This current information appears here. It usually takes months before you will find it on the Surfside web site.
It is refreshing to see a committee that is active and has vision. Thanks to the Chairperson, Ralph Dennington, for providing the needed leadership. I caution him and his fellow committee members to beware of those outside the committee who will use you to promote their own agendas and try to shoot you down for new ideas that are in conflict with the status quo. New Board Trustee, Rudd Turner, can be a valuable asset.
It seems that the guest speaker, Kelly Rupp, provided valuable information.
I suggest that you publish the agenda in the Weekender, prior to your committee meeting. This would give other members the opportunity to attend, especially if it was of special interest to them. Member interest and support is important to the success of the committee.
For years, this committee only participated in fish purchase and planting. Our waterways are really more than just a drainage system as some would like you to believe. Your committee with vision, can enhance our waterways, as well as maintain them. Thank you committee for working to make Surfside a better place to live and vacation. Good luck, and this blog will help in any way it can.
Click once or twice for a larger view of this interesting read:
38 comments:
Why did Olds have to address her tree issue to this committee? If SHOA property, why not just take care of it through Gil?
In your commentary you refer to Rudd Turner as a new Trustee. He is a candidate at this point, and has not been elected.
I find it funny that there is a tree down in a lake, and Peggy Olds is attending this meeting to report it, referring to "at least one complaint" and that it is an "over-height tree". This demonstrates this obsession among the Tree Comm. people.
It is apparent that a fallen tree in the lake is best removed. It is also apparent that there is only one complaint that has been filed regarding it - not "at least one". And how is it known that it is a "bad tree", an offender, that has been neglected ? Why is it of any significance whether it is or is not over-height ?
I think it is all viewed in this hostile suspicious manner, when it is simply a fallen tree that needs to be removed from the lake. This micro-management of trees in this community is ridiculous, and people seek to rationalize it.
In Seattle there are increasing restrictions on the cutting of trees, seeking to prevent the removal and cutting of large trees in neighborhoods. I mention it as a comparison. The trees they are talking about are varied, but restrictions protect large trees in particular, pressure by property-owners now trying to expand the protected status, and limitations on cutting or removal.
5:29 has problems. There's the anal retentive issue and then the tree fetish. This is not Seattle and the tree in Surfside seems to have downed itself.
I realize certain "people" like to push their agenda/opinion any chance they get but maybe you need to re-read the minutes. It was not just a tree it concerns trees, plural. Like it or not someone made a complaint against some trees. The tree committee, like it or not, are the ones who are tasked with seeing if it is valid or not. I wasn't at the meeting but from what I read it appears the trees are on SHOA property. This Committee covers the waterways so it makes sense to bring it to their attention. Notice at the end the Committee agreed.
Now it looks like the same folks are going to turn this meeting of the Fish and Waterways Committee topic into the same back and forth about trees along with voicing an obvious unhealthy disdain for Ms. Olds. Go ahead, enjoy yourselves.
Didn't see anyone disparage Olds. I saw the distain pointed at 5:29 who clearly belongs to the fringe tree huggers. It is embarrassing that the association does not keep its own property in compliance with the covenants. No wonder so many members think they are free to ignore the covenants as well. Unifying the two committees to get the association to comply with the covenants looks like good idea to me.
So you want to bring the baggage and rancor of the Tree Committee to this committee as well? Get a grip!
It has nothing to do with the committees. You are not fooling anyone. It is all about the tree huggers who are mostly a few members who don't want to take responsibility for maintaining their threes as specified in the covenants. These irresponsible members have chosen to attack the tree committee and its chair. Quit trying to pick a fight where none exists. Go tend to your trees and stop tryin to make trouble. Try cooperating with the covenants that you agreed to when you purchased your property in Surfside.
This is my understanding about the tree issue with Seabreeze Lake. Most, but not all the property around the lake is owned by the members. There are several exceptions where a very small portion extends into the lake, which is owned by the association. There is no fallen tree into the lake, but there is some brush. The tree or trees in question are deemed to be over height. There is no covenant about brush growing into the water.
