A drive down I Street yesterday saw a tree butcher killing more trees.
These lots are now compliant with the tree height covenants, but now in violation of the "neat and attractive" covenant. Pictures include a butchered lot owned by the Board President.
These trees are going to die...
In my opinion, the killing of our trees is far worse than sheds with overhangs or RV's on property all year. This discriminatory practice devalues property, promotes harassment and makes financial hardships on members. This assault on our environment and natural beauty and health of trees needs to end. Covenants be damned, this needs to end.
Click on the pictures for an ugly close up.
35 comments:
It may be under development for some future use. Sometimes temporary ugly is necessary in development.
Why didn't you make a motion at the members meeting to change the covenants on the trees? Instead you post this blog? Makes no sense!
In case u weren’t there covenant changes in general was slapped down. By guess who?
We have attempted to suggest changes to the tree covenants many times. Patrick Johansen has made multiple suggestions that would reduce the tree topping yet not block the J Place views. The board has repeatedly blocked those ideas from even being presented to the membership for comment.
Oh Well, these owners should have trimmed them a while ago, they probably die, but then they will have some very good fire wood. I have no issues with the tree heights rules.
The trees are not simply a view issue. How many times does it have to be repeated that too tall trees and dying/weak trees are a very serious hazard in our winter wind storms. I cut down three trees that were not too tall per the covenants that had taken on a lean to the Northeast that had been caused by the prevailing Southwest winds. Another one of my trees was in the perfect place to catch the bitter cold North winds that happen often in January and February. It was heavily damaged from the cold winds on the north side leaving full growth and uneven to weight on the south side. I had it cut down as well to assure safety for my home. You all obviously were not here in the storm in 2007 that took down hundreds, maybe more than that, of trees on this peninsula.
3:01, every instance you mentioned are understandable, but what you are talking about is common property mgmt practices, not wholesale topping or lot clearing. We just need some common sense here folks. Don’t see much of that coming from the board these days. I’ve been a board president elsewhere n thankfully it didn’t look like SHOA. And no, in the present state of personalities in charge, you couldn’t pay me enough. Which I really think is their point.
In most places if you cut 1 you have to plant 5
Notice how there are never pictures of houses who have taken proper care of their trees and look quite nice. There are many to chose from. But not for a person with bias.
I've lived here close to 15 years. I just got finished trimming up my trees including some topping that I have been doing since year 1. They are all still here. None, I repeat NONE have died.
Folks are always going to have an argument either way, just some of them aren’t very valid. I was here in the 2007 storms, didn’t lose a branch let alone a tree. Most of the trees lost were in places where the trees were over 40 feet tall. Nobody has ever been guaranteed a 180 degree view. If you don’t have one it is because your neighbors house may be blocking the edges. Anybody who has taken high school geometry can figure out that the 16 foot limit does not make sense as far as blocking anybody’s view. J Place averages 30+ feet higher than either I or G. The height limitation on the east side of J place is 35 feet, the west side is 16 feet. The height limit (and almost all the houses) for G is 24 feet. Draw a line fromJ place over the G limit and you will see no tree or building on I would infringe upon a J place view unless it reached over 30 feet. If you take it from the houses on the east side of J that height reaches to 35 feet. So it is merely a power trip. Views have nothing to do with it. Some folks on J have actually stated they shoul share in the cost of trimming. A noble gesture, but entirely an unnecessary burden because nobody should be burdened with supporting the whims of others.
To the person who accused me of bias with only pictures of bad trees. They must be new here. In the left column under pages, click on Surfside pictures. Lots of examples of property with trees. Especially nice are some RV lots.
Nice try George.
I am not new here. I do know of the pictures you speak of. When were they taken 2012? I was talking about all of the topics you have done since, specially the last couple years. They are always the same, badly done tree care to go along with your kill committee theme. As I stated, you don't show any of the many trees that are taken care of properly and are within the covenants for comparisons. So the bias wasn't an accusation. It's a fact, own it.
Yet 6:33 has no comment on 8:15? A lot easier to bash the host than actually argue with facts. In fact the same negative commentors never seem to confront actual facts. Just what if’s, n vitriol against those they feel threaten their status quo.
