The comment below with another stated they received letters in the mail this weekend.
Did you?
I would like a copy to post so that we can determine the validity of the comment. There are questions that need to be answered about this letter. Was it sent to a targeted group with scare tactics's? Was it a form letter? Postmark? Signed? Why such a concentrated effort to get a vote? Is it about being afraid that if someone is elected, they will expose hidden truth? Without proof of the letter, there is nothing more than an anonymous comment. Who did not get a letter, may be as important as who did. We need more information on this. Get me a letter or a copy, and I will not disclose your identity.
Anyone who want's on the board as much as these three, has to raise questions as to why. What are they so worried about or trying to cover up? We need new people on the board who will get to the bottom of this mess. These three are the problem, not the solution.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure who I will vote for, but do know three who I will not. Make that four, counting absent Flood.
ReplyDeleteWe will vote for them. We can trust them to keep our views. That's all we care about.
ReplyDeleteWhen Patrick went door to door and gave out mock ballots filled out with those he wanted elected the host and blog said nothing.
ReplyDeleteWhen Patrick sent out unsolicited emails with the same filled out ballots along with verbage about who and want to vote for the host and blog said nothing.
When Patrick made unsolicited phone calls concerning the elections the host and blog said nothing.
In all of those cases Patrick was using scare tactics along with pitting member against member. Again nothing was said.
He even put flyers on peoples property, even those that were vacant because the owners were part timers, letting any potential burglar know the house was available for entry. Travis even got involved because of that.
Yet now some of the same who were ok with all that are all upset at signs and a letter. Typical B.S.At least this new letter was mailed.
More upset with the illegal and immoral actions of the current cronies.
DeleteAnd yet you support them? Priceless
Seems to me that there is a covenant that prevents posting signs like this. Time to enforce the covenants.
ReplyDeleteWe've been a owner for several years and did not get a letter. Out with the old and in with the new.
ReplyDeleteMost of the candidates I have ever talked with will have an attitude that if I get elected, great, If not, that's ok Also. Patrick was a single candidate that had an axe to grind with the treatment he had. What is the reason for these three to be so hell bent on being elected? There is a real motive and they are keeping it covered up. That will fit right in with the present board. They are nervous about something. I can't vote for people like these. It appears they have a hidden agenda. That is scary.
ReplyDelete4:43....Patrick doesn't live in Surfside and nothing you are talking about has anything to do with the current election. George is entitled to his views and preferences, but these actions are about maintaining a class of privileged folks on the ridge. The community shouldn't have to settle for this.
ReplyDeleteAnd typical of the antics expected to be tolerated, the sign DOES violate the covenants. Mr. Olds is currently a Trustee seeking re-election, and Clancy the same, yet they flaunt their sign and claim to be protectors of Surfside. Minich can't be good given his company. It's all about J place dominance, and happily at everyone else's expense. That is just low, not classy.
Why is there nothing about the candidates on the surfside web page? I think it is because they don't want members to discuss the candidates. Nice job election trustee de leest. Guess she doesn't want us to see what her buddy Olds said.
ReplyDeleteThe letter has all the board candidates with columns that identified what they have done for the community, if they have experience etc with a yes or no . They want you to vote for the 3 that are on the billboard you posted earlier.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I put the letter in the recycle that went out yesterday. But I'm sure there are others that received it and I'm guessing that they picked out the names that they didn't want to receive it also. BTW, my mailing address is out of town, not in SS so they are probably just targeting us "part timers" who, in most cases, don't have a clue or care, whats happening around here.
They know that Steve Cox has owned in Surfside for 3 years, and that O'Neil and Riley have bought more recently. Steve has served his Lacey HOA for several years, so has contributed as a volunteer in another community. Riley and O'Neil may have given community service in another form, in another place.
ReplyDeleteService to the community is usually a good thing, but not always. Mr. Flood for example, has not attended Board or Comm. meetings in some time - at least a year. It is very debatable that serving on the Tree Comm. is a positive contribution to this hacked-up mess called Surfside.
The problem that stymies any real growth in Surfside as a community, is the apparent conviction to continuing to elect J place owners to the BOT, and the resistance to free elections and electing newer residents to the Board. The primary role of Trustees is to serve ALL residents fairly and equitably, which we know is not what the current Board is about.
