Closed to further comments
The Tree Committee met August 17, 2018 with four (4) Board members present. It would have been nice if they had showed this much interest in the abolished Tech. Committee. There was no special interest or personal agenda about the technology Committee. Can't say that about the Tree propaganda committee. Now I can be accused of calling them all "birds"
The rambling minutes never state how many complaints they investigated or how many were false. They never say if the complaint of tall trees blocked a view of the complainant. They never say if one person wrote multiple complaints month after month. If any committee should be abolished, it's this one.
According to this report, the attorney filed legal action on August 2 on complaint #4367 (outstanding since 7/23/2104.....Yes, 2104
They are back on the kick of telling us what is appropriate to plant and even suggested a garden tour of Surfside. You got to be kidding. How about a tour of dead trees and grass and the examples set by the directors? About a year ago, an instructor at WSU suggested if you want to see how to not take care of trees, "visit Surfside"
For a larger view of the propaganda, click on each page.
55 comments:
I would love a garden tour. I've been to several, years ago, and I found them very informative.
I would like better clarification on tree removal. Permit required? Or only if clearing many?
3:52 Call the County. They are the only one who will give you an honest answer.
So not too long ago the host was on here telling people to water their lawns to make SHOA more attractive. Now he finds fault with a committee doing the same with plants.
There is no reason to tie in the Tech Committee. One has nothing to do with the other. But since you decided to bring it up, one of the two Trustees on the TREE COMMITTEE voted against the termination and it wasn't your pal Larry. I've noticed you have remained silent on that fact since the meeting.
The bottom line is....
Covenants that require topping, cutting and killing our trees is wrong. The reasons for it being wrong are known to everyone. Anyone, Board member, committee or member who supports this are wrong. It's bad for the trees and bad that members are forced to cut and kill healthy trees. Petty attacks against me and others who know it is wrong, does not change the facts. Anyone who supports attacking the natural beauty of our trees is doing so for the wrong reasons. I will continue to speak up against this until this shameful practice is eliminated. You will find that the best thing to plant along the coast is Pine trees. This shameful covenant and shameful enforcement will end. It's just a matter of time. It will probably take a court action, but it will end.
I am hopeful that the new generations are more appreciative of God's gift of trees and will be better stewards of our lands than the present generation. Sad.
Well spoken George.
The covenant does not require the topping, cutting and killing of the trees. The irresponsible care of the trees is the problem. This is similar to guns in America. It is the person who does the killing. I also am hopeful that future generations will be better stewards of our environment.
The tree cov. are a great example of "the old way". The following generation will surely pass on this as it is against our morals to continue to degrade nature to serve ourselves. Leveling trees for a "view" from many blocks away is asinine. I'm surprised there wasn't a dune dozing covenant for the ocean front owners where any dune shall be fined if built up too high.
You want a view? Go buy a property that has a view. A real one.
Funny, the host talks of petty attacks when he constantly does the same against people who volunteer their time for the community. Notice how he didn't do this or call it the kill tree committee when he was on it. On the Tech Committee topic he asked is a wonder why it is difficult to get members to volunteer for anything yet continues to treat the volunteers of this committee, who BTW volunteer in other areas in SHOA also, with disdain. It is one thing to be against a covenant and a totally different thing to continually attack people that serve on a committee that you don't agree with. The latter just shows a lack of character.
DOWN WITH TREE COMMITTEE! Serves no purpose other than giving Olds and her buds a way to meddle in other members properties.
Well 8:21, if you wanted to live in a forest and not see the ocean than you should have bought on the East side or in the mountains.
9:06, close, my property is east of the ridge (no tree covenants). And yes, I considered the nice tree views in my decision when I bought.
when I bought here I considered the tree heights and decided that I liked what they were. I purchased on G because of the limits. I would prefer that there aren't trees near me, or ones of any height anyway.
It also shows a lack of character to defend a group of self serving individuals who think their way is the only way.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge they many beautifully pruned shore pines throughout Surfside? These trees are a credit to their owners and an example to all Surfside members. The tree covenants are not new nor are they burdensome. If you own property you must maintain it. Do we really want to defend the behavior of members who are not willing or who refuse to maintain their property to the standard set in the covenants? Remember the blue tarp house. It did not matter if you had a view of that appalling display of callous disregard for one's property. The existence of the blue tarp house brought every members property values down. We have fine examples of how to maintain our property right here in Surfside. We also have appalling examples of how not to maintain your property right here in Surfside. To all members who turned their property into a disgusting stump farm in retaliation for a tree height covenant violation, thanks for devaluating all Surfside properties and showing us just what how selfish you are.
