This disgusting committee continues with their self centered and conflict of interest control.
They are so hell bent on tree control, they are the ones behind spending 20,000 dollars on a property survey at SeaBreeze Lake. They are working on a phony form for surrounding property owners to sign that would allow access across their property to butcher more trees. I hope those property owners will tell them to "go to hell".
Now they want a yard tour. Probably select property with no trees. How about a tour of the butchered and dying trees. This useless committee needs to be abolished. By the way, expect a rash of tree complaints filed by their neighbors and friends.
For a larger read of their "garbage in, garbage out" click once or twice on their lengthy 2 page propaganda report. Disgusting.
74 comments:
The venom spewed by the blog host against the tree committee is disgusting. It undermines the work of the committee members to responsibly evaluate complaints and issues related to our trees and the tree covenants.
Wishful thinking only 3:19. All I see is lipstick on a pig.
Really 3:19 Four of the members are J Place owners who over look Sea breeze lake. They are not serving any other members but themselves. And now they are advocating spending a start up of20,000.00 to maintain there views which they admitted is just a start. This whole think stinks.
Why in the world is this committee still in existence is a mystery to me. Thx George for keeping members informed to the shenanigans of SHOA. Abolish this Tree Committee now! The board certainly didn't feel a need for the RV Committee but has this Mafia based committee in place. PATHETIC!
Yes, Kill Tree Committee!
Figuratively and Literally
These people are obsessed with meddling in other people's business, and yes, it is perfectly clear that they are only concerned about what they personally want. It needs to be established once and for all, that trees are a valuable piece of personal property and are not subject to these random demands for their trimming, topping or removal.
There is precedence for owners having the right to demand compensation for such overstepping of property rights and owners should organize a legal challenge to the HOA. Trees are central to the purity of the air, and to the overall health of the planet.
I consider this committee's work to be the result of compulsive people who are addicted to the power they wield to pester and intimidate Surfside members. It's a sickness that serves no practical purpose. Our priority is to solve the challenges at the Waterworks, and the community has NO MONEY to waste on this ridiculous craving for more enforcement opportunities.
Notice that Laura supposedly quit her job, but she just has to continue pursuing enforcement and pushing Surfside members around. She can't stop, so wants to manufacture more compliance issues. That's what the shed eaves nonsense amounts to as well. Bad people having their way with other people's property and happiness.
I bet there are monsters under your bed 9:59. We all agreed to the covenants as we decided to own property in Surfside. Why don't you move to a place that better suits the way you want things to be?
They are not under my bed, but meet monthly in the main office dipstick. Expecting the HOA to enforce only standards that benefit the community in a very real way is to expect the BOT to stop this useless meddling in our ownership. No one agreed to allow the HOA to prey upon owners, enforcing unnecessary standards as this policy does. Trees do not block views in Surfside - dunes and houses on G St. block the view of the surf, while the Ocean is very visible.
Nowhere in the covenants are views protected, though that is the basis of the Policy. It is based on a lie, but we've seen that Mr. Williams is a great champion of lieing, and the Board enables it.
I'm with 1010, keep tree heights. That's was one of the reasons I purchased property here and I'm not a J placer.
Hey 10:10.
Get out from undrr our beds now!
No, You LEAVE!
10:10 & 11:00...You just go ahead and chop and snip your trees to death, and mind your own business. It takes a long time to grow a nice tree, and many species live much longer than the stupid people who can't stop cutting them down. This needs to be a decision each owner makes for themselves.
In a community such as Surfside, there should always be an opportunity for the HOA to request owners in dispute to meet with a mediator and try to find resolution. The BOT should not dictate to the owners, but be allowed to make recommendations. If an owner sees a neighbor's tree as a problem, it needs to be based on something substantial and not an arbitrary height restriction.
1100 to 1237 - by choice, I don't have any trees
Maybe you can move to an abandoned air field in a desert somewhere. Nice smooth cement beneath your feet - aaaahhhhh !!
Anyone who thinks there are not enough trees in Surfside is seriously deluded.
Why not shut everybody up and put it to a vote of the members. Abandon the tree covenant yes or no.
