This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Friday, May 18, 2018
How many trees have you killed today?
Where have all the trees gone?
To the chipping site.
25 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I've noticed along the eastside of G Street by the canal, in a few places, Vine Maples that have been topped. What remains are 8 to 10 ft. sticks like short flagpoles. These trees have minimal foliage which turns bright red in Fall and drop, and grow no more than 20 to 25 ft. high.
If they survive the pointless cutting, they will grow tight balls of tiny foliage, making them look like something out of a Dr. Seuss book. They will struggle to recover, but become much more like bushes, with solid foliage where it would have been modest and graceful, and last only about 7 months. These are a native species, and should have been spared this whack-job.
if all of the trees were allowed to grow freely, there would be no room for people, structures or rvs in surfside. i pull out and discard hundreds of baby trees each year as i tend to my yard and gardening. there is no lack of trees in surfside.
Did anyone suggest that every seedling be allowed to grow freely ? No, no one has suggested such a thing, nor have I ever heard of that being a problem anywhere. Objections to the enforced policy have nothing to do with "tree hugging" or concern for the "feelings" of plants. You are in la-la land.
There are no views to protect, practically speaking, and the policy is outdated and useless to the community. The Maples described are now ruined, where they would have been beautiful, adding to the views and not an interference. Half of the year they have no leaves, and the trees have very few large branches if left to grow naturally.
How can you seriously say there are no views to protect. That doesn't make sense. Go up north and continue looking NW past the boundary were there is unlimited growth and you can't even see the horizon. That's what people want to avoid.
4:05, Do you have the same complaint over the 24 foot houses that line the dunes? The 16 foot line could easily go to 24ft without hindering any of your perceived “view”.
6:23 ....Trees aren't going to grow where structures and parking areas are established. Owners aren't going to allow seedlings to grow where they don't want trees. Development is ongoing, with many undeveloped properties having trees removed to build structures, parking and yards.
The main obstruction of views at this point are houses that comply with the height standards for building, and are allowed minimal spacing between structures.
Sorry 4:59, you're just being silly now. Don't have a problem with the houses. Don't have a problem if an owner lets their trees grow to the level of the top of the house either. It's those that want and/or let them grow higher that's the issue.
Still don't understand why you say perceived or feel the need to put view in quotes. A view is view. If you are talking about the actual beach then you misunderstand me. I'm talking about the ocean and horizon which is why I used the northern area as an example.
To 6:23. The problem is that this isn't a full residential area where trees are spaced. There are many examples that are basically mini forest lots. Now if you would to promote a limit to how many trees you could have on a lot we can talk, but you know as well as I that would never happen.
If you live on the ridge, the ground level is already about 25 to 35 feet above sea level. If you live on the eastside of J pl., you have no height limit on your home. Shorepines do not grow tall enough to interfere with these views. The only views protected are J pl. views. All of the height restrictions are based on J pl. vantage point.
Once the Pines are topped (once or more), they will not grow over about 20 feet. The tree sends out several shoots from the trimmed branches and becomes more bushy.
10:42 you are so stupid, if you don’t mind the 24 foot trees and houses (I said nothing about going higher) what the hell do you have against the 16 foot limitation that is to the east of G. Just a stupid power trip.
Most issues are with this board. Power trips seemed to be a favorite of theirs. The only way to fix this is to vote. Please consider that when your ballots arrive.
This assumes an honest election, which is highly questionable.
I happen to be one of the members that didnt recieve ballots two seperate times. No change of address and one of the first to pay dues in full. I might add, that i have been quite outspoken about the corruption of SHOA. HMMMMMM!any coincidence you suppose? HONEST ELECTION?
Why wasn't it called the kill tree committee when George was on it? They measured all incoming complaints just like the current committee. Larry Raymer went out and measured to verify the complaints but no one called him a tree nazi. Why the double standard? Why the hypocrisy?
Drive by the disaster on I st which happened during the Larry George rein and then tell me again how great it was.
And as far as working with members, do you actually read the minutes from the committee? There are plenty examples of them doing so included letting people drag out the process in becoming compliant.
So the real reason for all the Nazi talk is obvious.
25 comments:
I've noticed along the eastside of G Street by the canal, in a few places, Vine Maples that have been topped. What remains are 8 to 10 ft. sticks like short flagpoles. These trees have minimal foliage which turns bright red in Fall and drop, and grow no more than 20 to 25 ft. high.
