Over all, dull, little information, very little member participation and some narrative way to long. Especially the County Sheriff and James Clancy. There seemed to be less present than last year. The final numbers will be available in about a week. This will include the total votes for each declared candidate as well as the write ins. We will also get the figures for the number of proxy votes as well as the votes cast at the meeting. My guess is that the total votes will be less than last year. I heard the proxy count was around 160, but not confirmed.
The voting process was even worse than last year. The agenda item "New Business" had not been explained what it was about until the Board President said that it was for motions. This caught everyone by surprise, and there were none made. The proxy holders, me and others, were given a paper with lines to vote for and against motions. The paper stated the number of votes that you had with the proxies that gave you permission to vote on other matters. Turned out it was not needed as there were no floor motions. Confused? Many were. Please, we need electronic and simple mail in ballots that give each and every member one vote only.
The good news:
Flood is off the Board.
Scott Winegar is the best choice for President.
The bad news:
It is essentially a J Place majority Board.
The Treasurer stated that dues and assessments will be higher next year.
There was no discussion about the mess we are in, except Mr. Clancy spoke double talk on who was responsible for building in a wet land without a permit. Sure wasn't him. He blamed others.
Everything was calm by everyone. There was very limited applause by the members after reports were made. The one exception was when the President thanked Larry Raymer for his service on the Board and other volunteer work. This was followed by a nice round of applause.
Rudd Turner did a good job on briefly reporting on the financial report for the month of June. We do not usually see this report until the regular August Board Meeting. I have a copy and will be reporting on it here on the blog. Of note...No legal fees paid in June, but expect some in July.
I was the only member present for the Board Meeting following the Annual Meeting. It was more interesting than the Annual Meeting as I watched the Board members jockeying for the officer positions. I am sure it would be embarrassing for some if I reported it here. No need to say anything more about that. One other interesting observation: When the Board member vote was announced, James Flood immediately left the meeting.
There really was nothing else that I found interesting or worth reporting. Others may see it differently, and if so, feel free to state it here. I may have missed something, as I am just reporting this off the top of my head.....I was not able to attend the picnic, so have no information or pictures of that event. I am sure it was really nice, as usual.
Here are some pictures...Click on each to enlarge.
 |
| members present |
 |
| Warm welcomes from Heidi Larson and Maureen Gilbert (Moe) |
 |
| Janet Cory DECC, standing, and vote validation and count team. |
 |
| Tom Reber, General Manager address |
 |
| Ric Minich, new Board member, oath of office |
 |
| Kurt Olds, new Board member, oath of office |
 |
| James Clancy, new Board member, oath of office |
 |
| Gary Williams, Board President |
52 comments:
It was interesting that the law firm that represents SHOA sent the attorney who handles delinquent accounts, when there have been a great deal of legal issues and legal counsel over the Asbestos debacle, Superior Court lawsuits that were withdrawn, and the failed permitting at the Waterworks.
She stated that there had been a big increase in HOA legal action due to increased compliance pressure over TREE ISSUES. I've been observing the massacre of trees near our property and throughout the community, and have commented that the Tree Comm. is "on a tear". Chair Peg Olds has objected to that portrayal and demeaned me for having an opinion.
The attorney verified my observations. It's a disaster for this community, but it is really too late to correct dead and dieing trees. Why is there so much resistance to this policy which diddles away large sums of member funds on legal efforts that relate to this enforcement ?
Many owners do not have a lot of disposable income to spend on this expensive maintenance, and it is a violation of their private property - their trees. This is an inequitable policy that is the primary focus of J Place trustees, in spite of the mess it has made of all properties west of the ridge. Three new Trustees, all J Place owners.
The lack of participation in elections by at least 80% of the membership, allows this to happen. Owners are too weak to organize resistance and either bring a class action suite against the HOA or demand the policy be abolished, allowing individual grievances to be heard by the HOA on a limited basis.
Word is that one of the newly elected Trustees turns in dozens of complaints at a time, obviously an abuse of an "anonymous" allowance, and amounts to submitting bogus complaints that have no basis. The complaints should require verification that the complainee's view is obstructed.
Happy to see Flood gone! Clancy is his own worst enemy --- blow hard, always seeking attention for himself, arrogant and self serving jerk. It is not good for Surfside that he is on the board. Mark my words!
If the trees are too tall for that division why should it have to be proven that they block the complainee's view? Rules are black and white and unless revised we all should abide by them.
