RV's Year around?
The elephant in the room at the Annual Meeting was RV's and Sheds.
Because of this, the really important issues of abuse of power was obscured.
The fact is....
RV's are allowed on lots for a limited time in some areas of Surfside, but not all areas.
Why not uniform in all areas? Any covenant should include a complete explanation for the existence of that particular covenant. If the members know why there is a covenant, they may find them more acceptable.
The fact is....
The RV covenant is established and has recently been modified by extending the time an RV can be on a lot. This was a compromise to allow them to be on the lot during the Fall clam season.
It is also true that buyers of lots in Surfside agreed to abide by the existing covenants.
The fact is....
The covenants are not written in stone and are subject to modification and/or change.
Times change, and some existing covenants need change to be more or less restrictive.
Any change should be a member decision based on a full hearing and a member vote. This has been promised by the Board President, to be on the November Budget Ratification ballot.
The fact is....
Surfside provides a RV storage lot with storage fees that are only a fraction of the cost of storage lots outside of Surfside. While the spaces are not covered, they do provide some wind protection and electrical hook ups.
The fact is....
Our coastal climate is brutal on homes as well as RV's, especially during the Fall and Winter months.
More maintenance is required and our wind storms do damage to dwellings and RV's. Needed repairs can only be only one storm away. Some RV owners are here only a couple of times during the year, mostly in the Summer.
The fact is....
Today's RV's are much better constructed than in the past.
We have RV's here that are more expensive than some of the existing homes, and the owners of those RV's take good care of them. There are also those who do not.
The fact is....
We are a mixed use recreational community.
This makes us different than most HOA's. We knew this when we bought here.
We can expect this mix use to continue.
The fact is....
No matter the use, we all pay the same.
A case can be made for a dues and assessment fee based on taxation evaluation.
The fact is....
As with some homes, RV's left for extended periods of time, as we see outside of Surfside, can accumulate "junk" not secured or stored properly.
The fact is....
Most of the RV people here are responsible members and are here for the same reason's as the full time residents...They like the beach.
It only takes a few homeowners or RV'ers to make us all look bad.
The fact is....
RV's don't have a lot of storage room.
A shed with some kind of overhang can provide needed storage and cover for activities that will provide a neat appearance.
Note:
RV's Year round?
This is up to the members to decide based on a majority vote of the membership.
I am not aware of a ground swell from the RV people for all year occupancy. If that change should be made, I would expect more restrictions or increased enforcement. In my opinion, they do seem to be targeted with more harassment than others. They pay the same as you and I and that makes our garbage and water cheaper for all of us.
It's past time to treat everyone with the respect we all deserve. It does not have to be an us against them mentality.
84 comments:
Year round RV's would be for the county to decide, not S.S. They already allowed us to extend it, will they allow S.S. to have them year round? Pacific county has little to no code enforcement, would they allow for more to be regulated without the ability to regulate it?
My concern is full time rv could create a nightmare. For example I have an rv lot with 50.00 per month homeowners fees, 20.00 per month property tax and lets say 30.00 profit a month. I could rent my lot to anyone with an rv to live in full time for 100.00 a month and they get free water and garbage. The trailer park at the north end of the Astoria bridge is a good example of what can happen. But I do agree the rv'ers and vacant land owners are getting a working. There fees should be lowered and full timers should have to pay more because they use more of the services. They will say but you knew the rules when you bought. Just because you got taken once does not mean you have to let it continue. This thing is so screwed up because of special interests. Example lets not support the county in its attempt to get the canals and lakes to drain properly because it will screw up Jim Flood's view, or lets clean up the canal at the expense of all of us because the board President owns a canal lot. Or Deleest says she will give a fair hearing to the tree issue and then purchases a J pl lot. The shed deal is another one. I know Patrick should have followed the rules, but would it have been so unreasonable to allow an amendment to allow a small 40 or 50 square foot overhang. It does rain and cleaning clams in an rv is not ideal. The board could have swallowed there pride just once and thrown the rv'ers a bone. The naysayers can attack but when we all pay the same fees and some get a lot more of the benefits you end up with what you got a mess. The board should put aside there own special interest and attempt to treat us all fairly.