Larry Raymer suggested that there should first be a property survey to exactly determine where the property line is. The only way to reach these trees is by trespassing on private property or by boat. There was discussion on getting a property owner to agree to access the tree by entering their property. DPR was suggested as a party to whack the tree top off to meet the height limit. It was stated that DPR does not top trees, but would remove the entire tree.
To me, this whole thing shows the obsession with topping or removal of trees. For Gods sake, can't we leave a couple of trees by a lake? As for a complaint, prove it.
The only reason that I can see, for the Fish and Waterways to be involved, is because it is by the water. The committee to be involved, if really needed, would be the Land and Buildings Committee. They deal with association owned property. They are the ones who took the lead in cleaning Deer and Bear Lake.
This is just another attempt by Peggy Olds to try and be relevant and suck others into her kill the trees agenda. Shameful, if you ask me.
"cooperation with the tree committee"? The committee should refer her to the Lands and Buildings Committee. The Fish and Waterways Committee has more important things to do than get involved in Peggy's kill the trees campaign.
I'll tell you what is shameful, this continuation of the grudge and vendetta you have against Ms. Olds ever since you got your feelings hurt when she replaced your buddy Larry as Chair. Same with your cute little "kill tree committee" thing. It has gotten to be quite sad.
What does the committee do now that is different before you quit? They go out and measure trees on properties that members have made a complaint against. You make it sound like they have an agenda to try to make people cut their trees which has no base in fact. I'll use your own words as proof. Under your Complaints Filed Against Members topic you of course had to use tree complaints as examples. You stated there were many that were dismissed. How did that happened? Did the members who made the complaints withdraw them. No. The Committee, probably including Ms. Olds, went out to measure and determined they were not in violation. No trees were harmed or killed. So in those cases they should be known as the "Saved the Trees Committee".
I will point out one big difference about the committee since George quit and Mr. Raymer was removed. There hasn't been another one of those situations that happen on I street where someone was allowed to fell all their trees without proper removal that was approved during Mr. Raymer's reign and your time on the committee. But of course that is conveniently forgotten.
Go get em 6:39!!!
Thank you 6:39. This needed to be said.
Surfside committees are not the Supreme Court. You don't get lifelong tenure. Criticizing those who serve after you have served reflects a small minded and arrogant attitude that does nothing to enhance the association. The term Kill Tree Committee needs to end here and now. An apology should be extended to those who currently serve on the committee. This petty crap should have been over months ago.
Topping full-size trees kills them. Maybe not immediately, but it has been stated many times, arborists assure that this is bad maintenance. Are trees on Shooting Lake restricted ? Seems an odd place to worried about it. This has nothing to do with "tree-hugging". Trees take a long time to grow, so it is just idiotic to not follow proper care in maintaining them.
This is so obvious that we can be certain many owners would like to see this policy discontinued or at least dialed back. So the discussion is really about the HOA's refusal to revise the standards. The HOA basically enforces tree height restrictions based on a lie. No one in the community is guaranteed a view in Surfside. There is NO mention of views at all in the covenants, yet that is WHY there are tree height restrictions.
This is bad government ! This community belongs to the membership and not the BOT or the owners on J Place. There should be no secrets behind enforcement. The community is entitled to transparent governance, and equally respecting the written rights of Surfside property owners.
Having an opinion about a community issue does not constitute an "AGENDA", and criticizing Peggy Olds does not constitute a "VENDETTA". There is such resistance to discussion and promoting review of policies, it seems few of these resistant folks grasp how democratic governance is designed to work. It doesn't if there is NO open discussion or progressive motion over time.
Democratic government is not hard to understand. The majority rules. The minority does not.