I served on the Tree Committee as Secretary for several years. I was asked by the then chairman, Larry Raymer to join the committee. Previously, I had volunteered with Larry on several committees. I had served as Secretary on the Water/Field Committee under his chairmanship.
As Secretary, my main function was to send notifications to committee members, record and keep notes of committee meetings and work with the Chairman in preparation of the meeting minutes. Those minutes were short and concise and consisted of actions taken. The agenda of the meetings were published in the Weekender prior to the meetings.
At that time there were 3 members who lived on the East side and two on the West side. That made for a pretty good representation of all of Surfside. I only recall of one instance where I went with Larry to investigate a complaint. None of the committee members wrote complaints or urged others to do so.
Then as now, the few complaints were mostly from J Place and it is reported that in most cases, multiple complaints from single individuals. The names of those filing complaints were not revealed to the committee other than the Chairman. He did not disclose those names.
Laura Frazier, Business Manager and designated Compliance Officer, did an excellent job of preparing a report for the committee. She was well aware of her responsibilities in regards to tree complaints and legal enforcement. She did not need a "spread sheet" or micromanagement in any way.
Many of the tree height violations never reached the point of a violation letter being sent. Larry resolved many of the complaints by having a civil conversation face to face with the violator. He would explain the violation and work with the members to resolve the issue.
Many of the violations were against properties owed by members who lived out side the area. Many times this involved a time extension that worked with the ability for the member to arrange time to be here, as most members prefer to do the work themselves. His civil approach many times resulted in a much less angry member and compliance.
Property was never trespassed upon. In fact, many times Larry was invited on the property to discuss the issue with the property owner. Never was that property owner told to cut down their trees. He always advised that the property owner should consult a licensed arborist. Larry was and is respected for his handling of issues. The truth is...Larry did most all the work. If after contact with the member failed in compliance results, Recommendations were made to continue the process with warning letters and legal action if needed. This was always a last resort and not a first.
The Tree Committee and enforcement process was working well until a J Place resident attended committee meetings and complained about just about everything the committee and Designated Compliance Officer. The member was critical of all that I stated above. Disrespectful comments and accusations. In spite of that, was admitted to be a member on the committee.
This member then conspired behind the back of the committee chairman for his removal as chairman. This was accomplished at a Board meeting where he was absent due to illness. Without notification to him, he was replaced as Chairman by the present Chairperson.
Myself and another committee member resigned from the committee. You now have the committee you see now. I think that speaks for it's self. What I have stated above, are not my opinion, they are the facts. As they say, "Now you know the rest of the story".
Correction, now we know George’s side of the story. As with all stories, there is more than one side. BTW, how many years had Larry been the chair of that committee? I do not remember it being quite as idealistic as George does under Larry’s chairmanship.
Once Larry was a trustee he couldn't be the Chair, so there was no behind the back. A new chair had to be assigned.
Many of us were here through all that George. That’s the way I saw it go down, but then, I’m not on, or associated with the board. But know many that were.
Don't bother with facts 4:52.
Care to explain that huge eyesore on I st where the person was allowed to just cut and leave the trees? That happened under both of you two. It wasn't until this year that they started finally cleaning it up. If the same would have happened under the current tree committee George would have been out there with his camera getting multiple shots from multiple angles to post on here. Probably rent a drone for aerial views.
Also, what exactly has this committee done differently? They go out and measure trees so it can be determined if the complaint is valid or not. You have provided nothing to show that they are doing anything different then you all did besides working as a team and not putting everything on one persons shoulder as you admitted.
There have been a number of instances where a Board Trustee has been the chair of a committee.
George was, Larry was and Rudd is. Many times they have filled the committee chair position when there was a vacancy. There is a requirement that all committees have a chair. What is different with the tree committee now, is lack of respect, impartiality, and personal agendas that directly are a conflict of interest. We now have those fixated with power and lack of empathy along with a lack of communication skills. This committee has destroyed member trust in fair treatment that will take years to regain. They have done far more bad than good. There is an old saying that..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The "fix" they are doing has destroyed the credibility of the committee. This committee should be dissolved ASAP.
As for "putting everything on one person", That is all that is needed. A few tree complaints a month can be investigated by one impartial member and turned over to the Compliance Officer. I witnessed the new members and one in particular, that wanted more fines and compliance done right now. I saw Laura being constantly challenged. I feel sorry for her with what she now has to put up with from this demanding committee. It really is a shame.
So, the new tree committee wants to actually enforce the covenants. You call that disrespect? I call that being fair and impartial. All I have to say is, do not allow stump farms in Surfside! If you allow your trees to grow beyond the point where they can be safely pruned then remove the tree and grind the stump. Have some respect for you neighbors and yourself. We are a community with rules, like them or not, you need to follow them. Do it with dignity.