Sorry, but I vote no to full time RV's, I like the rules as they are, that's why I bought here. Sorry Patrick if you have to come down here from the Seattle area and go to the storage area and grab your rig and set it up, these are the rules, they weren't hidden from you when you decided to join this community, same for you Deb!
Johansen's permanent address is in Sherwood, Oregon not Seattle.
It is a no vote from me and my neighbors for full time RV's in all of Surfside. The reasons are many.
I would rather allow for smaller square footage in a homes than allow RVs year round residences.
Why aren't you advocating that?
Compromise doesn't seem to be an option with many, I've noticed.
What about free storage for rv’s or if your land is vacant (no house) the hoa fee is much less or what about park models or tiny houses. I think Tiny houses are similar to park models but have lots of character and are sush a wonderful way to be able own your home with out a mortgage.
I like the 2 ideas above. Someone on the Board needs to make a motion to make that a covenant change. Makes sense, especially for small lots. Small is the new trend sweeping the country. Oh, forgot, we don't like change.
I know for me, even my small place is more than what I need. We have lots of single people that smaller would work. Sure beats a row of houses 5 feet apart
I have a spot on the east side and would be very interested in a small manufactured home instead of my RV. Problem is, only some lots allow this, and as earlier mentioned, it isn't clear why some are and some aren't. Further, most think anything east is year round RV and also open to manufactured homes, but no, only some are, and others aren't on the east. Why? I bet nobody really knows. Not even the architectural committee.
Pretty obvious, those on west side think property values would go down. With them, that’s all that really matters. Most of them think of their home as an investment, not a primary home. All about the resale.
I know that the lots around the golf course don't because the State was going to make the course an 18 hole and didnt want mobile or mfg homes surrounding it.
A lot of the rules are or seam to be old and odd. Why is it you can have an rv year round in some spots and not others? Maybe is time for change. I looked at some tiny houses on YouTube and they are very nice so no reason for others to complain. These small homes or tiny houses even the Katrina houses (made for easy add on) are all legal. I don’t have a tiny house or rv I just have an old stick house but after looking at the tiny houses I would love to have a tiny house on my property or next to me I also think a lot of the RV’s are nice. ok back to researching.
Year-round RV stays would result in constant drone of generators during Winter months. They can be used during Winter months, but can't be left continually on the property.
That seems unfair from the perspective of dues and assessments being the same for all lots, so reduce RV lot fees, and allow more latitude to allow pre-approved well constructed porches or firewood racks on RV lot sheds.
The point of having an RV is to be mobile, so the restrictions require that the RV leave the site at some point in the year, or be stored elsewhere. It isn't practical to allow long stays during Winter due to generator noise. I've heard that some have well insulated covers, but this isn't something the HOA can easily regulate for each individual lot.
RV owners feel there are too many restrictions, and I agree. This is my compromise suggestion. RV owners are dependent on the willingness of the rest of the community to support such measures that show inclusiveness.
I think George did a good job of fairly outlining most of the issues around the current RV rebellion. I thank him for that. The hateful division among members that has been created by a few RV members and tree huggers with buyer's remorse is not good for our association.
Many of the "issues" could be addressed through appeals made to the architectural and tree committees. The committees could then carry forward the concerns and issues to the board and the general membership in a calm and problem solving mode.
Factually, more and more homes are being built in Surfside and many of the RV contingency have plans to build homes in future years. The number of members making Surfside their retirement home is growing while the number of campers not so much. Reliable data about these development trends should be the basis for decisions within the association. With so many RV members failing to get the required permits and the lack of consistent covenant enforcement, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what the facts and numbers are currently in regard to use practices on Surfside lots. We clearly need a competent General Manager to reliably gather data and faithfully enforce covenants so that we can make reasoned and effective decisions for the future of Surfside.
I have septic and electric on my RV property. I think that is a fair req. for year round (basically permanent) rv storage on your lot. Deb mentioned that but quickly those not in favor run to other reasons beyond septic and electric.
