The "good, bad and ugly".....Like them or not, we got them.
I keep seeing comments about the majority of members, this and that, or are for this and that.
About the only thing we know about the majority is, they don't vote and they don't live here full time. Even that is often interrupted to mean they don't care or everything must be ok with them.
Keep this in mind when you see false comments that make majority claims. The only way we really know what the majority of members think and feel is with more participation and votes.
Covenants:
Yes, we got them. All HOA's have.
They are called restrictive covenants for a reason. They spell out what you can not do, not what you can do.
The covenants in Surfside are vague by design, not because the founders and previous Boards were ignorant, but because they did not want the covenants to be so restrictive, no one would buy property here. Over the last 50 years, modifications and new covenants have been made due to differing issues that developed. Review, modifications and change are healthy as long as they represent the will of the members.
The proposal for a majority vote of members (who vote) on any covenant change is positive. This allows all members to participate in an important issue. If they don't vote, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Enforcement:
A covenant is only as good as it's enforcement.
To do enforcement that is effective will require money to hire an enforcement officer that is pro-active. That officer would have to enforce all covenants. This is where the real problem is...
As I stated, the covenants are so poorly written and non specific, they are in their present state, un-enforceable.
Before any pro-active position can be considered, there must be a review and revision of the existing covenants. Example is the covenant that states "neat and attractive". Are we going to enforce that every property will have an address posted on the street?
Opposition:
There are those who want the covenants to remain the same. They fear that a review and vote would eliminate or modify a present covenant they favor. They also favor a pro-active covenant compliance officer for further enforcement of only the existing covenants.
The bottom line is:
In my opinion, from members I have talked with and statements I have witnessed, many prefer to just be left alone. The main issue seems to be to keep our community looking nice and not allowing trash and run down property, homes, RV's, and cabins.
We, as an association, have failed to even provide the above. Maybe, that's what the "majority" want, but we won't really know until the members speak. They deserve to be heard and have the right to vote. I favor a review and revision presented to the members for a vote.
I may be wrong, but this is my opinion. What's yours?
101 comments:
Leave the covenants as they are
Covenants need to reviewed by a non partial group from out of Surfside. Suggestions are made and this committee reviews the relevance for changes. No one from SHOA is allowed to have any day! Fair to all of u? If not, why the heck not!!!
Because this HOA belongs to the members. They will decide on the covenants, not some outside group.
Hmmmmm, thinking, thinking --- I think a mix of Surfside members and community leaders on the peninsula could populate a committee that could achieve reasonable and fair revisions in the covenants. The Surfside membership has been besieged by some divisive and manipulative members who want changes that fulfill their personal and self serving goals. What is needed is a level headed, common sense, free of personal agendas committee to hammer out some covenant revision proposals to be reviewed by the board and legal counsel prior to being put before the general membership for a vote.
What is needed is electronic voting. Without that, you whistling in the wind.
The only change I would like is online voting and an outside covenants enforcers.
The current voting system is antiquated.
Neighbors should never be pitted against each other. No harmony.
2:38 I could lean towards your thoughts. A combination of panel members that would review outdated covenants in SHOA. Why would any one in their right mind argue that? Can’t wait to hear K’s sarcastic comeback!
We already heard from his type up top. "Leave the covenants the way they are". Ignore the fact that they were written a half century ago, as long as they support your interests.
Isn't it interesting that the people who denigrate people out here for pursuing self interests are indeed the largest proponents of their own self interests?
Those who bought their property because they agreed with and supported the covenants are the majority. Those who bought their property with the idea that they would change the covenants to suit themselves are the minority. The first group, the majority, are the substance of a homeowner's association who cooperate to make the HOA survive and thrive. The majority may consider changes if those changes truly reflect the wants and needs of the majority. The second group, the minority, are the troublemakers who stir up crap to achieve changes that serve their self interests without any regard for the overall benefit of the entire association.
There is nothing noble or respected about those who buy into Surfside with the idea that they will change things to suit themselves. They are self serving troublemakers with no regard for the investments and peace of others.
It is interesting that these troublemakers who want to change the covenants will say anything in an attempt to give themselves credibility and integrity. The bottom line is that they have little credibility and integrity. It is all about snotty brats having their way.
