All is the key word...
Our Bylaws clearly state that the restrictive covenants apply to all members.
Not just some, not just here or there and not up or down. If a covenant does not apply to ALL, IT IS NOT LEGAL. This prevents discrimination, special interests and recognizes every member as equal in the eyes of the law.
House heights, tree heights, RV restrictions in some areas and mobile home restrictions are not applied to ALL members in ALL areas. This is a violation of our governing documents.
This Bylaw has been in existence from the beginning. That is why you see the wording "Surfside Estates and club members" This Bylaw exists today.
This and other Boards and members have violated our Bylaws for the very reasons stated above, for which this Bylaw was made. If a covenant can not apply to all, it should be removed. In my opinion It is illegal. The final decision may be made in a court of law.
BYLAWS..
ARTICLE VI
SECTION 7
The board of trustees shall also have the power to adopt, amend and revise existing or additional restrictive covenants from time to time which shall be applicable to all club members and all property within Surfside Estates.
76 comments:
Take um to court and end this nonsense that is promoted by an elite few.
No I'm not going to hand you clowns any money to waste
Mr. Riley is the only member who has tried to get member approval of covenants. He was denied his civil rights at the annual meeting. He had the right to speak and make a motion. This was denied because of wrong advice from the association lawyer. I suggest he talk with an attorney and get advice on how to proceed in legal action against this HOA. That advice should be shared with the members before any fund is established. Members have wasted millions ofr dollars in dues and assessments and don't want to waste anymore on legal expenses without knowing the details. The cheapest way for changes is to change the board.
Good Morning: strongly encouraging a fund being set up to rid ourselves of these CLOWNS! I'll be the first to scratch out a check for 50$. Doesn't sound like alot but with all of us pulling together, we can secure an attorney to move forward with legal action against SHOA board. ITS TIME!
If all 2,000 members ponied up 50 bucks you would raise $ 1000,000. A drop in the bucket for a legal assault. Now add in the $ 1000,000 the hoa (us) would spend to defend the $ 1000,000 being raised privately, Anybody see the fallacy of this action?
Now to the MILLIONS of dollars alluded to by 10/22/19 @ 8:13 AM. Please don't try to make your point by throwing outlandish numbers out there. Hundreds of thousands perhaps but millions?
nope sorry, count me out.
Ok George, you know darn well that agreed exemptions were made years ago for different areas. One of the main reasons was with areas being added to the HOA decisions were made to not change the way they were for them at the time.
But, since you are now calling it illegal let's go there. We can start with making the tree height limits universal which would include the east side. How about that?
9:52 is using new math. Those figures don't add up. Hope your not on the budget committee. 1000,000 is a million in my math book. Your credibility just went down the tube. lol Let's use your math to pay our dues and assessments. Do that, and you got my vote.
1:41 - Whoever you are, (Peggy, Annette,...) What should be very obvious is, The HOA attorney would insist that this would be inviting a lawsuit, as there needs to be a demonstrated need for such a change to be considered valid. And a lawsuit with a large number of plaintiffs would be risky for the HOA.
What is also obvious, is that there could be a 2 or 3 year moratorium on tree cutting, and it wouldn't have a significant and noticeable effect. ALL of the trees on the westside have been topped at least a couple to a few times in the last 10 years, so most are dead to partially dead.
It makes the most sense to take the State's position that "views" are not a legitimate basis for mandatory tree cutting, and end the policy. George has an indisputable point. The covenants do not support differing rights for owners, depending on where in the community they live. The HOA has always chosen to ignore regulations that they don't like. That's why we're in big trouble with the County, State and Federal regulatory agencies.
This policy favors only about 15% of the membership, giving them the authority to demand destruction of everyone else's private property. We haven't seen the Board take such things seriously, take Peggy Olds, the Tree Comm. Chair as an example. Conflict of interest is totally ignored on this matter, and there is no sense of conscience among the parade of J place owners who are elected to the BOT - precisely to block any changes of the Tree restrictions meant to save J place views.
