This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Obnoxious Tree Report
May 17, 2019 minutes...
Click on each page of the long 2 page report for a larger view..
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
79 outstanding tree complaints.
Any questions as to which special interest is running this place?
106 - covenants that never see peer review by the members? Or are we talking the pathetic stories of bad trees flying everywhere? Been here since 2002, haven't seen Dorothy, Toto, or flying trees.
Don't try to justify bad behavior- you can vote for it again next month, and I'm sure you'll do so, compounding the same problems.
This is absolutely ludicrous! It shows a total disregard of common sense. You do realize that the forefathers of our country were smart enough to provide a means for the people to modify the Constitution, and the people did! It was not left to the whim of sone egotistical power hungry, self aggrandizing fools. Those fools being the tools of an even smaller group of power hungry zealots. The decisions were left to the people, the same way changes in these outdated, arcane, covenants. Our country has lived by votes of the people for 243 years, wake up and let it happen to this fossil of an organization. We won’ t be held to the blind greed of a few. Go ahead Fred and Kurt make your childish and vindictive response so we all may disregard them.
Majority rules and precedent (history) rules in our country's governing systems. Modifications happen when precedent and majority is given a fair voice. What is ludicrous is the few, obstreperous and self serving, members who want to change the covenants to suit their personal ideas about how things should be because they made a mistake in purchasing into Surfside. Go find a place that you like the rules instead of stirring up trouble for those of us who have cooperatively been here for years. Forming small, hateful coalitions in an attempt to overcome precedent and majority seems to be a form of entertainment for the few. I suggest that you find a new hobby in a place that better suits your ideas about how things should be.
And I suggest to you Mr. or Ms. Snarky response that perhaps YOU might want to move instead. You do remember the Bill of Rights and the Boston Tea Party don't you? If those folks had packed up and moved back to England, we wouldn't have the country we have today and instead would be a colony. It is an unalienable right to seek change, just ask the Socialists running for the Democrat nomination for President. Don't agree with any of them, but as Americans, they have the right to their thoughts without fear of deportation, which is essentially what you are advocating. If you think something is wrong or unfair, you have the right to disagree and attempt to change it. Shutting off debate is indicative of Autocracy, but then you know and believe in that (or at least your wife does).
707 - majority rules here because the system is rigged.
You made the covenants your personal playground, but viciously attack anyone who would dare do the same. You've already formed the small, hateful coalition, and it's running this place right into the ground. You have incited with anger and recrimination.
All this because we want an Association that actually abides by their own rules. Priceless.
The small coalition you speak of happens to be the majority of members who care enough about the HOA to actually vote. They are also the ones who moved her because of the covenants, not in spite of. Saying it is rigged is just false.
In short, that small hateful coalition you speak of is you.
Disagreeing with HOA policy is NOT hateful, particularly when a minority of the community has been dominating policy and HOA objectives. The Tree Policy began as a developer concept to sell ridgetop properties when few westside properties would sell. It became a community horror show, with the HOA preying on ALL properties west of the ridge, demanding tree topping for the benefit of ridgetop owners.
There are no views protected by the covenants, and therefore, no rational reason to continue this elitist policy. This IS by definition, an elitist policy, that cannot be legally defended. Owners who are sick and tired of this unnecessary exercise in futility should band together and legally contest this. it would put an end to all of this nonsense.
There is no rebel group or movement, just owners who understand how warped the policy is, and willing to admit to the ugliness it has created. Why is there such continual resistance to it ? Because owners with trees despise being victimized and their private property rights disrespected.
Expressing one's opinion is not a hateful act, but the expectation of the Bill of Rights that all citizens will participate in the process of democracy. The status of owners, be they new to Surfside, or long term, full or part time, makes no difference in an owner's right to comment on community issues, or to run for the BOT.
11 comments:
79 outstanding tree complaints.
