Update: 1:30 pm 3/4/2019
| RE: Conflict of Interest complaint: |
George,
Complaint received.
Laura
Below is the complaint and the Board policy.
Click on each to enlarge.
Monday, March 4, 2019
Conflict of Interest
Complaint filed against Tree Committee...updates
Update: 1:30 pm 3/4/2019
Any member who resides on J Place should not be on the Tree Committee. Any Board member who resides on J Place, should recuse themselves of any discussion or vote on tree issues. It is a clear Conflict of Interest as stated in Board policy. I have filed a complaint on 3/4/2019
Below is the complaint and the Board policy.
Click on each to enlarge.
Update: 1:30 pm 3/4/2019
Below is the complaint and the Board policy.
Click on each to enlarge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
77 comments:
Thank you George! Good work!
I'm proud to have you in our community.
I second that comment. George has led the way in finding out the truth of this corrupt HOA. Please keep this blog informed of your complaint outcome. You are appreciated!
Therefore and logically, anyone who lives in the area requiring tree trimming should also be eliminated from any activity that might relate to tree issues if this complaint is meant to move toward increased integrity and fairness.
This would also point to eliminating RV owners from any issues that might relate to RV lots and RV usage. Any member who has a shed should be eliminated from any issues that might relate to sheds. Etc., etc. regarding any issue in Surfside.
This causes me to chuckle that anyone who uses the dump site or compactor should also be eliminated from any issues that might be related to these services.
Everyone has equal use of the compactor. You are right on the others. This is why Larry Raymer was tree committee chairman. At last count there were 4 J Place members on the tree committee. If a covenant does not apply to all members, it is discriminatory and should be removed. You may chuckle, but to those who are harassed and discriminated against, don't find it as amusing as you do.
Instead of sitting there blabbing and laughing, file conflict of interest complaints then.
You missed the point 11:29. Anyone who has anything to do with ANY issue in Surfside should be eliminated from dealing with any issue that affects them in Surfside if this complaint is to be taken seriously. Those who use the compactor site only for short visits believe that it is unfair that full time resident use it year around. Same goes for water usage. You might want to know that we are among those who are required to trim our trees. We have paid out over $1,200 to keep our trees in compliance over the years we have owned this property in Surfside. Many of us realize that we agreed to do this when we purchased our particular lots.
The only way that a member might feel harassed or discriminated against regarding the trees in Surfside would be if they refused to respect and abide by the tree covenants. If in compliance there would be no reason for any contacts or discussions about their trees.
So that gives the BOT cause to harass and discriminate? Well now that definitely sounds like our current BOT.
I guess that some of you are so focused on stirring up conflict that you can't be logical. Please 12:26 describe in detail how the board is harassing and discriminating against you. I would better like to understand the root of your anger.
For starters, two lawsuits against members that were dropped while incurring tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees.
Implementing new CC&Rs retroactively without any recourse for existing conditions.
I could go on and on and on.
1230, 1226 will only be able to answer you with pointing of figure, blame, and defections. Reminds me of our poor POTUS
go on 12:49 pm, we are waiting
Covenant enforcement and investigations can best be accomplished fairly and without bias, if done by a compliance officer that is not an association member. There is a job opening for that position. With that position filled, the Tree Committee could be declared as "inactive". Their primary task is to confirm tree height complaints. The other agenda interest they have, could be done with the Community Relations Committee. This would be the proper place to do a proposed "Yard Tour" and a bake sale, etc...Until that position is filled, at the very least, the J Place committee chair should be removed and/or replaced by Larry Raymer who is not under tree height restrictions or has an ocean view. He would have the option to form a balanced member committee.
Secret meeting, deliberate ovfuscation of issues, none of the reporting and transparency that is required by law for non-profit entities. Vendettas, election fixing, deliberate misinterpretation of CCW's and our own rules. No logical review of covenants, and manipulation for personal gain. Morals that would make a Mafia boss weep in shame.
Starting to get the picture, 12:53? If not, you're part of the problem.
The only one making this personal is you. George performs a huge public service. Lay off.
Not nice to insult the blog host, fool. I will delete it.
Thank you, 2:37 for your nice comment.
The picture that I am getting 1:22 and 12:49 is that you have opinions about how things may be that have nothing to do with discriminating against or harassing you. You spout the propaganda that has become the litany of the small group of RV owners who want to change things to please themselves with no regard for others or history.