Again. provide proof of them being unfair. Provide proof where they have gone out to measure trees and told people they were over the height limit when they were not. Show me where they have treated anyone with a lack of respect.
That you would even talk about respect and empathy with what you and others spew here on almost a daily basis is laughable.
Funny how George can accuse a committee that is only doing what is ask of them of being fixated with power at the same time he deletes comments and controls the message on the blog he rules. Just goes along with all of his other hypocritical statements.
I'm a lowlander who lives in an area with the shortest tree heights to comply with the covenants. I support the full enforcement of the tree covenant and other covenants. I would like to see the enforcement handled fairly and fully with no complaint needed to compel action. Surfside would be a friendlier and more attractive community if all members were forced to get serious about taking good care of their trees and to comply with all the covenants. The whining and complaining of a few members to try to duck the tree covenant that is a part of their ownership responsibilities is tiresome and an embarrassment to the entire community. Being absent from property is not excuse not to take care of it. The local businesses should be thriving with income from responsible Surfside owners who pay for the care of their lots when they cannot do it themselves. Those owners who are not willing to care properly for their lots should be brought to the realization that irresponsible ownership will not be tolerated in Surfside. This is a path to owning property in a friendly, respected, admired and attractive community. The complaining and irresponsible stuff needs to be pruned, weeded and thrown out of Surfside.
The out of compliance trees on neighboring properties have fallen and damaged my fence more than once. Dead and dying trees on neighboring properties have dropped large limbs on my garage roof creating some cosmetic damage but gratefully no structural damage. My removal of the limbs and some painting restored my garage to its former condition. I have spent more than $2,500 on the removal of scraggily, unhealthy trees and stumps that were on my property when I bought it. I have been forced to chemically treat my home and decks for carpenter ants because nearby stumps on neighboring properties attract these destructive creatures. In each of our strong wind storms, I am happy that I spent the money because I look around and see the blow downs of unhealthy trees nearby.
Changing the covenants to accommodate the ideas of a few disgruntled owners who want more than they paid for in privileges and less responsibilities than they agreed to when they bought their lot(s) does nothing to improve Surfside in my view. Action to improve the enforcement of the covenants would surely make owning in Surfside a more valuable investment with a more cooperative spirit. Following the rules and harshly discouraging the rule breakers can lead to a much brighter future for Surfside.
I applaud the work of the tree committee and I don't serve on it. Surfside was not an improving or better place when the tree committee operated in a more relaxed manner. In fact, the general appearance was worse and the members who wanted to ignore the covenants got away with it and encouraged others to do so as well. I'd like to see us all pull together for the betterment of Surfside. Shorter and healthier trees in high wind areas is a good start.
So George finally shows up to a board meeting (so brave!!) to hear it first hand, evens records it, then proceeds to make completely false statements about it. And yet he says they have a lack of communication skills. The way he treats these volunteers of the tree committee, people who also volunteer for other things around SHOA, is shameful.
To use his own words:
"And you wounder why it is so difficult to get members to volunteer for anything".
I left "wonder" miss spelled due to it being a quote.
Nicely said 9:13. From another low lander on the west side
9:13, all that is based on the fact you like the trees kept low. The opposition doesn't.
Yes it's in the covenants, but it doesn't mean we all need to like it.
Some of the frustration to criticize the tree committee is that it's the most heavily supported volunteer group in SHOA and quite a few of us feel it's also based on the most frivolous demand in all of SHOA.
Tech committee has a fumble starting up and gets terminated, tree committee cannot use math and projection techniques to estimate tree height so get blessed with laser binoculars.
There is real problems to solve in our community beyond feeding the self serving ridge top view demands and obsessive compulsive needs of various members.
The Tree restrictions are a bane on Surfside, and will negatively impact real estate values as they currently do, so long as this stupid policy is in place. Most large urban areas have established restrictions on cutting trees, realizing the negative impact that a lack of trees has on communities.
Trees absorb pollutants from the air and produce oxygen, which many humans enjoy very much. Our community looks manipulated and man-handled. Many who want to live in a Coastal community expect a natural environment with trees. There is no need to have any restrictions of less than 24 ft. Building heights are 24 ft. on G St., and some of the dunes are taller than 27 ft.
If your property on J Pl. is so low that 24 ft. trees block your view, then you don't really have a "view" property, regardless of what the realtor may have stated. Some of the G St. lots are several feet above sea level, so close to 30 ft. high, and many are no more than 8 ft. apart. The so-called view just isn't to be had.