I think a first step would be a fair one to meet in the middle for RV folk and offer something in the middle being allowing tiny homes / park models such that you see that are like 300-400sqft single room buildings. They're meant for places that only allow RVs and push the limits of a stick built, but here they could be the other way where they allow RVs to get closer to stick built but within their scope.
Allowing tiny houses or permanently situated park models looks like step toward more problems than we currently have unless covenants are fully enforced. I foresee tiny houses with several RVs, trailers and/or leantos clustered around them. Some RV users firmly believe that they can't survive with one storage shed to accommodate their "stuff". Tiny houses very likely would result in the same issues with multiple storage sheds, storage shed and tiny house embellishments exceeding square foot standards, wood sheds, plastic storage boxes and on and on and on.
There is a county ordinance and a covenant regarding one RV per the average lot in Surfside. Two and more RV's is common sight with nobody enforcing the rules. More than one RV with assorted shed structures and piles of crap on a lot is also a common sight that reduces the general value of surrounding Surfside properties.
Septic and electricity meet health requirements and amenity desires of RV users. These things do not bestow the right to store a mostly vacant RV on a lot. Vacant RVs attract thieves and squatters. Vacant RVs don't survive mammoth wind storms and harsh weather well. And then, there is the ugly, tacky factor in some of our more conscientious and attractive Surfside neighborhoods.
Wow 10:59. What a snob. FYI, thieves n squatters tend to go for all the unoccupied “investment” property. The plethora of part time homeowners do more to attract thieves and meth heads into Surfside. Let’s try worrying about livability, instead of profitability.
Just the same old tired excuses for not allowing 1 RV year-round. There are many homes that look far worse than the majority of rvs. As far as maintaining for harsh winter weather, how is it any worse to leave your rv in the storage lot? Isn't it the same salty air, wind, rain, etc.? Again just excuses for those that want to feel elite!
3:13 - To preface this reply, I personally have no desire to leave our RV on the property year-round. We have too much invested on our motorhome to leave it here in the winter and, as snowbirds, we prefer to head to warmer, drier climates in the winter months. I am responding only to correct a falsehood many seem to think is the truth.
The PC Zoning Ordinance No. 184 allows RVs to be on lots year round already. The only reason it is not allowed in Surfside is because our Covenants have oddly been incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. This appears to be a very unusual practice and Surfside is the only HOA that is in this situation. The Ordinance says:
“One (1) Recreational Vehicle may be temporarily occupied or stored on a parcel at any given time.” (Section 21.I.2)
10:59. The PC Zoning Ordinance restricts the number of RVs that can be on a lot at any given time, based on the lot size. Additional RVs can be on a lot temporarily (up to 7 days). The Ordinance doesn’t allow structures to be built over or attached to an RV, with exception of having one shed that complies with the section of the Ordinance pertaining to storage buildings.
Your comment that “Some RV users firmly believe that they can't survive with one storage shed to accommodate their "stuff" is both elitist and condescending. All Surfside members should have the same land use and property rights as anyone else. Your concern about “the ugly, tacky factor” applies to homes as well as RVs and can be managed effectively by carefully constructed, consistently and equally enforced covenant language. Vacant, poorly maintained homes don’t fare well in the sometimes harsh coastal environment either.
If the HOA would focus more on the overall appearance and safety of Surfside, instead of targeting members who use their lots for RV camping, I’m certain a consensus could be reached. However, as long as long as the relatively small group of vocal, elitist members control the Board and committees, without any regard for the desires of the other members, there is little chance of this changing. The only way this will change is if the 75% of Members who don’t live in Surfside year-round get involved and let their voices be heard. This is why I have proposed that Members have a voice in the Covenants and that all changes require the approval of a majority of the members and that members can vote online. Mr. Williams made a commitment to put this on the ballot in Nov so that all members can vote.
To 11:45...Insulting people is not the way to get what you want. Try compromising to tiny homes, and you may have full time use, but calling, those of us, ELITIST that don't want year round RVS just makes us want to dig our heels in!