1:41, Let's go there, when the tree height covenants were established, they were done so to protected the view of those on the ridge, {J Place} and for no other reason, I was there at the time. That in todays world is totally Illegal and would not hold up to the State of Washington current laws regarding VIEW RIGHT'S. In order to make this a better place to live where we are not fighting one another why not get ride of the tree height limits all together. And enough BS about the dangers of high trees blowing down in high winds, I've been here twenty-five years and not seen one house in Surfside damaged by high winds and fallen trees. The board needs to listen the the tree experts on topping, drive around Surfside and see the damage thats been done.Get real people this problem is bringing us down.
3:09:
You do realize that at least half of the J place owners, including Olds, are under the same tree height restrictions right. Not that it matters, right?
I'm not Peggy or Annette, so you are wrong just like you were wrong on the other topic when you had to be a smarta$$ towards me.
What is obvious, since you like to blame Annette constantly with no proof is along with being a self proclaimed know it all you are also a misogynistic Mr. know it all.
Russ, please cite the current Washington State laws that makes it illegal to limit trees for view protection. I have researched tree height court cases online and have found that Washington State courts regularly uphold HOA covenants requiring tree heights be maintained. I have listed those cases on this blog in the past.
Steve, how do you know you will have a large number of plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Surfside? Have you got a list of names of those willing to contribute to the cause. One anonymous person offered $50. Look you are on your way.
Russ, "I've been here twenty-five years and not seen one house in Surfside damaged by high winds and fallen trees."
That's because the trees are not allowed to grow to a height that would damage a house, its call tree height limits.
Sorry I got my comma's and an extra zero in my post. I meant to say One Hundred Thousand Dollars. The point being that you won't fund a lawsuit with that and it won't happen anyway and you are suing yourself.
8:11 must not have lived here very long. Enforcement of tree height is a fairly recent thing. Why you think trees been buzzcut in such a short time? I worked for Mr. Neal, was lied too on numerous occasions. At the time he was a shill for Kirby. Gil and april are good employees. How they have lasted with the many bosses involved amazes me. I dont think either of them are dumb enough to want manager position. Being water manager is as bad as being business manager. Too many cooks in the kitchen.
I have no reason to doubt you, as I don't know Bill Neal well. It's difficult to find any excuse for the mishandling of asbestos and putting employees potentially in harm's way. And considering the mess that Mr. Clancy has created by taking independent unapproved actions on the build and the permitting, the Water manager would need to be given full authority to prevent such meddling in the future. Other Trustees have shown a similar need to act beyond their station.
And 9:00, thanks for the heads-up. (kidding) Your reasoning is not sound, and you insist on being abusive toward me personally. I have my limitations like anyone, but what I know I know well and stick to it.
Thanks for your comments Russ !!
8:11 and Russ, A tree fell on my house in 1996, on the east side where there are no tree height restrictions. I'm tired of people saying that it has never happened!!
from 8:11, I have lived here or nearly 16 yrs and believe the tree policy has been in affect since at least then.
Sorry about your house 9:30, I've saw many trees blown down on both side of the ridge during that big storm of 2007 or so?
"Owners of real estate in Washington have never been afforded any blanket or automatic view right. This can be frustrating to many homeowners in this area, as we have some of the best views to offer. However, the only view rights that are available to homeowners are those that are provided in covenants, plats, or appropriate agreements recorded against the property or properties in question. We often see such covenants in homeowners associations that protect views within the community by limiting the height of homes, certain ancillary structures, foliage, and/or trees."
Ref: https://brandtlawgroup.com/tree-removal-tree-topping-disputes-washington/
Tree policy being in effect and enforced are two separate issues. Enforcement started with an individual, not the assoc making that decision till fairly recently.
So we all have to change for you 9:30. Self interest king you are.
This is apparently a legal OPINION, and is not a legal statute. It has been said many times before and it is key, I think - there are no covenants in Surfside that protect views. There have been building heights, which are 24 ft. along the shoreline side of G St., and a mysterious limit on trees keyed to the buildings, which nowhere is written a rational reason WHY. "VIEWS" are not protected, and there is no rationale for keying tree heights to building heights.
This legal opinion does not key building heights to trees. It is also an exaggeration to say that this is common, which this statement does say. We know of no others on the peninsula, and we know that large cities are moving to protect trees with legal repercussions for damaging them. Most municipalities have seen this as it is, an endless source of neighbor conflict and legal messes that serve no one well.