Shorepines are very tenacious and adapt desperately to survive. For that reason, they grow pretty well here in Surfside, except for the ridiculous constant attacks on their existence. A drive through the 16ft. limited area leaves most with the impression that the community must surely HATE trees.
The "trees" that exist in this area are pitiful Dr. Seuss (Seusian ?)looking things with 2 or 3 ft. of foliage and a top flat as a pancake. Here and there are clusters of trees that have been trimmed this way, forming a solid block of foliage that neither wind nor light can penetrate. Much of this area is RV lots, who would surely enjoy some shade, and protection from the rain.
Some RV sites are opting to remove anything growing, leaving just a big parking lot. What does that tell you ? They aren't going to let the HOA ruin their lives at the beach, by ensnarling them in this tree-dictate.
Shore pines can reach 50 feet in height. Left to grow to full height in unprotected areas, the shore pines in Surfside would be disastrous during a storm like the one in 2007.
Actually Mr or Mrs Smartypants, can you show me a topic on this blog where there are pictures of houses with properly cared for trees that are within the covenant heights? Bet you can't. So what I said was a factual observation not an attack. So that makes you the one who is doing so.
To the second part and your request for me to comment on 8:15, which a find a little bizarre. Unless you, as George says, are new here there have been plenty of people giving factual rebuttals. There are countless examples that you can find in the past usually under the topic of the "Kill Tree Committee" minutes. In fact since 8:15 has been here before with the geometry lessons there have been ones specifically to those points. My comment was to this particular topic concerning the pictures. Don't know why you feel all the same back and forth needs to happen once again here now since it is obvious by your tone that your not going to listen anyways.
I live in an area not covered by height restrictions. In the seven years I have been here, have only seen a few branches come down, n the they were off of dead trees. Again it’s all about the view n the rest is bull pucky. If heights were a real prob for safety, it would be a coast wide policy. Oh, that’s right, the rest of the coast properties are left to personal property owner responsibility. If it was really about safety, the different height zones negate that argument.
Correcting height zones is one thing. Eliminating any tree covenants is another. There has not been any huge storms in the past seven years so you don't have an understanding of what the storms can be. The Daily Astorian newspaper some time ago published an article which indicated that the massive and destructive storms occur on an average of every 10 years.
Again people only rebut parts of statements. Why is this tree height problem not addressed coast wide? I really doubt we have worse weather than other coastal areas. Maybe because parts of Surfside have gotten rid of trees as windbreaks? It’s not like height restrictions were originally instituted for safety reasons. If it were for safety concerns, all those tall n dead trees on the ridge would be a concern. Wind does not always come from the west.
Shorepines do not grow to 50 feet. 30 ft.is their expected maximum, and they tend to max out much smaller near the beach. Trees you see along the highway are not stands of pines. They are commercially planted hybrid firs which can grow to 150 feet or more.
There are large tracts of trees at the southern end of the peninsula that are a few hundred years old and doing well. They have adapted to the growing conditions with strong roots, unmolested, having weathered many a furious storm. They are largely Firs, Cedars, and Sitka Spruce. Alders are more vulnerable, but there are many large stands of elderly Alders, which tend to drop branches over time, leaving an umbrella-like canopy on top. They have a shorter lifespan.
There are regulations and policies in many of the coastal communities. Astoria and Seaside were closed down, no electricity and no way to travel streets that were blocked by trees in 2007. I was shocked the first time a traveled across the Megler Bridge after that storm because looking over towards Astoria revealed a completely changed view with so many trees knocked down. There was a recent comment on this blog about a member cutting down a tree that had been made unhealthy by the destructive winter north winds. BTW, the prevailing wind is SW not W on the Long Beach peninsula. The terrible shape of many of the trees on the ridge is a concern and a danger during the next big one.
Windbreaks are a good idea but it takes some expertise to develop effective windbreaks. Many very sturdy fences and stands of trees were blown over in 2007. Many not so sturdy fences and unhealthy trees have been blown down since 2007 if you have been paying attention.
