Member requested posting...
If you would like a topic posting, just send me an Email with the topic and content. You do not have to disclose your name. The only requirement is that I know who you are. Differing opinions are welcome. My posting them does not mean that I agree with the posting. I do not edit them. Below is the latest request for posting.
Can we please stop acting like the covenants are the Bible?
It was people (what 50 years ago?) trying to envision how the trees, not yet grown, would grow and how to allow people to still view the ocean. They probably thought that well in the future, they can actually see what happens and amend the covenants.
Fast forward. We can do a 3D map of what trees, where, and at what height will actually obstruct someone’s view. OR continue complaint driven compliance. OR hire a tree police and punish everyone we possibly can, because we had to wait to get our complete view.
Our 2019 board led by a lazy incompetent president picked the last choice brought to him by the chair of tree committee and the trustees serving on tree committee. Treat the tree covenants like they were written by a holy all seeing god and make EVERYONE, even when it Made no sense, to cut their trees and spend their money because we are in charge and we can.
Absolutely no thought except appeasing themselves. No empathy for anyone in the middle of a pandemic, and no less, as secretly as possible. Get rid of these self serving people. One computer program, and one 3D model. Thousands saved and we could have called it, but pompous idiots were running the HOA and still are... VOTE
19 comments:
This comment is offensive two many of us who do our very best to follow the covenants. Most of us are good citizens who take the responsibilities that we agreed to seriously.
The tree issue is a problem no doubt. So yes we must VOTE.
But the much bigger issue facing us right now is the fact that a decision was made to LIMIT the votes of the members.
According to postings on this blog, a decision was made to allow only 3 votes per member when we have 4 openings and 7 candidates.
?Does anyone know for fact that this is true?
?If it is true, who made the decision and what is the justification?
Google uo " Is topping Shore Pine harmful" by Arbor Care and you will get your
answers, it's had to dispute the experts.
Annette is campaigning! Peggy and Annette working at the chipping site and telling members not to vote for Ronda! Because she wants to dissolve the HOA. 😂. Not a bad idea, but actively campaigning while you are volunteering? I hope this whole election gets thrown out.
I have read the rules concerning that partial time seat and I cannot see any reference to their method. It clearly says “ in the regular method”. Which to us means voting in the regular way ie: cast a vote!
@10:11, every comment every action is offensive to someone somehow. Get over it, it's today's society
Has anyone really read our articles of incorporation??
50 years of mismanaging our money, foolish spending.
Where is our clubhouse, our tennis court amongst many many other things mentioned we were to budget for and put in.
Did you know we do not have a deputy assigned to surfside? We are part of pacific county, they have to respond. Get rid of clancys 1/2 million dollar crap and put that money towards our clubhouse, something for everyone!
This is what Ronda is about...everyone, not just whats best for a few.
How obtuse can a person be to promote a BOT that sent the letter to those who are at the chipper to dump their tree debris!
Unbelievably ridiculously thick!
VOTE 4 Ronda!
This election seems to be more about who we don't elect, rather than who we do. The members need to send a clear message to all. The old way of doing things is over. Williams, deLeest and Scott represent the old failed ways. We need Trustees who have an open mind and respectfully listen to the members.
I called the office to arrange pickup of my ballot as we travel and would be in Surfside next week, in the Weekender it was stated they would go out Thursday. I was told they went out this morning.
HMMMM, this seems like someone decided to rush them out! I was told they had to be out 30 days prior to the meeting, I could swear I saw they needed mailed 20 days prior.
On a different note: I asked about picking up a key to access the RV dump site thru the storage gate since if I pulled into the Compactor Site to dump I would block the exit. It is free to members to dump their RV and didn’t want to block the exit and really make people mad, most seem really angry just being there.
I was told I could rent a key yearly to access the dump for $100, again HMMMM! I can dump for free in Compactor but if I want to not inconvenience other members it costs me $100.
