My simple solution is to allow RV's all year and leave the compactor alone for now.
Note the last line on the report. "Bottom Line" Keep in mind this is an initial start. Volunteers can make a difference if the Board will listen.
Click on each page below for a larger read.
26 comments:
The board does not have time for these kind of issues, they are busy doing the important stuff like sheds and fences.
That does appear to be the case. Notice that the engineering Firm is the same one who did the feasibility study for the Equip. Storage Bldg., which George says may not have been properly permitted. So were studies done on the CTP site and Holding Pond, which has been constructed and the pond deconstructed in the last couple of months ?
Much of the Eastside property is wetlands at the margins, yet there seems to be land adjacent to the compactor/RV sites to the west. To put the RV lot in the heart of the Main Office property on G St. is a ridiculous idea. The westside beach property is too valuable to waste on a huge fenced parking lot, and it would be central to the area as if a Surfside showpiece. Same for the repurposed Water Dept. Bldg. a block north on the eastside of G Street.
To be realistic, the community is going to be strapped for funds while paying off huge fines and on-going legal expenses, the result of non-existent management and wasteful legal spending. This stuff has been in the pipeline for a couple of years without the BOT showing any commitment to making it happen, and for at least this year, we're committed to bailing the HOA out of an enormous legal mess of their making.
LMAO!!!
Anonymous
The compactor site was done last year if my memory serves me. I seem to remember George getting upset when someone spilled white paint on the resurfaced site.
RVs All Year! I'm on board with that. I vote RVs all year.
How do we get this vote on the July Meeting Agenda?
Martin, your right about the spilled paint. The area had been coated with a surface coating. This is maintenance that should be done on a regular basis to prolong the life of the paving. I think what they are talking about here is re-paving. I would question if that really needs to be done.
Speaking of paving, most members do not know that the short road from the Business office to the 315th bridge street is owned by the association. I think most assume that it is a County road. It is in poor condition. It would not be a bad idea to explore turning it over to the County.
I'm for fixing up the compactor, but not for adding more RC parking. Also, not for RV's year round.
If you look at a plot map you will see that the road in front of the office dose not exist it is laided out as a Cul-da-sac. H street dead ends in front of the office.
I have mixed thoughts about allowing year-round RVs. Those who vehemently oppose this, express concern that RVs will fall into neglect and disrepair, which is what has happened to some of the mobile homes on the eastside. As the point of owning an RV is to be able to travel around the country, there is something to be said for requiring that they be moved periodically.
Mechanical things need to be used to remain functional. RV engines need to be run periodically, batteries go dead without use, bearings can rust and seize-up, tires go flat and become cracked and unsafe, etc.
Permits for RV use can be obtained for Winter use, though there may be ways in which restrictions on RV use in Surfside can be eased or eliminated. The recent shed restrictions clearly target RV users, who can have but one outbuilding - a shed. So that is an indication of the BOT's commitment to improve their circumstances.
This change is a dis-service to the community, and sets useless limits that in no way enhance the community, while intimidating RV lot owners with unnecessary restrictions. In the same sense, the BOT has drug their collective feet in addressing the need for more off-season RV parking. There will be no funds available in the near future, as we try to pay-off the HOA's major compliance failure with all levels of government.
There are ways to prove that an RV has not moved periodically. Especially since the BOT just implemented a compliance officer. I didn't want that nor was I given an opportunity to vote on that. Where's member input? Where's compromise?
And talking compliance, my RV and lot is more in compliance and kept up better than a number of homes here. I don't leave rusted vehicles, trash, odds and ends on my property. My RV is covered when not in use, I keep the lot landscaped and presentable, and my dog doesn't do get business on others property. We all pay the same dues, so should meet the same requirements. The BOT may be in for a big surprise come next elections, as some of us part timers have pocketbooks and resources that can make a difference.
Had there been any thought into making changes so that the BOT is represented percentagewise according to full timers and RVers?
2:24, thanks for keeping your RV lot neat and clean, I'm sure your house neighbors very much appreciate that. Unfortunately there are many more RV lots that are not that way. Yes, there are a few homes around here that are not clean, some are being fined by the BOT already for this, like the one on I st. towards the beginning of SS.
But overall, for some reason I see more unsightly RV lots that I would like to see, like the one next to me.
No. That would threaten the status quo. Same as they will not think about board representation by different areas of surfside. Why change anything when it is working to keep those in control, control of their selfish special interests? This is a corrupt organization.
Funny rv restrictions only apply to SOME areas of shoa,lol. I wonder why?. Lol
There are so many part time houses that are falling in to disrepair. I would like to see all stick built houses banned from Surfside’s!
2:31 & 3:07:
Care to tell us exactly how this could be achieved when few people run for the board in the first place let alone from all areas? Besides, a couple years ago we had one of the most diverse boards after the election in my time of living here and people still complained.