Exactly right 9:38. Once again Mr. Cox shows his ignorance by posting on the blog.
9:38 Thank you Ms. Peggy. I noted that the head of the ARC stated that they are in the process of changing the covenants concerning the lighting issue as it makes little sense and "causes friction between neighbors". sound familiar? There are numerous lots on I Street that have 20ft limitations, specifically those belonging to Mr Clancy and Mr. Weigart. At least the lights can be seen by neighbors whereas due to the difference in physical height between J and I, the trees on I have been calculated to be able to rise to a height of 32 feet before impinging on any view from J Place. You should follow the lead of the ARC and work on changing the covenants, or would that take away from your self imposed feelings of superiority?
You jerks are really good winners. How do you look in the mirror every day?
Self serving blowhards, typical of what brings the whole area down.
Regardless of my or anyone else's opinions of our rules we all agreed to follow said rules of SHOA when purchasing property here. It is required to supply the rules of the hoa before you purchase the house.
Well Stevie, remember what Dirty Harry said about opinions? Problem is your "opinion" about the tree committee being on a tear is blatantly wrong and inflammatory. They respond to complaints given to them from the office, it's that simple.
Now if you wanted to say that members are on a tear filing complaints that would at least be accurate. Better yet, how about members are on a tear letting their trees get too high, refusing to follow covenants. That is actually the more valid issue seeing as if the members didn't do that the others wouldn't happen.
Now to your "woe is me" demeaned declaration. I find it interesting that your such a big man who has no problem coming on here routinely making false and mean spirited comments at people by name but when they, like Ms. Olds or Ms. deleest confront you to call you out on your lies you instantly turn into a little cry baby snowflake.
Pathetic.
You have a vivid imagination. What you describe cannot be verified. I don't feel sorry for myself, as I didn't run for my own self-agrandisement, but to help give a voice to members who do not live on J Place, and recognize that J Place owners are driven to control the objectives of the Board and HOA, and in particular the Tree Policy.
I wasn't aware that I would be asked to make a statement about my objectives if elected, so wasn't well prepared to make that kind of statement. I challenge you to cite any matter that I have "lied" about. I do not knowingly make false comments, and your little dance around what the Tree Comm. does and does not do is ridiculous.
No one does the community any service by supporting and participating in enforcement of this policy. I'm no snowflake, fool - not here or in person. I am an honest and fair person, but do not demure in the face of opposition. What's your name big shot ? Do you stand behind your comments by stating your name ? Nope !
Negative bloggers are like our bot, hide behind anonymity, and provide no facts.
Cox appears to think that his opinions are facts. He blew it with his own statements on this blog whether using his name or using anonymous. He can't wrap his head around the fact that his opinions are not very popular or realistic.
That's because they interfere with your self interests.
Be proud of your lies, anger and subterfuge, but don't think you fool anyone.
I think you cannot wrap your head around the fact that you are talking out of your backside. The blog is often beset by folks like you, who make unfounded proclamations and demeaning remarks are your only objective.
1) It is a fact that the State does not sanction communities having rules that "protect" views for some residents.
2) It is a fact that arborists caution to do as little pruning of trees as possible, and to NEVER top trees.
3) It is a fact that only a minority of S.S. owners benefit from this policy.
4)It is a fact that our Water Plant may need to be relocated unless Surfside comes to an agreement on the terms of our pending permit.
5) It is questionable that there is any need for the BOT to remain mum on our pending legal issues with the State and Federal governments. The Blog has already detailed much of this, and the "Observer" has detailed the Asbestos issue. Are we hiding our legal issues from prospective buyers ? That could be the motivation.
6) It is a fact that the president of the BOT lied to the membership in Dec. 2018, stating that we were in full compliance with all regulatory agencies - when we had just paid about $75,000 in fines and Asbestos Abatement, and we had been denied permitting of our Water Dept. warehouse, holding pond and CTP.
7) It is a fact that the BOT has not spoken publicly about our legal issues in the last year, didn't mention them at the Annual Meeting, and Pres. Williams ignored it in this year's "State of the Community" statement. He cautioned about rumors and misinformation which is ironic.
8) It is a fact that the Tree Policy is the most imposing unnecessary and divisive policy in the community, costing the membership thousands of dollars each year in legal fees.