Dear 9:41,
Spare us your BS. It isn't working.
Same three comments two minutes apart. Sure sounds like majority to me.lol
941, I posted the 1219 comment. I was only voicing my opinion not trying to "denigrate people" I'm thinking you must have been looking in the mirror when you posted? and I'm not sure degenerate is the proper word for what you intended.
Also, I agree with 1058
Amen to 10:58
Laws change from time to time. I was born into a country where any use of marijuana was illegal. Now, marijuana use is legal. How did that happen? If Washingtonians wanted legal pot they could have moved to Denmark or Colorado. Why did they have to change the society they were born into? So what is my point? Societal change happens. When societal change happens so do the laws, or in our case covenants. There was a small very determined group in the 1960’s who advocated for the legalization of marijuana. They were unsuccessful at that time. Why, because society was not yet ready to legalize pot. As time went on the small group began to grow and become more organized and professional and their improved efforts began to change hearts and minds regarding legalizing marijuana. Statistics show that the majority of Wahingtonians do not use marijuana, and yet, a majority favored its legalization. Effecting change can be compared to delivering a baby. The mother can push hard, nevertheless, until the baby is in position it will not be born. Don’t give up on your baby and don’t let the birth pangs cause you to do and say things you may regret.
so 6:42 you are confirming that the very small minority is trying to change the covenants that the rest of us are not wanting to change. Continue your pushing and panging while the majority enjoys the beach.
The trend in Surfside is toward more lots being developed with permanent home structures. The number of full year or most of the year residents is increasing with many retirees and some local working families. Most RV users are actually using their lots very little if at all. The trouble making, self serving, change advocates are a minority that will continue to dwindle. Surfside is not the ideal place for RV vacationing with months of harsh weather and other months with lots of dreary, coastal weather. 6:42's dreams of change are not based in reality.
For all of you "lets not change the covenants" and "you should have known when you moved here folks", I have one for you. There is a house on 319th and J Place that does not meet the covenant criteria of "neat and tidy". There has been a large piece of black plastic strewn about in the front yard for over a year. It is held down by some rotted sandbags that have fallen to better times. There is also a utility trailer chained to the front porch. I have tried through the association to file a complaint, but it always comes back "we have no defiintion of neat and tidy, therefore the complaint is dismissed". Drive by and see if it is neat and tidy you bearers of compliance and see for yourself. Oh by the way, the house happens to be owned by a Board Member. Coincidence about the dismissals?
No coincidence at all. If deb or pat’s place looked like that! Be a dif story. Seems some board members do not set any better example than the Surfside properties do.
I don't know 10:58AM - My wife and I drove by Deb's lot in the winter time when she was not there. I thought it was OK to look at, my wife thought it was cluttered and looked dumpy with the chairs and stuff tarped up and things left out in the open.
That is utter garbage. How do you define minority and majority, based on a rigged election?
This place is so saturated with self interest it is pathetic. Don't give yourself airs, you are no better than the rest.
Yet more Deb bashing? Wasn't driving her off the board enough?
no? got to take that daily bite of DB
The atmosphere of Surfside will never improve as long as we have the ugly elitists showing their fangs. So sorry, like lots of members, that I e er purchased here. Don’t think for a minute that SHOA reputation isnt hurting the market. It’s the buyers market cause sellers are desperate to leave this HOA mess. Getting rid of Patrick and Deb just reinforces the Draculas.
The ugly elitist argument is simply laughable. What kind of moron buys property in an HOA with covenants that they have no intention of respecting? Please try a little reality to replace the delusions.
Morons? Like a board member that signed off on the cross connection program, then when confronted with non-compliance, said SHO
A would have to sue him to comply? That kind of moron?
A stupid/thoughtless past board member does not excuse the moron property buyers who have no intention of respecting the rules in Surfside. Attempts to divert attention from the property purchasing morons who think they can ignore the covenants and write new rules to suit their personal goals isn't going to fly.
A different kind of stupid does not cancel out stupid of another kind.
Again, there was no rigged election. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true so please keep your Trump like wishful thinking to yourself.
Actually there are more homes being built than normal the past couple years and unless you have a small lot property values are up with people getting their asking price so again saying Surfside is hurting is another false hood.