There are good reasons for shorter trees in high wind areas in addition to allowing for views. Take this from one who lives in the restricted tree height area of Surfside. I was here when we had the big storm in 2007. I was happy that my few trees were trimmed as I worked to clear the roads from the fallen trees of my neighbors who had not done the trimming.
Thoroughly agree that there should be no secrets in covenant enforcement and will happily pay for an enforcement employee if you can promise that we will get rid of the incompetent Business Manager. The complaint enforcement is a mess of distrust and hate among neighbors.
Oh, poor me and my hurt feelings. I stopped having hurt feelings 50 years or more ago. Larry Raymer and myself did not have a dog in the fight. We don't live in areas that are under tree height covenant restrictions or have a view of the ocean. What we have now is the fox guarding the hen house. Now you can accuse me of calling the ladies on the tree committee, foxy.
I saw it on the Tree Committee when I was there. Self appointed compliance officers writing tree complaints. They don't know for sure what lot they are complaining against, so they use the "shotgun" approach and write up three side by side, and let the tree committee figure it out. See for yourself from the complaint list.
In my opinion, those who go out and write multiple tree complaints in areas that do not even block their "views", are disgusting. Bet they don't write complaints on other than trees.
As for anonymous complaints, get real. Here is a fact for you. Only about 10 members write all the multiple tree complaints. They give the majority of the fine people who live on J Place a bad name that they don't deserve.
Topping trees is the wrong thing to do and we have a complaint and enforcement policy that is discriminatory, smacks of harassment, and causes member descent. When the pine trees were younger, they had a better chance of surviving the butchering, but as they have matured, it kills them. Ask an arborist. Ask the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. They will all tell you the same thing...DON'T TOP TREES.
In the past, the Tree Committee did one thing, They checked to see if the trees were over height. The present tree committee encourages and promotes tree topping. And, by the way, they just happen to live on J Place or have close friends who do. Coincidence? I think not.
A real Tree Committee would be promoting trees and recommending an end to this nonsense.
Sour grapes regarding current tree committees work doesn't fly.
The point is that the trees should be taken care of when they are young in order to control their height. Failing to do that, the option is to take out the offending trees or to top them. Some owners opt for the topping. If you take the time to drive thru Surfside in the tree restricted areas, you will see many topped trees that continue to thrive despite being topped so we know that topping is not always a death sentence for the trees. It is absolutely true that topping is not a good practice on most trees. The amazingly sturdy shore pines often take the topping in stride and continue to thrive for years. I don't see these topped trees toppling during the wind storms. I do see the too tall trees often down and in our streets after our storms. I've cranked up my chain saw more than a few times to help clear the street of the downed trees.
Downed unhealthy trees are not the same as healthy trees. If your worried bout trees falling, encourage the removal of the dead n damaged. But we all know that’s not what the tree committee is about, n to think otherwise is ignorant or dishonest. Probably some of both.
George -you've made a perfect argument for getting rid of the complaint method for covenant enforcement. Why not put your efforts towards making this happen instead of harping about the tree committees current work?
I think George meant to write "dissent" not "descent". It does have an interesting twist of humor the way it is.
Ever heard of Bonsai? It is a matter of trimming trees, often conifers, when they are young and throughout their life to achieve a smaller size. Ever heard of candling? This is another method to achieve smaller and more compact evergreen trees.
Since it is not an issue for you and Raymer, why do you continue to hammer away on this issue? Wouldn't it be a matter of minding your own business to simply stay out of it?
The policy effects the entire community's quality of life and property values. Many areas are full of stumps, dying trees, bizarrely topped trees, and sticks that are in fact, trees. Many first-time visitors comment on it, so it's clear that some prospective buyers will find it a disincentive.
I guess the Olds "issue" is on Seabreeze Lake. I called it Shooting Lake, and Skating Lake was mentioned.
Agreed that the tree issue affects how newcomers see Surfside. It is a sad state that the covenants were not consistently and fairy enforced over all the years. It would have made a huge difference in what Surfside is today. It would be more respected, valued and friendlier.