1:05. My comment about elitism was only in response to the comment that “Some RV users firmly believe that they can't survive with one storage shed to accommodate their "stuff". This comment was elitist and condescending; I can’t speak to the attitudes of all who oppose such a change, but I can to that remark.
As was said above, there are compromises which could be made, such as not charging those who on undeveloped and RV lots to use the storage area. Also remove the restriction that says they can only use their lot for a maximum of 60 days of the ~135 day “winter season”. This would be a fair exchange for not being able to use the lot year-round and for subsidizing the full-timers cost of running the water department and trash compactor.
RVers use their properties at most 65% of the year and still pay 100% of their dues and apportionments, in addition to being charged to store their RVs. Even during the “summer” season, RVers use less water and dispose of less trash than the full-timers, yet they still pay the same cost. There are disparities in cost-benefits to these members, but nobody seems to complain about that. Metered Water and garbage disposal would be a far more fair model for both RVers and vacation home owners, who consume much less water and produce much less waste.
Consider also that 50% of the lots in Surfside do not have houses, yet these members pay the same dues and assessments as the 50% who own homes. You can verify these approxmate percentages with the County Assessor. I’m guessing all of the full-time homeowners think this is perfectly fair, while also denying the other half of the Membership the right to use their property year-round and forcing them to pay another $200 per year to keep their RVs in Surfside storage.
Do you think we can compromise on this?
Deb, I too am a part timer, only I have a home. RVs are not allowed at my place year round also (same as you)
The water usage is at a minimum (same as you)
Minimal garbage usage (same as you)
I can go on, but the point is No One Is Being Discriminated Against. The rules and assessment is the same for me as you.
The compromise is in smaller homes, so you can enjoy your property year round.
I will fight with all my might to Not allow RVers full year round residency!
1:50 - First I would like to thank you for your civility. I understand your desire to not have RVs on properties year round. Frankly, it is t an issue for me, either. I just want to see The entire Membership be able to vote on whether or not to change the covenant or come up with a compromise. How I wish we could compromise!!
I want to also clarify that I don’t think those who are here part-time - in RVs or in homes - are being discriminated against. But I do think they are paying more than their fair share, given the significantly reduced demand they put on the water system and compactor site. If costs were allocated based on usage, it would be far more equitable. Someone who owns an undeveloped lot pays a disproportionate amount of the cost of providing these services to Surfside. Again, it’s something the entire Membership should be able to vote on.
Fight on to keep those RVs off of their property year-round - if the majority of residents agree with you, then that’s the way it should be.
It's doubtful the county would allow it anyway. Has Deb checked with them on that possibility?
To 4:30's remark.
Don't know if anyone has been keeping up with the meetings in Long Beach but they are in the process of putting restrictions on RV's and camping on property. SHOA isn't as bad as you all might think.
The water system has to be there to use on a continuous basis even though some members only use it occasionally. Those with undeveloped lots including no connection to the water system have not paid for a connection or a water meter. The trash facility has a schedule to accommodate the occasional or vacation visitors unlike the usual trash collection services that pick up on a regular schedule once twice or four times a month. It is a matter of personal choices in regard to how you use the water and the trash service. It requires a buy-in by all members to keep the water and the trash disposal available to meet the highly variable use that happens in Surfside.
Deb seems to be hell bent on changing things in Surfside whether it is a good option for all of us or not. I wish she would back off on spouting off her opinions as if her ideas are the be all end all. Her thinking and opinions always bear the imprint of short sighted, self serving and less than thorough thought. It is possible that a majority vote could completely cut off the certain uses of property in Surfside which could be miserably unfair or even disastrous to some of the minority members. What if the majority decided that there should never be any form of camping or RV use in Surfside? Deb would be out of luck to use her property unless she invested in building a suitable habitation on her lot. Doing things and taking actions based on a majority vote is not always the fair thing to do or the best solution to a problem.
4:30. Please note above the County Zoning Ordinance already allows this. Of the 22,000 property owners in Pacific County, only those in Surfside cannot. I’m not saying it’s a good idea - only that Surfside property owners should not have lesser property use rights than other Pacific County property owners.
