The example has been set...
A member has provided me with the following statement. It certainly seems true to me. The Board expects us to follow the rules while they continue to violate the rules them selves.
There has been a lot of talk on the blog that you "knew what you were signing up for, when you bought here".
It seems that our present board has not read or understand our covenants. The example they have set is how to violate our covenants, County ordinances and State laws. All anyone needs to do is to go out and look at their lots, with a copy of the covenants in hand. This is the kind of example our members need to follow. As you know, "The board always does the right thing".
The members should just be able to say no, when they get a complaint letter from the office.
If they threaten to take you to court, just say think you, I will appreciate that. Thank you.
The example you can show are: Surfsides asbestos problems, wet lands problems, and as stated above, our boards non compliance.
The examples set for our members are not good examples. What do you think would happen to Surfside if the members followed the example set by the board and staff here at Surfside?
14 comments:
The failures of the board does not excuse other members from the responsibility to follow the covenants. The thinking behind this blog topic is off the rails.
In case you haven't been watching, the BOT controls access to all of those outdated covenants you refer to. They have been ruthless in the management of said covenants, to suit their self interests, for some time now.
Blind adherence to self interest rules? I think not. And forget about that 'you signed a contract BS'. Theres plenty already in the public domain to fight that all the way to dissolution.
Over one hundred tree related "complaints" have been processed this year, and though the Surfside enforcement has stepped-up the legal pursuit of fines, this is an annual exercise. Trees do not have an alarm that alerts owners to their exceeding randomly set tree height limits in each micro-division, and most owners dread the constant nagging of the HOA and demands to bi-annually blow several hundred dollars re-topping their trees.
It should be entirely obvious that most owners HATE this stupid policy. It serves no rational purpose what-so-ever, and is blatantly discriminatory, serving only a few hundred J Place owner's need to be special. Views are not protected in the process. That is a ruse.
So what kind of HOA Board ignores the obvious reticence of tree owners to continually waste money on tree topping, ignores the science that governs tree health, and ignores the absence of any community-wide gain or advantage, to perpetually burden 2/3 of the community's owners with this ruthless exercise ?
There is no human response, no willingness to acknowledge that this policy has outlasted it's usefulness. This is an unresponsive remote group of people who really could care less about the needless pain and suffering this policy perpetuates, and the ugliness that has become an accepted yet bizarre trademark of the Surfside community.
Most folks try to be good neighbors, and want to comply to reasonable rules. When there is mass non-compliance, it should be apparent that members are resisting for good reasons, and that they do not approve of the restriction. It is a clear indication that a policy is not considered reasonable or necessary, and that policy needs to change to reflect that obvious message.
A policy that is costing the community a great deal in legal fees to process all of these non-compliant owners, and now, to take them to Court over fines, is obviously counter-productive to member's experience of owning in Surfside. It creates unnecessary conflict, anger, expense, and intentionally negates any sense of contentment being seaside can bring to our lives.
The olds set an example of a non approved retaining wall without County or Surfside permits. What makes them so special?
The high rate of noncompliance with the tree policy is due to the board's longstanding decision to only enforce covenants if a complaint is made. Most members are reluctant to make a complaint against their neighbors. This perpetuated a general false belief that it is okay to ignore the tree covenant until caught by a complaint. This is not a sane way to manage an HOA. Years of enforcement neglect by the board has resulted in too many members thinking they could get away with ignoring the tree restrictions as well as other covenants. This has resulted in a lot of hard feelings, outright hate and a community that does not fulfill its promise to be an attractive and welcoming place to own property.
Recent actions to hire a full time enforcement employee who is charged with managing fairer and more timely enforcement is a great step towards having a community in which we can feel some pride and actually like and trust our neighbors.
Cox a few others have a bug up their butts about the tree covenant. Instead of holding individual members responsible to adequately maintain their lots, trees and approved structures per the covenants, they want to throw out the longstanding rules that should have always governed this community to achieve an attractive and desirable community. Those members who have property that is affected by the tree covenants have some choices to make about the trees on their lots and to take care of it on a regular and timely basis. Some chose to clear the trees from their lots. Some chose to trim the existing trees. Some chose to replant their lots with trees and vegetation that complies with the covenants with little care involved. Others have chosen landscapes that require lots of gardening time and care. Some choose to purchase their lot or lots in an area of Surfside that is not affected by the tree covenants. It all a matter of choices made by the owners.
The underlying thought that trees and non-noxious vegetation should be well taken care of is a valuable characteristic of a well run HOA. No one disagrees that topping trees is not a good or healthy practice. It usually leads to problems with the trees in the future that can be unsightly, expensive and dangerous. I live in an area that requires trimmed trees. It has cost me some money to get rid of trees on my lot that had been topped in the past. My lot is both attractive and most likely safe during possible strong wind storms or wild fires. Yet, I worry because my neighbors are not conscientious about maintaining their lots which puts me and my house in jeopardy. I and most of my acquaintances with property in Surfside want an attractive, safe and well managed HOA with members who responsibly follow the covenants.
5:21 is a perfect example of why there is a lot of stress and distrust in Surfside. The tattle tale personality exists in all communities. Let us do our best to eliminate the opportunities for the tattle tales to stir up trouble. Those who think that eliminating the tree covenant will solve the problems with the trees in Surfside are both short sighted and irresponsible. The Cox rants and tattle telling on this blog do not aid in getting to an improved community. Surely he can find a better way to spend his time.
Time to close down this concentration camp and let the members live in peace without harassment from those who think they know everything when in fact, they know nothing.
3:08pm, Sounds like you would jump off the cliff if the covenants required it.
Tree covenant has always been about the views. Wording was changed because views are not a legal reason. Yet where do most complaints come from? Safety is just a red herring.
Tattle tales ? That would mean that some people insist on telling the truth while others stay mum. Maybe try another ridiculous way to demean those who oppose this policy. Those who have this notion that the policy results in a "clean and neat community" are not actually LOOKING at the community as it really appears.
It is obvious that something strange is going on in Surfside resulting in mutant looking trees and dead and dying trees everywhere. Many owners opt to cut them down entirely, many leaving the stumps as a reminder. Most in the community hate this policy, a useless and intrusive invasion of owner privacy and violation of individual owner's rights.
The claim that safety is an issue is b.s. deep and stinky.
Surfside belongs to the members. The members do not belong to Surfside. Put the tree issue to a member vote. Let them decide. Steve is right and that is why he gets opposition on here. There are those in control who don't want the truth known. Keep up the good work Steve. Much appreciated.
Who in this community tries to avoid turning in a neighbor, this whole community is full of people who just write letter of complaint about neighbors, letter after letter. I just don't understand the need to be in everyone else's business...
WRONG! The community is not full of people who just write letters of complaints. It is only a few, and mostly tree complaints. I agree with you about not understanding the need to be in everyone else's business. Maybe it's just busy bodies that have nothing else to do and it makes them feel important. The few who write complaints is more than just their neighbors. Clancy for instance and others just like him.
Funny how Clancy's name continually comes up in these conversations, but he still sits on the board. Why is that? What is the process for recalling a board member?
9/10 @ 6:41 PM. Go to an annual meting and make a motion from the floor and majority rules. You don't even need a reason. I would require the person making the motion to take his place if I were in charge.
Post a Comment