Surfside definitely needs to be improved with a free flow of accurate information, board members who serve with integrity and regular oversight to correct some phenomenally stupid errors. With volunteer board members and less than professional employees who are inexperienced and ill trained, the model that Surfside has been following does not fairly serve the members. The bullying and calls for radical changes do not serve us well because most of it is contradictory and reactive to managing a well run homeowner's association that operates as an organization of fair, timely and legal policies and practices. At this juncture, it looks to us as if professionally certified management may be the best option even if expensive. Reducing the costs of study after study by consultants who have failed to serve us well and the expensive fallout of stupid decisions and the general amateur operating practices weigh heavily. The legal and accounting costs of poor management is a detriment to all of us. It is time for changes but not the knee jerk, reactionary stuff that is being spouted by a small group of malcontents.
3:17 PM. "At this point, it looks to us..." Don't try to put words in my mouth. A lot of "us", me included, have already been proposing that. You are the one that recently said that was too expensive. Yet, you call me a bully, propaganda pusher, and malcontent. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU!
That group of malcontents is not that small, and growing daily.
If we cannot reclaim our association from the special interest groups, then it's time to put it to bed.
There is nothing "knee-jerk" about proposals of change in the Tree Policy. We all know that it was originally created to protect the views of ridgetop properties, as part of the original vision to create a gated community of high-end homes. That vision was long ago abandoned as RVers were the most numerous property owners early on in Surfside.
We also know that Surfside attorneys urged the BOT to change the wording of the Tree Policy, eliminating references to the protection of views, concerned that the "views" approach was vulnerable to being struck down by a Court of Law. So for a decade or more, the community has continued to enforce an elaborate system of micro-management of trees on most of the properties west of the ridge - varying from about 14 ft. to 24 ft..
What we also know is that the Shorepines that dominate the controlled area were seeded early on in the community, as the lower part of the spit was devoid of trees and vegetation generally, due to the conversion of a marshland to a landscape of lakes, canals, and buildable land. The area was not appealing to prospective buyers, but adding trees changed that.
At this point, the majority of trees have been damaged beyond recovery by the policy, and trees are no longer the primary obstacle blocking views. The build-up of dunes higher than 24 ft., and the building of homes 24 ft. high and 8 ft. apart are the primary obstacle to Ocean views, none of which can be legally changed.
This policy is no longer of use to the community, and creates a false social structure that allows ridgetop owners to demand properties to the west continually trim their trees at great expense and loss of personal property - their healthy normal trees. This policy has enhanced ridgetop properties short-term, and damaged property values long-term on all properties restricted by the scale of heights rigorously enforced through laser readings in inches.
It makes sense to entirely eliminate the current policy, allowing for individual appeals from any and all owners who feel a neighboring property unfairly restricts their view. This would require obvious proof that a view is unnecessarily obstructed, and a ruling by the BOT that the situation must be rectified.
Currently, there is no real determination of such obstruction required, just a laser reading that a member's tree or trees are over-height by some number of inches.
There is NO real comparison to other issues in the community, so forget the lame argument. Thank you George for getting the ball rolling, and hopefully owners who have been tormented by this policy will organize for support and seek legal advice as this matter moves forward.
But this is a policy that benefits a small fraction of the membership, allowing properties west of the ridge to be preyed upon and jerked around for the sake of creating an elite class of owners on the ridge. It's wrong and most surfside owners know it.
Once again, Steve is right on.
Groan! nce again, Steve repeats himself and fails to take into account the hazardous issues with too tall trees in a high wind area as well as the wild fire danger of too many trees growing too close to each other and too close to many structures.
And, once again you repeat yourself..Groan!..
We all know the tree issue is nothing more than about J Place views.
Yup. Some of you take a narrow view of the tree covenant. Ha! Ha!
If it were about views only, why are tree complaints made about trees that do not block any view? The tree covenant needs revision with the suggestions for revision being negotiated with reasonable and sensible members involved. No axes to grind so to speak.
Any tree that exceeds the maximum height set for a given property is issued a violation notice. The Tree Committee does not assess the health or stability of trees, as they are not arborists. I have no trees that require trimming or monitoring on my property. I've objected to the current policy since we bought here 3 years ago, and see the ugliness that it has created needlessly.