If they survive the pointless cutting, they will grow tight balls of tiny foliage, making them look like something out of a Dr. Seuss book. They will struggle to recover, but become much more like bushes, with solid foliage where it would have been modest and graceful, and last only about 7 months. These are a native species, and should have been spared this whack-job.
if all of the trees were allowed to grow freely, there would be no room for people, structures or rvs in surfside. i pull out and discard hundreds of baby trees each year as i tend to my yard and gardening. there is no lack of trees in surfside.
Did anyone suggest that every seedling be allowed to grow freely ? No, no one has suggested such a thing, nor have I ever heard of that being a problem anywhere. Objections to the enforced policy have nothing to do with "tree hugging" or concern for the "feelings" of plants. You are in la-la land.
There are no views to protect, practically speaking, and the policy is outdated and useless to the community. The Maples described are now ruined, where they would have been beautiful, adding to the views and not an interference. Half of the year they have no leaves, and the trees have very few large branches if left to grow naturally.
How can you seriously say there are no views to protect. That doesn't make sense. Go up north and continue looking NW past the boundary were there is unlimited growth and you can't even see the horizon. That's what people want to avoid.
4:05, Do you have the same complaint over the 24 foot houses that line the dunes? The 16 foot line could easily go to 24ft without hindering any of your perceived “view”.
Like to point out also, that even if trees are tall, they will always be spaced. People live down there ya know,lol
6:23 The space is between your ears. What the hell are you trying to say?
Seems pretty obvious, at least to an open mind.
6:23 ....Trees aren't going to grow where structures and parking areas are established. Owners aren't going to allow seedlings to grow where they don't want trees. Development is ongoing, with many undeveloped properties having trees removed to build structures, parking and yards.
The main obstruction of views at this point are houses that comply with the height standards for building, and are allowed minimal spacing between structures.
Sorry 4:59, you're just being silly now. Don't have a problem with the houses. Don't have a problem if an owner lets their trees grow to the level of the top of the house either. It's those that want and/or let them grow higher that's the issue.
Still don't understand why you say perceived or feel the need to put view in quotes. A view is view. If you are talking about the actual beach then you misunderstand me. I'm talking about the ocean and horizon which is why I used the northern area as an example.
To 6:23. The problem is that this isn't a full residential area where trees are spaced. There are many examples that are basically mini forest lots. Now if you would to promote a limit to how many trees you could have on a lot we can talk, but you know as well as I that would never happen.
If you live on the ridge, the ground level is already about 25 to 35 feet above sea level. If you live on the eastside of J pl., you have no height limit on your home. Shorepines do not grow tall enough to interfere with these views. The only views protected are J pl. views. All of the height restrictions are based on J pl. vantage point.
Once the Pines are topped (once or more), they will not grow over about 20 feet. The tree sends out several shoots from the trimmed branches and becomes more bushy.
Your concerns are baseless.
10:42 you are so stupid, if you don’t mind the 24 foot trees and houses (I said nothing about going higher) what the hell do you have against the 16 foot limitation that is to the east of G. Just a stupid power trip.
Most issues are with this board. Power trips seemed to be a favorite of theirs.
The only way to fix this is to vote. Please consider that when your ballots arrive.
This assumes an honest election, which is highly questionable.
I happen to be one of the members that didnt recieve ballots two seperate times. No change of address and one of the first to pay dues in full. I might add, that i have been quite outspoken about the corruption of SHOA. HMMMMMM!any coincidence you suppose? HONEST ELECTION?
I would appreciate a heads-up when I should expect a ballot in the mail. I want to follow up on that if it does not arrive ---with my attorney.
Well, you're just as stupid to believe people will keep it at 24 ft. Nice brave talk though anonymous, I'll give you that.
Why wasn't it called the kill tree committee when George was on it? They measured all incoming complaints just like the current committee. Larry Raymer went out and measured to verify the complaints but no one called him a tree nazi. Why the double standard? Why the hypocrisy?
Because they worked with the members and no one on the committee wrote complaints.
How do you know they write complaints? How do you know they don't work with members?
How do you know they don't?
I asked them! They are our fellow members and neighbors, you can actually talk to them!
Thanks 10:17 for saying what I have been thinking.
Drive by the disaster on I st which happened during the Larry George rein and then tell me again how great it was.
And as far as working with members, do you actually read the minutes from the committee? There are plenty examples of them doing so included letting people drag out the process in becoming compliant.
So the real reason for all the Nazi talk is obvious.
No hypocrisy. Just a reflection on the inadequate job this board is doing to support its members.
You act like one, and you get pegged as such.
Post a Comment