dollars are wasted annually on this mandatory tree topping, and tens of thousands of dollars are spent on legal intervention, sending warning notices, etc. If you don't live on J Place, then your reasons for liking the policy are flaky. The trees don't blow down and damage homes, etc., they are too tenacious.
The documented benefits of having a lot of trees is well established, and those who ignore that have selfish reasons for ignoring global warming, and the key role trees fight pollution, provide vast amounts of Oxygen, help create wind breaks, create animal habitat, help other small plants get established, and stabilize the soil. They absorb massive amounts of water as well, helping to minimize flood damage.
On another tangent, your current BOT tries to ignore member rights, manipulate elections, and make false statements in the Newsletters. Honesty and transparency isn't that difficult to achieve, if the candidate is honest and candid. We aren't the Manhattan Project.
Change IS needed.
The following is a direct copy from the Surfside Covenants. l I believe that all of the signs for Gary Williams are a violation of our covenants. Political issue and candidate signs would definitely NOT include signs for a non political candidate like Gary Williams. I am so fed up with him and his dirty tricks. This man should be chased out of Surfside as soon as possible. He is not a fair or decent minded human being. He always looks for the angles to serve himself or his cronies.
2.8 Signs of an advertising nature of any character shall not be posted or
maintained on any residential platted parcel except to advertise the sale or
lease of a platted parcel. Political issue and candidate signs are permitted
on a temporary basis consistent with state and local regulations. Garage,
yard, and estate sale signs may be erected not more than 3 days prior to
the sale and must be removed within 2 days following the sale.
Commercial signs, except those erected during a construction project,
must be approved by the Board. Signs other than commercial and
construction signs may not exceed 600 square inches each.
Steve - you are dead right. Change is needed badly here.
Our board has been held hostage for close to a decade now by Williams and his clan. Time for that to end.
I understand some of you do not like the tree height covenants. What I don’t understand is how you can believe all 1500 of those members feel burdened by them. Have you discussed it with all of them or any of them? I must admit I have only talked to a few of my neighbors about the tree covenant. Of the ones I have talked to they are not as worked up about them as you are. Shore pines are a messy tree. They shed needles like crazy and they drop pitch on everything beneath them. If I had my way, I get rid of all of them, as I have done on my property. How do you presume to know what is best for me or what burdens me? Many of our neighbors keep their pines trimmed so that they stay short, attractive, and not a nuisance. Most of the tree compliance complaints are written for trees on vacant lots. The only tree butcher jobs I have seen are on vacant lots by absent members. They get a compliance letter so they come to Surfside for the day and turn their lot into an ugly eyesore for us full timers to enjoy. I don’t know about the rest of you, but that upsets me and makes me want to create a new covenant that prohibits that kind of vindictive behavior. Change is the only constant in the universe. I do no fear or resent change. I do not take these kinds of things personally. After reading a good number of your comments on this blog I am convinced many of you have allowed your emotions to control your thinking. Good judgement begins at the house of God or if you are not a Christian, it begins with humility and empathy.
How many trees do you have on your property?
Amen @5:34
I have no trees on my property and this place looks like hell, otherwise now known as stumpville
Thank you 5:34 & 6:45 for your comments.
To 6:45: Like you I don't live on J and also for the tree covenant and in fact that is one of the reasons we bought here. Yet my neighbors and I have compliant trees on our properties, not stumps. I also agree with your "quake with fear" comment which is a ridiculous notion at the least.
I always find it interesting when certain people say the board is out of touch when a good portion of those who get elected actually spend time out in the community talking with members and listening to their issues.
Compare that to candidates like Cox. Other than making comments on here he has spent no time conversing with the membership except with those on here, yet keeps making unproven claims that he speaks for the majority. Even when he lost he couldn't find the time to stop by the picnic after the annual meeting to talk with members, something even Flood did.
While I didn't agree with the man I have to give Patrick credit for getting out there to talk with the membership when he was promoting his candidates. But what should also be noted that even with all his campaigning he only was able to get one elected to a one year position that shouldn't have been there in the first place. If the "majority" of members wanted change, then why didn't his people get elected.
1125 - Patrick was forced out for not going with the party line.
Your wonderful, caring organization usually runs by bullying and intimidation. How are those good Christian values?