It is a shame that so many owners have gotten away with poor care of their trees for so many years. This applies to all areas of Surfside because there are many leaning and dangerous trees as well as butchered trees all over the HOA. It is a shame that the complaint "system" has been allowed to create fear, anger, distrust and ugliness. We need a change in leadership with some board members and with some of the employees. Surfside could be so much better than it is.
Sure, mind your own business and not speak out about unjust covenants and enforcement, and you will find yourself the next target. I thought an HOA was for the benefit of all members, not a select few promoting their own self interests. The HOA is my business and should be also for all the members. It's their business also.
Agreed, the covenant enforcement has not been fair in Surfside and it should be fair. Disagree that covenants should be fair. Covenants are designed to protects rights and to deal with problems. Covenants are not essentially fair. Some hoa's make you paint your house a certain color or always park your car or truck in a closed garage or many other unfair and unreasonable stipulations. You agree to the terms of the covenants when you purchase property in an hoa. Covenants can be changed but it usually causes huge turmoil in hoa's because the members "bought in" to the covenants as they are. Frequently, the value of the individual lots and structures are a variable due to the terms of the covenants. Covenants can devalue some properties and increase the values of others. Changing covenants can result in costly lawsuits.
I've made this offer before and I'll make again to George and everyone else. Let's drive around SHOA and I'll give you $10 per tree that has died because someone topped them before they grew beyond the covenant height and you give me the same per tree that has been topped and is still alive. Let's see who's pocket is filled with cash at the end.
I have kept mine and both of my neighbors trees trimmed that included topping for the past 15 years or so. ALL ARE ALIVE. I didn't wait till they were over height to start though. So if we start at my place you are already over $200.00 in the hole.
To the property value comment. Show me proof where property appraised value has gone down because of the tree covenants. Baring any improvements between the appraisals, since I lived here values have gone up or down uni-formally percentage wise in my neighborhood. The same from J down to G.
Those properties with an "ocean view" have higher values per square foot (both land and structures) than properties without the view. If structures or trees totally blocked the views, the market values and taxation values would change to lower values.
The hen house argument has no merit. Using that logic since George and Larry are against the tree covenants they shouldn't have been allowed on the committee that determines if a complaint is valid. They even tried to have the covenants removed and still remained. So now making this unfounded accusation against Ms. Olds is hypocritical at the least.
Time for a bit of a reality check here. Since he quit the committee and the board any time the topic is about the tree committee in general and Ms. Olds specifically, George becomes emotional unstable. Simple as that.
And this is comming from someone who voted for him twice.
Glad to see that the tree committee members have each submitted their three required inputs per person to support the actions of the Committee. BTW 7:10 reference your statements of "higher value" for the J placers. I was once approached by the current head of the Tree Committee and she stated that "it was too bad I couldn't afford to purchase on J Place". A little bit of erroneous elitism as I looked up on taxisfter to find that my property in the "lowlands" was valued much higher than her Majestys. We have no place for such class distinction and the folly tht it brings.
Those with property on the west side G and J often see themselves as the elite. Factually, there is not an elite property in Surfside. It is definitely a middle and lower class HOA. I seriously doubt the story about the chair of the tree committee unless it was a joke that sailed past the understanding of the story teller. Some people, like you 8:33, feel a need to assert your elitism. Hypocritical that you should say that there is no place for class distinction after you took the time to place yourself above others.
9:19 You are not too bright if you think I was claiming elitism. Just the opposite. The other person was claiming to be of a higher status due to her address, I merely stated thee truth of the matter. As a retired person living on a fixed income, I don't identify with anything but the run of the mill citizen. Wake up and read correctly.
It is not possible for trees to block views of the Ocean over the rooftops on G St. unless the trees are growing on the properties on the west side of J Place. This is a fallacy. Homes on G st. can be 24ft.high, and the properties are some number of feet above sea level, the trees aren't growing taller than the homes on G St., so this is a ruse.