Any questions as to which special interest is running this place?
yes 12:22, the special interest in maintaining our covenants and keeping our neighborhoods safe
How about a fair vote of all the members to see if the tree covenant should be retained. See what your committee thinks of that one.
You notice they only need to recuse self if they made complaint. Which in past vehemently said they dont file complaints.
106 - covenants that never see peer review by the members? Or are we talking the pathetic stories of bad trees flying everywhere? Been here since 2002, haven't seen Dorothy, Toto, or flying trees.
Don't try to justify bad behavior- you can vote for it again next month, and I'm sure you'll do so, compounding the same problems.
This is absolutely ludicrous! It shows a total disregard of common sense. You do realize that the forefathers of our country were smart enough to provide a means for the people to modify the Constitution, and the people did! It was not left to the whim of sone egotistical power hungry, self aggrandizing fools. Those fools being the tools of an even smaller group of power hungry zealots. The decisions were left to the people, the same way changes in these outdated, arcane, covenants. Our country has lived by votes of the people for 243 years, wake up and let it happen to this fossil of an organization. We won’ t be held to the blind greed of a few. Go ahead Fred and Kurt make your childish and vindictive response so we all may disregard them.
Majority rules and precedent (history) rules in our country's governing systems. Modifications happen when precedent and majority is given a fair voice. What is ludicrous is the few, obstreperous and self serving, members who want to change the covenants to suit their personal ideas about how things should be because they made a mistake in purchasing into Surfside. Go find a place that you like the rules instead of stirring up trouble for those of us who have cooperatively been here for years. Forming small, hateful coalitions in an attempt to overcome precedent and majority seems to be a form of entertainment for the few. I suggest that you find a new hobby in a place that better suits your ideas about how things should be.
And I suggest to you Mr. or Ms. Snarky response that perhaps YOU might want to move instead. You do remember the Bill of Rights and the Boston Tea Party don't you? If those folks had packed up and moved back to England, we wouldn't have the country we have today and instead would be a colony. It is an unalienable right to seek change, just ask the Socialists running for the Democrat nomination for President. Don't agree with any of them, but as Americans, they have the right to their thoughts without fear of deportation, which is essentially what you are advocating. If you think something is wrong or unfair, you have the right to disagree and attempt to change it. Shutting off debate is indicative of Autocracy, but then you know and believe in that (or at least your wife does).
707 - majority rules here because the system is rigged.
You made the covenants your personal playground, but viciously attack anyone who would dare do the same. You've already formed the small, hateful coalition, and it's running this place right into the ground. You have incited with anger and recrimination.
All this because we want an Association that actually abides by their own rules. Priceless.
Agree with 7:07.
To 8:27:
The small coalition you speak of happens to be the majority of members who care enough about the HOA to actually vote. They are also the ones who moved her because of the covenants, not in spite of. Saying it is rigged is just false.
In short, that small hateful coalition you speak of is you.
Disagreeing with HOA policy is NOT hateful, particularly when a minority of the community has been dominating policy and HOA objectives. The Tree Policy began as a developer concept to sell ridgetop properties when few westside properties would sell. It became a community horror show, with the HOA preying on ALL properties west of the ridge, demanding tree topping for the benefit of ridgetop owners.
There are no views protected by the covenants, and therefore, no rational reason to continue this elitist policy. This IS by definition, an elitist policy, that cannot be legally defended. Owners who are sick and tired of this unnecessary exercise in futility should band together and legally contest this. it would put an end to all of this nonsense.
There is no rebel group or movement, just owners who understand how warped the policy is, and willing to admit to the ugliness it has created. Why is there such continual resistance to it ? Because owners with trees despise being victimized and their private property rights disrespected.
Expressing one's opinion is not a hateful act, but the expectation of the Bill of Rights that all citizens will participate in the process of democracy. The status of owners, be they new to Surfside, or long term, full or part time, makes no difference in an owner's right to comment on community issues, or to run for the BOT.
Post a Comment