Conflict of interest Board show their colors....Coward yellow
The statement below is a direct quote from the Weakender:
"The Tree, Brush, Vegetation, and Noxious Weed Committee recommended that the process for compliance be reduced from two years to six months. The Board voted to set a hearing for the changes and receive input and comments from the members."
If we ever see the minutes, we will see which conflict of interest Board members approved a hearing on this stupid decision to even consider it. Most of the Board should have recused themselves from even participating in discussion or voting. Did Kurt Olds recuse himself because his J Place wife is chair of the Obnoxious Tree Committee/ How about the chief tree complaint writing Board member, Clancy? How about deLeest?
This committee, more than any, see the members with trees as the enemy, not as fellow Surfside members. They continue to kill any good will that once existed between the former Tree Committee and the members that fall under the height restrictions. What happened to working with the members on a time schedule that worked for them. Many members with trees do not reside here full time, and getting here to top trees is a long and expensive trip. Many are "snow birds" that are far away. Many members only get here once a year during their vacation.
This self serving J Place kill tree committee need to be abolished and the members sent packing. They are a disgrace that have done more to divide the community than any other factor. Are they so stupid that they can't see they are contributing to the end of Surfside. When that happens, there will be no covenants of any kind.
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, It did. I admit to being wrong again. Sad.
16 comments:
It was stated at the Annual Meeting in July, that legal consultation and action had seen a big increase in activity in the last year, and with over 130 "complaints" filed by 2 or 3 members, this year, is set to outpace last year. This is irresponsible waste of our community resources !
Setting restrictions in an HOA requires that there be a solid basis for the restrictions, OR there is widespread resistance, and complicated enforcement. When a community finds themselves overwhelmed with enforcement issues, everyone can be taken to Court at great expense to the entire membership, OR it is time to take a serious look at WHY there is so much resistance.
That's an easy one ! The policy is expensive to enforce because of continual resistance, so the majority of owners do not want this policy. There is no legal defense of this policy. As an old covenant that pertained only to J Place views, it was retooled to home heights, and now has no relationship to preserving views. The State does not support community covenants of this type, and openly opposes them.
Properties with more than one tree, must top their trees at great expense every 2 to 3 years. This is money that could be better spent for exterior maintenance on their home, or family expenses.
What was understood at the time a 2 year window was allowed for compliance to the covenant, is that this is not an urgent matter at any point, and certainly doesn't merit the HOA trying to put the screws to every owner with trees by threatening huge fines and making legal threats.
The goal is compliance, not the financial ruin of every owner who feels they have a say about the maintenance on their property, and how and when they can afford tree trimming. The promoters of this policy have adopted a particularly aggressive and ruthless attitude in driving this community into the ground, and killing every tree.
This policy serves only to reassure the elitists who promote it that they are "very very special" and deserve the right to push other owners around, without any rational reason to do so. It creates anger and conflict needlessly, and pisses away vast sums of money annually on legal handling of these "compliance" issues. That sum is multiplying at a substantial rate as Peggy Olds and Annette deLeest drive this campaign to destroy every normal looking tree in the community.
Is that community service ? I don't think so !
Just another push by that self interest group known as the Board.
7:16....You are very naïve to think that these are not smart well educated people, with a definite agenda. All of the J Place canvasing for select candidates who promise to continue to support this policy, is a well-orchestrated annual effort to serve their own interests. Only an equal effort in opposition will ever bring this bad policy to an end.
That would require many more owners to engage in the community's politics, and the 85% who do not vote are obviously not making any effort to be informed of the mess the community is currently in. Apparently some of the Trustees feel the community has lots of money to burn through, no problem.
I'm sure this isn't going to matter here, but I believe you are jumping to the wrong conclusion.
I was at the board meeting. From what I heard this concerned situations with people who don't or refuse to respond to a valid complaint when they get the notification, not people who do. Those people who do not reside here and the snowbirds will still, as everyone does, have time to comply as long as you say you are going to. This hasn't changed and is the same as with the former committee.
To sum it up, if you get a letter saying your not compliant and choose to ignore it, after six months there will be consequences. If you do respond with a plan then you'll be given ample opportunity to do so not six months.
As to the whole conflict of interest rant, please explained how it was OK then to have people on a committee that disagree with the covenants that it was suppose to respond to? I know of examples where those members said that complaints were not valid because the trees were under height only to be proved later they were actually over height.
Now you suggest that you have to agree with covenants to be on a committee? Does that also apply to the board? With that kind of mind set, you would never have any kind of change in the covenants. You make no sense in your "rant". You have just exposed yourself as one of the status quo. You also come across as a tree committee member or even worse, a relative. You fool no one but yourself.
You got that right. "Only in Surfside" Any place else and the clowns would have been thrown out years ago. That goes for you also, nameless and shameless.
3:56.... Your comment is not consistent with the BOT's decision. Enforcement has stepped-up the timeline, and legal efforts have increased significantly as stated by the HOA attorney at the annual Meeting.
The covenants make haughty statements about the HOA being tough on conflict of interest, but most of the Tree Comm. is J Place owners. Few other owners have any use for this destructive policy, and many J Pl. Owners think they are guaranteed this policy will continue in perpetuity.
Obviously, a J pl. chair, and a majority of J Pl. owners on the committee is a conflict of interest, and few other owners are willing to be a part of this inappropriate Policy. It needs to be eliminated !
George, one again, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I think 6 months to respond to a complaint is more than enough time, should be 90 days or less. Then after the member replies with a plan, give the member reasonable time to fix the issue(s).
And to all "the save the trees trolls", I don't reside on the hill.
This timeline refers ONLY to enforcement of Tree restrictions, and Tree Comm. compliance issues. There really isn't any other enforcement similar to this, the HOA demanding owners knowingly damage their trees (private property) about every 2 years, spending a few hundred to a couple of thousand dollars each time.
It serves no practical purpose, and each member household needs to make their own decisions on what maintenance spending is top priority for them. The point that is being ignored here, is that spending on legal counsel has greatly increased as a result of Tree enforcement, and the Tree Comm. wants to put s great deal more pressure on owners, which will lead to accumulating late fees, multiple notices needing to be sent (more office expense), and taking owners to Court.
This is the current mentality in Surfside. They don't want to work with owners, and are happy to spend owner/member funds in six figures annually, to take owners to Court over tree heights which cannot be considered urgent business. Views are not protected, and safety is not increased, while the appearance of the community is chopped and manipulated beyond repair.
7:56 may not live on the hill, but does live under a rock. It may be a "mole hill" to him/her, but it is a sand trap for the owners of trees. For the part time folks who live a great distance from Surfside, and many do, it is just more harassment supported by a few elitist members whose only motive is their special interest of a view. Most of the tree complaints are against owners of RV lots with trees. It is a fact that most complaints come from a few J Placers. If anything, the owners of trees subject to complaints, should be given more time, not less. Many only get here once a year and others even less. At least a year would be appropriate.
This illegal covenant has produced an ugly blight on Surfside and divided the members. A covenant and it's unreasonable enforcement by a conflict of interest committee, has produced just the opposite goal of an HOA, to be a community of common interests for all members, not a few.
A board that is clearly a conflict of interest on tree issues, only make the issue worse. These self interest members are destroying surfside and the ultimate result will be no covenants at all. There is a growing voice for dissolution.
I will add my voice to dissolution as well. It's the only way fairness will be returned to the members.
An opposing view should contain facts n not same drivel over and over.
How does the State openly oppose them?
What do you plan to do about it Steve?
You've made this statement many many times now
I vote for voluntary dissolution.
I also vote for voluntary dissolution.
Post a Comment