What does the crazed weasel have to say?
OOPS !! I didn't mean to say that the info offered by 11:39 IS a legal opinion. It's a generalized statement that offers no specific instances, time frames, or locations. But the comment no doubt draws on some such instances of views being legally defendable. The HOA RCWs of WA also instated an ordinance banning discrimination, which this policy obviously qualifies as.
12:41 - You insist on being a turd, and you wonder why no one responds positively to your comments. The comment I made recently that you're repeating, was not meant to be taken literally, and most people would understand that.
Steve Cox said...
This is apparently a legal OPINION, and is not a legal statute. It has been said many times before and it is key, I think - there are no covenants in Surfside that protect views.
October 23, 2019 at 11:39 AM continues...
Mr. Cox, I have provided proof in my previous post that your statements are false. The quote I posted (along with a link to the source) clearly says that HOA's can limit tree heights to protect views. This is exactly what SHOA has done and it is totally legal. I tend to believe what's posted by a legal firm over whatever opinion you may have.
No, I won't be contributing to your legal fund.
You and others hate the crazed weasel anyway 10/23 1:54 PM.
To 12:16, Move you insufferable jerk!!!
1:54.... You are misinterpreting what this statement you provided says. This isn't proof of anything as it is a vague statement that offers no specific example, or other frames of reference. Any legal contest has its' own unique factors, and the outcome depends on there being a solid basis for one side or the other prevailing.
Unfortunately for your point of view, the covenants do not guarantee anyone's views, but state specifically that all of the covenants serve all of the member's interests. Tree restrictions were designed to serve only ridgetop properties in order to sell them, then the covenants were changed so that there is no mention of views.
What your Law firm could have also mentioned is, that many HOA communities become burdened by covenants added by the original contractor or land owner, and must change the covenants in the interest of the entire community. I lead a successful effort to rid our Lacey HOA covenants of just such a burden a few years ago. It lifted a burden of about $52,000 from our Reserve requirements. There were no legal challenges.
You tend to have tunnel vision. The Tree Policy serves only a couple hundred homes, though it has always been unspecific as to who had view homes and what the criteria was to determine that. Nature has had a hand in changing the landscape radically, with 24 ft dunes, and the surf now several hundred yards farther to the west. Most with your viewpoint tend to ignore this hard cold fact.
The surf was about 50 yards west of our condo built in !969, and needless to say, was easily viewed. Today we have a 24 ft high ridge of dunes about 150 yards away, and the surf further still. We aren't guaranteed a view, though we could claim the HOA must remove the dunes at a cost of a billion dollars or so. We like it the way it is.
And I'll repeat the point that has been made with no rebuttal. The State RCWs forbid discrimination in HOAs, and the Tree Policy is blatantly discriminatory. The HOA was never willing to fund the cutting of tree tops, and neither were the J Place owners. So this policy puts a large financial burden on about 1500 or more member households, for the benefit of a couple of hundred ridgetop households. And no one can say how many homes were ever intended to be protected by this policy. It is blatantly discriminatory and a violation of the State's RCWs and philosophy of community management.
No, I'm not an attorney, but I'm rational and fair-minded, and recognize this policy for what it is - a destructive useless policy that serves only a small number of owner's interests. The community is a mess, and the committee obsessed with putting the screws to all owners with trees, and burdening the community with unnecessary conflict and ever-growing legal costs - all down a deep hole, to no one's advantage. A huge waste of money all around.
I've seen this stuff you provided before, and visited their website. It proves nothing, as each situation depends on its' own variables. No views are guaranteed in Surfside and the policy is a travesty.
To 10:07:
Since you keep repeating the same geographic statements and also say that people are ignoring hard cold facts, let's turn it back on you and see your answers. You keep bringing up the surf, dune heights and have also made statements that trees don't block views. Let me counter your opinions.
As others besides me have said many times, it isn't just about viewing the surf, it's the ocean and horizon people want to see. I'm happy for you that you enjoy your occasional time in your apartment with no view, but most people who moved here to the ocean side of the peninsula want to actually see the ocean, be it full or part timers. To say that if there were no tree height restrictions views wouldn't be lost is factually false. I'll just give two examples to counter this.
