Proactive covenant enforcement...Alarm Bells..
As Reported in the Current Weekender:
"The Board clarified that when it comes to enforcement of our covenants, the staff will use a proactive, comprehensive and equitable approach to compliance. In the past under the complaint driven culture two properties side-by-side could have the same violation. If one had a member complaint and the other one didn’t, only the one would be pursued. In the future compliance will have a more comprehensive and equitable approach."
Definitions?
Which staff?
Proactive?
Equitable?
Comprehensive?
Who will make these determinations?
Step number one (1)
A complete review of the existing covenants.
Member agreement on changes by a member vote.
Step number two (2)
Enforcement with member approval.
Discussion:
The enforcement action taken by this Board has started with step number two.
The past Boards have shot down attempts to review the covenants, even before a review was done on any review. This present ruse is nothing more than preserving and enforcing the status quo by a Board dominated by elitist J Placers.
Side by side lot enforcement? What kind of double talk is this? How about investigating the complainant to see if they are compliant? It is a known fact that the tree committee is constantly pushing for more tree enforcement that is done faster and favors fines.
Most members are fair minded and favor a "neat and attractive" community. They also favor covenants that achieve that, and the enforcement if needed. There should be NO Proactive enforcement until there has been a complete review and updated covenants that the members approve by vote.
This new policy is poorly thought out and poorly executed. This will only divide this community more than it is now. There is just to much chance for abuse, especially by those who do not want to see any change. This will bring closer the demise of Surfside. That might be a good thing. What a shame.
21 comments:
I agree with George. Proactive enforcement of antiquated covenants will lead to lawsuits, which could lead to dissolution.
The potential problem with a "proactive" approach is that enforcement can be based on the compliance officer's definition of non-compliance, which need not be written clearly for all to see. Preferential treatment is NOT done away with simply by designating an "officer" to the position.
There is a tendency in all of us to look at the community through a microscope for the sake of finding ANY inconsistencies, when given the challenge to FIND non-compliant stuff. A question I would have is, will the compliance officer point out things to owners that he thinks may be a compliance matter so they might agree, disagree, or correct it ? Or will he simply write compliance notices ?
The objective of the community is to ONLY address as a compliance issue, that which clearly IS a compliance issue. It is also to achieve reasonably compliant conditions, rather than the compliance officer's ideal, and to accept that compliance is the goal, not perfection, and not to prove the compliance officer's worth by issuing hundreds of compliance notices.
HOAs must address owner complaints/concerns in any case, so there really needs to be a happy medium between addressing written complaints and driving through the neighborhoods visually scanning for problems. There is a tone to this last meeting's agenda that concerns me - that tightening the screws will fix everything. How compliance is handled tends to set the tone of a community.
The Gorilla in the room is the Tree Policy, which is bad news on several levels, and can only be fairly administered by eliminating it all together. It has destroyed the appearance of the community and has maintained a false class system in Surfside, which needs to be done away with. This policy drives needless legal spending and wasteful maintenance costs, while making the community look chopped and manipulated.
Will the compliance officer visit the homes of those who write tree complaints to see if their view is being affected ? We all know why the tree heights exist - supposedly to protect J Place views. So this needs to be verified ! Prove that your view is being obscured. How would Mr. Clancy justify dozens and dozens of complaints he generates annually ?
The only members with a worry or problem about more consistent, timely and fair covenant enforcement are the ones who do not keep their lots in compliance. Most of us bought our property in Surfside because we like the covenants and trusted that they would protect us from some nuisances and bothersome actions by our neighbors. Those who don't feel obligated to comply with the covenants truly made a bad decision in their purchase of property. You don't get to buy property and then change the rules to suit yourselves when there is a larger membership that relies on the covenants for a certain quality of living and recreating.
No, I do not own property on J and my trees are required to be trimmed to comply with the covenants. I don't have a storage shed because they are generally an ugly nuisance that sit unused and unattended or maintained for months and years and decades. Perhaps a large hoa garage sale should become an annual event for some folks to get rid of the stuff in their sheds that they don't need or use.
We trust a hired enforcement employee to use good judgement. There are plenty of non complying situations that will keep him busy for a long time. Our community be more attractive and friendlier without the venom of members making willy nilly complaints.
So lets look at the outside light policy. I see that some people have been told to change their outsides lights because it violated the lighting covenant?