If you're going to comment on the topic, at least read the full strand. How many times does Deb Blagg need to explain the County ordinance ? The County allows 1 RV on a property, to remain year-round. Surfside has made its' own restrictions.
To 10:56 July...GOOD!!
I thought this was the Surfside Homeowners Association not the Surfside RV & Trailer park
12:23 - perhaps you should have done more research before purchasing property in Surfside. Considering that 50% of the parcels in Surfside do not have a residential structure, that mobile home should are permitted on many parcels and that recreational use is permitted, your comment is off-base. There are also state and county land-use rights bestowed upon all property owners. Once again the elitist, NIMBY attitude shows through loud and clear. Although our name is “Homeowners” Association, we are in fact a “property owners” association of ~2,200 members and the HOA Board is remiss in not looking out for the interests of ALL members.
This constant pushing to allow RVS here all year round is getting old.
How many times do the members have to tell Deb that we Don't want RVs left here all year long.
I was willing to compromise, but not anymore.
Move!!
1:06. Perhaps you should learn to get along with all your neighbors and fellow members of the HOA. Work with them instead of bashing them. If you aren’t willing or capable of doing this, then you should probably move somewhere that is more to your liking. There are some nice gated communities out there.
1:06 now speaks for all members? I own a house with rv lots around n hardly even notice when they are here. Only seems to be a problem in “certain” parts of SHOA. If you wanted an investment, stick to the stock market. Live n let live with minimal interference is what most want, just ask around.
I like Surfside just the way it is. I'm not the one complaining. We have several RV lots on our street with no problems ever. Still don't want them all year long, period!
Besides the weather and claim of attracting thieves, why are any of you against rvs year-round? I'm trying to understand both sides. Thank you
RV means Recreational Vehicle. They are just that! Recreational. They are not designed for permanent residence.
We searched many years to find an area with protection against deterioration. Allowing a temporary recreational vehicle permanent residency is asking for trouble.
There are places on the Peninsula that allow that, but please, please not Surfside.
I don't understand why I should have the say of how you use your property. I haven't heard any reasons other than weather, attracting theives/meth addicts, and the deterioration/trash. All these reasons apply to homes as well. Are there any other reasons people have that are RV specific?
HOAs do just that. Tell you how to live on your property. Get over it!
Leaving your rv on your lot, does not mean it will be occupied all year. I don’t think anyone wants that.
Let the membership decide on the covenants instead of a corrupt board. Until everyone has a chance to vote on changes we can only speculate as to what the majority wishes are.
Even RV members admit that they do not want neighbors who leave uninhabited RVs on their lots for all the many reasons --- burglaries, squatters, ugliness, drop in property values, deteriorating RVs and houses create health hazards, etc. etc.
Blagg's comment @ 1:18 is possibly the best example of irony on here in years.
Per comments on this blog Blagg has done plenty to annoy her neighbors. Then there is the deceitful crap she tried to pull at the annual meeting to achieve her personal goals. She is not exactly a good example of getting along with her neighbors in this association. Her best talent seems to be a matter of stirring up trouble while conniving and lying to push her misguided ideas about how things should be for 2200 members.
6:19. You are wrong. HOAs do not tell you how to live on your property; they exist to provide services and amenities to residents, protect property values and meet the established expectations of the members. They exist for us - all of us!
HOAs have a responsibility to govern in the best interests of all members and they have a fiduciary responsibility to the members, whose financial resources and common properties they manage.
Yes, they also enforce the rules and regulations as set forth in the Covenants - but they do not own the Covenants. The Members of the Association own the Covenants and have ultimate authority over them. The Covenants should always reflect the desires of the majority of the members.
This is why it is imperative that we amend the Bylaws and establish a process wherein the members have the final say in the Covenants. Members must demand the right to propose and approve all changes to the Covenants so that the majority of the members are heard.
9:50. What I actually did at the meeting:
1) Proposed amendments to the Bylaws which would—
— Require that the Board notify members 24 hours in advance of the date, time, location and purpose of all “special meetings” of the Board - no more secret meetings!
