Compliance officer hired....
The past Business Manager and acting Compliance Officer, Laura Frazier, was given authority by the Board to hire a Compliance Officer. I don't know who all made the final selection. It should have been the the choice of the new General Manager.
The official title is Compliance Inspector. Some of the Board members were not aware of the hire. Transparency and information is kept from the full Board as well as the members. Details are lacking at this time.
What is known by me is that the person is from Long Beach and has experience in law enforcement. He will start on Monday. Laura will train the person, but she will be out of town until Thursday. This should certainly end the need for a Tree Committee. They will only interfere in the performance of his job.
This is second hand information, and as such, should be considered for accuracy. Maybe there will be full disclosure by the Board. Don't hold your breath.
21 comments:
Since this is "breaking news" and second hand information the interference statement is just another needless attack on the tree committee. Typical. You could have left it at just ending the need. If the duties are to be for this person to respond to complaints and he will be responsible for going out and doing the measuring then sure, nobody on the committee will need to do so. I'm sure they would be happy to have their free time back. But he may need help at first and might want them to still do what they been doing.
You don't know and I don't know what is going to happen yet, but here's a suggestion. How about waiting for the whole story before going after a volunteer committee.
This should be good news for the committee. They will have more time to write their complaints and be anonymous while hounding him to harass the members.
Wrong again 11:15. Unlike you here people who write complaints have to put their name on it. Why don't you do the same? But let's imagine for a moment that your false statement is true. If the complaints were anonymous then how would you know that a Tree Committee member wrote one?
I will say this. With the way that you and others attack the volunteers on that committee I wouldn't blame them if they did. In fact I would encourage it. When it comes to harassment, look no further then your mirror.
A complaint is anonymous when the accused does not know who accuser is. Logic escapes those with an agenda.
9:51 & 6:34.... What the chair-person of the Tree Committee knows full well, is that on more than one occasion a single Board member has submitted dozens of Tree complaints. How does that fit into your holy mission ? What is known by such an action is that that Trustee has not gone on private properties and measured the trees he is complaining about, and dozens of owner's trees are NOT interfering with this Trustee's views.
We don't need your sanctimonious b.s. pretending this is just volunteers doing the righteous work needed so by Surfside. The tree Committee ESTIMATES heights and is on a tear, destroying trees throughout the community. This is sick, and you just can't stop. Limiting tree heights and conducting an "official" program of mandatory tree topping is NOT sanctioned by the State of Washington, and based on this, our covenants were changed to make NO mention of protected views.
The work you do serves to perpetuate the lie that views are guaranteed to J placers, and then make no determination of obstructed views. Why ? "Because we're just enforcing the covenant restrictions." This community would not exist had the developers never planted trees. As soon as they were 15 to 20 years old, your mandatory program started forcing owners to top them. That is asinine!
It is also asinine that the chairman of the tree committee lives on J place and her husband is on the board. No conflict here. The entire committee except for one, live on J place also. Big spender clancy delights in writing tree complaints that never will block his view. Need to dump that tree committee.
If you want to stop the tree topping and trimming then get the covenants changed. Efforts to shame members for following the covenants will not change anything.
5:50 using the term "sanctimonious" is laughable. Perfect example of that kettle and the pot saying. Now to your silly and usual false remarks.
It is no concern to the chair person or anyone else on the tree committee who wrights the complaint, including if it is a Trustee. As been said countless times, they get a list from the office of places that received complaints that they need to go and measure, not who wrote them. They are also not destroying trees nor on a tear. Only doing what is asked of them by the office.
To the second part of your rant. Are you saying that the Trustee, or anyone else for that matter, should have gone on peoples properties to measure before submitting a complaint? How does that make sense?
The tree committee like all committees are volunteers. Like it or not they all serve a purpose for the community by volunteering their time. Just because you don't agree with what they have been tasked to do doesn't give you the right to be as insulting towards them and making false statements the way you have been. What have you volunteered for since you bought here? How much of your private time have you given up on your visits for the community? Sorry, volunteering your opinions and being a social media personality doesn't count.