To the pot story. The main reason the laws changed here was due to the people who cared enough about the issue showed up and voted. It pass because the majority who voted, voted for it. Kind of like here. People who care enough ran for and got elected to the board by the majority of people who cared enough to vote. Unfortunately for some here, the people who's view align with theirs didn't.
So in keeping with the pot theme, you all can put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Respecting the rules of Surfside goes both ways. If past and present board members can’t set a good example. Much less SHOA in general. Don’t expect anyone to respect rules. See? I even did that without name calling. Respect for the rules starts at the top, not by an agreement, that mostly is unenforceable.
Johansens property has a pending sale!! Yay!
I checked out the pictures in the real estate listing for Johansen's property. Holy cow, that shed is ugly and the so called "overhang" is a poorly built, huge, metal roofed hazard in any of our high wind storms. I don't know how to add a picture to this blog so go take a look at the listing. See for yourself.
I wish that I knew how to put pictures on this blog. Now that I have seen the pictures that actually reveal this ugly and dangerous addition to the shed I fully understand the board's stance to defend against it. Tacky best describes this cheap and wind dangerous addition. It looks like it might cave in or pop off at any moment. The overdone and unattractive use of stepping stone materials on the lot also made my head spin.
Looking at the Tax Sifter shows Johansen has up to 3 lots in Pacific County? http://pacificwa.taxsifter.com/Search/results.aspx?q=Johansen
10:29 reminds me of Gersh Kuntzman describing his experience shooting an AR-15
"The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."
Point being anyone who's fired one knows all of the points made are exactly the opposite of what really happens... it's just banter.
1:09 you have the right to your opinion. planning to shoot something are you?
10:41 the tax sifter pictures don't show much. you need to see the photos in the real estate listing.
If the same people are enforcing the covenants, changing them won't solve anything. It is the culture of Surfside administration that needs work. Even if an "enforcement officer" or manager were hired, they would have the same interest in pleasing the boss as the current staff. It is the boss who has to change.
Why would anyone go the effort to look up how much property another member owns. Sick, bored individual. The elitists ate obsessed with Deb and Patrick.Go find something better to do like shoot pigeons at Ks place. GET A LIFE!
here is a site to see some pictures of Johansen's lots
https://www.bluesummithomes.com/wa/ocean-park/32106-g-32112-place/1257832
I would just like to see a mature grown-up when I have business in the office. Someone with previous experience dealing with the public, such as a real estate office or customer based business. I would also like to see the water dept. employees disconnected from covenant enforcement.
There is an odd posting on the SurfInsider web page about cutting down trees. I was looking for the ordinance about that as it seems odd to me that there should be this new ordinance which is so restrictive. Here is all I could find on the Pacific County website, in the FAQ's section. If anyone can provide more detailed information, I would like to know about it.
"Q: Do I need a permit to cut down trees on my property?
A: Depends. If a tree poses immediate and direct danger to residences or other structures, then a permit is generally not required provided the stump is left. Removing the stump constitutes a grading activity that triggers the need for a critical areas and resource lands evaluation/permit. When cutting down multiple trees such as those activities considered “clearing” or “logging” requires permit authorization from Pacific County and possibly the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Q: What is a danger tree? What can I do if I have hazard/danger trees located on my property?
A: Danger trees are trees within a tree length and a half from property improvements, i.e., house, garage, etc. These trees must have significant structural defects that are likely to lead to failure, potentially causing property damage, injuries, or power outages. Before cutting a danger tree make sure the tree is located on your property; if not, you will need to contact the owner of the property. When cutting a danger tree, you will not be required to obtain a permit from our department but you will be required to leave the stump intact. For more information or questions concerning danger trees, please call our office and ask to speak with a Planner.
Critical Areas and Resources Land Ord. (CARL) No. 180, effective July 1st
Reference the new ordinance. If you read the weekender, it states that "if a County employee or a person complains to the county you could be fined". Now if anybody thinks that Ms Olds and her group of ner do wells are going to not be going around checking every tree cutting and turning you in, you have your proverbial head up your a__. So nice that we will still have to trim them rather be able to remove them in a timely and less expensive manner.