They did that a few years ago, mostly folks who like the covenant showed up, it was standing room only, but not many people for reducing the heights.
anyone who votes yes to eliminate the tree covenants should be financially responsible for all incidents of falling or burning trees causing financial damages to any members or member's property. these same folks should also be responsible to annually clean all of our gutters that get clogged with debris from the trees. any tree created blocked view should be expected to compensate those who create the blockage.
2:31. Even you know your statement is unreasonable and illogical. You use the word should.
You are already responsible for your trees. Ck your homeownerss policy. Quit masking your argument with the safety bull. View of what? My view is blocked lot worse than yours i bet. Those darn neighbors gots to go.
A bit on the survey of the lake. The Board did not vote down the "significant expenditure", they asked for a re-bid from thee contractor, the original dream being over $20k. What is not said is that the Chair of the Tree Committee also asked for another $19k+ to map the lake area and suggested that Trustee Scott be asked to perform said mapping. You remember Mr. Scott, the person that flew his drone over Patricks property invading ones privacy with no defensible reason why. If you folks let anybody from SHOA trespass on your property for these nefarious reasons, you will probably meet the same fate as Patrick. I was glad to see Larry was going to contact Arbor Care for a presentation. A couple of years ago I had Luke and his company trim our trees. He said they would die within a few years. He was right, they are dead and gone. For those who want a place without trees, please pack your bags, Arizona awaits.
What utter garbage.
Sorry 5:28, you and the host are leaving out a couple key details. I was at the meeting and the way I remember it George's buddy Larry was the one who brought up about getting a survey to establish what was Surfside property and what was members, not the J place people. In fact I believe it was the chair who suggested talking with the members in question to see if they had surveys done on their property, like many here have, to see if they knew where the prop lines were.
Now ask yourself, was it a simple oversight that this wasn't mentioned or something else. Anyone who has been reading this blog for any length of time knows the answer to that.
On a related note, back in July George posted a report from Larry concerning Surfside properties he inspected. In it he said that there were areas around the lake that were not compliant and they should be to set an example for the membership. I assume his recommendation for the survey had something to do with that also. Again, no such venom was aimed at him that you see above.
Thanks for reminding people of that fact 2:25.
My neighbors and myself have kept our trees at proper heights for decades and haven't had one die, not one. Now compare that to the straight up killing of trees in the hosts neighborhood. Of course he excuses that by saying how good neighbors he has because they are thinking of safety. Well, I and others purchased property in an area with tree covenants because we wanted safety also, yet we have to be continually attacked by him and many here on this blog.
As long as the covenants are not examined and updated to truly reflect the will of the members, not the Board, this will continue.
As to attacking people, the tree killers and J Placers seem to be holding their own. Pathetic!
Your thinly veiled attacks on the blog host are noted. You fool no one. You are doing nothing more than to push your own agenda.
Again, there is no urgency for an expensive survey. The BOT has more than they can handle in solving the permitting emergency and asbestos investigation. pretending that this survey and the enormous expense can be justified is fantasy. It is not known how much the community will have to pay out in fines and on-going legal costs.
The BOT needs to forget about unbudgeted discretionary spending throughout the calendar year. Pursuing this will add to our indebtedness to the Reserves, and interfere with more important maintenance spending - such as the $60,000 required to replace carbon in the filter plant (delayed indefinitely), the cost of completing the building began in August to enclose the Plant, or costs associated with relocating the Plant/ Water Dept.. None of this has been resolved, and all of it is spendy.
It becomes more and more questionable that the BOT grasps what a mess they have created, and how much money will be wasted due to a lack of focus on the most critical issues in the community. The CTP is not being maintained properly, and our water is not adequately safe. Note the State's requirement that multiple tests be run frequently for concentration of coliform. That's potty water folks, in a community full of septic fields.
