Saturday, January 5, 2019

Another Good Comment

Surfside pollution....

Many times on an older posting, current comments are missed by those who follow the blog. The following makes good sense to me and reminds me that we are a part of a larger picture and be it in a small way, need to be responsible.  Thanks for the comment. 

Anonymous Anonymous said...
We are at the mercy of a world that can't seem to grasp the need to dial-back the levels of pollution that are killing our planet. In the N.w. we are down wind from N. Korean nuclear testing as well as the still hot nuclear reactors on the coast of Japan.

There is so much pollution in the ocean that particles of plastic large enough to see can be found in some shellfish such as muscles. City water supplies across the country puzzle over how to remove prescription drugs from water supplies, detected in significant concentrations.

The current administration has been systematically removing environmental protections that have taken decades of effort to put in place in the United States, while most European nations take a much more proactive approach in this threat to our current health and the future of the human race. Global warming is denied by Trump while there remains no question it is already probably beyond our control among the scientific community.

Pollution has been demonstrated to be the primary cause of global warming. Electing such delusional folks to high government positions, feeds global demise, as does irresponsible HOA Trustees who turn a blind eye to Surfside pollution.
January 5, 2019 at 10:30 AM
 Delete

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Should be on politics page. You just lost me n half your audience. According to gore, we should be dead by now. But then global warming no longer provable, so now have to call climate change.

Anonymous said...

Caring for our planet is not politics. Those who deny climate change, want to make it politics. Same as those who want to deny that topping trees is a good practice. Nothing more than selfish self interest.

Anonymous said...

Politics is money, climate change happens every day n creates wealth. Facts have nothing to do with generated truth. Do your own research, instead of being programmed. Term had to be changed recently to "climate change" for a reason. Cooling was disproven, then warming, so switch to "change". Suckers! Lol. Let's worry about real environmental probs, that doesn't make the rich, richer...

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that when it is pointed out that the Scientific Community warns that we must become proactive in dealing with pollution and climate change, people are quick to make defensive remarks that have no factual basis. Science is still seen as alchemy.

Scientists have warned for a decade or more that global warming of 2 degrees on average around the globe would cause serious changes in overall weather patterns, causing extremes, such as we are now experiencing routinely - such as massive clusters of tornadoes and hurricanes, larger more destructive storms, and year around occurrence of such storms which were more seasonal in past decades.

No one ever claimed the world was cooling, only that the sun will eventually burn out. Global warming is simply a fact, with more than a 2 degree increase worldwide. Many factors are involved, but the term "climate change" is inclusive of the many changes that scientists are recording worldwide that are the next step in a destructive cycle.

Worldwide efforts to curb pollution that causes global warming focus in particular on dialing back auto pollution, burning of coal to produce energy, and limiting expansion of mining and well drilling in sensitive natural areas. The Petroleum Industry spends billions of dollars to put pressure on lawmakers to eliminate restrictions and allow these enormous Corporations to destroy natural areas at will, without restrictions.

Trump signed an executive order this year to eliminate protection of numerous National Monuments in order to open them to mineral and petroleum extraction, and his policies reflect his willingness to allow all such Corporations to explore and destroy natural areas at will.

Trump is about the rich becoming richer. His support of these industries is about the ways in which he can profit personally both from investments and from favors. This is the most corrupt administration in our history, with corporate heads getting positions in his administration where they have blatant conflicts of interest.

2 out of 3 comments here demonstrate the head-in-the-sand approach to being a citizen. That's how Surfside ended-up in a Federal investigation of our mishandling of asbestos. The Trustees of our community have turned a blind-eye to the obvious outcome - fines, reprimands and criminal investigations. Who will pay the price in the end ?

Anonymous said...