Here is a link to the ordinance: http://www.co.pacific.wa.us/ordres/Ord%20180.pdf
I am wondering if we are in a "Critical Area" and also whether this is about developing and clearing property, or if it also applies to cutting a tree in your yard that you just don't want there.
It applies to all trees in Pacific County. The critical areas are the 25' buffer on the waterways, no cutting in that setback, no patio tiles or decking is allowed. You can not remove stumps in that area. The permit fee for that is $985 and you still have to pay additional charges and that doesn't necessarily mean you will get to do the work you want.
Call or email Alexandra Russell at DCD for more info
9:15 WTF is classified as a "waterway"? Does that include the canal, and what dumb SOB put this through? Is it the County Commissioner that Surfside has in their pocket. Perhaps the dumbest thing that I have seen in my life.
I’m sorry but the County states that we can:t cut any tree in the “critical area”, yet the weekender says we can trim along the canal. Can’t have it both ways. Trimming means you have to cut and some of the branches are more than 4” in diameter. Surfside needs to change their tree height restrictions. When this development started, there were no trees here, maybe we need to go back to the way Mother Nature intended this place to be.
It seems that the Weekender remarks are somebody's experience with the County about developing a lot. It is anecdotal information and the Ordinance is the ruling document. So it is important to understand the Ordinance, not the spin around it. I would like some clarification. Can I remove a tree I don't like, leaving the stump, to plant a garden?
Please explain anecdotal as it pertains to this goofball ordinance. Mr Jackson, a person who makes a lot of money cutting trees here in Surfside, obviously gave the HOA the narrative for the weekender. In that diatribe it states “it is now required to get a permit to cut down ANY tree in Pacific County”. Other posts here define that further as to a moritorium on cutting down any tree, not just the “critical zone”whatever that is. But gosh we can still trim our trees and if I pay $285 and wait 6 weeks I may
be able to cut down the tree I killed by trimming it, unless of course it’s in the critical zone. Guess I just won’t trim my,trees in order to comply with all of this. But oh, then I get visited by the tree Nazis. SNAFU.
It is obvious that Stand Jackson doesn't know what he is talking about. He picked parts of the ordinance that doesn't apply to critical areas in surfside. A wetland would be a critical area. The ordinance has many sub parts that exclude surfside by name. Maybe he just wants to add a county charge to his wacking fee. He is also profiting by using the chipping site for disposal of material. Just more proof of the worth of information in the weekender.
The association should see about getting the new ordinance clear and then sharing that information on the website. I would think that this should be a responsibility of the Business Manager position since we do not have the General Manger that we need.
If Stan has trimmed trees or woody plants for a Surfside member, I see no reason why he should not use the chipping site for disposal. If he is doing work outside of Surfside, he should dispose at the county facility.
To 8:41:
You're some piece work and such a brave person making unfounded accusations against a committee behind a mask. As everyone including yourself knows, the tree committee responds to complaints made by your neighbors concerning trees that are above the limits. Why then would they care if you're cutting your trees? So your statement only shows it is YOU that has their head in a certain place.
8:41. You don’t actually believe what you wrote, do you Ms Olds?
The only way this tree mess is going to be settled, is in court. The new county ordinance is written about as good as the surfside covenants. They all make no sense. The only thing the county did was to meet their requirement to have a shoreline management plan. The county does not give a rip about the trees in surfside. They only care about the property taxes they get.
It's about time the county stood up for the individual rights of the property owners, ALL, not just those who pay more taxes, like on the ridge. Doesn't the county know that if the people didn't have to wack the trees and kill them, all that property would be worth more and generate more income from taxes than that generated by the people on J Place.
The J Place faction make all the noise, control the board and committees. They do not represent the real membership. We need to sue them all.
If you think Ms Olds is bad, just wait till Mr Olds is on the board. His reputation for anger and disrespect is well known. deleest and him should make a great team. God help us.
If Olds is appointed to the board, mis Olds should resign from the tree committee. It would be a clear conflict.
Oh yes, this was supposedly about covenants. Of the seeds sown over Surfside, some small percentage grew into trees, many that grew were in places they could not continue to grow, so were removed or died. Sand is not a fertile growing element, so the remaining trees were "as God intended it". God's creations, God's seeds, God's trees. Look at much of the most restricted area of Surfside, and tell me that looks as God intended. 14 foot poles with a flat-top of branches like an umbrella.
