The ugly face of Surfside...
What is discrimination?
In human social behavior, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction towards, a person based on the group, class, or category to which the person is perceived to belong. These include age, caste, colour, criminal record, height, disability, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, generation, genetic characteristics, marital status, nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and social class. Discrimination consists of treatment of an individual or group, based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction going on to influence the individual's actual behavior towards the group leader or the group, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on illogical or irrational decision making.[2]
Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices and laws exist in many countries and institutions in every part of the world, including in territories where discrimination is generally looked down upon. In some places, controversial attempts such as quotas have been used to benefit those who are believed to be current or past victims of discrimination—but they have sometimes been called reverse discrimination.
"Good people do bad things".
That, in my opinion, is what has happened in Surfside. That excludes a few who are inherently bad by nature or self design. We have individuals and groups that are in and support discrimination, and don't realize they are doing it. They justify their actions and support by rationalizing that they "have good intentions". "following the rules or covenants", "you new the covenants when you bought here". "etc. etc.". When we see it happening and say nothing, we become a part of it with our silence. ,
Covenants are adopted by a community for the betterment of the entire community. Rules and regulations need to apply to every member, not some, not a majority and not a minority. Here are several examples:
Tree height policy:
This covenant only applies to some areas. If there is going to be such a covenant, it should apply to all areas, not just some. That should be the first requirement of a covenant...It must apply to all equally. If it does not meet that test, it should not exist. Because the tree covenant only applies to some, it becomes not only unfair, but also discrimination. noxious weed part does apply to all areas.
Manufactured homes:
This is another case for discrimination, because it does not apply to all areas. A case for "reverse discrimination" can be also made. Such as...Why are they not allowed in some areas, but are next door to me in my area? Simple fact is, they should be allowed in all areas, not just some. The most frequent excuse for this restricted policy is "property values". Property values should apply for everyone, not just a few. This is discrimination.
RV restrictions:
There can also be a case made for reverse discrimination. Why are they not allowed in selected areas full time, but allowed in my area next to me? If your going to have a restrictive covenant that is fair to all, then the covenant should apply to all. (I favor all year over part time). The same argument is made about "property values". What about my property values? Is it only important for some and not all? "Safety"? That just does not stand the test of factual. Restrictions on some RV time limits and not all RV's and in some areas and not others is a clear case of discrimination.
In my opinion:
The three examples cited above, are dividing our community and give an ugly image to our HOA. This will do more to devalue the property values of all, then if they did not exist at all. A fair and more desirable place to live and vacation just might raise the property values for all.
I am not a victim of the discrimination, other than some possible reverse discrimination, but at least half our members are. I do not live in a tree height restriction area. I do not live in an area where manufactured homes are restricted and don't have an RV. We need to end this discrimination, against some, or we will find we are the next victims. It is our duty and right to make needed corrections so that all members benefit, not just a few. We must do better, and we can. We can return to "Surfside Proud".
97 comments:
The only discrimination that I see is that the covenants are not enforced fully, fairly and timely. The complaint method to enforce has got to go.
All have the right and privilege to know the terms and covenants when they purchase their property. This is fair and not a matter of discrimination. You buy into it or you don't buy into it. Free choice.
The homes from F to J are for the most part quality build stick homes and are visible to owner's, guests and potential owner's as well. The East side is invisible to all but those who live there and those of us visiting the compactor (dump). Rows of manufactured homes on or near the beach will resemble a shanty town over time. Why not allow yurts as well? This may sound elitist and maybe it is but if I put a lot of time and money into my home I want to someday reap the rewards of it when I move on or under. Property values do suffer in a scenario like you are suggesting.
8:56 - Why do you and others persist in making these stupid statements ? The Tree Policy is blatantly discriminatory, and the covenants are not permanent, and were never intended to be.
Discrimination, point of fact on tree height limits, my neighbor has a 24' limit, my lot is 16'.
I can find no reasonable explanation for this as written in the covenants. There is no reasonable explanation. It appears that some inexperienced person or persons who developed the tree heights covenants at the outset had no idea what they were doing. If the covenant is to remain,
the heights should all be the same. However they should be entirely abolished because they accomplish not a thing but divide this community. And by the way great article George !