Typical us n them. corruption is not owned by one party. Stick to unbiased facts. Oh right, they dont exist. Lets ruin our economy, while china,india, etc. polute unabated, while the US progresses in polluting less, n economy goes in toilet. There are no simple solutions to the problems of this world where greed and accumulation of power is king and always will be. Being a pawn is so much easier than thinking independently, and having balanced thought. Lets just pick an individual to blame, it will turn n will have a new one to blame in time. Thats how we are kept distracted.

tree huger said...

When I posted as 2:22 I meant to say that there are those who deny that topping trees is bad practice. It is all about their selfish view without regards to the damage they cause to our environment. Yes, I am a tree huger and proud of it. Better than a tree killer. Save your BS about tall trees being unsafe.

Anonymous said...

To 1:22:

I moved here and bought on the west side because of the tree covenants. I didn't want to deal with tree issues in a high windstorm area. This comes from living in hurricane country the first part of my life and my time here.

I and my neighbors have been topping and taking care of our trees for over 15 years. None have died nor have we had problems with them. Compare that to the property next to George. If they would have done the same maybe they wouldn't have had to kill all those trees.

You had many choices on the peninsula to buy where you could have hugged all the trees you want. But for some reason you decided here and lecture us. And as far as saying tall trees being unsafe is B.S., obviously you haven't been watching the local news for the past months. There are families in our state who would disagree with you.

Anonymous said...

No one has said that topping trees is a good practice. After a period of neglect, topping may be the only option available to comply with the covenants. It happens this way because some lot owners are irresponsible in regard to caring for their trees, noxious weeds, invasive plants and any other concerns that might make up responsible ownership. The shore pines are a resilient species that, in some cases, does not die even though topped. That is not an excuse to not properly maintain your trees or lot in general.

I remain laughing at the tree "huger". The implications of not being the brightest brain and wanting "huge" unkempt trees simply strikes me as hilarious.

Anonymous said...

the words should be tree HUGGER. 1:22 is probably unfamiliar with the difference between being hugged and being huge.

Anonymous said...

The tree covenant was never created for saftey reasons, nor is it fought and maintained as such. The trees were seeded here by real estate developers, and covenent added after the fact so realtors could sell view lots at a premium. If your going to fight for something, least have the guts to be honest about it.

Anonymous said...

The trees were seeded here because the developers knew that they would help re-establish other plants and be a draw to birds who carry seeds and disperse them. The area was basically a swamp that was graded and contoured and canals created. Trees also hold soil in place with their roots, and aid in drainage.

Developers knew that trees would make the properties more appealing to potential buyers on the very manipulated spit. Today look back on the community from the highest dunes and you see that the community would look bare and ridiculous without the untrimmed trees on the ridgetop and edges of Surfside.

It is obvious to potential buyers that the community is obsessed with trimming the trees, a practice uncommon in most communities and large cities in the N.W. Many members want to think there is a rational reason for it so we hear about the danger of trees a lot, in spite of the absence of fallen trees on the eastside.

You do understand that the limits are the same as the building heights, and have no relationship to safety. 14, 16, 24 ft. - all just arbitrary limits because the S.S. attorneys feared this policy would otherwise be challenged and struck down using the "safety" argument.

The tallest oldest trees on the peninsula are in the Cape Disappointment area, which is also where the strongest winds are recorded.

Anonymous said...

The majority of the untrimmed trees on the ridge top aren't on Surfside property

Absence of fallen trees on the east side? Where have you been. Within the last couple years there have been trees that had to be removed due to them leaning towards houses. There has been fallen branches along the road to the compactor that I had to drive around. We had to pay to have trees removed from the waterways. So saying that there are no fallen trees on the east side is just plain false.

To your Cape disappointment comment. A bunch of those trees are missing their tops. The rangers have had to remove dead fall from trails. Go take a hike on the bay side of Leadbetter where the winds are less than here on the west side and see the amount of trees blown over and the amount of dead fall. There aren't many empty lots on J anymore due to people buying but there are still some where you can see fallen trees and branches.