The policy was put in place to protect views. Some Realtors even state that the Surfside HOA protects views of J Place owners. Nowhere in our covenants is there any such claim, as I said before, the wording was changed because attorneys thought it was not legally defensible.
Some realtors will say anything to get the sale.
Steve has no issues with removing the tree heights because he lives on the ocean side of G and doesn't have trees by choice. His view is preserved unless the dunes grow to high, which he can legally go through a process to modify them if he chooses.
And modifying dunes isnt a hazard?
I see lawsuits from neighbors after a good king tide during a storm.
Doesn't matter 11:22, it's legal, but you have to go through the process with the county and there are medium tide height minimum you have to conform to.
Some members have made cuts in the dunes to improve their view that are lower than is legal. This creates a peril for others that is unacceptable.
your right 1pm and the county should go after them.
I have a one story place that was built in 1969, and sat near the surf. We have no view as the dunes build every year, and are about 25 feet high.
It is not legal to modify the dunes, and I am fine with having no view when I own property beyond the peak of the dunes. It's a five minute walk with an awesome view as high as my rooftop.
It is my understanding that the County does go after owners who bulldoze the dunes. There really is no point in spending time and money to push that much sand around. Where are you going to put it ? The sand just keeps coming at quite a fast rate.
We have some serious organizational problems that we should try to pull together to solve. The Tree Policy is an enforcement nightmare for everyone concerned really, and fosters conflict between owners who probably have no reason to have disputes.
Let's get rid of this policy and put all of that energy into restructuring our HOA/BOT working together to start fresh, setting a few simple goals to start with.
Sounds like you're a good selection for the BOT. Let George know, in July we will make this happen.
A fool? That's the best you got? Funny how you are the one to throw out insults and use derogatory terms at people while deleting anyone's comment you find insulting. You continue to do the same against Trustees and people on committees who volunteer their time. Add to it how easy you do so while hiding behind your age. Is it any wonder why it is hard to get people to volunteer for this community?
People need to know the facts that lead up to this complaint. It has less to do with trees and more to do with the actions of a mean spirited vindictive man. Larry got removed and a committee member replaced him as the chair. Larry, to his credit, remained on the committee. George (another Trustee at the time) and some others quit in protest. Then the harsh topics started coming frequently on the blog, aimed specifically at the women on the committee. After some particular comments including false allegations being made, some husbands complained at a board meeting that a Trustee shouldn't be making false claims against committee members. Again, George got all upset and quit the board. Even tried to cover it up with some B.S. claims about his safety being in jeopardy. The attacks have continued up to and including this latest stunt.
Now go ahead and defend his actions and go ahead and delete the comment. But the facts can't be ignored. Anyone who wants to serve on any committee should be allowed no matter what their address is. This complaint is just another attack against certain people the host dislikes. No other reason. Most people who have lived here for a length of time know this to be true.
Got news for ya, majority here dont like you either. Obviuolsy you got a horse in this race. I was there, n your version is very twisted n biased. Btw, you guys were getting negative comments way before that went down.
5:28 - You're just pitiful. What a whiner !!
In case you haven’t noticed, more and more lots in Surfside are being denuded of trees. This is a direct result of citations being issued via the Tree Committee. Rather than spend thousands every few years to satisfy a few, they are just clearing all!of them, probably without a permit.. so we have the few who travel around the area looking for violations, reporting them and getting the Tree Committee to validate the height infraction. So a few inflict hardship on the many, and probably get their jollies off at the same time.
Dear 7:50,
There would be no reason for the complaints if members responsibly took care of their trees to comply with the covenants. The problem is those who fail to take proper care of their trees. It seems to me that it is the covenant violating members who get a thrill out of breaking the rules. Your take on this is creepy. You reveal yourself as a bad neighbor who would not cooperate with rules or covenants as you agreed to when you bought your property. Taking care of the trees, vegetation and structures is part of your responsibility if you want to own property in this association.
If some owners choose to cut down all their trees, that is their choice to be in compliance. It is none of your business as long as the member is in compliance. You are not the god or goddess of trees. You are simply another member in this association.
You are not the God or goddess of trees either. There is no creepiness in wanting to be treated fairly - that is a basic issue with our Board.
