This practice needs to end. A covenant is no excuse for allowing this harmful practice to continue. Read below what DNR has to say on the subject. They are the experts. Listen to them. Do not listen to those who support tree topping in our community. They are not our friends or friends of the trees.
DON'T TOP TREES
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is happy to provide you with information and resources to help promote public understanding of proper tree care in your communities.
After topping, many suckers (epicormic shoots) sprout from dormant buds along the older trunk or branches of a tree, growing in response to the massive stress topping puts on a tree. These shoots develop quickly as weakly attached branches. Large branch stubs and big wounds left after topping seldom close or heal completely. Nutrients are no longer transported to the large stubs, and the large, open cuts are vulnerable to insect invasion and fungal decay. Once decay has begun in a branch stub, it may spread into the main trunk. Also, the exposed wood often rots, causing weak, hollow limbs. Consequently, previously topped trees often have dead or dying limbs that need to be removed.
DNR's goal is to educate the community about the negative effects of tree topping and encourage proper tree care. Healthy trees are an asset to our society, and the practice of tree topping often leads directly to a tree becoming unhealthy and unsafe. Because of this, we want to encourage people to contact a certified arborist when they are considering tree care.
58 comments:
Timely and good care of trees to keep them within the covenants does not include tree topping. Irresponsible care of the trees is what prompts the need to top the trees to meet the covenant requirements. One more time, irresponsible lot owners are the cause of so any violations of the tree covenant and damage to the trees.
You make no sense at all. What are you drinking? You can't have it both ways. "irresponsible care of trees is what prompts the need to top trees"?What kind of double talk is that? If that is the best you can come up with to support tree topping, all I can say is..Pathetic.
12:39 should wear a helmet when riding those electric bikes. Obviously has a head injury.
I think DNR is speaking mostly of the larger fir trees and not of our smaller shore pines.
Again, many trees were allowed by the hoa to grow waaaay beyond compliance due to non enforcement. Again, why enforcement started in last few years? Who got undies in a knot? Or who moved here and demanded enforcement? Very unfair to demand compliance at this point.
All trees. I spoke to DNR about our pine trees.
Well said 12:39...neglect by owners is primary cause...couldn't agree with you more...
It was the individual owners who allowed the trees to grow larger than the covenant allows. Failure to enforce the covenants does not relieve the owners from the responsibility to abide by the covenants. 2:45 is off the rails.
12:39 makes perfect sense. 1:39 seems to believe that someone other than the owners are responsible to follow the tree covenants. Idiot!
Keep your trees trimmed or cut them down and start over, it's really that simple, they grow fast too.
I think I will go by what DNR says, not a bunch of repeated anonymous comments, probably by the same person. What is simple 3:38, other than you, is, trees should not be topped.
There are a lot of healthy trimmed trees in Surfside. The owners of those trees are members who care about their neighbors and are compliant with the covenants. This is such an old argument. The tree height covenants are a rule. Live with it or move. Enough whining.
Well, if you want to talk about experts, let's talk about what experts on wildfire prevention say. Want to have that conversation? You can't drive a short distance without seeing the exact opposite of what is advised.
On another subject, any of you been watching the news coming out of the Carolina's with the storm damage from trees? We have seen the same happen in Astoria and recently in Manzanita. With the storms we get here you are a fool to want tall trees around your house. That is why we moved here, for the restrictions. I don't want to deal with it.
Of course the people who have another home to go to don't care about either of these two issues like those of us who only have our one home here.
818 - get off your same old, same old. You support a crooked organization that thinks of nothing but themselves. Get a life!
10:24 needs to move back where they came from. It must have been a place with no trees. Us natives of the NW just happen to like our trees. Our trees are what make us special. You don't like trees? Your living in the wrong place. We like our natural resources, and in fact have an agency just for them. What don't you understand about don't top?
Clancy, you're starting to babble. Take another swig from the bottle.
One way or another, the topping of trees will end. It's just a matter of time. You J placers better put your places up for sale while you still have a view. Maybe buy on G Street or move away completely. You won't be missed.
to 1128 - another post by a jealous individual who couldn't afford a place on J and now is permanently bitter. I'll bet you don't even live on a lot that has tree restrictions,
There have been no instances of trees damaging homes, people or vehicles in Surfside. It's absurd to compare a category 4 to 5 hurricane on the East Coast to Surfside tree "danger". You can't control every circumstance that has negative potential outcomes among an infinite number of possibilities.