— Give Members the right to choose between voting online or by mail-in ballot for all elections and ballot measures. A quorum would be achieved as long as at least 10% of the members cast ballots - no more unnecessary proxy ballots
— Give members ownership over the governing documents and Covenants by establishing a process for proposing changes and requiring a majority vote to make any changes - no more letting the Board dictate the rules the Members must live by.
We were not allowed to vote on these motions because the Board - with support of the HOA Attorney - decided the motions had to be presented to the members in advance of the meeting. You tell me - if I had submitted them to the Board in advance, would they have made it on the ballot? I can assure you the answer is NO - the same 5-4 Trustee vote would have resulted in them being “tabled” indefinitely. At least we received a public commitment from Gary Williams to place these measures on the Nov budget ballot.
2) Made motions to remove the Trustees who comprise the “executive committee” for engaging in secret meetings and making the unilateral decision to waste Association funds on frivolous, adversarial lawsuits. These actions were done in violation of state law, by not discussing and acting on them in a public meeting and without allowing all nine Trustees to participate and vote. The motion failed because a majority of the members present (and those who held their proxies) decided these Trustee’s actions did not warrant removal from the Board. The fact that the three Trustees did not recuse themselves from voting - in spite of an obvious personal conflict of interest - goes to show just how far they are willing to go in abusing their authority.
As I pointed out when making the motion, our Articles & Bylaws make no mention of an executive commitee and the state RCWs for non-profit corporations give no individual or group of board members any greater authority than the others. The officers of the Board have greater responsibility, but not greater authority.
The vote sent a clear message to this Board that they can do whatever they want without any repercussions for wrong-doing. Smart move folks.
When I think of "RV year-round" I don't think for myself about leaving my RV on the lot to become a home of sorts. I can promise this would happen if the supporting covenants are not enforced, such as the ones that describe the RV needing to be mobile, registered, etc. With those in place, it helps deter from just a hovel of a shack with wheels on a tree slashed property.
My personal interest if this did ever go through, would simply be to have the option to come to the beach during winter months to get away. Right now there's little reason to come. I have no interest in setting up camp every time especially when it's not nice weather. Soooo, my property goes unattended and shows it - grass & weeds grow and looks unkempt.
Personally, I'd be more interested in the HOA allowing more manufactured homes, tiny homes, and other options that will settle in nicely and leave a solid structure to be able to come and enjoy the beach year round without the commitment of a large home that goes with mostly little use.
It's easy to complain about the board, but in this case it is obvious there isn't a blind love for all members. If it were, they'd see that the RV only members are really reaching for something that is a closer to a longer use during the year. They'd be very transparent and open as to why some areas are restricted more than others, and why they're restricted in the first place.
I've seen a few say they're willing to compromise, and I think there is ground there. I can promise you if a reasonable compromise was met with the likes of tiny homes, small manufactured homes, these vacant lots would fill pretty quick. Businesses in the area would feel the increase. I'd venture to guess the local chamber of commerce isn't a fan of SHOA. SHOA could be a coveted destination full of year round life and constant beach activity such as what was originally imagined in the business case to develop here.
Those who are not here year around might think about holding their opinions on how things are when they are not here. There are many fully justifiable reasons to not allow RV's to sit unattended for months and months on unattended lots. Some have been outlined on this blog. Unattended tiny homes pose the same problems that unattended houses and RVs create. Those who are here rarely should send a bouquet of roses to every year around neighbor who silently keeps watch over their usually unattractive, unmaintained property. The winter weather often almost eliminates any fully enjoyable outdoor activities for those who reside here or those who visit.
Dragging around trailers or driving huge RVs on our wintertime roads is mostly insane. Icy conditions on curvy roads is an invitation to disaster.
There were very, very few clamming days this past season. Amazingly, the local merchants did just fine because there is a growing full time population.
Part of our dues is for security.
If you seriously think that the amount that we pay for the salary and benefits for a deputy results in any security for Surfside, you clearly do not live here. He works 40 hours out of 168 in each week. Much of the time that he does work is spent outside of Surfside.