Tell me what it is you think I've said that is not true. Just for your information, I don't "wrap my head around" stuff, I examine the evidence and known facts, making an observation based on real information.
Once again, Cox demonstrates reading comprehension problems. If he wants to argue with a particular comment, he should at least stick to the subject and make some sense. His opinions are not particularly popular as the comment said nor do they represent hard facts. This man is dangerously off center a good deal of the time. We are pleased that he did not get elected to the board.
You lost Steve. How about having the decency to quit attempting to force your opinions down the throats of people who are not interested in what you have to say. Do you get it yet? You lost!
I removed the 2:54 comment as it was to personal about an individual. I agree that some if not most of the presenters at the Annual Meeting were dressed appropriately, and some presented a more professional appearance. It is the beach, and we do have a more casual life style.
Steve, you lost a long time before the voting took place. The number of votes to make a quorum is so small that to get elected does not require a large number of forest, just the majority of the few. The candidates from J Place had started their canvassing of the J Place residents weeks if not months before to secure their votes and proxy’s. By voting time there were enough secured to insure their victory. Regardless of what you wanted to do, right the wrongs, clean up the BOT, it meant nothing to the J Place voting machine. I found it interesting that one of the tenets Mr. Clancy espoused was that the Board members should be full timers. Note that the past and new present and Vice President are both part timers. I am sure Mr. Clancy is disappointed both about this and that he is not El President. A good try, but, at least this time, futile.
There is always next year, and based on the attacks, they are worried about that. Maybe someone will quit and be an opening.
Why is it j placers support inept leaders, fines, criminal investigations, building on wetlands with no permits, and on n on" Greed friends, plain old greed. Trying to protect home values based on a fictional view.
Who are you righteous one ? You are having a good old time using my name and trying so very hard to minimize my efforts. I was very active in my Lacey HOA for 5 years, serving as Board vice-president of a 7 member Board, and accomplishing some good things.
What are you doing for Surfside ? I don't question that J Place owners are motivated to have great influence on our governance. They are well organized behind protecting their undo influence on policy, and in particular, maintaining their mean-spirited Tree Policy.
I'm not surprised by the election results. I was willing to put the necessary time into being a good Trustee, and willing to deal with the challenges involved. But most of us don't have a political organization to drive our candidacy, and essentially go it alone.
I'm surely much happier NOT having been elected, as it is emotionally difficult dealing with constant conflict as Deb Blagg and Patrick Johansen dealt with. I was willing to deal with that in the interest of having a different voice on the BOT.
Next year won't matter until the voting process is changed. The current proxy voting is biased and designed to keep the power with full time members and/or a select few. Look at the number of votes each year-it doesn't change much and represents about 20% (this is a guess?) of the total HOA. What I am so confused about is that I received an electronic water connection update that was easy, convenient, and could easily be checked for authenticity. Can you imagine if our election process was like this? We might get results that reflect the true majority of owners in our HOA.
Once again, competence reared its ugly head, and the J Placers attacked, ruthlessly and relentlessly. It proves once again that there is no shame in Surfside.
A proxy vote is not difficult, Fill it out, sign it and mail/turn it in. Leave no blanks and your vote is just the same as any other method. Why all the sinister comments?
They are organized behind their personal concerns and that is difficult for other non-J Place owners to achieve. But the Tree Policy is based on preserving J Place views, and we know for certain that trees have little to nothing to do with views in 2019. None of the dunes that are now 25 feet high were there when the community was began, and virtually NO trees existed on the westside. The surf was about 100 yards closer to G Street than it is today.
So, yeah, it makes a difference that trees get topped when they do not obstruct views. Time has changed the landscape at surf's edge. Are the Tree Comm. members robots ? Under the control of an evil master ? The policy is a vicious relentless cycle of futility, and exists only to make J Place owners feel special.
The tree height covenants are reasonable, achievable, supported time and they will endure. I applaud the J Place members who work within the existing rules to protect their interests. They bought their property, or invested their money, based on the existence of those covenants. What would happen to their property values if the tree height covenants were abolished. If someone was suggesting that covenants designed to protect the value of your property be abolished you would get active too. The J Place members are not immoral or snobs, they are protecting their investment. You would too if you owned view property in Surfside.