Finally, during the recent storms in Seattle, which is less dense with trees than here and also did not get as high wind speeds, had property damage, injuries and even the Mayor making a warning concerning safety around trees.

That is why myself and others chose to buy and live here full time on the west side and want to keep it that way.

Anonymous said...

Your examples are a weak argument. Trees removed from the waterways are largely dead stuff in the water, where trees sometimes die due to closeness to the water. We have extensive marshlands and forest in S.S. Of course branches sometimes blow down in storms, and trees die in the forest. Cutting leaning or dead trees is the appropriate action when near homes and streets, and all owners should monitor the health of trees on their property.

But the restrictions have no direct relationship to safety, a 14 ft. tree not being more or less dangerous than a 24 ft. tree. The health and siting of trees determines their soundness.

I know of only one failed tree that has fallen on the eastside, some branches of an Alder blown down last Winter in the street, harming no one. Trees do not routinely blow down in Surfside, though the health of trees continually topped makes them unsafe in most cases.

I pointed out that the unmolested trees at the fringes of the restricted areas are mostly outside Surfside, so no need to tell me what I have already stated in writing. Personally, I think that your claim that you moved here because of the tree restrictions is baloney that you have convinced yourself of, as there is no evidence that untrimmed Shorepines are unstable, if healthy.

This is a worthless policy that does great harm to our community by creating needless enforcement tension and expense for owners with trees, and particularly in the most restricted areas, tanks the property value. But as I have pointed out, any claim that untrimmed trees reduce ANYONE'S property value is insignificant compared to the damage the Federal investigation, legal entanglements, wasteful spending, and massive fines, have done to property values, and the reputation of Surfside.

Owners and realtors are obligated by law to inform prospective buyers of legal issues and the repercussions that may lay ahead, draining our coffers of funds and leaving a huge deficit in deferred maintenance and a massive Reserve Account debt.

Anonymous said...

And here I thought it was the sinister black helicopters that did the seeding in the dead of night !

3:35 said...

12:01:

Baloney huh? Nice. I responded to your opinion with mine and with examples. You chose to ignore them which is fine, but don't sit there keyboard warrior and tell me what YOU believe was my reason for purchasing here.

Your examples of the east side are flawed. Exactly how did those trees get into the waterways, did people push them over? No, they fell. Saying there has only been one failed tree is just plain false no matter how many times you repeat it. Same with the property values are tanked. Show me the evidence. There are many properties in my area that not have only sold quick, but also for what the sellers were asking with multiple offers. My current neighbor is going to be selling and he has people interested even before it is listed. Any "enforcement tension" is created by the people not following the covenants they agreed to when they bought here.

Back to trees. George's neighbors (using his terminology) killed a bunch of trees and he defended it by saying it was for safety and how good neighbors they were for doing so. Yet you and others criticize me and others for wanting the same. That there is a bunch of baloney.

Anonymous said...

The Eastside is nearly a full-blown forest, bordered by marshlands and solid woods. We are talking about the occurrence of fallen trees near homes - which hasn't been happening. Yep, trees fall in the woods, and in lakes and canals. Alders that are widespread on the eastside grow very tall and are vulnerable to various forces. They also have a limited lifespan, which differs from most conifers.

Shorepines are very hardy and adaptable to infertile ground. They are common near the shorelines of the Pacific, are very stable and only grow about 30 feet high. Few communities in the country have tree height micromanagement in their communities, and there are many good reasons why. The benefits outweigh the risks.

I wonder about someone's sanity who chooses to buy a property because the community requires constant topping of trees, many limited to 14 feet. Only dwarf varieties can comply to such limits, and they grow slowly and are often hard to grow. The community is ugly and the trees very unhealthy looking in this community. That is not a plan fitting a beautiful spit on the West Coast.

Anonymous said...

Yet I have had an actual arborists say different.

Care to explain why the city of Ocean Park spent time and money clearing out and trimming coastal trees for fire protection?