Dear 10:43 - Why do you persist in thinking that you can change things to suit yourself with no regard for other members and their interests and safety? Why are you so stupid and obstinate? As said before, you had the right to decide where you would buy property so you had free will to chose where inside or outside of Surfside that you put your money down. This is not discriminatory. So sorry that you were too stupid to check all aspects including how the covenants would effect your property.
Oh dear, I'd say that 10:43 lacked both common sense and discrimination when making the decision to buy property in Surfside that he/she now regrets. Some streets in Surfside have a speed limit of 25 mph while others have a speed limit of 35 mph. Is that discriminatory or sensible for the circumstances? Some drivers want to do 50 mph on the streets in Surfside. My O my, are we discriminating against the people who want to drive 50 mph?
Yes Clancy, we know. Get a hobby other than your tired responses. Things will change and you can't accept that, can you?
To use the term "discrimination" with its history in a situation where people VOLUNTARILY bought into is shameful. MLK would be rolling over in his grave.
I love it that you folks have no clue who I am. Clancy, I am not. I don't own property on J. I do have the intellectual capacity to make reasonable decisions about where I chose to own property and what rules or covenants may have an effect on my property ownership. This puts me at least one step ahead of the bitchers, whiners and trouble makers on this blog.
Speed limits are safety issues. Even speed limits change over time as conditions warrant. To compare speed limits to covenants when you purchased here shows a lack of comprehension. Speed limits apply to all, not a selected group or individual. Discrimination does exist in surfside and it continues to be supported by selfish individuals with the attitude that they are better than others.
Trees have serious safety issues as well, particularly in the likely events of high winds and wildfires.
There are two distinct areas of Surfside. One on the west side of the ridge and one on the east side of the ridge. You have complete freedom to chose the area and rules that would apply to your property in Surfside. BTW, that applies to ALL Surfside owners.
Grass height restriction next? So if you live to the east its safer? Fire retardant trees? Lol. Eastside is safer, more windbreaks, called trees. Wind is stronger on west side, not because of ridge, but the lack of trees. Btw, where i live on eastside, trees are taller than the ridge, n no more probs than west side. Oh, pffff, sorry, forgot its all bout the veiws.
HOA'S are designed to set standards. You may think that is discriminatory, but is in fact what they are designed to do.
I purchased here because of the covenant restrictions. A standard I choose to live.
There are many places on the Penninsula that don't have these restrictions and I suggest you live in such a place.
How dare you push for changes that will lesson my quality of life. Talk about law suits?
"My quality of life"? It's about OUR quality of life. Your comment that it's about you, demonstrates what is wrong with surfside. Surfside is a community that is supposed to benefit all, not just you. If you want surfside to be a better place, I suggest you move. That would be the first step in making it better for all the rest of us.
Great article George. YOU GOT IT!
Same old tired tactic. Don't like the message, attack the messenger.
9:41: Have you never been frustrated when the “system” is so biased so that you, as an individual trying to work within the system are powerless to initiate needed change? That drives you to fight in different ways,. Moving outside the problem takes away the barriers and allows your voice to be heard, not blocked. George has done a great job of getting not only his, but many others speech out from behind the ones who want to control what we hear, namely the BOT. If you don’t like it, you are free to not read or comment on ideas presented here and only listen and comment on the filtered messages provided by the tightly controlled Board. Do you criticize their actions as you do here, or do you believe all they do benefits all of us?
10:43 sez - There isn't a shred of evidence that the Tree Policy ever had anything to do with "safety", so this is strictly a myth. If you want to cut the tops off of trees on your property, have at it. Defending this policy is sheer ignorance, and the State of Washington does not sanction or support community policies that seek to preserve "views" of some properties at the cost of other owner's trees. Most major municipalities have established ordinances outlawing such policies, and fines to those who violate the ordinances.
There is no legal defense of this policy, and that is why "views" are no longer mentioned in the covenants. The covenants sublimate the original purpose of this covenant, pretending there is a rationale for insisting that trees be no taller than the houses in their micro-district. So we have this mysterious range of 14 to 24 feet set in an elaborate and ineffective patchwork.
The State RCWs also outlaw discrimination, which is clearly the basis of this policy. Why anyone who doesn't live on the ridge supports this policy is a real head-scratcher.