Step away from your keyboard and go up to the north end of J. Look further north to the properties that border us that have no height restrictions. How much of the ocean do you see? The answer is not much. Can you see the entire horizon? The answer is no. So if there were no restrictions in the HOA do you expect us to believe that the same would not happen? Any reasonable person would know that it would.
To your 24 ft dune statement. First off, where did you get that number anyways, did you borrow the laser and go down to the beach? That aside, let's use your growing dune height argument. I've lived here for way more years than you have. I walk the beach almost daily and return to my place via one of the trails. When I get to the top of the highest dune and look at my house the trees tops use to be just below the midpoint of the first floor. Now they are 3/4's the way up my second. Using your logic about the dunes getting higher and that trees don't block views wouldn't it be the other way around? Please explain?
Lastly, your statement saying that it is a committee putting screws to owners of trees is not only factually incorrect it also shows your mean spirited bias towards members who actually volunteer their time to the community, something you have never done.
And what have you done 6:44 to volunteer your time? Mr. Cox owns what he has stated, right or wrong. He puts his name to what he says, even though you refer to his comment by the time he made it. Do you see how your credibility is compromised when you do not use your name? It makes it appear that you have something to hide. Do you really have ocean front, or are yoi possibly a J Place resident?
Are you on a committee, and which one or ones?
Just another anonymous comment from who knows who.
Well, since you don't use YOUR name 7:15, why should we care what you have to say then? By your standards YOU don't have any credibility, right?
And btw, you chose to ignore 6:44 points and questions and instead just came on here to be insulting. Says a lot about you doesn't it. What does he or she have to hide? It was a response to what Cox said and repeatedly says all the time. That's how things work on here Einstein.
2 things.
First came back because I forgot to say that from how I read 6:44's comment I would say they are a J place person not ocean front as you think. In the end it really doesn't matter.
Second.
Given the quick responses, do you all monitor this site non-stop? I guess it's nice to have a hobby and all but maybe you should step away and go for a walk or something. Just saying.
Well said 8:08. Don't worry this blog is just for getting information and arguing with people.
6:44....You are incapable of accepting hard cold facts, as I have said before. I notice that you needed to try and disgrace my condo, 1 of 4 units in one of the first structures built in Surfside in '68/'69. It has been beautifully renovated down to the studs, has 3 bedrooms/2 baths, and is 1400 sq.ft.. It is not an "apartment" as you say, and you have no idea how much time we spend there.
Your comments reflect the same sour attitude and lack of accurate information. If you walk on the beach often you don't pay much attention to what you see. It's quite obvious that the ridgetop of the dunes is growing in height, and that it is noticeably higher than our rooftop about 200 yards away. It has grown in height at least 2 ft. in 3 years. What is also obvious is that another ridge of sand has begun to build on the westside of the ridge on the trail.
If you further question the volume of sand being deposited annually, I suggest you talk to a gov. agency that records this stuff. There are photos of the surf just a short distance away from our back porch, back in the early 70s. There are some at the golf course on display, and neighbors have pix.
I've seen the dune height measurement published somewhere, but it is easy to estimate in relation to our 4plex rooftop. I have driven J place end to end and studied views from various vantage points. I have studied topo maps of the ridge and dunes, and know exactly what I'm talking about in terms of views.
One of the few high points on the J place ridge is the parking lot on the northend of the Wymark. It's about 35 feet above sea level. The store owner's wooded lot north of the stripmall was forced to top the entire lot a couple of weeks after we moved in 3 1/2 years ago.
I was looking out our bedroom window the second time we visited, and was shocked to see what looked like cars driving on top of the trees that were topped. So our sight-height looking out that window is about 12 feet, and those trees were cut to about 25 feet, initially, and we could barely see the pavement on the ridge parking lot at 35 feet elevation. At 25 feet tall, the trees did not begin to block the view between my 12 ft elev. vantage point. The owner of the store and wooded lot was forced to top ALL of his trees again, because they were slightly over the randomly set 24 ft height, even though they did not come close to blocking any Ocean view.