A solution might be for the compactor attendant to just open the gate and then lock it back up when you are done. This would solve the problem of blocking the compactor site for people who just want to use the waste water dumping area. Of course you would have to go there during normal operating hours. Just a suggestion. Don't think you should have to pay $100 extra for something that is included in your annual dues.
Compactor attendant does not have a key to the drive thru gate, only the walk gate out of the compactor site. This is according to the attendants. No problem going during normal hours and agree the members shouldn’t have to pay more for what is included in their dues.
Our Bylaws clearly state that any vacancies on the BOT are to be filled by appointment (of majority vote of Trustees), and all appointments last only until the next Election is held. At that point, they may file as candidates in the election to retain a position.
We have a nine member Board that can function legally with only 3 members if the members reduce the Board's size, or resignations reduce the number of occupied seats. So we could see needing other allowances in a pinch, but the Board really has no authority to invent Bylaws (voting criteria) at will, something Olds, Minich, Turner, Neptune, Williams and the new appointee all are unwilling to acknowledge.
There are 4 vacancies, requiring members to cast FOUR votes. Any departure from this is a serious violation of our Bylaws, State Laws, and public trust.
Totally agree Steve. Apparently the ballots were mailed out and members instructed to vote for 3 instead of 4? Wouldn't that invalidate the election? Still not understanding the rationale for casting only 3 votes when there are 4 vacancies.
Olds is next in line to go, thank you Lord Jesus! Go sit on your deck and enjoy your view.
We should reduce the size of the board, too.many puffed out chests now.
We should only choose from those who apply. Any appointees are no longer needed and should vacate after election!
Otherwise, I would expect BOT members to motion accordingly to remove non-applicant appointees after election and seat only those duly elected.
Members need to protest this incorrect ballot LOUD AND CLEAR. Thisis NOT an accident ! This INTENTIONAL ! there has been a lot of conversation on the blog critical of the seated Board and in particular, long term candidates and J Place control freaks.
These folks have had a long time to steamroll the rest of the community, and the total destruction of trees in the community. Now comes the Lighting Control covenant which grants full authority to the Board to demand light fixture replacements at will, and the "Neat'n Tidy covenant is in the wings. This is ultra-intrusive nonsense and needs to be stopped.
They have plans for the rest of us that we definitely don't want. But the Board is refusing to allow members to have a greater voice in these decisions, and have blocked our proposal for a Bylaw change, which would require a vote of the members at a Hearing Review, in order to approve/disapprove of covenant creation or changes.
We have legally and properly proposed a member vote on a Bylaw change, and the Board's attorney has brought baseless objections and delays into the mix. We will pursue this further in the next term.
But this ballot prevents about 300 votes being cast in the election. About 300 member household will vote in the election, and this incorrect ballot will allow only 900 votes to be cast for 3 positions instead of 1200. That is a BIG difference, and an intentional effort to leave one position to be appointed. members need to STOP THIS ! This is a form of deceit and cheating the members.
Couldn’t agree more Steve! Especially since in 2017 there were 8 candidates and we were able to vote on 4 seats. One of them being Deb Blagg getting the one year term.
2018 3 seats. 3 candidates 3 votes
2019 no minutes on the website
2020 4 vacancies 3 votes. So Gary Williams got the one year term which was actually from Chris Chandlers seat remaining open instead of the board making a replacement as the rules say they shall
So why the flip flops on the rules? I truly don’t understand nor of course do I agree to this action
Why would anyone trust the veracity of the selection? Same Crooks doing the same stuff, year after year. Now they can't do simple arithmetic, heading to 4.
The lawyer is in their pocket, and has made several recommendations of very questionable quality. They will support only those who are cutting the checks.
Got my "first" voter packet this past weekend. Other than Ronda C., who do you pick? From what I read, I wouldn't pick any of the others. Not trying to be inflammatory, but none of the other candidate's statements struck me as anything other than they represent the status quo. I've owned property in Surfside since 1998, but live in another state, so it's hard to stay on top of things. Thanks-
Post a Comment