Trees are private property, and are an overall asset to property values and quality of life. Living on the N.W. Coast, we receive large amounts of pollution from China as well as radioactivity released from the failed Nuclear Reactors in Japan. Trees sequester vast amounts of pollutants, and help make the environment safer for humans. They produce most of the oxygen in our atmosphere, yet people can't cut 'em down fast enough.
The community looks ridiculous due to the constant topping, and every year, more trees are cut down, killed by topping. It makes no sense. We all know that Arborists tell us to never top trees, yet here we have people insisting it's one of the great points of pride for Surfside, and anyone who doesn't like it was foolish to move here. Asinine, and blind to the facts.
Only a few hundred owners have views from the ridge, and they are unaffected by trees in 2019. The Ocean is at least another 100 yards away from where it was when the policy was first put in place, protecting views. Dunes that did not exist originally, now stand at least 24 feet high near the beach, and houses 24 feet tall and 8 feet apart now block views of the surf, unaffected by trees.
A few hundred owners insist on preserving this policy, while about 5 times as many owners are victimized by this stupid policy. That's the meaning of discrimination, good reason for resistance to this policy, and no defense for taunts that dissenters need to move away.
Have you served on the BOT ? It doesn't sound like you understand the dynamics of the role, so I'm guessing you have not served on the Surfside BOT, or any HOA Board. Many Bloggers claim that owners who oppose S.S. policies just "want to change the rules to suit themselves". This is an absurd concept, considering policy is decided by a Board of 9 Trustees.
Good ideas have frequently been stopped in their tracks because 5 of the nine Trustees have opposed a change. That's pretty much the whole story when we look at Surfside policy and attempts by board members to promote even minor revisions of current policy. One person does not a movement make. It should be quite obvious, yet this stupid line keeps being repeated. Nothing can change in the community for the better, without some degree of courage and consensus.
Good ideas is in the eye of the beholder (8/6/19 @ 10:47 AM). And I have served on a hoa board. One person sitting on their hands won't get anywhere either. Whining won't either.
How can anyone serve when the Board is stacked so tightly?
People want change, but the Board will not move off their self serving interests. Then you accost people who complain. Sounds more like the bullying seen repeatedly on this blog.
Guess what? We're not going away!
Nobody stated at purchase that blind adherence to idiotic rules was required. Nobody stated that Board would be controlled by unscrupulous individuals with their own agenda. Nobody stated we would be victims without representation.
And search, you'll be hearing from us, at a minimum, until this shit show is operating within its own rules and covenants.
The only covenant I have a problem with is the RV lots allowing more than one RV. When you start adding 2 rv's it looks crowded and sloppy
Kinda like when someone had two or more outbuildings or paints their place a hiddeous color like bright yellow.
I have seen lots with two RV’s and it looks clean and well kept in fact there is one lot that has a very nice sign stating something like “our oysterville” and it has sometimes three RV’s and it looks better than some homes so......... I guess all of j st and the other “think I’m better than you” people new that the RV’s where here when they bought into this hoa so they need to press on and except it.
The county doesn't allow fulltime living in RVs, so where is this place 3:42?
Who said anything about full time living?
If the RV members would make a better effort to follow the covenants, life would be better in this community. Too many of them come to Surfside with the attitude that they will do whatever in the hell they want to do with little or no regard for the covenants. There are some RV members who do make an effort to stay within the covenants. The number of lots with more than one RV sitting on the ground is often a matter of a covenant violation. I believe that this is a matter of County regulations as well as a covenant. Why doesn't enforcement happen for these rule breakers? Most of us do not want to make a complaint in hopes of peace and understanding with our neighbors. The office personnel should get off their butts and actually enforce what exists in the covenants.
641 - don't you get tired of mouthing the same old BS all the time?
Your outdated covenants weren't written on stone tablets and you haven't gotten it through your thick head that some of us simply want fairness. Apparently that's too much to ask in Surfside.
If you want what you appear to perceive to be privileges held by home owners as opposed to RV owners, build a home in Surfside. Otherwise, accept that you bought a lot with restrictions for the use of RVs. If you want tall trees and the dangers that they entail, by all means make sure that you do not purchase a lot or lots that are affected by the tree covenants. You have free will to make choices about what you own. You do not have free will to make changes that most other members do not want to make. Is it too much to ask that you use your head when purchasing a piece of property?