I saw a realty ad for a G St. property the other day that stated "the dunes can be modified to augment your view". The County forbids this, and we need to enforce that rigorously.
Just a reminder, this is in no way a metro HOA. This is a resort/retirement community in a fairly natural remote area. That is the charm n the reason so affordable. If you want a spiffy HOA with manicured lawns, sidewalks n streetlights, you bought in the wrong place. Settle down, grow up n enjoy what we have. Please don’t ruin it.
Nothing in the covenants is pointed at making Surfside a metro HOA! Settle down yourself 10:15. Grow up and let things develop in Surfside that will improve and enhance its value. Surfside should not be turned into a low income ghetto. There is nothing charming about that.
10:49 there is plenty of low income ghetto in SHOA currently (check out 32014 North Pl if you want a lovely example... it's got literally all the violations in one package). There are many examples of dilapidated housing and lots all over. None are being addressed and what is is shed overhangs and tree heights. Pure durangment by ill focused members. Real leadership would point their efforts in the proper direction.
11:40 File a complaint against the violations that you see. Sadly, this is the insane method to enforce covenants that your board has chosen. The trees and sheds have been getting the complaints. Put the screws on the board to correct the covenant enforcement policy so that we can have a community that we are proud of.
To 10:09's comment that keeps getting repeated.
Once again I feel you are mixing views of the beach to views of the ocean. Most if not all on here are talking about ocean views.
Contrary to what you say many who move to a Coastal community like to see the ocean more than trees. Ask any first time visitor here and I doubt that the first thing they will say when describing our area is "Wow, they sure have nice trees there, spent all day enjoying them". There are other areas on the peninsula you can choose if you want to be surrounded by them or pick a nice mountain area. I want to see the Ocean and horizon plus I don't want to deal with potential tree issues with the high wind storms we get.
On your 24 ft rule. If people would keep their trees at no higher than the building that would be fine but you can see many examples where that isn't the case. My question for you is, what happens when the tree gets to 24 ft? Does it magically stop there? How do you deal with it then? You never seem to answer that question. Go to the northern border of SHOA then look further north. The trees are at such a height that you can't see the horizon. That's what people want to avoid.
This isn't an urban area, not even a small one so there are no restrictions needed. Even if every plot was to have every tree removed, which isn't going to happen, there still will be plenty that remain.
Most of the property owners in Surfside or the whole peninsula do not have an ocean view. Most people are not here for the view. They are here for the entire beach experience. I do agree about the 24 foot limit. That is why there should be no limit.
I you want a real ocean view, you need to purchase along the Oregon coast or California, not here where the trees and dunes grow.
This tree issue is nothing more than the few on J Place wanting to keep their view at the expense of the many others. The only property value they care about is their own selfish interest. The right to have trees of any height is much more important than a minority few with a view that is really not that good anyway.
Your right about not being an urban area, so there are no restrictions needed. You just shot yourself in the foot. Your comment has no validity or credibility. I agree the covenant is wrong and outdated in our times of equal rights and enviromental awareness.
10:09 sez ...I own property in Surfside so I know it is not an urban area. The point in bringing up larger cities is that once the trees are gone, is when they are most missed. It takes a long time to grow a nice tree, large enough to give shade and protection from the wind and rain. It is a serious piece of property, and one's right to have healthy trees on private property should not be an issue so easily dismissed.
So many people have no understanding that Shorepines do not grow to great heights. Many other varieties grow on the peninsula that DO grow tall. The trees we commonly see in sandy soils near the Ocean are generally Shorepines, and don't grow over about 30 feet tall. Wind and lack of nutrients in the sand limit their heights even more.
it is true that if they're trimmed properly when several feet tall, they tend to not grow over 20 to 24 feet tall.
Equal rights and environmental awareness? First, Surfside is not a democracy, republic, or socialistic experiment. Surfside is a corporation! Surfside is not a government of any form. Surfside has written rules and until the rules are changed by the governing body or the stockholders, they must be enforced without debate. If you want to debate the rules then petition Surfside's Board of Trustees instead of badmouthing other stockholders. Second, personal property rights, believe it or not, are not outdated. Stockholders who own property on J Place paid extra for "view property". Those stockholders rely on the tree height covenants to maintain the view they paid extra for. Equal rights and environmental awareness are far removed from this issue.
G Place members also paid extra for ocean front property. Over the years it's not so close. Dunes grow and trees grow. You say that Surfside is not a government of any form, then turn right around and call it a "governing body" Your foot is in your mouth again. It may not be an environmental issue for you, obviously, but it sure is for others. All members have just as much right to enjoy their property as you. Your double talk will prove nothing that favors butchering trees.