How does any house get built in the first place with covenant violating lights since all plans must go through the Surfside building committee for approval first? Unless the fixtures were changed after the initial build, why would these lights be in violation, shouldn't the committee, after review of the initial plans, recognize the violation and required a change of lighting before they signed off on them?
Don't get me wrong, for the most part, I agree with the convents as they are, although I am open for discussion on improving them.
No, there is NO evidence and certainly no facts that the tree committee is pushing for more enforcement no matter how many times this false claim is made. They are given addresses from the office of places with complaints and they check to see if they are valid. The committee has no part of any enforcement.
To the policy in question. People have been complaining on here about the neighbor verses neighbor in a complaint driven system. The point of this is to do away with it, so you would think this would be considered a good thing, except from those like 10:54 mentions.
The majority of the homes in surfside had their lighting before the lighting covenant went in place. Those members are not required to comply with any covenants about lighting before that date. It is only after and 12:10 make a good point. If the plans were approved by the Arc. committee, it should stand. If they want them replaced, they can pay for the compliant lighting and the installation.
The major problem is there was really no, or very little compliance concerns for years n years, now all of a sudden, in the last few years, someone has obviously bought here with a bug up their b*** . Another case of a few loud and controlling owners that miss the power they once held in their working life. If wasn't important before, why now?
Remember the last compliance employee. He did not last long and neither will this one. Surfside is a sows ear, never going to be a silk purse.
There's been times when some of us, 4 members that I know of, have considered filing a suit for Surfside's failure to enforce the covenants. It is hard to make the decision to basically file suit against the hoa when it is a matter of likely being costly to all members including ourselves. We bought our property believing that the covenants would protect us from members who refuse to take proper care of their lots. We hope that this change in enforcement policies will improve things in Surfside.
1:56's attitude has been epidemic and very popular with the IRRESPONSIBLE MEMBERS who don't want to make any effort to comply with covenants. The mismanagement of the covenant enforcement has created a lot of trouble and expense with anger and hate between neighbors. Why now you ask? Why not all the time to make a better, more attractive and valued community?
Answer. Because the board of j placers only care about their view. Nothing else matters to them.
BS 8:30. Your delusions are worthless and tiring. Go get a life that has some meaning to it.
7:am's key statements are "epidemic and very popular". Sounds like a majority to me. Proving the point of 1:56. Majority would be happy with decent water and the compactor. We only got one so far, and alot of unnecessary fines n other costs to the fault of the minority. Thank you 7:00 for proving my point.
Whatever the constructs are, no one likes getting a non-compliance notice. Most people get angry as they presume they have done nothing to merit HOA action. So forget the notion that complaints will no longer be a factor. The HOA is obligated to investigate "complaints" or "concerns" that Owners submit, and it doesn't make any difference if it is known that the compliance officer filed the complaint.
If his judgement isn't fair-minded, and he is a nit-picker, you can bet there will be many angry owners voicing their dissatisfaction. Surfside is a challenging environment for maintaining a lawn, and yard irrigation is necessary to have one at added expense. Most yards are free-form, and vary one to another in design or lack of it. There can be little established in the way of requirements, with all yards so different.
It is difficult to line-up contractors, and the weather often interferes with projects, particularly painting. So it is not uncommon that projects must stall for weather changes, or hiring a contractor. Been there, done that. Folks who complain bitterly on the Blog about violations being rampant are seeing things that most do not see in the same way.
More intensive patrolling and increases in violation notices, will not make this a happier community. That's an absurd notion, and there is no getting rid of "complaints".
epidemic and popular as a proven majority is again pure BS.
there will always be complainers in any community. lets do what we can to reduce the number of complainers in surfside.
Reading comprehension probs 10:17? Or trouble following the string?
think the comprehension problem is yours 11:49. are you so narrow minded you can't comprehend some comments.
10:17 is suggesting fixing a root cause of our complaint issues. A quick way to do that is rid of the problem covenants that give little back to the community as a whole - the tree covenants. They only provide: overall ugly appearance; unhealthy trees; maintain division between a majority and a few homes on a small bluff.
632 - like your idea, though these people have put so much time and effort, as well as morally bankrupting themselves to keep their views.
It's a fixed game, and will be until the members who do not live on J Place assert themselves. The only other option is dissolution. Take their toys away.
And remember to show your Surfside Pride by purchasing a polo shirt. All proceeds to support the BOT Get Out of Jail Free Fund.
Before you pick on all the J place owners, Ed and Pam Harris, on J place are the biggest tree complainers. Once turning in 25 complaints in one day.
Post a Comment