SHOA has no problem filing suit against a member whose empty lot contained tree heights that violated covenants, but when a board member fails to trim their trees SHOA conveniently looks the other way...just one more instance of SHOA showing it's true colors...
I think that if you spend your time volunteering on the BOT that you should get leniency for some things?
Name names 8:51 if you want to be believed.
8:57....That is an absurd notion. That's how corruption starts and snowballs from that point on. Some enforcement issues in Surfside are constructs with no clear benefit to the community, and serve no practical purpose but to intimidate owners with the authority of the HOA. We have some eager "Jr. G men" out there, loving every minute of their enforcement roles.
The shed roof regulations are a useless fabrication aimed at RV owners who can have only one outbuilding. Anyone else can put a porch or any number of appurtenances on a shed and declare it a "workshop". County ordinances do not forbid porches or limit eaves, nor would it be a matter of concern to them in an HOA community.
So it seems just fine to the Tree Committee that owners are cutting down ALL of their trees rather than face constant HOA enforcement and unnecessary expense. That tells us how sick the mentality of this Policy and its' enforcement is. So let's just consider that the long-term goal of the Tree Comm. - to see trees eliminated from all lots west of the ridge.
8:51:
The member owning that lot refused to comply, that's why the suit was filed. The person making the complaint against that member offered to cut the trees for them and the owner refused. So what would you suggest should have been done? Please enlighten us.
There are plenty of examples where people have taking care of their trees to keep them within the limits and have kept trees on their lots. There is nothing magical about their property, they just follow the rules. Those that don't end up with what they have.
And again, the tree committee doen't issue citations. If you are going to continue to make statements against them at least be accurate.
That is not an honest statement, though I've heard it before. The Tree Comm. prompts the Business Office to send violation notices to properties deemed by the Tree Comm. to be in violation of the limits in a given micro-sector.
The Tree Comm. does the enforcement evaluation and the Office MAILS the citation as directed. Neither the BOT nor the Office personnel make any judgement on the matter. In some areas the limit is the same at the top and bottom of a slope. That makes no rational sense. The Policy is compulsively pursued out of sheer love of enforcement and the thrill of using that authority.
I think your being highly overactive 1:20 in your assessment of the tree committee. "sheer love of enforcement and the thrill of using that authority" Really? you must be trolling us
A Policy that is leading owners to cut all of the trees on their lots cannot be rationally justified. Neither safety nor views are at stake here. Though there is no real way to measure in degrees, this is a policy that has damaged property values throughout the community long-term. Why did the founders of the community seed the barren spit with Shorepine seeds ? Because properties would not sell without them.
Trees add beauty, stabilize the soil, enable other plants to grow, provide a wind block for people and structures, provide habitat for birds and other wildlife, sequester pollutants in the environment (remove), produce enormous amounts of Oxygen (one of my favorites), and can provide shade should we need any.
Since we know that neither views or safety is in fact at stake here, please outline the reasons other than the bogus views/safety b.s. that make this enforcement vital to this community. The 'enforcers" are addicted to enforcing a useless policy, and had to buy a $2000 laser tool to measure how many inches "too high" community trees are.
This Committee doesn't bother to wait for complaints, nor do the covenants require it. They file the complaints and send the violation list to the Bus. Office for mailing non-compliance notices.
TREES, We have lived here for twenty years and I have never seen a shore pine
within Surfside that has blown down or caused power outages do to storms. There has been to much unfounded
comments on this subject
14 years and have seen shore pines down or partially down and power outage caused by it more than 5 times. Look around Russ. You need to get out more during and after the storms.
That is bull.
Healthy shore pines 8:24, healthy.
Please dont mistake the fact the this whole tree controversy is run by people who have proved that they are not trustworthy. There is no doubt this is a prejudicial process. And yes, they do love using that authority.
Next time try using troll in the proper context.
Again, it is trolling when a comment does not agree with the propaganda line and fact when it agrees. Slanted blog doe not serve the community well. We have seen many shore pines split apart with huge limbs falling many times in Surfside. We notice a power outage from this once that I recall. The shore pines are frequently growing so close together that it creates spindly and unhealthy trees with no help from people.
Again, there is a difference between maintaining trees and properties, and being forced to buzzcut tree's or denude your property to increase property values of a few.