Amen 11:22, big waste of money. Deputy has stated that he doesn’t do car chases, reasoning that he lets them go, so when caught would go away longer. Really? Doesn’t usually arrest, just tickets, even if has warrants. No room or cost effective to take to South Bend. Rent a cops be better value.
If we pay a deputy that isn’t doing his job we should fire him. Maybe we should have security cameras and photo tickets for speeding and expired tags eat . It’s very cost effective.
Expired tags etc.
Speeding tickets n tags. Least of our law enforcement problems. The peninsula is a playground for drug addicts and those escaping warrants. Which in turn is the major reason for our theft issues. Photo enforcement is a big ticket item that would never pay for itself. Rent a cops would be a good solution for theft patrols and vacant property n elder cks. The deputy is pretty worthless, no fault of his. Hands are tied by limited patrol hours and lack of county funds to enforce warrants and arrests.
I think we should be able to RV’s year round and I think Travis is a great deputy. If the reason for not having RV’s year round is because of safety and security maybe we could hire another deputy to work more hours. We definitely can afford it.
$ 33 per member (approx) and we can add a second deputy assuming that the County signs off on it.
I think we as the hoa have plenty of extra cash if we don’t take anyone to court
Great, add more to county coffers to help staff areas other than Surfside. As was stated above, Travis is not the problem. Do some research about the county contract n lack of fullfilment before adding an ignorant opinion.
Sorry I was just trying to help. Sounds like you got this
What can a rent a cop do that a deputy can’t do. I’ve read that people get robbed because a security guard/rent a cop has given info to people for $$ about them going on vacations . I have more faith in a deputy than a rent a cop
Our deputy in Surfside is a farce! Total waste of members funds.
Why don't we hire a complete police force with a captain, detectives and etc. What the hell difference does it make that we are all paying for Sheriff's protection with our property taxes and state taxes? By all means, the members of Surfside should pay more and more and more than others on this peninsula for police protection.
If we got 8 hours of Travis in Surfside, it would be a fair deal. I’d settle for four at this point. Unfortunately Travis does what he is told by the sheriff, which does not make us the priority. Our deputies time spent on duty in Surfside was extremely curtailed a few years ago due to county funding problems. It was supposed to be temporary. But like taxes 🤷♂️
It doesn't help the RV cause, when real estate agents advertise a camping lot with a bunk and bathroom in the storage shed with storage in the back. Who suffers the consequences? The new owner?
We have our deputy 40 hours a week, if the sheriff needs him for anything he is called to assist, that is in his contract. He is a great asset and I for one would definitely pay to keep him!
10:53 - I rarely see Travis in Surfside. I often see him outside of Surfside and all over the peninsula. Also, an 8 to 5 shift on weekdays isn't a hell of a lot of help in fighting crime that most often is happening at night and on the weekends.
Good grief, how dare he transport people to jail or take them into booking!! The office for the sheriff is on Sandridge how dare he go to that office!! Let me guess if he's not sitting in front of your the exact time you look out the window, he isn't working. Who knew people would complain about added patrols!! You people will complain about anything and everything, you appreciate nothing, very sad
We resent paying for the salary and benefits of a deputy that we rarely see doing anything IN Surfside to reduce crime or to stop the rampant speeding on our streets. You'd have to prove to me that there is any added patrols in Surfside. There is no evidence that this is factual. I don't sit at home waiting for the Sheriff to drive by. I have friends and things to do all over Surfside so my observations apply to more than my immediate neighborhood.
The topic of this post is RVs. Get a grip folks!
10:49. To be clear, this is not a Surfside property and that storage shed described in the ad clearly violates the county Zoning Ordinance. There can be no plumbing and it can’t be used for occupancy. Any realtor who advertises a shed that violates the county ordinance should be confronted to stop, or be reported to the state real estate board.
12:09 needs to be better informed before stating a fictional statement. They don’t enforce warrants or do other than violent arrests because of lack of county funding and facilities. If you knew the history of the county contract and what it has been reduced to, it would be helpful to keep u from appearing so misinformed.