This policy is an on-going disaster for the community, making much of the community good for nothing but a parking lot. Only RV owners are willing to live on such plots, yet the RVers must always put up with disrespect. RV owners were the original residents of Surfside when no one wanted to buy property here. So long as the tree policy remains so restrictive and irrational, Surfside will never be prime real estate.
Some owners with RVs just remove every shred of green that grows, opting for gravel.
And talk about petty 9:33 and 10:29 - you're Surfside owners and rather than go look at Patrick's shed on the property, you judge it from a photo ? It's a nice shed, which at this point is a few years old. The porch is not an add-on, it is an intended part of the pre-fab structure, moron !
It is next to a stick-built home that has had a rotten area of siding removed within recent years (and not replaced), and two RV properties that are very unkempt, one having a commercial outhouse, the other a shed with a crude porch. Next to those properties is an abandoned house. And Patrick's being picked-on ? Wacky, and a personal attack on Patrick with no real excuse.
We've heard it before many times.... "they want to come in here and change the rules to suit themselves !" RVers are very much in the minority, so have no political clout without support from many other home owners. And no rules in the community are easily changed without a long process of discussion and review.
Deb Blagg knew that in making motions at the Annual Meeting. She only proposed what she thought were practical motions to approve for the Board's consideration. Currently, our covenants only allow the BOT to approve covenant changes.
Most all HOA communities do not allow their Boards to make these changes without approval by the membership, and that is what Deb proposed the members recommend to the Board. A vote of approval of any of the motions Deb made at the Annual, would not have changed a thing. It would only have been considered advisory to the BOT. All the hysteria is just ridiculous. Change is necessary in life, in death, in Surfside, everywhere.
7:24 congratulations on spewing out a crock of sh_t!
And congratulations to you 7:42 with your dirty mouth.
7:42 is just one of the folks pushing class warfare, which is hard for him as he/she has no class. Along with the angry gents that are known to us, they will now be referred to as Kirby 1, Kirby 2, and last but not least, Kirby 3. We know who you are so we are wishing you a kinder and gentler topic for you to vent out and lower your blood pressure.
Woe is you 7:24. It must be an unbearable burden to carry all that delusional disrespect heaped on RVers in Surfside. Poor dears seem to believe that the only lots affected by the tree covenant belong to RV members. Swoon, I am overcome with emotion feeling so sorry for the disrespected pitiful RV members.
10:17.... Just stating the facts - the emotional reaction is all yours. I'm not an RVer, but you make the assumption otherwise. You are easily distracted by your own assumptions without any evidence to base them on....7:24
Just got off the phone with Alex, County Planning, and found out most of the article reverence tree cutting that was published in last weeks Weekender was at best misleading. The canal IS a "critical area" so put your plans on hold if you are within 25 feet, that includes tree cutting.
As far as trees on your lot, if it is for fire safety or if the tree represents a danger to your property you may limb it up, or in a serious condition, you may cut it down to a stump.First you must obtain a permit from the county ($125/over the counter). Any other reason is the $285 4 to 6 week path. So, the day this ordinance is made known to the residents, the Chairperson of the Tree Committee has two entire lots cleared of trees, neither of which met the criteria for removal, that is, if the fire danger was the reason (really it was for the view), then every tree in surfside could be brought down (unless it is in the critical area, and J Place is more that 25 feet from the canal), and there were no structures that could be in danger of a falling tree. Just remember this when you get your visit from the Tree Committee.
Not that it matters to you 8:41, but I'm not Ms. or Mr. Olds. What I stated was fact that you choose to ignore. But please continue on with your hateful accusations so as to have some enjoyment in your life.
To 12:16:
Show me where property values have gone down due to the tree issue. Everyone I know in the valley had theirs go up so the county are getting increased taxes. And as stated before, people don't have to wack and kill, just take care of them properly like the majority of members do.