I see many houses being built throughout SS every year. Eventually, there will be very few RV lots, the issue will eventually become null.
When this HOA was started they designated different areas for different uses. Some areas allow year round RV use and some areas allow manufactured homes. I feel they were trying to make things so that all could live the way they wanted. when Surf Side was set up it was a camping location, only a few lived here and they tried to be fair to all, but as time has changed the way we use Surf Side about a third of the lots are full time resident's. We need a Board that will revisit the covenants and change them to suet todays use. To reflect todays use.
This will not happen with the board we have today. They prefer to keep things just the way they are. Trees get killed, Rv's get moved and they control, fence's and sheds. The committees are stacked with the same people who want to enforce the covenants without a change. It is all about power and greed. Remove or change the present board is the first step. Second step is to ask the members what they want. Doubtful either will happen. Efforts have been made to review the covenants and also get electronic voting, to only see it get shot down by the controlling status quo.
Martin, if you download property data from Pacific County, you will see that only 15-20% of the properties in Surfside are owned by full-time residents of Surfside. The rest of the owners of both residential homes and recreational/RV lots have primary mailing addresses out of the county or state. However, the full-timers still wield the power to control the BOT, thereby they control all communications with the full membership via the Surf-n-Sider, Weekender, SHOA website, SHOA Facebook page and even in the mailing of official HOA legal notices, e.g., the budget proxy mailing included mention of a proposed change to the governing documents to authorize electronic voting. Included in the official mailing - paid for with HOA funds - was an editorial statement from the Board recommending that members reject the proposed change. The Board controls all the Governing documents and all the Commitees. The Board controls access to membership records, including names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. They have defied the state RCWs by charging and excessive fee ($100) to members who ask for a copy of member records and they withhold email addresses even though the RCW explicitly says ALL membership records are to be released with the exception of unlisted telephone numbers. By controlling access to the full membership, it allows a small handful of full-time residents to keep the rest of the members in the dark and maintain its stronghold on the HOA. Take note of the meager participation in the elections and budget vote - we have no way of knowing they are sending materials to all members, either due to not having the current address or by deliberately not mailing ballots to all members. We have all read complaints here from members who have not received proxy ballots (but always seem to receive their bills for dues). The Board also controls the proxies, further solidifying their control over the Board and HOA. At the last membership meeting, in which we had a quorum, the Board and their puppet attorney refused to allow me to introduce floor motions for Members to vote for changes to governing documents. The RCWs make it very clear that at any meeting of members with a quorum, the membership is running the meeting - not the Board - and may introduce motions and vote on them. We are dealing with a tremendous abuse of power by a Board that uses every tool at its disposal to control the HOA without regard to the membership as a whole. We have all seen the silence from the Board with regard to the ever-increasing scrutiny SHOA is receiving from officials & investigators at the local, state and federal level. The silence continues, in spite of having already spent a significant amount of members’ funds on punitive fines and legal defense. These are unbudgeted or excessive costs, not included in the budget passed in Nov. Keep in mind, we are not only an HOA subject to RCW 64.38; we are a non-profit corporation subject to RCW 24.03. The Board has routinely violated both of these statutes.
Note that members can complain to the Secretary of State, whose office oversees non-profit corporations.
1) You can do this online https://www.atg.wa.gov/file-complaint;
2) You can call 206.464.6684;
3) You can file by mail using this downloadable form https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Home/Safeguarding_Consumers/File_a_Complaint/CONSUMERCOMPLAINTFORMPAPER2013fax.pdf; and
4) You can also write a letter to AG Bob Ferguson at
800 5th Ave. Suite 2000
Seattle, WA. 98104-3188
We must speak out and vote. More importantly we need to engage our fellow members and make them aware of what is happening in Surfside and encourage them to speak out and vote for change.
It is time for members to start campaigning for the next election in July. If you are interested in change run for the board. Post your name and your proposals on this website. We only have 4 months left and with the population of surfside split between full-timers and part-timers it is difficult to get your name out to the membership as well as expensive. Mr Riley you should kick off your campaign now. Lets get it done.
Thanks for the support 5:08 PM.
I'll really consider it.
One of the first things I would want to do is the following. Restrict BOT unilateral changes to only those for complying with new or revised externally relevant permitting, labor, environmental, health and safety, and financial regulations.
Is it true our hoa dues are going up another 10%?
Who knows? We are only in the second month of this years budget.
To 9:22
The budget is planed in I think August and it can go up or down depending alot on who is on the budget committee. I was on it once and I had to argue a lot to get my way and the budget did not raise that year. There was one member that was against rolling the surplus moneys into the next years budget, he wanted to put the money in the reserve account. He's still on the committee.
Post a Comment