"Most other members"? Are you saying over a thousand? Where do you get your statistics? Is it too much to ask that you not use your mouth to make claims made up out of your head? With your hate for RV's, It looks like you should be the one to move. Your just another who promotes discrimination.
Just a matter of time until these old dinosaurs will be out of the way. A couple of them didn't look too good at the Annual Meeting, and there isn't enough alcohol to keep a couple of the others preserved.
You got that right 8:10 and some of the younger didn't look all that good. How would you like to wake up each morning and look at those sour pusses? There are getting what they deserve, each other.
Don't hate RV members. Do hate members who persist in breaking or ignoring the covenants as written. Do hate a board that does not take action to fairly and fully enforce the covenants. The argument that RVs are hated is pure BS made up by a few who want to change things to suit their personal preferences. Do hate rule breakers and trouble makers. Your fabricated idea that RVs are hated is both tiresome and stupid.
The association and each individual member do not have a responsibility to change things to accommodate some members who have buyers remorse. Live with your mistake, sell out or shut up.
We need a covenant against ugly and mean.
Look in the mirror 8:55. There you are ugly and mean.
You have no idea how many members are sick and tired of being attached and belittled for being good citizens and neighbors who abide by the covenants. The small group of RV and tree trouble makers accomplish zip to improve Surfside. It is all about their buyer's remorse and arrogant egos.
That should have been - sick and tired of being attacked and belittled. Spell checker sometimes does things that we don't notice soon enough.
The county my not allow full time RV’s but I have a feeling it is not enforced. I have never seen it In surfside but there are a few lots where there two or more RV’s and they are an eye sore to some . I’m sure the people live there full time but sadly I think they are that close to being homeless. In Surfside I truly think the owners of RV’s take pride in their lots. I just don’t get it. When we bought our lots in Surfside years ago our concerns were hoa increases and getting what we payed for. We new that RV’s were here and honestly we new they were here to stay, that was never issue. Maybe I’m a hippie at heart. I do know this if I didn’t like it here I would move. Why would anyone want to live in misery. Life is too short. Make love not war. Positive vibes man positive vibes. The Happy hippie at heart
Speaking about fairness ****** I'd like to add a small guest house on my lot which would result in two houses on one lot. I'm not allowed to do that. Why should I be tolerant of multiple RVs on a lot when I cannot do the same thing with housing structures?
RV lot owners are limited to one outbuilding which can only be a shed. Owners had too much fun designing their own sheds, so the HOA had to create shed roof eaves restrictions to wipe that smile off their faces.
How do shed eaves effect other owners in Surfside ? They don't. And any home owner who wants a porch or wide eaves can call their structure a workshop, or whatever they want - as they can have as many as 3 outbuildings.
Part of the point of RVing is to do it with other RV folks, so it's reasonable that guest passes are available for RV visitors with an RV. This loophole is taken undue advantage of, which IS offensive to home owners, and rightfully so. Member lots are not intended to be used as RV parks. Too many folks on one lot creates far too much noise and traffic on one property.
I think there should be some allowances for RV lot use that are currently restricted, but more than an occasional guest RV is too much for a multi-use community, and disrespectful of homeowners who do have greater investment and pay more taxes. Less restrictions on some additions can only be rationalized by respectful and restrained observance of stated limits on RV traffic on a single lot.
Cox/8:59 keeps repeating the same B.S. that no trees block views which is false.
Again, it isn't about the surf line so your dunes remark doesn't mean anything. And to say there are not trees that block the ocean is again false. There are people on I place and elsewhere who use to be able to see the horizon but now can't. If the trees were allowed to grow they would certainly block more.
So keep repeating your falsehoods and I'll keep pointing out that they are.
Yrs I do agree with Aug 7 10:06. No more than just one RV should only be allowed on a TV lot. Just go up & down H & I street. It looks cramped & low class. Just one RV and keep it clean
Cox appears to have little knowledge about Surfside and a lot of hateful will to try to force his opinions on others. Sad! Does he have a clue that many and likely most RV people never bother to secure the required pass or guest passes? He needs to drive around or walk around Surfside to view how many RVs have no sign of a pass in view as required by the covenants.
Giant overhangs and porches on sheds are ridiculous and encourage the misuse of lots. I am glad that action was started to limit a trend that was becoming another silly and dangerous nuisance. Those porches and large overhangs simply create a greater likelihood of problems in high winds and illegal use like plumbing without proper drainage in and on sheds.