What you see sitting in a car at about 4 feet higher than the pavement, is the rooftop of our condo at about 22 ft. elev., and ABOVE our rooftop, the dunes at about 24 ft. and climbing. That lot of trees wasn't blocking anything on J Pl. BEFORE it was cut, and the HOA forced him to cut them twice !!
This policy has so many holes in it, it would never survive a lawsuit. The covenants offer NO guarantees of views for anyone in Surfside, and the notion that a couple of hundred owners on J Pl should have the right to demand ALL owners with trees to the west TOP their trees, is an elitist notion that violates the Surfside covenants, which state that ALL covenants apply to ALL owners equally.
This policy serves only to stroke the egos of J Pl. owners, reassuring that they are the most special owners in the community. Unfortunately, such a policy is blatantly discriminatory and in violation of our covenants as well as the State RCWs.
Don't like facts ? I'm not sure what the alternative is - live in a dream-bubble. The community shows that some arcane elitist policy rules over it. The trees look wacky and chopped. That is a disincentive for buyers with any esthetic sense or love of natural beauty to buy here, and the attitude is so out of touch with the mixed use and recreational nature of the member's use of their property.
Thank you Steve for the accurate common sense information you provide. 6:44 will never agree with any thing you say, just because you say it. Your narrative provides information for other members to see the facts you provide, which is not otherwise available. This is what this blog is designed for. By using your name, you provide credibility to your comments.
BTW, I lived in Ocean Park when Surfside was developed. I could walk the beach and see homes from the beach that fronted the edge of the sand edge near the ocean. The sandy beach was only feet from the cabins and homes. The foundations were the high point at that time. I must say, as a beach walker, the higher dunes today, make walking the beach more secluded and enjoyable. The dunes are also attractive as they are today. .
Steve, I agree the dunes have been growing and will continue to grow. It is also a shame that there are so many personal attacks on this blog. What I do not understand is why you make blanket negative comments about all J Place owners. Do you know all of the J Place Owners? You also claim that there are RCW’s being violated by the tree height covenants. Could you please cite those RCW’s? You also claim that the tree height covenants would not survive a lawsuit. What legal precedents are you using to make that claim? I have found several cases in the Washington State Courts where tree height ordinances and covenants have been upheld. If you are aware of a precedent setting decision that will overturn an HOA covenant related to tree heights I would like to read it for myself.
Yes, provide us specific case law to substantiate your claims.
I select that I'm not a robot when I post these anonymously. Doesn't that make me credible?
If anonymous comments aren't credible, then stop allowing them. That is a setting in Blogger.
Yes, provide us specific case law to substantiate your claim that the tree height covenants would not survive a lawsuit.
A very nice woman who lives on J Place contacted me a while back, approximately May or June, to discuss my proposed resolution for making amendments to governing documents subject to a majority vote of the membership. We had a good conversation and she gave me input that improved my proposed resolution amendment.
Since no one else proposed anything for the July 2019 Annual Meeting, you all know who this is.
Now I will be personally attacked.
George says I have to take these personal attacks and that I'm way to sensitive.
A very nice woman who lives on J Place contacted me a while back, approximately May or June, to discuss my proposed resolution for making amendments to governing documents subject to a majority vote of the membership. We had a good conversation and she gave me input that improved my pro proposed resolution amendment.
Unfortunately, the Trustees stopped all of my proposed resolution amendments from getting put to a vote of the membership at the July 2019 Annual Meeting even though they received them on April 25. I have the evidence they received them on that date.
Since no one else proposed anything for the July 2019 Annual Meeting, you all know who this is. I hope this is a credible comment.
Now I will be personally attacked.
I wanted to delete my last comment and replace it with this one. I'm not given the ability to delete. I only see a Reply option.
I'm not a crazed weasel.
Once again you avoided my questions. Or, using your terminology, are incapable of answering hard cold facts.
You have said that trees don't and cannot block views. You say you have driven J end to end. So once again, if you drive up north to 357th and look further north can you see the ocean and horizon without any trees blocking it? No, you can't and that's a fact. So apparently you haven't studied views from all vantage points. Are you saying that if there were to be no height restrictions the trees in our area won't get to the same heights as those? Please explain how that wouldn't happen.