One also has to wonder if you would be as insulting and claiming falsehoods against the tree committee if it was composed of all men instead of women. So brave ye be.
Your Tree Committee is rife with self interest, interested only in maintaining their own views.
As to falsehoods, prove it. You come in here defending a policy that divides our association, and apparently claiming the moral high ground. What garbage.
Supporting an association that doesn't treat their members equally, kowtows to special interests, and will probably cook the election, again. Be proud!
9:25....My views are based on the principle of equal rights that all members are entitled to, and the necessity that standards have a clear purpose for their enforcement. This policy disregards Washington State law, and is blatantly unfair to every owner west of the ridge. What amazes me is that that is not understood by you and your committee.
There are many things your volunteers could do that would not violate common sense, State law, prey upon member's private property, diminish the victim's property values, make the community ugly and manipulated, and continue mindlessly, a policy that was created to sell properties on the westside when none would sell.
I have no idea exactly who is on your committee, and I assure you I have no problem criticizing stupid policies and those who mindlessly practice and enforce them, be they men, or be they women. You've got the wrong guy for your lame argument. Just a guess, but I think there are about 300 ridge memberships who are "served" by this policy, while the rest of the community either pays to cut trees at your request, or has to look at the destruction which compounds each year.
It is a BIG deal that you are a part of this foul scheme, and you cannot claim innocence or that you are "helping" the community. There is no covenant that protects views, but you enforce this policy knowing that. Who in their right mind would expect trees to conform to your random height limits, and not grow higher than the houses ? Instead the community DEMANDS that owners top their trees, the single most significant arborist's principle, that we ALL know is severely damaging to trees.
No one can drive through this community focusing on trees and NOT wonder what the hell this community is thinking. Many trees are half dead, many dead and still standing. Some owners are instead, choosing to remove all of their trees. In Western Washington!! Some owners have chosen to leave stumps and refuse to care for or develop their lots, some cut their trees excessively out of spite, so they won't be back in 2 years spending more money on demand of the Tree Committee and the HOA.
The fact is, if the BOT weren't sworn to do J place's bidding, they would demonstrate that they actually have a conscience, understand that they serve the ENTIRE community, about 2050 member households, and they would end this policy tomorrow -that's Monday. Let's start the week right. The BOT could vote on this online tonight, and announce the covenant restrictions on trees are no longer in effect.
I'm not trying to "shame" owners fool, I'm expecting the Trustees to show they are ready to serve the entire community, use common sense, and grasp that this community has been greatly diminished in beauty and value by persisting in enforcing this policy which defies law, logic and common sense. Owners who are otherwise entirely compliant, and happy to do so, are being forced to destroy their trees and spend their hard-earned money on nonsense, when they could be doing other deferred maintenance or home upgrades.
Many on the Tree Comm. are J place owners, so maybe the expense is chicken feed to you, but many families have stretched to buy their place here in Surfside, and they have many other important needs for several hundred to a couple of thousand dollars, every 2 or 3 years. You are unwilling to accept the truth about this policy, and it is a nightmare for our community.
Now, let's address this nonsense about complaints and where they come from. HOAs are obligated to address owner concerns or "complaints", whatever you want to call them. But the only aspect of this obligation that must be addressed is to assess the accuracy and validity of the complaint, both from the complainers standpoint, AND the victim of the complaint.
You know who makes the complaint, and I do not buy any other explanation. You are aware that this Trustee has on more than one occasion, filed dozens of tree complaints all at the same time. If we are realistic about this, and honest, most owners never file a complaint, let alone say, 78 at one time. What we know for certain is, more than one complaint from an owner at the same time can be valid, but filing dozens cannot.
No, I do not expect this Trustee to go on private property, but the point of honoring - and I said HONORING these complaints - is that the assumption is, there is a basis for their validity. Practically speaking, it would make sense to state in the covenants that more than 2 complaints in a month from a single owner are not welcome, will not be reviewed, are not in the spirit of the community's goals and needs. Something to that effect.
