The question is.....How do we manage it?
There should be no question about it...We are a recreational community.
We are not a retirement community. We are not a trailer park?
Unlike most HOA's, we are a mixture of the above, plus investment properties.
Many times we see the comments that "You knew we had covenants when you purchased here".
That is mostly true. It is also true that you knew we were a recreational community when you purchased here. You can and should have expected there would be RV's located in the community.
The conflict is with fair administration and enforcement of the covenants and being willing to adjust those covenants to changing trends that is fair for most. I do not expect that it will ever be fair for everyone.
We are seeing houses being built, mostly by speculation builders. For the most part, they seem to be selling. Most of them are of small square footage. The national trend seems to be for smaller homes for a number of reasons.
Driving around Surfside, I was struck with the increased number of RV's and lots being developed for their use. That appears to be the real trend. We clearly need more statistics on what is happening.
Our RV storage lot is filled and has a waiting list. Consideration and discussion is now happening on what should or needs to be done to accommodate more storage.
My observation is that most of the RV's in storage only move from there to their beach lot and back. It's not like they are taken out of the lot and hit the open road. They are mainly used as a small beach cabin. If that is in fact, a true observation, would smaller square foot cabins being allowed, replace many of the RV's occupying present lot's?
If there is limited storage space in the RV storage lot, you will see an increased demand for year round occupancy of lots.
Many of the RV's are much better looking than in the past, and cost as much as a cabin or "tiny house" But, they are still an RV, and look like an RV. They are designed for temporary occupancy. A tiny house or cabin are designed for full time use and better suited for our coastal climate.
By allowing smaller square footage homes in Surfside could result in more people considering retirement here. Permanent residents and owners of permanent structures tend to take more interest in the care of that property. There are those who say that allowing smaller homes will only bring other issues. If that happens, you add or change the covenants to deal with those issues. We will always have RV's, but those people should have other options also. Just adopting the Pacific County Ordinance on square footage, would be a start.
I may be partly wrong or even totally wrong, but that is my opinion. What's yours?
At least talking about it is a start.
35 comments:
Fear of talking about anything in this HOA that isn’t the elitists idea will give you the labeling of Moron. Your ideas are great George. Think it would ever fly?
I agree that a smaller square footage is in order. There have been comments that small homes won't hold up to our climate, but I strongly disagree. They have to be built to the same code requirements that a larger home has.
What I don't want to see is homes on wheels, blocks, pilings or that are movable in any way. And I don't want manufactured or mobile homes where there not allowed now.
Surfside has many lots that are too small for the current sq. Ft. So it only seems fair to shorten the limits for those lots.
I do Not want RVs left on properties period!
I'm good with smaller SQ Ft "homes" that are on a concrete foundation. I see no problem with these providing the county says they are OK?
Also might help with a few of the lots near the canal that are currently unbuildable
currently in the covenants if you have a lot where the shape doesn't work well with the min sqft, you can submit an alternative plan to the architectural committee for review. If they see it as a good compromise, they would theoretically approve it. Surely it must be equal to or greater than county limits in that compromise.
We need more RV's on lots.
RV'ers are subsidizing my HOA dues. Without them our HOA dues would double.
BS 8:24!! Some of us would be very happy to pay twice as much if all RVs were banned from Surfside. The costs related to dealing with the complaints and covenant infractions would crater if the RVs were gone.
So 8:24, you and one other person would propose at least doubling the annual assessment to change the entire mission of Surfside, that being a recreational destination? How about you and your “some of us” just pick up the tab for all of the RV lots since you seem so ready to volunteer a larger payment. RV’s are an integral part of this community, always have been, always will be. Please try and control your inner anger in future postings.
9:25. Purely a Surfside Snob SOB! Don’t ever forget what Surfside was in the beginning. You will NEVER rid your sorry self of RVs. Maybe it’s time for a u haul rentalto load your valuable in and depart! Bye bye
Sorry, 7:33 was meant to respond to 9:25, not 8:24. My apology’s.
Please remember dear 9:25 that we have a staff of two who should have tons of time to deal with all the infractions you allude to. Not to mention that your comment is ridiculous anyway.