I noticed an RV lot for sale in Surfside that features a picture of the inside of a shed with a water heater and full electrical hook ups for a washer and dryer in view. There is no legal drainage installed or approved from this same shed. I wonder if some uninformed buyer is going to face a huge disappointment, complaints and fines when they realize that the shed situation violates county codes and the covenants.
And just how does Mr. Cox "force his opinion" on others? He makes his opinions, facts and observations on here the same as you except for one notable exception, he uses his name. That lends more credibility to his comments than yours. You make baseless attacks and hide behind anonymous. Prove it about the water heater in a shed, Mr. no name. From what I have been reading, Mr. Cox seems to have a lot of knowledge and that seems to be the trouble you have with him. Here is a news flash for you....The County does not give a damn about sheds in surfside or anywhere in the County. They have more important things to deal with. So does surfside.
Check real estate listing MLS# 1463931 for pictures to prove the shed with water heater and washer and dryer hook ups. Don't mess with someone who doesn't post unless it is factual. Unlike Cox, I actually know what I am spouting off about.
2:27 spilled the beans, cutting trees for view purposes is against the law. Oops.
no plumbing is allowed in sheds by county and Surfside. allowing waste water from a water heater and washer to flow onto the ground would be a serious county health violation. i think an electrical set up as shown in this shed would need to inspected or approved for use. bet this never happened.
I looked up that listing and it has a septic, power and water, and although our covenants doesn't allow it, it's perfectly legal with the county.
no plumbing allowed in sheds per county. don't think the shed has any drains that connect with the septic system so any water released from washer or hot water heater would be draining onto the ground which is illegal.
All supposition. Stick to what u can prove.
3:52.... You apparently didn't actually read my comment on RVs, as I stated that some RV lot owners are obviously not abiding by the guest pass policy, and some have multiple RVs on their lots at times. Your comments have no credibility, as you cannot read and understand what was said.
One instance of hot water and plumbing in a shed does not indicate a rampant problem. Whatever the rule, given over 2000 owners in Surfside, someone will abuse the privilege and break it. Why would they not connect to the septic field ? I think that's unlikely. Personally, I don't see why allowing this on RV lots with a septic system should be a problem assuming approval of proper connections and wastewater removal.
Get this straight - I don't express hate toward anyone in Surfside. I have opinions about community policies and express them freely and honestly, based on the information I am aware of. There's no basis for personal animosity and I am not an angry or hateful person. You definitely know nothing about me, and I don't know you anonymouses.
This is just a blog for discussion and expression of opinions, so my expressing opinions should not come as a shock, even if you don't like what's being said.
i told you not to mess with me that i know what i am talking about. see copy from Pacific County FAQ list below.* for further reading on the subject read land use ordinance no. 178.
*****************************************************************************
Q: Do I need a permit to build a storage shed? Do I need a permit to build a deck?
A: If you are building one storage building 120 square feet or less in size, on a temporary foundation (skids or blocks), 10 feet or less in height, a building permit is not required. However, the structure must be at least 5 feet away from the property lines in the side or rear of the property and shall contain no plumbing. See Pacific County's Land Use Ordinance No. 178 for further details.
Clancy sure had his ire up today. Take another swig from the bottle.
352 - once again you jump to defend an association that doesn't follow its OWN rules, to say nothing of State RCW's. Your angry, hateful comments are unneeded, like your presence on this blog.
Just because you repeat, repeat repeat doesn't make it true. As to attacking people, you do it every post, just because someone has a different idea. Get over yourself.
read pacific county ordinance 130 for waste water standards in the county. water from a washer is definitely considered to be waste water. the shed in the real estate listing is not connected to the septic system on the lot so there would be a waste water violation.
It does indeed appear that this shed has no connection to the septic field, which is totally unacceptable by anyone's standards. Word that this place was known about has circulated on the Blog numerous times. Clearly, there IS no washer or drier present to verify it has been used in recent times. As was said, ONE instance of non-compliance is not an enditement of the entire RV community.
What is clear is that RV owners would like more flexibility in how their sheds are constructed, and having electricity makes sheds more multi-purpose. But bunks added make this totally non-compliant, and utilities need to be permitted at the very least. This is a double-size lot, so the owner may have intended to build a house themselves, wanting to stay in the shed during the process. That of course doesn't change the obvious violations.