Flood was only the first of several board members that looked me in the eye and lied to my face. Compared to him, and the rest of the clowns, Cox is the saint.
Funny how someone who doesn't live on J place would support the tree covenants. Where's your self interest?
Of course Mr. Cox has not served as a Trustee. It hard to compare between the actions of a Trustee and the words of a blogger. Maybe after Mr. Cox serves as a Trustee we will have a record on which to judge him as well.
you and others kept telling everyone if you don't like it you shouldn't have bought a house here-then they get told year after year, do this, don't do that, you must, we will fine you, and IF you don't like it, MOVE.
guess what, they moved and now here WE are, new and improved, ready to try. the turnover is astounding in this HOA. trust me, I know because I'm watching for somewhere else to be and the only houses for sale are in surfside which is off the list of desirability for me.
there's your answer-at this point, it's cheaper and easier to try and defeat the corruption. in the meantime, my search continues.............
I know it is hard for some people to believe but not everyone is motivated entirely on self interests. As an example, most people drive at the speed limit to avoid a ticket. The is action based on self interest. Some drivers, albeit few, dive at the speed limit because it makes for safer roads. That kind of thinking and behavior is altruism. Some people are actually convinced the world or at least the neighborhood, would be a better place if more of us were altruistic and less of us were selfish. Don’t get me wrong, I am happier with fewer tall messy trees on my property but I am also happy to accommodate my neighbors desire for an unobstructed view as well.
I recently visited my childhood home. When we moved there in 1978, it was a new subdivision out in the middle of farmland. I took my dog for a walk through the neighborhood and was astonished and amazed at the landscape. Everything was lush, green, blooming and the trees! It was amazing and beautiful to walk down sidewalks with trees as tall as they are meant to be by God and nature. I was awestruck at the peace and tranquility existing in this once barren loud neighborhood.
You see, how can SS ever look or feel like this? It can't because there's some ridiculous rule where if you plant a tree, be prepared to butcher the hell out of it because we don't really care about mother nature, we just want a view, a view we believe we are entitled too but are NOT.
These rules were developed by capitalist. People who developed this land and were looking to make the most money possible by 'planting' the idea this is a real. It's time to stop this nonsense and let God and nature take it's course. Focus on the real issues here, lack of peace and tranquility.
At the risk of stating the obvious, there is a controversy on this blog related to the long-standing height restriction covenants. I do not hear much about this controversy outside of this blog but it may be more widespread. Regardless, this controversy is very real to some members while others remain oblivious to the controversy. Some contend there are just a few malcontents pushing an agenda of their own devoid of wide support. Others contend that a majority of members are fed up with the covenant and want it changed, or that the outdated covenant needs to be change to benefit the membership whether they realize it or not. If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude.
11:25 & 12:00....I'm not a candidate so why are you making such a reference ? If you are paying attention, I wrote and presented a proposal to change a Bylaw, a right of members that need not be approved by the BOT. The proposal was to hold a vote of the members on the proposal which if approved, would require the members be sent proxies to vote in approval/disapproval of Board initiated covenant changes. As it is, members really have no influence in the matter.Read the Bylaws and Covenants and you will find, that "a member hearing must be held to allow members to voice their opinions".
Members rejected the worthless lighting covenant change proposed Jan 2019, and this change is worse, granting the HOA full authority to demand members change exterior fixtures at anytime. And more with the "lights must point downward."
This is not the Board's business. Individual circumstances can easily be negotiated by the HOA when overly bright lights disturb neighbors.
We have a lot of elderly owners, some handicapped members, and children who can be at risk without safe lighting. We often have foggy conditions, members or guests arriving after dark. Safety is critical to our use of private property, and most folks shut exterior lights off if not needed.
The first Board effort was based on a lie that there were over 50 lighting complaints. When B manager Reber was confronted about this lie, he said there had been FIVE lighting complaints in a year. That's where it has been as an issue for years.
Asked again why the proposed change, Williams said "there's been a lot of complants". Reject this intrusion on our personal choices.
1213 - large amounts of evidence speak to the contrary. Sounds to me like a J Placer trying to pimp the party line.
How do you support a Board that can't even set up a Zoom call?
Post a Comment