Members who purchased property on G street and other low land agreed to maintain their trees at or below a prescribed height. Once again, they agreed to maintain their trees at or below a prescribed height. So just do it already.
Butchering trees? Can you here them screaming? You make me laugh. Washington State schools get a large portion of their revenue from logging on state land. Trees are not sentient. Tree heights are restricted in the covenants. Beach accretion is not. You are comparing apples to oranges.
I propose seeding the dunes with pine trees.
Well 4:23, you bought into an area with tree covenants and are now complaining about it. I will have to assume you are not on the board nor have run for it to try and change it, instead opting to come on here and rant. You also assume incorrectly that it is only the people on the ridge for the covenants. That isn't true.
So California and Oregon don't have trees and dunes? Sorry, that has to be one of the more silliest comments I have read on this topic. And I'm being kind saying silly. Take a trip down to Manzanita and talk to them about trees. They use to have a bunch until they lost a high percentage due to a major storm, another reason why people here don't want high trees in our area. To your suggestion for me to purchase there, you should have followed your own advice and moved elsewhere on the peninsula.
That also goes to your grandiose statement about equal rights. Your rights have not been taken away. You had the right to purchase property anywhere but didn't. Instead you bought in an area with rules you don't agree with, says something about you. So while my foot may be wounded you shot yourself in a more critical area. And what about the rights of those of us who purchase property here because of the rules? We did so with our eyes opened and with expectations they would be followed by all. You believe it is acceptable to infringe on ours and find it acceptable.
Apparently your comment has no validity or credibility either.
And yours does? Volume does not designate quality.
Covenants, for the tree related or not, should be re examined at a regular basis, just like outdated laws should be looked at to see if they are still relevant.
Why does everyone abhor change here? Why should we blindly follow a board of trustees that has already shown themselves to be dishonest and disrespectful of the members, with the exception of their selected clique?
Your words speak for themselves, 9:25. I rest my case.
We are not blindly following the board. What good does it do to whine like a stuck pig about the tree height covenants on this blog. If you want them changed get up and do something. The board is not going to change the tree height covenants unless there is wide support for it. Despite your ridiculous attempts to shame them into changing the covenants for equal rights or sentient arbor rights reasons. Show them you have wide support for elimination of tree covenants.
The dunes are not yours to seed. Stay on your own property and follow the community rules. It really is that simple.
SHOA needs to take care of its own covenant and other violations before pointing fingers. If anybody would bother to attend meetings, the problems would be very obvious. I’ve been an HOA president n wouldn’t touch these last few boards with a ten foot pole. If this was a real business board, some would be in jail.
Would be in jail you say? Please name the laws that trustees have broken and the range of prison sentences they would be subject to. You were an HOA President so you should be fully competent in the prosecution of criminal HOA trustees.
As you all say ALOT, do your own research. Be pretty stupid to give you ammunition.
10:04 has compression problems. He said if SHOA was a REAL business.
6:06.... We've heard your ridiculous claim many times before and you are flat WRONG ! ALL organizations such as HOAs, Churches and Schools are incorporated as non-profit organizations. The State RCWs are the template for conducting business in these registered organizations, and they prescribe a democratic process as these organizations represent specific memberships, and are required to operate in a transparent open manner.
Take your corporate model and stick it ! It has nothing at all to do with our HOA. There are no super secret rules that only the Executives on the Board know about. All of our documents are in black and white on the website. Magic it isn't. Only individual owner's account information is private. All other HOA business is public domain.
(Should) be public domain, but not in Surfside. A lot of board actions done in secret n later exposed here.
As I though. Nobody can provide the spacific law that any trustee has broken. Any fool can claim someone should be in jail. In reality you have to actually break a law before you go to jail.
8:08 I haven't seen anything yet that says jail time either. That is to say, if something came out such as documents or something else showing they purposefully chose against a legal direction i.e. if the water guys said "we have a problem with this asbestos pipe and how do we handle it" and they said to ignore, lie, etc. that yes, but nothing like that has happened I don't believe.
HOA Board members routinely have broad protection against prosecution for decisions they make in their roles managing HOAs. It creates a situation that can put communities in jeopardy, in that owner participation tends to be lacking in most, and most operate on the blind trust of owners, with little oversight of Board actions - just like Surfside !!
A willingness to serve as a volunteer HOA Board or committee member sounds wholesome and selfless, but some folks relish having the authority to manipulate business to their liking, and taking undue advantage of the trust put in them. Without oversight, HOAs often run off the rails due to misguided policies and poor management run amok.
Post a Comment