10:34 What a load of BS. How does the new president of the BOT look over his 20'+ trees on I street? How does Mr. Clancy feel the 16 foot trees across the street from his 20' garage feel his property is lessened? Granted, both are within the covenants, but feet from others that are limited to 16'. How about the 24' limits on G? Most people on J cannot see over them or the dunes to get a view of the beach. The Pines on I will never get over 30' and will not block any views or degrade the value of any property no matter where it is located. Say it for what it is, you want to have control without paying into it. Go cut down a tree behind your house, maybe you will feel better.
The point is, views are no longer an issue, and the community continues to insist on enforcing this policy like robots. The State does not sanction this practice, an cities are getting proactive about SAVING trees. This is an out-dated notion that some residents are given unique rights and authority over other owner's property. Property values do not depend on maintaining this policy, and no policy is reasonable that sacrifices the value of properties west of the ridge for an imaginary promise that this policy will never change. This policy is legally indefensible.
There is nothing reasonable or time tested here. Most trees in the 14 ft. sectors are dead and look ridiculous. Owners are forced to spend their money to placate the ridgetop residents.
Anyone can drive J Place and see that in most places, houses on G St. and the 25 ft dunes in the distance, block views of the surf and no trees can block the view of the distant Ocean.
There you go again Steve, making common sense.You keep doing that over and over again. Please keep telling it the way it is, on all issues.
Cox rants on and on while he refuses to recognize that there are issues with the trees that he does not address. In particular, wildfire hazards, windfall hazards and diseased or dangerous trees. He has a right to his opinion just as most of the rest of us have a right to our opinions. Many of us have lived here far longer than Cox who seems to have not much experience with owning property on the coast in wind storms and wild fires.
I have grown to believe that he is unhappy with his own "non-ocean view" condo that exists where the dunes were vandalized years ago to create an illegal view. I believe that he resents others members who do have a view that they would like to keep. His protests about the legality of the covenants is pure conjecture and we are fed up with reading it on the blog over and over and over and over and over.
No, he, like some of us others resent self serving, egotistical people who do not look at options and possible change. "It's the way it has always been and should remain. No review is necessary." Common from people who never worked in industries that require to keep up on change, or engineering, manufacturing, high tech, or had real LEADERSHIP positions. The lack of even thinking about how to do things better displays their inability to consider progress. Common in person's who never worked in a real profession, and controlling this HOA allows them to be in charge of something in their normally pitiful and lacking life. Thankfully most of them will be slowly fading away and progress will happen, it'll just take us next generation to consistently whittle them down and get more younger, newer owners involved in the process.
What we are fed with is your constant rant against anything Cox has to say. It is obvious that you see him as a clear threat to your elitist view. Just because someone has not lived here a long time, does not make their common sense observations and opinions less than your status quo support. New members with a fresh up to date questions on everything is exactly what is needed. A fresh look with new eyes is exposing the short falls of this organization. There is nothing wrong with a review of everything. The old ways has got us into a real mess. We need more members like Mr. Cox. Less members like you. Your rant is more personal than factual. You come across as the "unhappy" one. The more you rant, the less credibility you have.
Personal attacks do not alter the facts. Personal attacks tend to cause people to dig in on opinions simply to be oppositional. It looks like some of you think that one person is making comments and that this person needs to be struck down. I commented about Cox for the first time ever at 11:14. I don't own on J and I don't consider myself to be an elitist.
11:14 I will bet the sound of chainsaws throughout the neighborhood really gives you a thrill. The reasons you give for limiting tree height apply to both the East and West sides of J Place. If you think the taller trees don’t fall, you haven’t looked just south of Ocean Park off 103 and U Street.. As all trees are fire hazards regardless of size, let’s have the HOA hire Woody to come in cut every tree in Surfside to the ground. Would you feel better? No fire danger, no disease, no blowing over in the wind. Also just disregard that Shoreline Management Program, that would leave some of these terrible trees still standing. No more worries, no reason for neighbors to argue, no reason to have a Tree Committee. Pretty much your Utopia wouldn’t you say?
11:14 says, why is there usually an over reactive and offensive response from the folks who want to let the trees grow without any care or trimming in Surfside? Why do I believe that there is a common sense way to deal with the trees in Surfside that is moderate and reasonable? I think that complaints are not a decent way to insure the safety, good looks and neighbor friendly Surfside.
Again, the view talk isn't about just seeing the surf or the beach. Again, no matter how many times Cox wants to say it, there are trees that block the ocean view itself and if there were no covenants there would be a bunch more. As I have said before, drive up to the north part of J and then look north past Surfsides boundary where there are no tree height limits. Not only are you not able to see the ocean you are unable to see the horizon. So in short, all of Cox's or anyone else's claims that trees are not or will not block views is just plain false.