This mandated tree butchering will end with a simple court case. Have an arborist write a statement that topping your trees will cause damage or kill them, or has, and take the association to small claims court for the damage to your trees. You can also take it to superior court where the award will be much larger. You can also file a complaint with the EPA.
so 1011, if so many of our members want to change the tree height limits, why hasn't anyone done that. Take the HOA to court, sounds so simple?
topping a tree only becomes necessary in surfside due to the failure to properly care for the tree in an area with height restrictions. planting trees that reach inappropriate heights is surely a matter of member irresponsibility. we live in high wind area that also has a high water table in many areas which results in shallow root growth. all these factors contribute to dangerous tree heights.
a small, loud mouthed group of members object to the tree covenants. most of them don't want to live up to the responsibility that they agreed to when they purchased their property in surfside. the issue does not affect a lot of members because they do not own property in a height restriction area. the covenant could use some revision to create fairer restrictions. as it is results in discontent because it is tied to allowed building heights which are also unfair. why are two story houses allowed on G while not allowed on H or I? why are taller trees allowed on G while no allowed on H or I? eliminating the tree covenant does not make a safer and more attractive community. fully enforcing fair covenants results in a safer, more attractive and more desirable place to live or enjoy a vacation.
We live in the evergreen state where we take pride in our NW climate and environment. The butchering of the trees has not made our community more attractive, in fact just the opposite. Surfside is the laughing stock of the peninsula for the crazy tree height covenant. Your wind and wet argument is nothing more than a smoke screen to justify a selfish view for a few at the expense of many. Those selfish few have brought hardship on the many who are forced to cut and kill their trees. This would be a more desirable place to live without this discriminatory covenant. The trees need to live, the covenant needs to die.
Butchering, laughing stock, crazy, smoke screen, selfish, hardship, kill, discriminatory, die. Sound like a lot of the same old rhetorical babble that a small group of self proclaimed environmental terrorists are trying to push over on the rest of us.
10:20 must be one started the tree probs. Wasnt enforced till recent history. Those trees didnt get too big for them overnight. Logic, what a concept.
Nearly all small varieties of trees grow to a height of 20 to 30 feet. "Dwarf trees" can't really be considered trees in the same sense, as they do not grow higher than shrubs. Most small varieties of trees such as dogwoods are susceptible to disease, and require better soil than we have in Surfside. Shorepines ARE a small variety of conifer.
Constant pruning and topping is not considered proper care for any trees - period. Fruit trees are groomed specifically to grow fruit, with the expectation that they will have a limited life span, and be replaced.
Most all varieties benefit from being left alone, monitored for good health, or weather damage, and only pruned if absolutely necessary. Actively pruning causes the foliage to become unnecessarily dense, and more wind resistant, stimulates excessive horizontal growth, and creates the need for constant pruning as if a shrub.
So all of this pruning damages the trees and necessitates annual maintenance, when healthy trees require no maintenance at all in most cases. In a community of part-timers, it's impractical to have such a silly policy that creates maintenance issues where there aren't any. Fear of falling trees and burning trees ? Where, when ? It hasn't occurred in S.S.
Repeating the same false and misleading trash does not make it true. If you can't find yourself willing and able to fulfill the requirements of the covenants of an hoa, you should move to where the rules work for you.
BTW, burning and falling trees certainly occur in Surfside. Why bother to have chain saws and hoses or to pay taxes to support Fire Crews?
I've lived in the city and in the country. Cutting, pruning and general care of trees has been a constant in my life since I started raking maple leaves as a tiny child to removing a 150 foot tall Chinkapin Oak that was dangerously leaning toward my house.
Anybody know the status of the
SHOA lawsuit against 31401 J Place?
Nothing stated here is false or misleading. Facts are facts. You cannot verify that fires and blown-down trees are anything more than a rare occurrence.
When you were a kid, much was not understood about the natural world that in 2019, has been studied in great detail. Arborists tell us that pruning is NOT recommended unless absolutely necessary. Surfside Policy is, in fact, a "kill-tree" mandate.
There are many members who are seeking answers from regulatory agencies regarding the allegedly illegal actions of the Board. This is in part because the BOT is not being transparent with Members about the county, state and federal interest in Surfside’s handling and disposal of ACM water pipes. The BOT is allegedly incurring fines which have been, or will be paid by Members, through our HOA funds. Presumably there are associated costs of legal defense of the SHOA and Trustees. However, if it turns out these actions were knowingly and willfully conducted under the direction and oversight of the BOT, SHOA should not have to bear the cost - this should be the personal and financial responsibility of each Trustee who had a hand in the decisions and cover-ups.
