This picture was taken on 9/12/2019 on the East side of I Street, not far from the "Welcome to Surfside" sign.
This tree has been here for many years and weathered many storms, but was not able to survive the will of man. You will not find this kind of carnage on the East side, where there are no tree height covenants. Notice the houses with tall trees on J Place. This tree did not have to die for those behind to have a view.
The homes in this area are modest but neat. Can you see how that tree would have made the property more attractive, and probably valued more. This is a shame.
Click on the picture for a larger view. Be warned, it is ugly.
21 comments:
Oh really, what about those stumps on the East side. And do you really what to start comparing East to West side?
Not really. Keep the drama on that side.
Why would someone do such a thing to a tree? I guess they have no self respect nor do they care about their property. They see nothing wrong with butchering the poor tree and leaving the carcass in their yard for all to cringe at. They also do not care about their neighbors. You need to prune your trees annually. Ever heard of bonsai? The covenants are clear and unambiguous. Property owners need to no what the tree height restrictions are in their area and then plan accordingly. The blame here belongs to the tree owner and it is a shame and a disgrace. These people have no pride.
Many bonsai are table-top size and are planted in a dish. There is no comparison can be made to trees growing outdoors in Surfside, which are to be pruned sparingly if at all. Ever heard of Garden Gnomes ? They're compact and could be a replacement for people in Surfside. They also don't have any opinions, which would better fit the circumstances.
Stumps on the eastside are the result of owners exercising their private property rights, and CHOOSING to cut their own trees down. The HOA has not demanded they do so, as is common on the westside.
George's site is reverting to "Click Baiting" to get his hits. Obscene? no? Carnage...come on!
This is the latest post so people will probably look here first, it is not due to this picture. Have you read Tom’s extremely weak attempt to justify the Board actions against our members. The HOA lost the case and sure the insurance paid the settlement. The point is, it should never come to that point! The Board would not agree to arbitration, an action that could have easily provided resolution, no, Kirby, Hanson, and the President of the BOT thought they were going to teach the members a lesson. Not that the BOT group didn’t agree to arbitration it is just that the company they chose was not competitively priced, hoping the others would just stop the action. They didn’t and so came the court cases. If you think the HOA dropped the case just because the insurance would pay, you are sorely mistaken. It was dropped because there was no way to win! If they harass some members that hard, there is no reason to believe they won’t do it to you. Don’t think the insurance company didn’t take note of the HOA’s method of operation and has/will reflect accordingly. I don’t blame Tom for the BS he wrote for the Weekender, I am sure he was pressured into it and had only received one side of the story. Not a good way to try and claim transparency. I expect the Olds, DeLees, Kirby junta will respond to this the way they attack other posts. I believe they have a network that take turns with depositing meaningless criticisms of folks honest concerns on this blog. I also believe there are folks on J who could care less about tree heights (those who understand geometry) but are being castigated by a few who may not even live on J.
Anybody else got a problem with idiots wanting to teach us a lesson?
This organization just needs to go away. It's a plight on our neighborhood.
Now I see the Compliance Officer is resigning for "health reasons", wow, they chewed him up real fast. Guess one of the BOT's nephew, kid, friend needs a job.
I have moved out of the area but would be glad to buy a drone and perform the Compliance Officer's duties. What does it pay?
Depends on who's interest you're working for, and how ethical you are.
12:01pm, Maybe they have pride in seeing a natural healthy tree !!
4:41 you need new glasses and to stop hanging around with Ms. Olds and her gang.
I do not know what the big deal is about pruning trees. It is done all the time in gardens and parks. It is done in the yards of a lot of Surfside members. The practice is called “candling” or “cloud pruning”. The best example I have ever seen is in a park in Lincoln City on The Oregon coast. Trees are beautiful. They add grace to our surroundings provide and a home for birds and small critters. They can also become a nuisance and a danger to our property and our neighbors property. Owners need to be responsible and considerate. When you are at the ballpark you need to remain seated when the ball is in play. After all, the guy behind you paid for his ticket too and deserves to see the game. If you let yours trees get too tall, take them out. BTW there is nothing quite lick the view of your tree laying across your neighbors car.
As a homeowner I own the airspace above my home so unless you want to be picking up pieces of a destroyed drone I highly suggest you go fly a kite
1256 - don't shoot!
At that time of night, you'll be lucky to hit your shot glass.
Sept 15 @ 12:56 AM I would like you to cite the law giving you airspace rights over your home. Just another example (I believe) of mostly unsubstantiated comments made on the blog.
Airspace is controlled by the FAA. There are numerous classes and are labeled from A to G. It happens that the airspace o Er our area lies u dear lass G Airspace. That airspace is uncontrolled from the ground to 18,000 feet. If one feels threatened or harassed by a vehicle that is not an actual aircraft, it is up to them as to what they can do. By the way, the FAA is coming down hard on drones and drone operators. There are licenses required for the vehicle and the operator.
If you want to look it up, go to CFR 14 Part 71 or the AIM Chapter three. Class E of controlled airspace actually begins at 14,500 feet if you want to define some lower limit of control. CFR 14 Part 107 defines the requirements for operation and licensing for small unmanned aircraft and the operators. To really control the airspace above your house you would have to create a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) which I doubt you can do. This would restrict any vehicle, manned or unmanned, to transit the area. But, people shoot at birds don’t they? Your choice, prove it is invading your personal “space” and you will probably have a good case.
9:18 While you posed a question about law and airspace,I have given you the airspace facts. It is a federal offense to shoot at airplanes as they are technically on government property and involve life and limb. Drones not so much.
Dumb conversation. Who cares?
Somebody does. They asked the question. Why do you care enough to comment?
Post a Comment