I've also noticed that the people like 2:04 who tend to belittle those who are concerned about the fire dangers are those that are part timers and have another place to live if the worst was to happen. Look what happened in California last year. It was well documented that the quick spread of the fires was due to high winds along with crown fire debris. That is what happened with the fire a couple years back here that thankfully was only on a small scale. Even so, it was still scary specially when you consider the fact there was just as many members out fighting it with garden hoses as there was actual fire crew. Garden hoses I might add with low water pressure.
If you go by the recommendations of the Cal Fire site most of our entire area is not following them. Among them they recommend not having trees within 30 ft of your house and having at least a 10 ft gap between two trees branches, which would mean a distance greater than 10 ft between the trees themselves. Given the early drought conditions we are in now and will more than likely be the norm every year we would be smart to adopt those recommendations but won't since most don't care, specially those that don't live here full time. Even Ocean Park went and did a massive clean up job on the coast in response to our fire.
Been here since 2002, have had no fires and/or flying debris. Nice try on the fear mongering, but some of us call 'bs'.
347 - how do you live with the steaming piles you put out here? You support liars and special interests, nothing else. Don't give yourself credit for anything positive, as you achieve nothing out here!
Keep lying to yourself, but don't waste our time.
Really 6:11? I guess you must be one of those types that don't leave the house. Even if that fire on G wasn't well published where did all the charred landscape come from? So your ridiculous claim that there has been no fires is the real B.S. To your other claim as to no flying debris, how exactly then did fire get up into the eaves of a 2 story house and how did the fire skip over properties and start new ones downwind?
So, nice try, but you're the one spreading the B.S. If you are going to do more in the future at least pick a subject that wasn't witnessed by a large group of people and had an article dedicated to it in the newspaper.
To be accurate the fire of a few years ago was on " F ". Started by an inattentive trailer owner who left her mini grill unsupervised for mere minutes. We were among those with garden hoses who hopefully slowed down the progress of the fire. It could have just as easily burned south to Oysterville road or beyond. Dozens or hundreds of homes could have suffered partial or total damage.
Funny, ive never heard of a major fire on the peninsula, have u chicken little?
Topping stunts vertical growth of trees. Trees do not need trimming, and arborists recommend pruning as little as possible, warning NEVER to TOP trees. Shorepines only grow about 30 feet tall unmolested, and will not grow to max. heights after being topped. Arborists warn that topping kills trees, either slowly or quickly. these are FACTS folks.
We bought our G St. condo 3 years ago. We were not concerned about buying a "view" property, and like what we have. We have the means to own a J Place home, but prefer by far, what we have. My opposition to the tree policy is based on common sense.
1) Views are not guaranteed to anyone in Surfside
2) The community looks manipulated and chopped, and is filled with dead and dieing trees. It is an ugly spectacle that many ignore, conveniently.
3) The Tree Policy is J Place favoritism packaged in micro land units, and is a violation of our covenants which require fairness and equity among owners. It is a violation of private property, owner's trees, and depreciates property values on properties west of the ridge.
4) Trees do not "grow fast". Very few species grow less than 20 feet tall at a maximum, and none require "trimming". Dwarf trees are not a substitute for normal trees, and most are not easy to grow.
5) Trees sequester enormous amounts of pollutants, utilize CO2 to grow, and produce enormous amounts of Oxygen.
6) The shoreline has receded about 100 yards since the community began, and 25 foot dunes now exist where there once were none. Houses and trees on G St. can be 24 feet tall, making all of this "view" business a ruse.
7) If your property is not 20 feet above sea level, you will not be able to see over the tops of the dunes and houses on G St. Not all of J Place is high enough to have a view, and if you have one - good for you ! It is NOT guaranteed, nor does the State of Washington see "views" as a valid legal issue. Nature changes our world, and we can accept it as out of our control.
I don't rant, I just keep repeating the same unarguable facts. The Policy is a disaster for the community and a nightmare for most who have to constantly trim their trees.
The standards requiring a 20 foot corridor around structures is not a residential standard. Rural properties are more vulnerable to fire for a number of reasons, including proximity to fire stations, and lack of neighbors close by.