We the Members need to take action to make changes. We can elect new Trustees who we can trust to execute their duties ethically and equitably. Or we can call for a Member meeting not led or under the control of the BOT. Members could submit agenda items and hire an arbitrator or neutral third party to conduct the meeting. Members could introduce and vote on floor motions. Members unable to attend could give their proxies to trusted members - not Trustees - to vote for them. We could replace the Trustees. We could vote to change the governing documents giving Members the final say on Covenants and other HOA decisions. During the meeting we could nominate and vote for a small group of members to conduct balloting and count ballots.
Regarding the trees, we should first eliminate any Covenant that is selectively applied to only some lots. The HOA is supposed to be for the good of the entire membership, so all Covenants should apply to all members and should be consistently and uniformly enforced. Members agreed to Covenants when they purchased their properties and those Covenants specifically allow for the Covenants to be changed. If members change the Covenants than we must agree to the changes. For example, there was a recent change pertaining to shed roofs that is now being enforced. This wasn’t in the Covenants when the lots were purchased.
We clearly should have a Covenant that mandates tree health and safety. We don’t want diseased trees to be able to infect neighboring trees. We don’t want dangerous trees to be able to fall and injure people or damage neighboring properties. We need to have a Covenant requiring that all members trim, treat or maintain trees that pose a threat to the lives and property of neighbors throughout Surfside. Trees that are not on member-owned property would be the responsibility of the HOA. I think there would be wide support for this Covenant.
There should be no tree height restrictions for any other reasons. By eliminating the tree heights for designated lots, it becomes up to neighbors to resolve obstruction of views. If someone wants a tree trimmed to clear a view, they can approach the owner and offer to pay the cost. The HOA should not be involved in this at all.
We may need to get legal help or intervention by the Secretary of State to make this happen. The law empowers us to take action if we can organize.
fires and blowdowns may not be a daily occurrence. that does not make them any less dangerous or damaging.
pruning to achieve a particular goal with trees and plants has been a part of human gardening for hundreds if not thousands of years. A certified arborist would never say that pruning is not recommended unless absolutely necessary. They would lose at least half of their business.
why not consider amending the tree covenant to improve fairness, safety and attractiveness? the failure to fairly and consistently enforce the existing covenant has resulted in a less attractive community and a lot of distrust and hate.
Because of a corrupt board that relentlessly pushes one agenda, their own.
This issue could have been resolved amicably a long time ago if there is one bit of fairness in this organization.
This HOA is a dismal failure. It is time to get rid of it. We will be fine, it won't be the end of the world.
I heard something about 20k for a survey because of trees. Here is a thought. Fine them all and they will figure out who owns what for free really fast.
A litttle more on how important the covenants are. For those of you who maintain others should “move somewhere else” if they don’t like the covenants, what is the status of BOT member deLeest’s request for a variance to build something four and one half feet over the covenant dictated height limits. If it is granted, every person in Surfside has the right and expectation to request and be granted a waiver for trees, buildings, etc. we don’ t want to think that one is granted a variance just because they are on the Board now would we? If it is not granted, perhaps they should “move somewhere else” and take their buddies, the Olds, with them.
Well said 4:26 PM. We have a lot of buttercups who can dish it out and only show hypocracy, meanness, and selfishness.
We have a lot of goofballs who bought property in an HOA when they knew that they had no intention of abiding by the covenants. SHAME!
Well 4:52 I guess that under the circumstances that includes members of the Board, their family and close friends.
Yes, good point again 5:11 PM.
4:52 PM. You fool nobody. As 5:11 PM and 4:26 PM prove your hypocrisy, meanness, and selfishness, you condescendingly think you can shame people. LMAO
7:12 not shaming anybody. You just can’t stand the truth!
Wow 4:26, 4:52, talk about getting off the subject of this blog item. However since my wife is on the board and there are a a few folks out there that think we are special and do what we want, nothing can be farther from the truth! So here we go with the facts. My wife and I purchased a lot on J. Place last year. We plan on building a new home on this property and selling our existing residence in Surfside when it's completed. I don't know where you got your measurement information which is completely wrong but no board action has taken place so far concerning our application for a variance. It was removed from the last board meeting agenda at my request, since their was some confusion on varience procedure. The existing east side j place lots in the 35000 block north of Oysterville Road will and have required in the past an over height variance due to the natural steep topography of the properties. We are not asking for anything that hasn't already been granted to other home owners in the same area so as to build our new home. So to set the record straight. Yes I am applying for an over height varience to build on our property just like my neighbors have done, yes the architectural committee has seen the plans and engineering, yes it will be an item for the next board meeting, and yes my wife will recuse herself during the vote. Hope this puts an end to the incorrect information put out there by folks who want nothing more than to stir the pot and hate that's allowed by going anonymous.