Properties are marketed as view properties, and since they're on a ridge about 20 to 30 feet high, they will always have a view of something, including the Ocean IN THE DISTANCE. So these will always have view value. The problem with the HOA policy is, it has resulted in large numbers of very ugly properties, some covered with 8 ft. tall tree-bushes, some with strangely topped forms.
Most of this is the result of the property owner's distain for the HOA policy. Calling it irresponsible doesn't change the fact that a large number of owners hated this policy, in some cases resisted the policy, in some cases expected the policy to change to something fair and rational - and that didn't happen. But lack of member support of this policy has led to the ugliness that is throughout the community, as well as many properties just removing every living thing in favor of gravel and sand.
Property values have undoubtedly suffered as a result of this policy on properties west of J Place, and we are all left to live with the resulting ugliness.
Trees that are pruned early in their life, and often, have a good chance of surviving, but they are tree-bushes, not natural trees. This practice turns the tree into a dense mass of foliage, stunted by continual pruning.
No need to try and convince me that it is possible for Shorepines to survive Surfside policy, and nothing to brag about 6:17 P.M.. But if you want to find out what is proper care for your trees, do you ask a stranger in the grocery line, or an expert ? Most folks would answer : "an expert". It is clear that all arborists warn against tree topping, particularly of large trees, and they state that it "kills them".
Trees in general do not need to be pruned, watered or fed. They are mostly self-managing, and it is recommended that as little trimming and pruning be done as possible. This is not a debatable subject. The policy has led to a lot of destruction, while there IS NO assurance of HOA protection of VIEWS in our covenants. None. This is all an invention of the realtors that sell Surfside property.
Again Mr Cox, you are misinformed.
The thinning of tree branches helps in the Tree not blowing over during a storm. This was told to me by an arsonist.
There are also many species of trees that don't reach the max height restrictions and are very attractive.
You, and a few others, don't like the Tree rules. The majority Do! You've been told this many times but stubbornly refuse to accept.
ENOUGH!!
Aborist....not arsonist
There is no evidence that the majority of owners prefer the Tree regulations. There has never been a community-wide vote, and no more than 15% of the community votes in the annual elections.
I personally have suggested owners thin branches to reduce wind resistance, and have done that on my trees on my Lacey property. I have only a few trees on my Surfside property on the beach, and all are stubby little wind-tortured things that will never be an issue.
What I said is that trees are essentially self-managing, and arborists recommend that as little be done to them as possible. When pruning is done repeatedly, the tree becomes a solid mass of foliage - a tree-bush basically. Clusters of trees like this are the biggest obstacles to views in the community. Pruning is done to the growing ends of branches, where "thinning" is removing branches at the base of major branches or the trunk.
Had this policy never been put in place, a much better and more effective approach would have been to require a set distance between trees on any given property. View properties have lots of big windows and many vantage points, so a tree here and there 30 feet tall in the distance (full grown Shorepines) would not "block" views.
Heights and topping would never have needed to be an issue.
I'm picturing some committee members or better yet a covenant enforcement employee trying to measure the distance between each tree on a lot. Hilarious!
An approximate distance would be enough. I question what is considered "over-height" enough to warrant being sent a compliance notice with the current Tree Comm.. It is sometimes spoken of as if urgent, which is pretty laughable.
I suspect their focus is now primarily compliance to the set limits, ignoring whether they interfere with views. The trees look particularly pitiful in the 16 foot area, where J Pl. is really too low in elevation to merit being seen as "view" property.
Don't forget that the trees that look pathetic are the trees that have not been properly cared for by irresponsible members. The covenants specify the height requirements. A complaint starts the enforcement process. Shamefully, we have a number of members who have come to believe that they can get away with not meeting the requirements of the association covenants.
I have a suggestion for Mr. Cox. Instead of given your opinions concerning the Tree Committee how about the next time you make it down here you contact them about going for a ride along and actually see first hand what they do?
Post a Comment