Instead of working with RV owners to craft an RV related covenant, the BOT created this stupid eaves restriction as a part of a conflict they had with a former Trustee. It has nothing to do with safety, and the sheds we see in plain sight with porches/wide eaves are very well constructed on lots that show pride of ownership.
It really makes no sense to require a "temporary" foundation on RV lot sheds, when the lots are privately owned and cannot be rented out. RV owners being a minority, the paranoid status-quo lovers need not worry that RV owners will ever be granted more flexibility in the use of their property. In spite of the many possibilities that would in no way detract from Surfside property values and happiness, that is not a concern of the J Place dominant Board.
Ahhh, but it isn't just one. Last year 30700 N place sold with a bathroom in the shed.
This is what is meant by the abuse of RV'ers in Surfside.
Surfside has a set of covenants in place. Until they are changed, they are fully enforceable. There is a procedure for changing the covenants. I do not believe whining and crying are included in the procedure. I do not believe shouting “unfair” or “discrimination” are included in the procedure. I agree the board is stacked. Of course, that’s why all members are invited to vote for trustees. So the majority of voting members stack the board with their favorite candidates. If you want to have meaningful input, follow the procedures. Or you could just keep whining to each other and getting nowhere. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.
That might be the only bathroom they have. And you can't stack a board when we all get to vote for whomever we wish. So get off your ass and run or support a candidate that meets all or most of your criteria.
10:29 - You know nothing about this community. Only about 275 votes were cast in the last election, out of about 2050 member households. 3 J place owners were elected with one getting 182 votes. That doesn't happen by chance. Most owners are alienated from the process, and see that non-J place owners rarely are elected. The odds are against it being because they are the smartest and best qualified, as most owners do not know the candidates in this community, unless they have already served on the BOT.
One former Trustee, a non-J Pl. owner, was asked to run by some seated Trustees, and they told him they could assure his being elected - and he was.
Clancy does live on J Place as do Minic and Olds.
Why choose to play a game you already know is fixed?
The alternative is dissolution, Getting more popular by the minute.
1116 - thanks, you have provided the proof I was seeking - the results of the election were pre-determined.
That's fairness for you!
What happened to my comment?
Excuse me 4:04 PM BUT 11:16 provided no proof of any kind but rather a " I heard " comment that was accepted as fact. That is true of many if not most of the " facts " repeated ad nauseum on the blog. It's like the vast majority of tweets by an infamous person in our country.
4:04 - You do not read carefully enough. My reference to a former Trustee's admission that he was given an advantage by some Trustee's assurances, was not in reference to the last election. Still, it is the network setup by some Trustees and J Place owners that resulted in Mr. Olds getting 2/3 of all of the votes cast (182 out of 277 votes cast), with the other victors close behind in votes. That's not by chance, but it happens every year, and has been for some time. ----11:16
Those who actually volunteer and vote are ruling things in Surfside because the rest of the members do not volunteer and/or vote.
Those who lost an election need to admit that they lost and move on. As we all know, poor losers do not make good candidates for future elections. Prime example is Deb Blagg who got on the board after losing an election with an appointment to fill a vacancy. Her main activity and goals while on the board was to stir up trouble. Her "early" resignation" that facilitated her capacity to stir up trouble at the annual meetings was another act of a miserable grudge holder. We don't need grudge holders on committees or on the board. Step up decent and honest members. Step aside manipulative and dishonest members.
1033 - then live up to your words, and step aside yourself!
Yet more bagging on Deb Blagg? Your hatred for anyone promoting an independent thought is pathetic!
You promote this self serving bulls**t every day, without addressing the dishonesty, the lies, and the obvious manipulations of the special interests you shuck for. Pathetic!
It's entertaining to see full timers complain about some of the upgrades RV lots have done. Bathroom in the shed - result: those members are not peeing outside in the bushes or driving all over looking to destroy a cabana toilet. Washer and drying in the shed - result: generally cleaner surfside patrons. Shed overhang - result: more attractive sheds to make the lot look less empty and unappealing (such as the maintenance looking building that is someone's private shop right off the main road across from the market... that's ok though, he volunteered *eyeroll*).
Yes those aren't necessarily legal, but I think you're more interested in the details then the actual outcome. Could pick your battles, but it seems you just like to battle.