4:52, 9:30. It's like talking to a wall. You condescendingly said SHAME. Who the heck are you? What an idiot. You say something on here, then deny saying it while the proof is right here.
Blah, blah, blah Fred. You and Annette seek special treatment as the entitlement attitude if the J Placers continues. The numbers against you will only increase as the majority of members coalesce and you lose the special privileges that come from dominating the BOT. However, I do commend you for not hiding behind the tag of anonymity.
4:52 we have even more goofballs who bought property in an HOA without realizing that the Covenants could change at any time the majority of members decide changes are merited.
Mr. Annette has spoken. Says a lot about his character. Down Boy, heal.
At least he can speak, unlike that henpecked Mr. Deb.
Oh I see 2:19 AM. You and your kind bring sexism to the debate too. I'm not surprised.
Want to talk sexism? Let's. Didn't you just insult Fred with the Mr. Annette remark? And how about the host continually going after the ladies on the tree committee while always giving Larry a pass? What about that?
You and your kind can dish it out but cry when it comes back. Typical and not surprising.
You are some piece of work Ms. Blagg. Blah, blah blah? Fred came on here to tell it like it is. They are not asking for anything special that hasn't been asked by others and you have to create drama where there isn't any. I realize you only spent a short time on the board before you quit but over the years variances have been granted to many, even those who don't live on J. Notice also how they are following the proper steps instead of running to lawyers like your mentor Patrick.
I find it interesting how you continue to attack the de Leest family when you consider the fact that Annette was one of the few trustees that voted to keep your precious tech committee going. Says a bunch about your character, or lack there of.
And to follow up your 12:25. We also have one particular goofball who thinks that the majority feels the same that she does. The annual meeting vote results and the flawed tech committee survey proved otherwise.
No I didn't. That was not I.
Annette is on the BOT. Her husband just posted on here. They are demanding a variance for their own self interests. Apparently, you want to SHAME them for that.
Deb's husband has nothing to do with this debate. He is not on the BOT nor has he posted on here.
Thus, why would someone refer to her as Mr.? I'll tell you. It was to belittle her and attack her.
Again, you can attack her personally because she uses her name. I can't attack you personally because you are scared to use your name. Good for you.
Additionally, I don't want to attack anyone personally as you do.
Mr. Deleest? That was technically an anonymous post. I could say im Mrs. Neal.
Thank you Deb and George for everything you have done and continue to do!
"You See Things, And You Say, "Why?" But I Dream Things That Never Were; And I Say, "Why Not?""
George Bernard Shaw, "Back To Methuselah", Part 1, Act 1
The quote I shared is directed to the entire SHOA community.
I removed a comment made by Mr. de Leest on another posting because it was directed at me by name. He "refereed to his earlier statements about this blog being bad for Surfside are absolutely true. Shame on you".
What kind of fool are you to think you can come on here and disrespect the blog host, then make a comment with BS of how great you are? It is people exactly like you who give Surfside a bad name. You and your propaganda are not welcome here. You are right about one thing...It is my blog.
I left your statement above so the good people on here can see you for what you really are. Now go away.
6:40. I was elected for a one-year term which ended the day of the annual meeting. I resigned at 5PM the night before the meeting because I planned to make floor motions as a Member vs. as a Trustee. The motions were to allow members to vote electronically and have a voice in the Covenants. This was not a conspiracy or sneaky plan. I publicized my intentions a full month in advance of the meeting by posting it here and on my Trustee FB Page. I also made flyers with the exact language of the motions so people could read them, which I handed out prior to the meeting as people arrived. In fact, Ms de Leest came outside where we handing out the flyers and made a scene by trying to force me to stop giving them out. What basis could she have for this? It is a MEMBERS meeting - not a Board Meeting! When the Board pulled their BS and violated the RCW by not allowing my floor motions - backed up by their patsy attorney - I became angry because it was legally and ethically wrong! This is when I decided to put to vote that we remove the Executive Committee. Unfortunately our voting practice, which favors full-time residents who can easily attend the meeting and allows the BOT to use proxies to maintain control put me at a disadvantage. The majority of members don’t come to the Annual Meeting. Why? Because they have grown disillusioned over the same old stuff. The Board doesn’t want these members to participate because they would not be able to maintain control. That is why they stifle member-to-member communication. That is why they placed electronic voting on the budget ballot - and included a statement from the board recommending that members reject electronic voting.