Tsunami danger is surely as likely if not more so, than a Surfside weather event generating 150 mile an hour winds. I believe that there is only one recorded instance of winds of that intensity, and that recorded at Cape Disappointment.
Trees over 100 feet tall are common in all major N.W. cities. Our community in Lacey has gained monetary value steadily since built 20 years ago, and huge trees stand both in and around the entire community. Tree height restrictions are never discussed, nor fear of trees doing great harm.
Coastal storms can be fierce, but winds are constant in the life of a Surfside tree, and the nature of Shorepines/Lodgepole Pines is to be very adaptable, anchoring into the ground and leaning away from the beach. The conditions plants grow in requires adaptation to the circumstances, and these trees demonstrate that tenacity, tolerating much of the abuse Surfside constantly brings to bear.
The community is permanently damaged from this onslaught, and property values will always be impacted by an ugly landscape. The Policy is not in keeping with State laws, the State not endorsing nor supporting communities that enforce tree height restrictions, or "protected view" status. That's the facts.
The inevitable result of covenants that are badly outdated, and profit only a select few.
Keep that in mind when relentless adherence is repeatedly advocated.
If you sod just follow the convenants like you agreed to, this discussion would not have to even be taking place. People are content here without you unsurpers. Most residents enjoy us managing the community and just like to be left alone. Try and ask them yourselves if you have any interest beyond causing problems.
Got that right brother. We are just fine with the way things are.
1:59pm evidently enjoys living in an ugly area with butchered trees, and yes for the majority we like good looking landscape that looks natural.
Check with a realtor on the effects of a ugly lot !!
So each time this subject comes up we first hear the claims of dangers lurking in the shadows, and that is always debunked due to the total lack of evidence validating such claims.
It's amazing that this along with the fact that the policy violates private property rights, is discriminatory, needlessly costs the community tens of thousands of dollars on legal counsel, and is considered indefensible by the State of Washington, does not sway the ridiculous defenders of this policy.
What can be said about blind adherence to useless community restrictions, when it is each individual's duty to help guide reasonable policy that serves the entire membership.
I did not sign on to mindlessly follow outdated covenants that support special interests.
Since 153 and 159 are probably the same person, I'll address you both - get a grip! You are either using or being used. Which is it?
11:57....You don't say if this happened in Surfside or Timbuktu. There's a big difference between a lie and an incorrect statement. People lie only when there is something to gain. Lies ae intentionally misleading.
There are ample examples of why the Tree Policy is a useless and needlessly adversarial policy that needs to be eliminated. No need to "LIE" about it. Fear of trees blowing down in Surfside cannot be substantiated by statistical probability.
Topping trees is mandated by the HOA, and we know that this is the worst thing that can be done to a healthy tree. Unhealthy trees do not have the same tenacity as healthy trees. Most should be cut down. What a waste !
It has been claimed on this blog that the tree height covenants violate private property rights, is discriminatory, needlessly costs the community tens of thousands of dollars on legal counsel, and is considered indefensible by the State of Washington. This claim is not true. Washington State courts have consistently supported local tree height covenants. A simple search on google will provide the cases. One such case is Carlson vs Stanley COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON #62222-6-I filed March 10, 2010. There are more. Do your own research.
Apples and oranges 3:41, i read the same. You are taking out of context n cherry picking.
Topping trees is wrong. I don't care what any court or covenant says. It needs to go away, and it will. Only a fool would think this will continue. Better get your houses on J Place on the market.
3:41.....When were these cases decided ? Portland Oregon, Seattle, Vancouver WA, most municipalities in the State do not defend such restrictions, and those who honor longstanding rules of this kind require that the complainer pay the cost of tree trimming.
Who are you ? That may explain why this misinformation is being added to the mix. Times change and in most communities, policies change, The City of Vancouver Washington has banned tree topping, and many municipalities have very restrictive policies regarding this elitist nonsense.
No argument that tree topping is bad for trees. So, why do so many owners fail to properly care for their lots to assure that tree topping is not necessary to comply with the covenants? The issue is irresponsible owners not topped trees. It is like the gun control issue. Guns are not responsible for pulling the trigger and topped trees happen due to irresponsible owners not taking proper care of their lots. Why not deal with the real problem? Let us make sure that gun owners and Surfside lot owners are TRULY RESPONSIBLE people. Make all Surfside owners take and pass a test to prove that they are ready and able to abide by the covenants. Signing a contract to purchase in Surfside is a matter of agreeing to the governing rules for Surfside. A test has been passed with the signing of this contractual agreement. Failure to comply should result in harsh consequences just as using a gun irresponsibly should result in harsh consequences.