Values are down, taxes went up from levies n county greed. County still values waaaay below cash value.my cash value went down 30000 in last year. Lot of empty spec homes out there.
look 1203 I don't give a hoot who you are or aren't, you are just blind to what is going on around you. Take a look at thee real estate listings. Every one has an arrow pointing down. If you don't understand, that means the sellers are lowering their prices, thus a lowering of the value. Tax valuations are always going to go up in an area that needs as much revenue as Pacific County. Wake up and smell the turnips.
Yeah, be proud that an organization you support forced this man out. You next?
That's not gonna happen. This member will have delusional attitudes about the homeowners association until such time as they roll him out to the home. Probably won't be that long…
The level of ignorance and arrogance shown in some of these comments is alarming. If you don't know what you are talking about, think about shutting it down. Obviously, there is complete ignorance about property values and the real estate market. I think the Megler Bridge is for sale at a bargain price. Perhaps this moron will step up with an offer on it.
Just got done dealing with a realtor. Buyers market for sure! Don’t tell me about property values. Wanna sell in SHOA? Gonna have to take a big hit! This HOA has made its bed, and now we gotta sleep in it. Bad state of affairs. Ignorance is blind as some of these bloggers state their blah blah nonsense. It’s not good in this elitist HOA!
Dear 1:37,
You need to go back to school and focus on an economics class. Relying on what a realtor says is a clear indicator that you don't know what you are talking about in regard to property values as set by the County Assessor and market values. Sellers reducing their asking price has nothing to do with the actual market value of property. Assessor evaluations usually lag in time behind the actual market values. The bad state of affairs is your ignorance. Go away.
In the local market, most recent sales of existing houses have been selling at prices near or above the high prices before the housing crash in 2006. This has caused many sellers to set asking prices at a premium that is often unrealistic. Hence, asking price reductions. The generally lower values for real estate on this peninsula in comparison to other coastal areas is a reflection of the high rate of local poverty and the fact that it is a remote area with limited access and few public and private services. The actual market values in Surfside are a reflection of the values on the rest of the peninsula. It all is bargain basement values here in comparison with the inland, metropolitan housing values.
215 economics lession. Prices up = more value. Prices down = less value. not a hard thing to understand.
Asking prices and purchase prices are two different things moron. The little arrows that you see pointing down in online listings reflect a reduction in asking price not necessarily a reduction in value.
I think that 12:46 fell off of the turnip truck.
Gee 3:07 you are awfully quick to use demeaning terms just because some person doesn't agree with you. See now I didn't call you a dumb f-----g idiot when I could have. So play nice. BTW just so you folks know an average hacker can get into this site and track URL's back to the sender. It is being done as we speak. It really is amazing how few people say all the bad stuff. Have a nice day.
Fact check...
Comments can not be tracked back...
Your attempt to stop comments will not work.
George. You have some really sick people on this blog. I would like to suggest that perhaps they vent their energys into something useful like helping each other or volunteering their time to some useful organization. The ones here, if left alone, will create a larger problem for all of us. I think it is time to call a halt to this entry and perhaps when they start to get out of hand as this one has, that they be terminated for lack of civility. Not terminating freedom of speech, but to allow others to cool off before they say something they may be sorry for or help responsible for at a later time. Cheer up folks
Hello Hacker,
You continue to demonstrate your diminished mental capacity. It isn't a matter of a difference of opinion. It is a matter of being ignorant.
Try to get it through that thick head of yours; you do not and will not control communication.
Pathetic! Big Brother is watching? Not likely.
Don't think there is an association rule that we have to tolerate fools like 1:37, 3:51 and 9:23.
Why would you say that? After all, you've been tolerated all this time...
Brilliant! 11:43, just Brilliant!
The houses sold in my area for the past couple years have been at the asking price. A couple were bought before being listed on one of those make me move sites. All spec houses built are occupied too. Sparky on here saying otherwise must live in a real nice area (sarcasm) to say otherwise. Maybe surrounded by RV's??
The shameful truth is that a few RVers, tree huggers, shed extension nuts and general malcontents are willing and able to create lies, dissent and discontent in Surfside for no just cause. The real issues and problems in Surfside are not getting the attention and effort to fix things that would make our association so much better. This moron attempting to start and spread false information about the real estate market and property values in Surfside is a lousy liar. However, this moron does demonstrate the ridiculous and shameful nature of the trouble maker's coalition in their efforts to destroy or change the association in order to fulfill their selfish, ignorant and capricious goals.