It's wise to keep sea grass well away from structures, and cut tree branches away from rooflines in residential areas. Tree health should always be monitored for soundness of their structure in high winds. very little is required to grow healthy strong trees - just avoiding topping is item one.
Steve - stop the repeated ranting and go to the HOA office and volunteer for something. That will get your foot in the door for future opportunities. This blog is making you look bad
Well put Steve, the facts you put forth are right on.
9:51.... There is no "ranting", just facts that you disregard. I don't long to be involved with the HOA, so have no great need to get my "foot in the door". Stuff your advise, I don't need it either. There is no reason to think that anything will change for the better in this community, and no reason to expect more than 15% to even vote.
I'm happy to enjoy our property with my back to the rest of the community, busy cutting the shit out of every tree on the westside. Way to go surfside ! Have at it nutjobs !
951 - the only people who volunteer for this mismanaged piece of crap are those who, like you, support the special interests.
Steve, thanks for the effort.
I do not have any trees that are subject to the tree height restrictions and I am not a lawyer, but this is what I would do if I received a complaint letter that my trees were over height and I neded to bring them into compliance.
This is "forced" tree topping. Contact an arborist and get a written statement as to the damage that will be done by topping. Do the topping to avoid the threatened fines. When the tree dies, again contact the arborist and get a written statement as to why the tree died. Make sure to take before and after pictures. Then sue the association in small claims court or better yet in Superior court. In small claims court you will recover the cost of replacing the trees (large ones) and your court costs. Your court costs are cheap.
Superior Court is more expensive but the penalties against the association are much greater, plus you can collect damages that far exceed what you get in small claims court.
If the tree committee has advised you to cut your trees down or recommended a non certified, bonded and insured contractor to do the job, they can also be sued for that and should be included in your case in either court.
A single win in either court will open the door to many more claims against the association. Another option is to tell the association to go to hell, you won't be forced to kill your trees and lower your property values due to "forced" tree topping. Yes they will fine you and make all kinds of threats. Include that in your court case.
With the current J Place board, the only way the tree policy will be changed is by legal action. As we have seen, when members fight back with the legal system, they win.
If just one member will fight this unfair covenant and the discriminatory way it is enforced, it will end once and for all the tree policy.
I have owned property in Surfside for twelve years. If topping and trimming trees kills them, why are there so many beautiful trimmed shore pines throughout Surfside? Courts have consistently upheld HOA covenants when challenged. Please stop using the same tired reasoning to convince us you are morally and legally superior to the rest of us. Your constant whining is pitiful. If you are so convinced you have the legal and moral high ground, no pun intended, then sue the association over the tree height covenants and prove it. Put your money where your mouth is.
To Steves 9:34 comment, specifically "The standards requiring a 20 foot corridor around structures is not a residential standard. Rural properties are more vulnerable to fire for a number of reasons, including proximity to fire stations, and lack of neighbors close by" is exactly the point I was making. We are a rural area and we do have a lack of fire stations and response as was clear on that day.
The Cal Fire website recommendations I gave is not just for rural areas and our area is no different and in some aspects worse than Paradise and we all saw what happened there.
4:56. Thank you for your comment. Like you I have lived here for years, taken care of my trees along with my neighbors and we haven't had one die. Funny how that works, huh?
Lastly, I find it interesting how Cox is now saying he is done with the blog, is happy that he didn't get elected and has no plans to get involved with anything community related in the future. That attitude is precisely the reason he didn't get elected no matter how he spins it now. He couldn't even spare a few minutes to stop by the picnic after the meeting, opting instead to go back to the keyboard and whine. His only interest is being a web personality.
4:56.... You have strangely selective vision. Most of the trees are dead or in ill health. Drive down I Street or anywhere the limits are 14 ft. and pretend that topping does not kill trees. Few remain in these areas because they died and were cut down to the ground.
The HOA lost in small claims twice, and then took Patrick to superior Court, where, after several months, they withdrew the lawsuit at great expense to the Assoc. So don't know where you came up with this notion.
J Place owners were elected because the only voting members are J Place owners and fulltimers, all wanting to be certain the Tree Policy is a lock. Too bad Steve didn't come to the picnic to hang with the opposition, that's really surprising.
Perhaps it's the vicious attacks from you special interests that makes him want to stay away.
After all, you're judged by the company you keep.
Why would he want to associate with people who have warped this association so much?
You are judged by the company you keep.
Post a Comment