9:25, this is flawed in a few ways. The cost is not true, those employees still work 40 each week before and after your proposal. Also, the idea complaints would just disappear is ridiculous. It isn't only RV folk with infractions, it's all members. Currently the major focus is RV lots. Some HOAs lose their sh*t if you stain your driveway a certain color. I can promise you if we used our magic wand and all RVs were gone, you'd hear the same complainers going on and on about other issues such as the existing tree issues and many more like house roof heights, cleanliness, colors, yard decor, noise, lights, too many cars parked, year round garage sales, gardens on your front lawn, on and on... It's personalities that drive most frivolous complaints, not true irritant problems
Second, I think you'd be paying closer to 2.5X the current rate if vacant lots all a sudden didn't pay.
The fix or management of this proposal is putting the change in front of the board for a vote.
The board wants to change the shed overhang to a limit, so the change to a 420 sq ft minimum building, as the county has now, can be done at the same time.
There is a market here for tiny home builders. "Build it and they will come".
I invite each and everyone of you that posts on this blog for ALL of you to attend all of the Board meetings and voice your concerns. Because of the lack of civility on this forum, your concerns will go no further than this page. You should not be afraid to speak out for fear of retaliation regardless of your view. There should be plenty of witness' so if anything follows up, you will have recourse. You may be quieted by the Board President, but as a dues paying member, you have the right to voice your concerns. Please do so in a respectful manner with a calm demeanor. Yelling or threatening others will defeat your purpose, whether you are a resident or a Board Member. I will be there, will you?
The blog doesn't pretend to be an avenue for political action, but is just a discussion site. The blog does bring to light the focus of the BOT and an overview of meetings, and details some of the issues that come up in the community.
Bringing comments or suggestions to the monthly meetings is just fine, but unless it jives with the president's views, it will be a wasted effort. Trustees who differ in opinion are ignored and marginalized, so assume that differing viewpoints of members will fall on deaf ears.
This Board has dedicated itself to maintaining the status-quo above all, and has dedicated large sums of member funds to pres. William's personal war on Patrick Johansen, in an all-out effort to intimidate Surfside owners who do not cow to the HOA's demands, no matter how unfounded and baseless.
The motions that Deb Blagg brought to the floor of the Annual Meeting were shot down, in spite of the fact that member motions ARE legitimate in a MEMBER meeting. The Annual is not the same as monthly meetings in this sense. It is intended to be a member-oriented meeting, where owners can bring issues to the floor for discussion or vote on advisory actions for Board review.
The BOT was prepared to nip this in the bud, preventing the members from addressing any issues in an independent way. Deb was representing the membership by offering up a few issues that were/are worthy of member discussion. Nothing will change without owners taking their role more seriously, and stop bitching about owners who stand up for their rights.
As it is, the conservative cadre continues to steamroll any independent voices, even getting the HOA attorney chiming in to stop open discussion, where he has nothing more than an advisory role, and an uninformed opinion. There was nothing "invalid" about the effort to vote on advisory motions.
If you have any proposals for change, the BOT is not interested.
If you adopt that attitude, nothing will ever change and you will only have yourself to blame. By the way, I am on your side and have been a conservative all of my life, I don't think calling the BOT members and like thinkers as conservatives truly represents their position.
If Deb was for the membership then why didn't she make it known to the entire membership, maybe she would've had more support. Seems more like her own agenda versus what the entire membership wants.
Like the secret behind doors meetings some of the BOD have with their personal agendas? You made me chuckle with your ridiculous comment about Deb when the underhanded actions of this board are taking place. Wake up and smell the roses dear?
What personal agenda does the entire executive committee have? To protect the covenants that we as members agreed to and bought here because of? Gee go figure, people protecting our investments, crazy idea!
They have as an agenda # one to protect their buddies, # two to protect their views, # three to make sure RV owners are an oppressed minority.
Bang on this all you want, but this is based on direct observation over the last 18 months. I've had property in Surfside for 16 years, and this association has never been in worse shape. If it can't be taken back from the 'good old boys', I would favor dissolution.
8:07 thank you for your explanation of my comments regarding the BOD. SHOA is certainly in worse shape ever!