To your whole dune height and sand deposit argument. Once again you missed my point and avoided the question. First off no where in my comment did I argue that the dunes are not getting higher. In fact I was using your statement to illustrate and counter your argument that trees don't block views. While I was curious where you came up with the 24 ft number it doesn't matter if it's 20, 24 or even 30 ft in the question I asked.
So once again please explain. Why is it that years ago when the dunes were lower and I stood on the top of them I could look up at my house on J and could see most of my bottom floor but now with the higher dunes I can only see the top 1/4 of the upper floor because of trees blocking it? Using your arguments wouldn't it be the opposite? Again, please explain.
To be clear, I'm not questioning the deposits of sand nor the dune height. My comment at 6:44 had nothing to due with that, it was about trees. So please don't repeat the same comments. You say you know exactly what you're talking about in terms of views, I disagree with that statement and provided just 2 examples as to why.
You are also one of the last people who should be talking about "attitude' given the history of your comments here.
The only thing you are right about 6:38, is that I will delete your comment. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I do not respond to direct attacks against me or comments made by an anonymous person, place or thing. Your comprehension needs improvement.
9:01....You are an idiot. I have seen comments on the Blog calling Riley names, and I haven't done that. I have also made it clear that people who ride herd on Mike are weaklings who are trying to substantiate their superiority, when belittling others accomplishes nothing worthwhile. I have NEVER made statements like you are claiming, so stick a sock in it. You are too weak to stand for anything, and are afraid to sign your name because of it, anonyMOUSE.
You work really hard at hurting Mike's feelings, thinking you're a tough guy. Having compassion is true strength, while being a bully tells everyone you are trying to compensate for your own inadequacy. You are probably the same person being abusive to George. Pitiful.
Virtually ALL of the trees west of the ridge have been topped within the last 3 to 5 years, so NO, there are no trees blocking your "view". I have also pointed out:
1)there are no set criterion in Surfside for a definition of what the "view" is that you want to protect.
2)There is no definition of what properties are considered "view" properties - no list of addresses, and no clarification of what elevation your property must be to justify your thinking you own a special "view" property.
3)There is no written statement in the covenants guaranteeing "views" for anyone in Surfside.
4)There is no rational reason why trees should not exceed the height of houses nearby, so the policy is a pointless exercise in HOA power to make erroneous restrictions that violate private property rights.
5) Hundreds of bogus complaints are filed annually by Mr. Clancy, a current Trustee who lives on J Pl. They are taken off of a plat map, and are not valid claims of blocked views.
6) "VIEWS" are not considered when addressing these complaints, so it's all about tree height, which makes no sense. This establishes the big "LIE" that is enforced in Surfside. "Views" are not protected by the covenants, and "views" are not used as a criteria for determining non-compliance. Yet the HOA claims they are protecting "views". That is not legally defensible. You don't have to be a lawyer to get that.
7) WA State RCWs on HOAs forbid discrimination, and this policy is clearly discriminatory, by giving a small group of owners, unique authority to destroy or alter the private property of neighboring residences.
8) Our covenants require that all owners must be equally represented by community standards.
9) With 24foot dunes near the beach, and 24 ft tree and house limits along westside G St. your vantage point from J Pl. must be significantly higher (use geometry ?) to be able to see the beach. The crown of the street in front of your house surely at least 20 feet, and your vantage point high enough to see over the houses west of you, to see the Ocean. But if you can see G St homes, you HAVE a view. The trees on G St would have to be about 200 ft. tall to limit/block partially, your view of the sea in the distance.
10) Do you realize how ridiculous it is to claim that a tree 3 blocks away from you is "blocking" your view ? Again, we could bring in a mathematician for help, but a tree 2 feet taller than the limit on G St. would be about 3/32nds of an inch taller than if 24 ft. to your eye 3 blocks away.
11) The surf has moved at least 200 yards west in the last 50 years, and the dunes have grown to as high as 24 ft., and still growing.