Until the Board is willing to come clean with an explanation of the management failures that have led to huge fines, failed permitting, huge legal costs, and an on-going EPA criminal investigation, no one who has served on the BOT previously should be re-elected. We don't know who did what or why, and the seated Board hopes to keep it that way.
All residents are eligible to run for the BOT, so there's really no value in smearing the candidates who are seeking to serve the community, don't have the ugly baggage, and aren't part of the HOA cover-up. Clancy and Flood are right in the middle of it, through incompetence and arrogance.
Yes, I received the letter. I looked at the points they stood for, the goals they wished to
ReplyDeleteup hold and then looked at the actual results they had part it for their last term and the two
come no were close to being accomplished. It's time to get Reid of this board, anything must be better that what we now have.
Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' THINK ABOUT IT FOLKS! DOMT MAKE THIS MISTAKE AGAIN. VOTE PRESENT BOARD MEMBERS OUT TO SAVE SHOA!
ReplyDeleteEither a new Board, or disband this organization.
ReplyDeleteVOTE FOR STEVE AND MIKE. OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE A GOOD CHOICE AITH THE ELITISTS NEVATIVE COMMENTS. VOYE OUT STANDING BOARD MEMBERS.
ReplyDeleteSorry about misspelling. Didn't proof!
ReplyDeleteTake a nap Fed Up. Your comment merely points out that those who believe that there are elitists in Surfside aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
ReplyDeleteNice try, troll. You elitists have had it all your way for a long time now, to the detriment of 95% of the membership of this pathetic excuse for an organization.
DeleteTo believe differently is truly ignorant. Wear it proudly.
But they sure know how to shout, just like at last years annual meeting.
ReplyDeleteWe still have not received our ballot or any info on candidates
ReplyDeleteThis was posted on the weekender, I noticed that our resident loud mouths didn't show to discuss their views with "real" members?
ReplyDeleteMany thanks to the candidates that attended Saturday’s Meet the Candidate meeting!
The following were present to discuss their views and answer questions from the members, staff and board members: James
Clancy, Kurt Olds and Ric Minich. The remaining candidates who did not choose to attend were: Steve Cox, James Flood, Shawn
O’Neil and Mike Riley.
and this: Mikael J. Riley statement for the Surf-in-Sider—Candidate statement was removed at the candidates request
ReplyDeleteHas Mr Riley decided not to run?
As a part timer I'm awaiting the candidate statements in the ballot as I don't attend the meetings. I think that will provide a fair evaluation of the candidates. May the best candidates for Surfside win, but can't see how we can go wrong with some new blood too, we only keep a President for a max of 8 years.
ReplyDeleteHa, the only way to dislodge the current HOA prez will involve a lot of kicking and screaming.
DeleteYou cannot remove a Board member from the Executive Committee but you can remove a Board member from the board.
ReplyDeleteWho knows 8:34. He changes his mind almost daily. Yet many on here feel we should vote for this clown.
ReplyDeleteI think we should vote for him. Maybe that will send a message for all of them clowns.
ReplyDeleteSo your solution for dealing with a clown issue is to send in more clowns?
ReplyDeleteInteresting....
Well done 1:55.... that's making the best use of a perfect set-up. Very funny !
ReplyDeleteThis term has been used so much on the blog lately, it does give things a circus-feel. But I do think that people on the Board are smart and capable, their mission is very stale, and the management failures that have come to light this year show the lack of focus on the most critical matters in Surfside.
The focus has been on intrusive enforcement restrictions that are useless and adversarial. Stop micro-managing owner's private property with useless shed restrictions and mandatory tree-topping, and greatly reduce Surfside's constant log of legal conflicts. The BOT seems to see our large bank account as justification for wasteful legal spending and member intimidation.
So these are not clowns, but smart people who can do much better with a positive mission and clarity that the entire membership must be served fairly and equitably. There has been no indication that they want a fair and equitable system, or have any self-awareness of the damage the Tree restrictions do, or how unnecessary it is to try and prevent owner creativity in adapting sheds to their needs.
Well said 12:25
ReplyDelete