There is no coalition - just people with opinions that are aligned because they are based on facts. First-time visitors to Surfside are struck by the stumps and hacked trees, and recognize that suppressive restrictions are to blame. A visit to the office reveals fear of face to face interaction by office staff. Why is this tiny office walled-off ?
No one needs to spread negative news about Surfside HOA politics, it's obvious by just looking around. A dysfunctional Board, hostile office, and an ugly landscape of mutant trees, assures that Surfside will never get top dollar on real estate. The willingness of the HOA to maintain this Tree Policy for the sake of J Place owners, has a much greater negative impact on the values of the rest of the community.
Our location on the Coast is somewhat remote, which for some, is desirable, for others not. There are plenty of good people who own property here, and our location is unique. The HOA has managed to do some good things, when not pre-occupied with special interests. But the condition of Surfside is a big factor in its' reputation and that is likely to result in restrained growth in value.
Changes can be made, and the Tree Policy can be revised to be less restrictive, reducing conflict between neighbors. Honest people can be elected to the BOT, and owners can and should insist on the HOA following proper protocol in conducting business in the Boardroom as well as in enforcement. The situation has grown worse by electing the same individuals to the BOT over and over, and Williams is a disaster.
But Surfside has created its' own reputation, and it continues to feed the same failed dynamic, allowing an elitist mentality to rule the Boardroom and policy, complacent with how things are. Anyone who encourages changes to be made is branded a "troublemaker" and problems are blamed on these phantoms.
I’m proud to be a deplorable moron.
9:11 thx for your comments. You only stated the true facts. A visit to the office is pure punishment. J place members are ruling the SHOA. How can anyone argue these facts?
Quite easily actually when you consider the fact that they are not facts, just your opinion.
I'll just address one. Of the three that ran for the board 2 are new and one has been on the board less than a year. So how is that electing the same people over and over?
Anyone can run for the board. Problem for you people is the fact that people who share your views don't care to run. Everyone is allowed to vote. Problem again is not enough people who share your views vote.
So, while the use of pointing fingers and making disparaging remarks about J place people may make you feel nice in reality, and what you can't except, is the people who really care about SHOA step up and work for it as oppose to you folks that come on here to complain. Now there's a fact!
It is convenient for your viewpoint, to ignore that Mark Scott and Mr. Olds were hand-picked for their alignment with the views of Mr. Williams. Those who do not agree to the president's agenda are black-balled. Clancy and Smith, now off the BOT, served multiple terms, Williams has served terms in the past and has been re-elected, Flood has served 4 to 5 terms (and doesn't attend meetings), Winegar was hand-picked - appointed 1 month before the 2016 election.
In spite of his complete disregard for proper procedures in conducting business, and lack of knowledge of the covenants and State law, Mr. Williams was re-elected by the Board as president. The last election had a number of questionable actions taken, including the attorney's interference in the conducting of a member vote, and the rigged election of Mr. Olds.
We do not have honest governance in Surfside, and that's a fact.
12:40 - agreed. This place is upside down.
They may be opinions, but there are more and more of them. This trend will continue until real change is observed.
Then why aren't you two running?? 12:40 and 12:59
107 - because 1240 & 1259 prefer to sit around on their computers and spew garbage, its easier.
Ask Patrick and Deb if it was worth the grief they have put up with you jerks that continue to make hateful comments about ANYONE that disagrees with the SURFSIDE CLAN. You are the spewers of garbage!
I don't volunteer to clean the cesspool. You have chased off most viable candidates.
As to spewing garbage, we can't let you have an exclusive, can we?
You talk about hate comments then proceed to spew the Clan thing. Maybe you should consider googling the term "irony" or refer to the old pot meet kettle saying.
Thanks for the laugh though.
Watch out for the Surfside clan!!!!...LOL what a bunch of baloney. I think you would have more to fear from the surfside clam?
When did the clams hijack an election and steal our association?
Make fun of this all you want, these are real issues, issues that could lead to the dissolution of the organization you love so much.
I invite all of you to read 9:17 under "we are what we are".
blah blah blah 8:57 AM. the only dissolution is in your head.
GO CLAMS!
Post a Comment