12) The Policy as enforced is a blatant rejection of scientific knowledge easily documented, that makes it clear that trees of all kinds should never be "topped", and that pruning should be kept at a minimum. How ridiculous is it that in 2019 an HOA of 2025 households mandates "topping" of all trees in the community's westside, resulting in an ugly landscape and dead and dieing trees throughout the community ? It can't be rationally defended, and that has legal clout as well.
I'm obviously not an attorney, nor does it matter on this issue, which I have pointed out is so full of holes, and is so depraved in its' justification, that there is no real line of defense.
Well said Steve. Now if someone would just sue, we could end this mess. Surfside would be a happier place with less stress and neighbor against neighbor.
I would bet that a case for libel exists when you state that Mr. Clancy has filed " hundreds of bogus complaints " about tree heights. First off they may not be bogus (at least until verified) and secondly you must be privy to a lot of confidential information to state that. I would hope that, barring proof on your part, Mr. Clancy sues the pants off you.
Numerous people have stated that Mr. Clancy has bragged about this practice. I also have been told by a Trustee that he knows this is so. Mr. Clancy has his hands full with the shitstorm of problems he has brought upon Surfside by taking unauthorized action with the County/State, by misrepresenting Surfside in the permitting at the Water Dept..
This contention that someone is digging in your personal files has been debunked repeatedly. Mr. Clancy has a way of giving himself special authority, when there is no basis to do so. He is one of a nine member Board, and his authority is limited to that which the Board publicly approves.
The complaint based system is in a sense an honor system which assumes that people will NOT do what Mr. Clancy has been doing year after year. It is assumed that anyone who files a complaint about a community property, is personally affected by the matter, and isn't making the issue up. Mr. Clancy cannot claim that hundreds of community trees are blocking his view, and he has no authority to be measuring community trees on other people's private property.
The BOT AND the Tree Comm. members know full well that he has been doing this, and the complaints come through in a sudden flood, making it very obvious what is going on. Why not ask him if he has been doing this ? That's what I suggest. I'm not worried about being sued, because this is fraud that the HOA is well aware of, and enables over and over.
There should be a written restriction on how many complaints a single owner can submit at a time, and annually. I'm willing to bet that most members have never filed a complaint. Not that there is anything wrong with filing a LEGITIMATE complaint - certainly not. I've never filed one, and I know many folks who have not. There aren't that many issues in Surfside that merit a complaint, aside from the intentional misuse of authority by the BOT.
11:28.... You know the answer to your questions, so why ask me ? I have stated numerous times that I assume that many J Place owners never file a complaint, and do not feed into the Tree Policy enforcement effort. If you do not support this policy, and recognize the damage it has done to our community, speak out against it, and don't vote for J Place owners who run for the Board, promising to protect J Place owner's rights to trample on other owner's property, their trees.
We know that some Trustees canvas intensively, annually, J Place owners and full-timers, to get proxies and promises of Tree Policy support. If you sign on then you're part of the elitist cadre that demands special rights for a few at the cost and misery of the many. You could also promote a petition of J Pl. owners who oppose the policy, and want it to end. Even a small number of signatures would make a huge statement.
I don't have any hate for anyone on J who supports or enables this policy. I just see that this is very wrong, and creates a great deal of pain and sorrow for owners west of the ridge. It is selfish and mean-spirited, and I have no respect for those who promote it, knowing that many owners do not have large amounts of disposable income, have children and family members with needs far more important, yet take a certain amount of pleasure out of exercising their unique rights over their neighbor's property.
Thank you Steve for your honest and emotional comments. You obviously are a man of conscience and principle. I would like to offer you a different perspective. The members who purchased property on the ridge with great views of the beautiful Pacific Ocean are not evil, greedy, selfish, or any of the other unfaltering adjectives used to describe them on this blog. They invested in view property and they want to protect their investment. Who wouldn’t. Members who purchased property on the flats are not poor, defenseless, downtrodden, victims. They are people who purchased property in a Homeowners Association. Homeowners Associations have covenants. Until the covenants are rescinded they are obligated to follow them. They have a right to petition the board for redress if they believe the covenants are unfair or burdensome.