The fact that the only board members to use their names on this blog are pat and deb. Says it all. The others hide behind anonymous. The rest of us use anonymous for the reason of how these board members have bad mouthed and threatened pat and deb. The rest of the board appears to be cowards that hide in the shadows. The French aristocracy said “ let them eat cake”, we all saw what happened to them. That was in no way a threat by the way. Just a history lesson. Ok board members and friends, proceed to tear me apart n call me names, or copy and paste your normal responses,lol
More than a few times, some of you have accused me of being a board member or past board member. Not so! 9:52 suffers from the delusions and paranoia that are rooted in the Johansen and Blagg nonsense. Part of the reason that the association's management is not performing well is the harassment of those who consider themselves to be change agents extraordinaire. Sadly, they are nothing more than members who errored in judgement about buying property in Surfside. Instead of accepting their mistake or correcting it with the sale of their property, they became troublemakers seeking to drag others into their selfish desires to change things to suit their dreams while totally ignoring the majority of members who do not support their ideas.
Settle your ego down, not everything bout you anonymous non board member. But you might as well be, or were.
As usual, 7:50's comments lack substance and reason.
Actually, 7:50 makes more sense than you, denying you are a Board member, or a shill for them, but choosing to speak for the so-called majority.
All people who advocate change are 'troublemakers', eh? Thank you. You could not have illustrated my point better.
Anonymous said...
BS 8:24!! Some of us would be very happy to pay twice as much if all RVs were banned from Surfside. The costs related to dealing with the complaints and covenant infractions would crater if the RVs were gone.
August 8, 2018 at 9:25 PM
8:24 says...It's only a matter of time before an RV'er sues this worthless association for their discrimination against RV LOT OWNERS. I would love to see the RV'ers gain control of the board and treat the homeowners the way they have been treated around here.
Please wake up to the fact that this is a mixed-use community. If the RV's go away, so does the income they bring into our area. Local businesses are having a hard enough time without you chasing away paying customers!
The RV's do not bring that much income for local businesses. They fill up their gas tanks where it is cheaper. They bring alot of food with them because the prices are high and the selection is limited locally. The restaurants get a little business from them but not a huge amount. An increase in full time residents would be the brightest future for local businesses. There is not much to do for entertainment except outdoor sports and activities which don't deliver huge income to the local businesses. Wake up to the fact that the RVs create a lot of costly problems because they know that they can pack up and drive away with few or no consequences for bad behavior. Yes, the hoa is a mixed use community. The campers and short term visitors are not a great asset.
Now that right there from 5:08 is some of the dumbest writing to date...the whole peninsula depends on tourism to survive. RV'ers and short term rentals are the life blood for business here. And further more, vacation home owners act the same way, they show up, raise hell, then leave. Stop trying to blame all problems on RV'ers cause it just ain't so...
WOW! 5:08 obvious where you stand. Thx for making me feel so welcome on my RV property. Go golfing K!
Without the dues paid by rv properties, for their little use of services, Surfside could not survive financially.
RV owners are in the minority in Surfside, so the community would do just fine without the dues they pay. But all dues paying members are making a contribution to the community, and their ownership cannot be withdrawn, their membership permanent. Changing the policy to prevent sales to RV owners would not alter current ownership of RV lots, and would be difficult to implement, if legal.
No Surfside membership can be canceled or withdrawn except in the case of foreclosure due to unpaid dues and assessments. So Pres. William's proposal to Patrick Johansen that Williams will stop the lawsuit against Patrick if he resigns from the BOT and sells his property, is a form of banishment specifically disallowed by our Bylaws.
It is unclear whether Williams is ignorant of the inappropriateness of his proposal, or just so full of himself that he doesn't care. The evidence seems to point to both. Johansen has not been found to be in violation of any covenant to date.
Deduct rv and vacant lot dues n just try to fund anything without at least doubling or tripling dues. Next they will go after part time homeowners, dead grass, increasing theft risk, etc.etc. Board members with a strong personal agenda, should at least be smart enough to not shove it in everybody’s face.
They're not. Personal agendas drive this Association, and will ultimately undo it.
Post a Comment