Surfside is supplied by underground electrical service. Shore pines do not take out the power. More times than not its the big trees along Sandridge that knock out the transmission lines. Maybe we can mow all those down. Show me one community on the West Coast that has a tree policy like Surfside. It must not be pleasant to have too huddle in your house in fear that a 30 surf pine is going to come crashing down and dent your gutter.
Total lack of any viable information from the board makes this blog the best source of news in Surfside. I believe its popularity is directly attached to the malfeasance of the Board.
Congratulations, you helped create your own monster!
Not all of Surfside has underground electric service. The area between 295th and 300th has had toppled trees that have caused outages several times over the past 10 years and this area is served with Surfside water for many lots which makes the owners responsible to follow Surfside covenants. They don't do it.
When an owner allows his trees to become a covenant violation, it is that owner's decision in regard to how they will get in compliance. Some opt to cut down all their trees. Some hack and top their trees to create unhealthy and ugly trees and stumps. Some take good care of their trees to provide both an attractive and healthy environment. The fault is with the owners who violate the covenants and who have become accustomed to getting away with it because of a complaint policy to enforce covenants.
Yet another myth displaced!
17 years here, trees have fallen, but not one of them a scrub pine. 3 Doug Firs destroyed the house across from me. Chop them all down as well?
No, the actual fault is in the fairness of the policy in its execution. There is none.
Having watched this conversation for 2 years now again I can state with a fair amount of certainty that the only people who push covenant compliance are the ones that have the special interests.
The tree covenant could use some revisions to further fairness. That has nothing to do with the gross neglect of this association to enforce fairly the covenants. The complaint method to enforce the covenants has created a contentious and hateful atmosphere that harms all of us.
8:24PM, I walk every day and cover quite a bit of ground before and after storms. I have checked with the PUD and no outages have been caused by down trees in SURFSIDE.
All is see is stumps and ugly trim jobs that makes this place look awful.
Can we please put to rest that pruning trees to look likes shrubs is an acceptable practice. Don't believe me talk to any arborist. The City of Portland would fine you and make you replace the tree if you topped one. We should just allow a 30 foot height as a reasonable compromise.
Ever heard of bonsai trees? I seriously doubt that Russ does much walking in the more southerly areas of Surfside. PUD would be lying if they said what he said.
One summer between 2008 and 2011 a PUD crew worked for several weeks cutting all the trees off of the strip of land between lot boundaries and the streets on G, H and I. The crew told many members that the reason was to prevent power outages that had been frequent and costly. I was happy to see the scraggly and spindly surf pines cut down. I had been preparing to pay someone to take them down in front of my lot because they were ugly, leaning away from the prevailing winds and likely to come down into my yard and driveway.
3:43, again you spout uninformed information, The PUD cut back those trees because they infringed on the county right away and nothing else, as I watched them doing it.
It is right of way Russ, not right away. I heard what the crew said as the reason for this work. It was to prevent power outages as spoken to me personally. The county is responsible for dangerous trees that might grow on these strips of public property next to the streets, not PUD.
3:43 All the electrical service are underground on G H and I. Sometimes the county comes through and cuts back tree off the county street easement. The PUD has not hooked up overhead service for some time any new or modified services must be underground.
There remain a few overhead electric service connections from some die hards who have refused underground services.
Hay dumb ass, It's not about die hard, it's about cost. It costs plenty to have the overhead service put under ground. It is a hardship for older seniors. You and your elite attitude, obviously don't know what your talking about Go back to reporting tall trees. Jerk face.
I was going to post a reply to 1:10 PM, but I decided to say the following.
It's too bad we can't truly debate on this blog. George has set this blog up and maintained it to build community.
Yeah, easy there 1:10, no one is judging you. Our 4plex was built in the late 60s and has an above ground powerline. No one has been willing to face the cost of putting them in the ground, which is substantial. Storms make the line bounce around wildly. It has never been taken out in spite of it.
Having the lines redone would need the approval of all four owners, and we had to have a waterline dug up and repaired at great expense a few weeks ago.
Just saying if an electrical service is changed like a new panel. The Pud will require that the service be placed underground.
While you argue about storm damage from scrub pines I can tell you one thing. I have seen flaming debris come off of them during a fire and sent many yards downwind igniting new fires. That is why OP spends the money and man hours trimming them down on the coast.
There are many pictures of that happening so don't call me a liar.
Please post the pictures and make sure they were taken here in S.S.
Post a Comment