These are BOGUS complaints picked off of a map, and written -up by this self-pronounced King of Surfside. He's running for re-election by the way. Sound good ? Only if you're a J Place owner or minion. This is ugly mean-spirited stuff that looks at the community as of a lower class, not worthy of Surfside, so we'll boss them around needlessly and hurt them financially. Thing is, everyone pays the same dues and assessments and are due the very same rights, protections, and freedom to enjoy their Coast property.
As we have a new compliance officer, the Tree Committee is obliged to turn over their laser measuring viewer and thei stick we bought them that is calibrated. It is not (and never was) the tree committees members job to measure tree heights. Don’t give meany song and dance about volunteers “helping out” It is the duty of the compliance officer and only the compliance officer to determine tree heights.
Great, now we can get the trees under control. Keep your trees pruned people, I like my view of the ridge from G st
Stop putting all the blame on J placers...there are plenty of homes in SHOA who enjoy a view of the ocean. Every single member signed an legal and binding agreement to abide by the CC&R's. Until or if the CC&R's are changed I demand that SHOA enforce them as written. You people need to devote more of your energy into getting the CC&Rs changed instead of constantly complaining about them here.
Demand what you want. The CC&T'S as written aren't subject to change except by your good ol' boys, and we know where that goes.
I demand that our association treat us in an open, fair fashion, disclosing financials and openly communicating with the membership.
I think we're both going to be disappointed....
There was really no enforcement till 8 or nine years ago. The trees n sheds dont all grow at the same rate. So what? Or who changed, or moved here?
The point made by 7:15 is that there is no longer a need or requirement for the Tree Committee to be the"Judge and Jury" for tree heights. BTW if two J Place families can get height restriction relief from the Board (DeLees even though they changed their mind got the exemption), can the rest of us get variances for our trees? They would look a lot better than the stumps or wastelands that seem to be popping up due the 70+ violations.
10:41....If you have owned property in Surfside for a while, you should be aware that only about 300 votes are cast each election, and the electorate is very conservative. You should also be aware that there are a slough of contradictions conveniently ignored by the BOT and those who support the Tree Policy as it is enforced.
You should also be aware that in Surfside, the membership at large has no authority to change the covenants by voting, and that about 90% of the members have given up on the HOA's lack of commitment to the entire membership. Needless to say, it is not the live and let live element of the membership that drives the community's absurd Tree Policy and Eaves Policy, and re-elects J place Trustees who serve their interests.
If the members who DO vote support an honest Board of Trustees, and respect the needs and desires of ALL members, as opposed to the favoritism that currently drives policy, then they should support member motions to change the covenants regarding required member approval of covenant changes, and adding electronic voting to try and expand member participation in elections. Neither are particularly controversial, both give greater representation to the members.
What seems to perpetuate the current BOT's historic favoritism and program of member intimidation in enforcement, is the support of the conservative majority who are most benefited by these useless enforcement efforts on trees and sheds.
The community is being bilked of enormous amounts of cash by the BOT's cavalier legal spending, and huge fines for the HOA's lack of compliance with County, State and Federal regulations. If you support the current BOT, you give a green light to further waste of funds and disregard for owner autonomy and property rights.
But all change begins with discussion, and trying to find solutions that better address the challenges we must face. The blog IS a discussion venue, so if you are bothered by points of view and criticism of the HOA, don't go on the Blog.
What has changed is that several Board members have decided they like their positions, and have become lifers. They've seized power, or what they think it is, and will not go away of their own volition, even after the massive failures of the last year's.
People usually move on when not wanted - these will have to be kicked out kicking and screaming. Clancy and Flood are the start. Get 'em outta here!
Are you going to vote 4:51 PM ?
Yes, I will vote. The only reason not to would be if, by an organized opposition, a quorum could not be reached.
Do I have high expectations? SSDD.
Post a Comment