So tell us 4:58, how do you keep the height down without topping? By the way, the little comment about not being wealthy enough to purchase on J Place. So much BS. MANY OF THE HOUSES ON J PLACE ARE WRTH LES THAN THOSE ON G OR EVEN I. You are a blithering idiot with a persecution complex. Commit yourself.
Cant get any answer as to why the enforcement on tree covenant now and not all along? Enforcement is relatively new. Last eight years. Or so?
458 - you've once again gone over the batsh*t crazy edge.
Covenants aren't written on stone blocks. You also entered into a contractual agreement with an organization that committed to communication, honesty, and fair play. Since that hasn't happened, baby you should try another ridiculous gun analogy.
Guess we're both disappointed. Dissolve this thing, and start over.
637. I wasn't talking about G or I street homes, more referring to ones on the east side w/out tree height limits. but I can tell you were a little flustered about the post, probably hit you a little to close to home I'll bet?
Best to cut down and replant trees once they get too tall. If you keep a rotation of heights you always have trees and fire wood. They grow fast.
As far as the commit yourself comment goes, I think I'll commit myself to following the rules of the association and smoking a big fatty today. LOL
Not nice to make a derogatory comment about the BOT's VP weight, not do we care to hear about your perverse lifestyle.
Dear 9:46, When in a contractual agreement, one participant's failure to meet the contract's terms does not give other participants the right to violate the contract. Your infantile observations are a waste of blog space again.
The blog host chose to delete my post, but the tree fell on my house in Surfside in 1996, east of the ridge, where there is no tree height restrictions. Get your facts straight Steve!!
Untrimmed branches and topped, spindly trees were falling on my wooden fence in wind storms in early 2000's. It took a threat to sue the bank that owned the unkempt property to save my fence with repairs instead of complete replacement. Surfside failed in dealing with the complaint regarding the destruction of the fence. Most of us have the good sense to cut down trees that would threaten our homes, garages, sheds and fences rather than take a chance in our autumn and winter storms. Steve has little idea about what he talks about on the blog. He talks with a few people and takes their opinions and observations as gospel. He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
to finish @10:32 AM............He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, or TOOL in the shed....
Steve Cox said...
There have been no instances of trees damaging homes, people or vehicles in Surfside.
Tsunami danger is surely as likely if not more so, than a Surfside weather event generating 150 mile an hour winds. I believe that there is only one recorded instance of winds of that intensity, and that recorded at Cape Disappointment.
WRONG on both accounts Mr. Cox. As for damage, people have sustained damages over the years from trees. Fences, cars, roofs...all have been damaged by falling trees. As for "recorded instance" of wind...there are NO NWS/NOAA measuring devices anywhere near Surfside so it would be impossible to record wind events in our area...THATS why there are no recorded instances of wind intensity in our area...doesn't mean big wind didn't happen, only that there is no official instrument to measure and record it.
And topping of trees is NOT mandated by the HOA, only tree height. It's owners who neglect to keep their trees below the allowed height who are then forced to "top" cut the tree to get it below the allowed height. Big difference between topping and trimming...
Your excuse for poor behavior based on self interest is as weak as your argument.
As to infantile posts, I'll lean to your expertise there, Bucky.
Gosh, I guess we should still panic....after 25 years. Sorry, your self interests are showing.
So what you are saying is "trust you." You have no verifiable information, but still insist Cox is wrong. Sorry, not quite that naive.
Following blindly is how this Association got into the hole they are in now!
Same old repeated propaganda for topping trees. Blame the owners etc. etc. Where there are trees, trees will fall. Where there are no trees, dust will blow. Where there is water, it will flood. Some people do not belong at the coast. They need to move back to the city in a condo where there are no trees. Some of us just happen to like the storms with the rain and wind.
I agree 2:11 If I am killed by a 30 pine tree in a big storm so be it. I will not be hiding under my bed.
The community has existed for close to 60 years, so yeah, there were surely a couple of trees blew down, branches that fell and hit a house or car. But we never hear of any frequency to justify the entire community topping their trees.
