In other words.....No change, good or bad.
The recent blog topics have generated many comments that reveal a real block to any changes that would result in an improved Homeowners association. It is clear that we have a divided community. While I prefer discussions that are civil and stick to the topic without name calling and personal insults, it does show the mind set of some of the posters. That in it's self is revealing.
The Board...
The Board should e setting a good example of members with differing opinions and views working together. Their failure to do this has only further divided the community. Time and again, they have sent a clear message that they favor status-quo. They have shut down committees, motions and discussions that would consider any kind of changes. Any consideration of an issue is considered a threat to the individuals that serve with conflicts of interest. The Board leadership and members on the Board, have failed the members. The re-appointment of Williams as Board President, is a perfect example of favoring the status-quo.
Members...
That's you and me. The members are just as guilty as the Board in supporting the status-quo. Not voting and/or participating in the affairs of the association only supports the status-quo. There is an argument that if the members were better informed, they would see a need for change and be more involved, especially in the voting process. The newly formed tech. committee is working for this improvement in member communications.
For Status-Quo...
Why change anything if it is working in your favor now? Why risk losing a special interest?
Cut trees for a view. It's working now. Rv's with restrictions...It's working now. Covenant changes by the Board only. It's working now. Unauthorized meetings and spending. Works for some.
The only changes these people favor is more and more harsh enforcement of the existing covenants.
Against Status-Quo...
These members see a real need for changes that will treat everyone fair. They have witnessed failures, mistakes and poor decision by the Board and staff. They don't favor dissolving Surfside, they favor making it better. If that fails, they would consider dissolving it. Several present and past Board members as well as some from the general membership, have had the courage to step forward and tried to put the issues on the table for discussion. Some Board members are even willing to spend many thousands of member dollars in legal actions. Don't kid yourself, it's about power and maintaining the status-quo.
In closing....
It is human nature to resist change, but the resistance we see here in Surfside to change, is far beyond that. It is the preservation of power, special interests and inflated ego's.
Anyway, I may be wrong, but it's my opinion and how I see it.
12 comments:
You've missed some critical points George. Many members would like to see the covenants fully enforced in a fair and timely manner. A recent trip to the chipping site revealed a large number of RV lots with two and more uninhabited RVs parked on small lots as well as some other glaring covenant violations. The complaint method to enforce covenants is a hateful farce. Further, we want a competent General Manager. We want transparent information regarding all operations and assets of the association including full disclosure in the event of management errors. We want employees in the office who are able and ready to use the available technology to better inform and serve all members. Why can't numbered passes to be used at the compactor be issued via email with verifications of membership? Many in that fabricated "status quo" category want lots of changes that would truly serve to improve the association while not catering to the fanciful ideas of a few members suffering from buyer's remorse. Why aren't we talking about fair and improved within the parameters of the existing covenants which most of us agreed to and support?
I agree with much of what you have stated respectfully, however, many in the "fabricated" status quo category are not even willing to engage in discussion for fear that a covenant they favor may be modified. They label those who advocate review, a member approval vote and change as "fanciful ideas". Thanks for opening the discussion here.
Since it is known that Trustees and Committee members sometimes submit complaints to augment their agendas, enforcement is not really just based on anonymous member complaints. Technically they are members and as such, are entitled to file complaints. But the community DOES have enforcement monitors, though no single person has that title. The Business office manager is also the head compliance officer.
So this singling-out the "Complaint System" as a cause of conflict in the community is a fallacy. The issues are the cause of conflict, and the lack of open discussion on such issues much more the root of these problems. The HOA is obligated to field member complaints, whether or not complaints are considered necessary to prompt enforcement efforts.
I'm not sure offhand, what the restrictions are on RV lots, but it seems reasonable that RV owners should be able to have guests short term, and if there is room, the guests allowed a short term permit to park on their host's lot. For many RVers, the social element of RV parks is a draw, and guests need somewhere to stay.
Personally, I can't relate to being upset about seeing two RVs on a lot without the presence of the owners. What is alarming about that ? But I don't drive around the community looking for obscure violations or vague indications of such. Clearly neighbors need to be courteous of one another, and that seems to be the crux of the matter.
But just to say, the rigidity of the Board majority prevents many issues from being openly discussed, and efforts are made instead, to prevent these problems from being addressed at all. It has nothing to do with a "complaint system".
It is very common for those who advocate change to believe their cause is just and right. That is as it should be. The line is crossed when those who advocate change believe those who who do not support or even oppose their change are evil, or cold hearted. In reality, those who advocate change need to convince not estrange their comrades.
I don't understand the anger and hostility. Why buy into Surfside if you hate it so?
Makes no sense!!
I honestly believe that nothing will make some happy and I'm tired of being insulted because I like the covenants. If they would be enforced, I'd be much happier.
When you don't know what the covenants and the county ordinances have to say about the number of RVs on a lot I don't understand why you feel so free to spout off an ignorant opinion. Go, do the reading and then apologize.
You should be apologizing for always being so rude, with nothing but cut n paste answers.
I know exactly what the covenants say about Tree heights, and oppose the restrictions as written. I've expressed a viewpoint on visitors with RVs on RV lots, without knowing the restrictions written. What is the difference ?
I don't own an RV, but I have read the covenants numerous times, and think there are too many restrictions on their use of the property they OWN. So I really don't care what the covenants say about more than one RV on a lot. I believe there are no allowances for it, but don't feel I need to comply with the demands of 2:45, just another anonymous blogger. So I'm ignorant and owe you an apology huh ?
Given that the HOA has no problem persecuting members over their UNWRITTEN compliance standards, as in the case with Johansen, what the covenants say may or may not make any sense, or make any difference when the HOA decides to harass an owner.
It's interesting that you offer no information, so you may not know the written requirements either. You offer no justification for calling me ignorant for expressing an opinion. What we know from the Johansen case is that people with the County don't know what the County standards say, and disagree with one another.
Since Surfside has its' own enforcement of standards, it is doubtful the County really cares if Surfside chooses to set a different set of standards for RV lots. Their concerns are much more likely to focus on proper disposal of wastes, than the number of RVs allowed on a lot short term.
Here's my apology : I'm sorry that you are so uncomfortable with proposals of new ideas that you have to disrespect independent thinking.
The covenants do not specifically address RV lots and RV guest parking. They state only that only one RV is to remain on a lot long term, and no permanent residency is allowed. They state that RVs are to be registered at the office at the beginning of the season, and display a permit.
What I suggested was that short-term guest permits be allowed for, and it might be wise to limit the number to one guest RV at a time, and a set limit of guest days per lot. Some owners are doing this already, so it would be wise to REVISE the covenant to be more specific and CLEAR.
As mentioned in the comment at 2:45, there is a county ordinance regarding the number of RV's allowed on a lot. Do the research, read, think and then comment. You'll look a lot smarter than you currently look.
You don't understand what I already said ? The County isn't likely to care what Surfside regulations are relative to this issue. They don't monitor such things, and if consulted about their own standards you get inaccurate answers.
I'm not concerned about impressing you or anyone else, rest assured. I'm doing fine without your anonymous advice - so keep it to yourself.
This is something I always find interesting here. When certain people complain about a covenant they will point at what the county rules are as a reason for the covenant being unfair, ignoring the fact that most HOA's have more restrictive rules than the city/county they are in. Then some of the same people will turn around and want the HOA to pass rules that are an exception to what the county rules are to suit there needs.
Funny how that works.
Post a Comment