Btw, security was brought up in relation to opinions about empty rv’s attracting crime. So grip has been taken.
To be clear, go to Lighthouse realty and put in listing number 1027. It's Surfside alright.
The tax-sifter in the county records says "sleeper/Cabin at 120 square feet.
You don't know everything Ms. Blagg.
4:41. Mea culpa. I was wrong and you are right. I have seen similar listings in OP outside of Surfside, but this one is a surprise. This is some low-hanging fruit for the enforcement patrol. The realtor did no favors for the owners by advertising their violation of PC Ordinance. This will get interesting.
Depends on who owns it,lol
I bet there are ten to twelve more lots like this. Complaint driven system. No one complains and then there is nothing to investigate.
Obvious the county is aware. Assessors office increased taxes when they started calling it a cabin.
As with warrants and arrests with sheriffs dept. code enforcement is not really done. What happens with a poor county. Get used to it. Example: the trailer park by the bridge had to flood out n have a trailer burn down to get a partial remedy, and that was a very obvious example with numerous complaints. There is also the dirty little secret that one day a week on a rotating basis, there are basically no deputies on duty.
Whoever's in the chair when the music stops, pays the consequences.
It's apparent that no one knows for certain what the availability of the deputy is. That needs to be established. We are not experiencing a crime wave in Surfside, so for now, we can say that our protection appears adequate.
2 years ago, we had trespassers digging a huge foxhole on our property. I confronted them and demanded they exit the property or I would call the Sheriff. The two young men scoffed at my threat, and I hoped that I wouldn't have to remove them myself. I called the Sheriff's number, and 30 minutes later he had them filling the foxhole back in. I was given the men's identification info, they were given a warning, and they left, never returning.
I can only judge by this instance, but I got a proper response in a short time span.
As for the sheds - if this has been listed with the County w/violations, it is a quandary why nothing has been done. The HOA has access to these records. If this is found to have a toilet and bunk, I would urge the HOA to stage a systematic inspection of all sheds. In the abstract, it seems unlikely this shed is connected to septic. That is particularly concerning.
But here again, why is the HOA pre-occupied with harmless overhangs, but has no plan to detect and prevent improper sewage disposal ? Neighbors would know about this it seems.
We can't assume that such violations are unique to RV lots, but it may require a mandatory inspection of all secondary buildings, to make certain improper disposal of waste materials is not taking place. Someone sleeping in a cramped shed is less of a concern, but disrespectful of S.S. standards and neighboring members.
It IS possible that sheds might have an "incinolet" or composting toilet. if that were the case, is this a big deal ? Sleeping in a shed isn't fully habituating the structure. But why not use a tent ? It seems as easy to abide by the community standard as knowingly violate the owner's contract with the HOA.----3:12
30 minutes for digging a hole is ok, but if you were in danger it is not. Since we pay for a full time deputy that lives close by. That’s same response time as rest of county if your lucky.
Some pay property taxes, not all, that support the Sheriff's Office. Those who pay property taxes and the assessments in Surfside are paying twice for a deputy that never is available when there is a crisis or dangerous incident. The county assessor has been straight up about the fact that property taxes are designed to charge more to those paying to make up for the low income seniors who do not pay. To add insult to injury, it appears that the greatest users of the deputies time is the very people who don't pay.
7:38 ...You have to be realistic. One officer can only do so much. Our location is somewhat remote, so you may need to move closer to a larger town or city if you expect more services. Most communities have limited funding for police and fire departments, and general public services, and that includes large cities.
Taxes provide most of the funding for such services, and most taxpayers feel they pay plenty already. Wages have to be competitive in order to hire qualified employees, and the pool of candidates is very slim. The number of candidates who want to move to Ocean Park, even fewer. How do you make a police force of several individuals available, given these factors ?
Barney Fife of Surfside. He’s good at telling you why he can’t do anything about your situation. Where is he on busy weekends on peninsula? Oh, that’s right! Days off. For sure, you will see him at office on Thursday writing his report for WEAK ENDER!
Post a Comment