And forget this nonsense about not needing to "top" trees. That is b.s. Trees that are continually snipped at in their first few years will have stunted growth, and not grow to their full height, which is only about 30 feet. In the N.W., a 30 foot tree is short ! It is true that enforcement pressure on tree heights is a relatively recent obsession.
Most owners grew to feel it was not a critical matter, and didn't want to top their trees. Once they're 15 feet and over, owners have little idea how tall their trees are. A great many trees were well over the limits before receiving compliance notices, so topping became an annual thing, driven in part by Mr. Clancy's annual flooding of the tree complaint docket.
Even the Tree Comm. estimates heights, so this is not a well administered policy on ANY level. Healthy trees are not inclined to fail, so end the policy, remove dead and dying trees and start over.
Why give credibility to the "tree safety" argument when it's all bout the almost non existent view from J place. Don't fall for their obfuscation.
552 - agree totally! Smoke and mirrors, then silence. This is more of a Mob family than a Board!
I visited a J place home this last weekend a friend was renting through VRBO (not allowed per covenants) and will admit, the view was pretty nice. I could see how some tall pines could get in the way of that. However, it still isn't clear to me how a fixed height across a rolling plane could work.. Only that that fixed height is well below the needed restriction to ensure all trees stay out of the view point.
The take away I had was when the view is there it's nice, but I still don't think it's right to demand level ground for that long a distance in front of you to maintain it. The ridge just isn't high enough and that's that. I could better see if you had a glorious hill view and some jerk let his cotton woods grow 250 feet just into your view, but this isn't near the case. This is people who couldn't get ocean front property and are making up the difference by spending a little more for a bluff top home.
It is possible to trim trees and control height without killing them...let's get real folks...
http://blog.davey.com/2018/04/can-you-keep-big-trees-small-or-limit-tree-height/
Arborists tell us to prune only when absolutely necessary. Trees in general do not require continual maintenance, and given the part-time nature of most owner's use of their Surfside properties, no one wants to deal with HOA demands to do so.
Views are not at stake, safety is not a legitimate excuse, and tree maintenance is expensive. Many owner's trees have grown without interference until the HOA decides to ride herd on them, and the only means of compliance is to top the trees. This has been widespread in Surfside, and it is obvious to those who really look carefully.
So 9:31, there is no undoing what is currently the state of things in Surfside. "Candling" is essentially less aggressive topping, and is an intensive process that is only reasonable on young trees. Every growing tip is snipped, so we're talking hundreds of snips on a larger tree. Not practical OR necessary. It causes the tree to become increasingly dense and wide if repeated, increasing wind resistance, and making thinning very difficult. Increasing width is likely to become problematic for a tree's location, requiring continual pruning.
10:32 and others.... There is a contingent of folks who belittle my comments, but funny thing, few if any offer any evidence contrary to my point of view. I consistently offer facts we glean from Arborists, and facts relating to the so-called "danger" of trees.
I research many aspects of topics, and speak from a place of knowledge and common sense. That bugs a lot of people, who dislike dissent, criticism of community policy, and have forgotten how democracy works and who it serves. Oh well !!
Don't look for me to feel down in the mouth cuz some yoyos feel warm and fuzzy with the status-quo. That's why the community is so dysfunctional. The fear of widespread dialogue on community issues leaves the community frozen in time and unable to retool policies and update our covenants.
Some like to say I "rant", and some like to claim I "spew venom". That makes me laugh so hard, as it is so dramatic and mischaracterizes my comments so. Fear of facing the truth and making changes dooms this community to continued mismanagement and abuse of the members. The BOT and committees are allowed to operate in isolation from member opinion, and the past mistakes will continue to increase our vulnerability to conflict with County, State and Federal regulatory agencies.
I'm not a scholar, but when I speak I have knowledge to back it up, and state it in a way that is easy to understand. How "sharp" do I need to be to have a right to state factual information with conviction ? I'm comfortable with my level of intelligence and communication skills. Many here are marginal at best, but I don't worry about it. We're just talkin'.
Well said Steve. You say it much better than I can, and that's why it's important that you continue. They fear the truth being known, so all they can do is attack and try to discredit you. It is laughable when they get on here and agree with their own comments to make it appear that there is more opposition to what you say. Most agree that Surfside is a mess. You help to inform them as to why.
George actually makes a lot more sense than the current board. That's why this blog is so active - if everybody's happy, most comments go away.
2:46 sure did alot of editing on that comment.lmao
All should know that you try to push the rules with your hate, and dont succeed. Crawl back in your bottle.
Post a Comment