A know-it-all, belligerent attitude is going to invite rebuttal. Got that?
What are the height restrictions in Seaside and Astoria? Good discussion till the last para.
Why don't you contact some of the Oregon coast communities to get the information about their measures to prevent future disasters during our coastal storms? Nobody on this blog is your personal researcher or secretary. You might drive through the wind exposed areas of those communities to find very few tall trees. Manzanita, Tillamook, Rockaway, Garibaldi, etc. The issue is wind exposed areas like the wind exposed areas of Surfside.
Manzanita had about half of their trees damage or killed 2 years ago from just one storm. I remember that clearly because I had a couple trees that needed to be removed and had to wait a couple months due to the backlog of work because of it.
Btw, those trees that needed to be removed, I was told to do so by an arborist. You read that right, an arborist. Many "experts" like to come on here and quote general info from arborist but how many have actually had one on their property here?
To the 7 year resident, happy for you you haven't had an issue. Ask George about his neighborhood and if he is honest you will hear a different story. Not only were there branches from living trees blown down there were also some trees removed due to them getting close to falling on a house. And that is the east side of the ridge where the winds do not compare to the west side. I have had a tree from the empty lot next to me come down and missed my truck during a storm. So your little "bull pucky" remark is B.S.
To 1:38:
Funny, I just spent a bunch of time this past weekend on the trails down at Cape Disappointment and saw many trees that had been topped and large branches down or broken. Walk around Ledbetter and see the same along with downed trees also, and again that is on the east side.
But I guess that is all imaginary to some of you, Right?
Cape Disappointment has a die-off of elderly Alder trees occurring, and there are many in the entrance area by the office & Lake. It has nothing to do with the wind, though the Park has had to take measures to trim, top, and remove many of these trees, leaving numerous bare tree trunks and stumps. Alders serve a temporary role in a maturing forest, and don't live as long as the common Firs, Cedars, Maples, and Spruce. Alders drop a lot of branches as they age, most trees do not. The Park is an example of an ancient forest.
Stuff happens at the beach. It is part of the beauty. So why all this control? We are here with the force of nature- as intruders as well as respectful observers. I am just so grateful to hear the wind and walk through the sand and watch the sunset. It comes with heavy maintenance issues, replaced roofing, nasty weeds, and all the rest. Trees do fall down. Shingles fly off in the wind, as well. This is just not a good place for control freaks and OCD or PDSD "victims". This beach comes with messy yards and people who would rather be fishing than mowing the lawn. Live with it. Or move down to Gearhart.
Well said 7:16.
Ok, if it’s all about “safety”, why the different height restrictions? A tall tree, is a tall tree. Where it is has nothing to do with how tall it is in relation to what zone it is. But it might if it’s all about the view of far out to sea.
I don't recall anyone say it was all about safety. I do recall many comments noting that it is a matter of view and safety. You got a problem with holding two thoughts at the same time?
4:02 tries to obfuscate the "view" intention of the covenant with the shiny object of "safety". Walking and chewing gum at the same time is working for 4:02.
No, but since view is not allowed by law to be a reason for height restrictions, hearing it’s all about safety is just obvious misdirection.
Could someone please give a reference to the law that precludes view as a reason for tree height limitations. People keep saying it but I can't find anything to prove that such a law exists.
I think it is more by Court precedent than by statute, but you could google that.
Tried Google and became more muddled about the issue. Fed up with people on this blog siting it as if it is a law. Looks like a clear case of lying again.
2:42, you might try here for a brief general view of local law re tree heights.
https://beresfordlaw.com/protect-your-view-with-a-view-easement-view-covenant/
More than 20 years ago, I owned a ski condo in eastern Washington. The view on the down side of the mountain was spectacular. The condos consisted of several three-story buildings. The top floor was high enough to almost guarantee a marvelous view. The first and second floors were susceptible to losing their views due to the growth of evergreen trees. A covenant was written and approved by the majority of owners to cut down or trim the trees to assure the view. The cost of the tree maintenance was paid by the association.
Post a Comment