Good points 1:12
I am a full timer, but appreciate the neat and orderly RV lots. Many look better than the full time members. Your example of the shop building of James Clancy is a good one. It is a fine looking building for what it is. It just does not belong in it's location.
The bright yellow shed of Gary Williams would be ok if it were not so visible. An overhang and more "earthly" color would blend in better and not stand out as an eye sore. Nothing is more ugly than a porta potty. There should be a covenant that requires screening around them.
The overhang covenant is nothing more than harassment. There is no justification for this covenant. Every rv lot I have seen is an improvement over what was there such as dead vegetation and over grown with brush and dead weeds.
I would like to also see a covenant where every lot, developed or not, is maintained to a standard that requires removal of all dead material. Grass on all lots should be required to be kept mowed. Fire hazard would greatly be improved with all lots maintained.
It should be an understanding that if you own a lot in Surfside regardless of your reason, you are expected to maintain it to a neat and safe standard. Members who purchase multiple lots as an investment and just let them sit with no care, need to know that they are required to keep them up to a written standard that is clear in it's definition.
A revision of the covenants is so badly needed.
George, I have to agree with you on your last post. Time to loosen up the shed restrictions. Setbacks need to be shortened. Let people have overhangs. If you have a drain field no reason you can't have a toilet or shower in the shed.
I know if at least two sheds that currently have a toilet with a drain field. One has a house the other doesn't. Have fun finding them shed compliance folks, they are right under your noise
Revising the covenants will not solve the problem with lot maintenance in Surfside. The giant problem is the lack of fair and consistent covenant enforcement. This allows the trouble maker members to stir up hate and the decent members who abide by the covenants to feel foolish for their efforts and expenses. Why bother with taking good care of your lot when you are surrounded by lots that haven't been maintained for months, years and decades?
Covenant revisions should reflect the will of the majority of the members. I feel safe in saying that the majority of members are not interested in glorified sheds with additions that present dangers in storms and will sit unattended or maintained as is the case currently. Honestly, I personally would like to see storage sheds eliminated in Surfside. If you can't store your stuff in your house, garage and/or RV, you've got too much junk that is likely rarely used.
This sounds like Kirby Smith, with the "troublemaker" jargon and blatant disregard for RV owner's rights - which includes, owning property in Surfside for as long as they wish. Those who have bought RV properties cannot be denied their rightful ownership and continued RV use, so get over it 9:00.
Your attitude seems best for a resident of a community that does not allow RVs, and there are no means of denying RV owners their rightful membership in Surfside. Read the covenants.
It doesn't sound like Kirby to me. It sounds like me. It sounds like a lot of Surfside owners who want a tidy, attractive, well managed and friendly place to live and vacation in Surfside.
And that does not require topping and killing trees. You are blind to the obvious damage this policy has caused, and trees cannot be easily replaced. NO tree species benefit from constant pruning and topping kills trees. The evidence is everywhere. You feel more comfortable in a community that constantly micro-manages the lifestyles and personal choices property owners make in Surfside, and that is contrary to the general meaning of PRIVATE PROPERTY.
The money owners spend placating the bogus J place complaints is better spent on maintaining their homes or paying other family expenses.
Toppin and killing trees would not be required if all owners kept proper care of their lots. The problem is not the tree covenant although it may benefit from some revisions. The problems are the complaint driven method of covenant enforcement and the irresponsible owners who do not take proper care of their lots including structures and vegetation. The evidence is everywhere.
Ever heard of bonsai trees? They do just fine with constant and dramatic pruning.
Many of us are surrounded by lots with an overgrowth of trees and dry, uncut grasses and shrubs. It would be a welcomed change to have the covenants enforced to improve the communities safety and appearance.
The new compliance officer should start going section by section and lot by lot to make sure they are within the rules.
Why have a compliance officer if not doing full enforcement of the covenants?
If you look around there are many sheds with improper setbacks throughout the community. How did they get there?
The majority of surfside are part timers. If u want to enforce neat n tidy, move back to the city. To expect members to embrace an hoa as in a city is ridiculous. When surfside was created it was mixed use. Till that changes, back off n enjoy where u live n quit trying to urbanize. Or gate off J to the beach n leave the rest the h*** alone. Far as restrictions you basically already have. You just include the rest to offset your dues.