Fact check:
The above comment by Deb Blagg is 100% correct in every aspect. I share her disgust in a corrupt self serving Board and the selfish people who are only interested in their own interests. These are the same people who have destroyed our association. I think it is beyond fixing.
Some of us do not feel compelled in any way to spin a yarn to about what we have done. Blagg has done this over and over again on this blog and in other venues. When will she think about honesty rather than spin of the facts. Her need to overrule and rule in this hoa is alarming because she represents a small minority or members with her ideas for changes.
Yes, our association has needed some cleanup for a long, long time because we have a lot of members who are not informed or active in the association. Blagg's attempts to take over and create an hoa that suits her personal preferences with no regard for the impact on other members speaks about her aggressive, wrongfully self-righteous personality.
We want sensible changes that respond to the opinions and rights of the majority in this hoa. The fringe group formed by Blagg does not hear or respond to what most of us are thinking.
Who is this "WE", 10:02. As if we didnt know. Your fake news propoganda just doesnt wash.
10:02. Scared to use your name.
Why so scared? What do you have to hide? How many CC&RS are you violating?
Why the bullying attitude Mike Riley? I'm violating zero covenants. I choose to be anonymous for sensible reasons. The "we" is the hundreds of members that I have talked with over the 14 years of living in Surfside. We don't want controversy and trouble. We don't want any fringe group with self serving opinions and goals to take over the association.
Your are not a lone 10:55, but we both know that. Mr. Riley is a new comer to our community and thinks he will bully us around. But he won't, we are watching.
Funny how the deLeest/Olds/tree killers all say “you knew the covenants, why did you buy here”? Well deLeest knew as well, yet they want a variance. Just a coincidence that Ms. deLeest is on the Board? Maybe it was thought that the request could pass through unnoticed? Again, if this variance is granted, every lot with trees on them need to apply for a tree height variance. We have every bit as much right to apply and expect approval of such a variance, even though we may not be a Board member.
Posters like 11:17 better think twice before they type. This sort of approach will only create a stalemate for everything; requests, variances, convent changes, etc. nothing will get done. or maybe that's what you are tying to do?
No bullying by me. I just think if you're going to attack someone on here by name you must have the sincerity, decency, and integrity to use your name. If you're calling someone out by name, why hide?
What is it that you think is "getting done" by the BOT lately besides spending member funds on the BOT's failure to manage effectively ? They are focused on spending still more wasteful dollars to generate more enforcement opportunities for the Tree Comm..
While it is likely true that variances are common on J Pl., it is still an elitist standard that has been established by the HOA's practices, while height variances are NOT an option elsewhere in the community. Notice that the BOT claims the covenant change on shed eaves is retroactive to some random time in the past, and there has been no discussion of granting variances to the now "non-compliant" sheds with overhangs or porches.
So to pretend that there is not a BOT conviction to granting special privileges to J Pl. owners is to ignore the obvious evidence that these privileges aren't limited to BOT demands of tree topping for the sake of views, but extend to home heights, and the on-going effort to delineate a class structure in Surfside.
It is convenient for Mr. & Mrs. deLeest that they can count on getting their wishes granted, while supporting and approving of the Tree policy and recent covenant change, which target only owners to the west of the ridge.
11:22 Thant is exactly what I mean. Arian e for one, variance for all. Or change the covenant!
11:10 AM. Please watch me. I'm transparent. I don't hide, especially if I call someone out by name.
You may find we agree on more than you think.
Mike gets the last word on this topic, except for me. About 1/2 the comments have to do with the subject, while the other half are insults and jabs back and forth. A lot of this is to divert the attention from the real issue of a committee that is composed of conflicting interests and self serving agenda"s. This committee needs to go away. Only thing they really accomplish is to divide the community.
Post a Comment