Evert time you speak of tightening up around here, you prime the pump for dissolution. Nobody needs more supervision from the HOA, or yourself, for that matter,
Not worried about dissolution. We do worry about the few crack pots who persist in thinking that it is a workable idea. We want a better community. We don't want crackpots.
You have a board of dumb ass crackpots. You have a tree committee of old bag crackpots. I agree 1:50, We want a better community with less crackpots. Your all a bunch of fools. Dissolution seems to be the only sane thing to do.
You really think the compliance officer is going after neat and tidy. I'll let you in on a little secret he was hired by a bunch of board member who live on J Pl so he should really be called the tree compliance officer. A lot of the J place homes are in violation of the lighting covenant bet you do not see one of those wrote up.
For example, look at the J Place house/lot of your new BOT President. Has had plastic sheeting, rotting sandbags, weeds, a dug up yard in back and appears to be the target of some “short timers for almost a decade.. Place was violated numerous times under the old regime but they always claimed that there was no definition of “neat and tidy”. The few on here that support the status quo seem to enjoy posting over and over claiming the people that want change are in the minority. Sort of reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. They don’t want to go to computerized voting because they know there will be more than 277 votes, and they can’t control them and will lose. BTW one of the recently elected trustees based his platform on all BOT members being “full timers”. The new president and Vice President are both part-timers. So much for unity. Watch the wording of these “status quo” postings and you will notice a pattern because they are only posted by a few.
Keep worrying. We're not crackpots and we're not going away.
Don't want to hear about dissolution? Force your buddies to start operating honestly.
There's really no point in repeating this stuff about dissolution. It isn't even a slight possibility in this community. In a community that only sees about 12% of the membership voting in annual elections, nothing radical would ever receive community-wide support that is necessary for dissolution.
This is a foolish idea under any circumstances, as a community as large as Surfside has a great deal of responsibility to the members/residents. The community must be managed on several levels. The Water Dept. must be maintained, employees hired and wages paid to S.S. employees. Community properties must be maintained, waterways and storm-water managed, and the community is still in negotiations with County, State and Federal entities over improper permitting and Asbestos violations. Get real.
Nothing is so broken it can't be repaired/re-tooled, but we ARE at a historic low point in BOT honesty and transparency, and the failure to admit to major blunders, and clear efforts to remedy mistakes made bodes ill for this community. We can't really just dissolve, which means that things could get much worse, fines become major lawsuits against the HOA, and only the members can foot the bill. Will a Winegar Board show greater awareness of their responsibilities ?
Nothing to say it will at this point. Looks like they will clamp down harder, starting with instating a real estate fee for any property transactions.
They can waste tens of thousands of dollars on aborted lawsuits, but they need more member money !
This association is so corrupt and in violation of State, Federal and County ordinances, the members may not need to dissolve. It may be done for them by the regulating agencies. The status as a non profit corporation can be revoked without member approval. We continually violate our own Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, covenants and policy. Lies and cover ups will be exposed and action taken. Don't waste your time complaining to the association. That is only a waste of your time. Complain to the Federal, State and County officials and agencies . That is where the solution is.
When the Feds do not come and haul the board off handcuffed, will you apologize for you libelous claims.
What Federal or State agency do recommend we complain to? Maybe the Federal Bureau of Justice for the Downtrodden. Or perhaps the Washington State Department of Transparency in Homeowners Associations. Nobody cares about your petty issues. Calling the government will not result in any satisfaction. You are living in a fantasy land and not one trustee is losing sleep anxiously anticipating an arrest.
808 - maybe they should.
This circus has gone on long enough. There's plenty here for not only civil but criminal complaints.
8:08,ever heard of the EPA? I have, was interviewed. Whether charges are brought on we shall see. The fact that the EPA are spending the money to conduct a criminal investigation says alot. Down the road when a few employees die a horrible death, will you be so flippant and defensive of those responsible?
You really need to get a life. Die a horrible death? You are watching too much television. So, we have gone from, they are going to jail!, to we will see if charges are brought. The backpedaling has begun. Maybe they are investigating just to see if a crime was committed not because one was committed. If no crime was committed, no charges will be brought. Keep backpedaling, before long you will be claiming there may be an investigation into some alleged wrongdoing.
The exposure to asbestos is not alleged, its a fact. The penalty is all that is to be decided.
Post a Comment