What should be asked is, are we more interested in being right or, proving a point, than in finding solutions. There are solutions that do not include name calling, demonizing, or threats of lawsuits. When people who disagree are willing to listen to and understand each other, solutions become apparent. It won’t be easy, you have made some very inflammatory comments that have created emotional barriers with those you will need to negotiate with but you appear to be an honest and reasonable man. I am certain you can work with the board to find workable solutions that address all members concerns.
Slick talking Weenie 8:29. I am sure Steve is smart enough to see through your attempt to put lip stick on this pig. When something is wrong, you can't make it half wrong and it be acceptable. Your just more blah, blah BS. There is no negotiation here. The tree covenants are 100% wrong and need to be eliminated 100%.
And that attitude is why they will never be eliminated. The members who want to protect their property values have a right to do so and if you attempt to reduce their property right expect a fight. This fight has been fought before. HOA covenants prevail over sanctimonious claims of its just not fair. Just keep whining on the blog. That should get you somewhere.
8:29 just move here? Or live hear at all? Have they not seen what goes on at the board meetings? Read the newspaper? Read committee minutes? Been interviewed by the EPA regarding a criminal investigation? I think not. Or is just getting jollies being a troll. Only explanation for that statement i can think of.
https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/Case-Law/Ezer-v-Fuchsloch
One case where the court ruled protecting views is legal. I have found many references of case law where "view protections" are perfectly legal. So please stop telling us it's not legal. It IS legal!!!
As for the discrimination claims I don't feel SHOA CC&R's are discriminatory. Just like the county has different rules for permit requirements based on the location, our covenants work exactly the same way. Example, do our covenants say anything about dunes? Do you think it should apply to all owners who don't live on G street? Right, it doesn't apply to everybody. So to make the lawyers happy, you must specify exactly what platts are included in the dune covenant.
Don't like the CC&R's then put in the work and change them...but please stop posting misleading and false information here in the blog.
Is anyone going to throw down a 7 paragraph response to 5:06 PM?
Apples and Oranges
The dunes are only in one place. The trees are in all places. Your analogy does not apply. As for discrimination, it depends on which side of it you are on, a giver or a receiver.
You my think it an apples to oranges comparison but the courts will call it a precedent setting ruling. The best way to find out if it a comparable decision is to make your own challenge. See you in court.
The discrimination is built into the Tree Policy, and it is perfectly obvious. and just because there are documented circumstances where "views" were protected, doesn't establish that it is always legal. That's perfectly obvious.
Surfside covenants do not state that ANYONE'S views are protected, and you can't establish a justification of mandatory tree topping without explaining why. Add to that, no one knows what view is protected if it isn't stated clearly and defined in the covenants. The word "view" is not even mentioned in the covenants.
There is nothing in the covenants to establish protection of views, and nothing specific to establish a rationale for topping the trees of 3/4 of the lots that own them. Dream on 5:06. Your claim is false.
Interesting case law from 1962 in California. I might be mistaken, I am an idiot, we are in WASHINGTON.
Stop trying this case on the blog. Someone please file a lawsuit. Put your money where your mouth is.
Can't afford to sue. Spending all my money to top my trees and pay assessments for them to sue me and pay their legal fees. They got me. I am stuck between a J Place and a hard rock of G Place. Maybe they will invite me to their appreciation dinner for what I pay them.
Maybe you should just cut all the tree down and not worry about them anymore @October 28, 2019 at 8:26 AM Then you aren't STUCK anymore
I entered a search into my Google machine. The first result provided me with the following case law: Nelson v. Fife, 2005 Wash. App. LEXIS 1960 (Wash. Cut. App. 2005).
Not bad for an idiot.
Once again I see Cox refused to answer my questions and instead chooses to repeat the same talking points. Quite troll like, not surprising. There's no use asking again because you'll just avoid as you like to do.
To counter your remark about a tree having to be 200 ft to partially block the view of the ocean, I draw your attention to the condos north of Oysterville Road. They partially block views of the ocean. The tree north of them already block some of the ocean and will do more as they grow. They are not 200 ft.
So, you avoid and continue to make wrong statements. But go ahead and continue to repeat your same comments that have nothing to do with what I asked. Since as you said in the past you consider doing so as therapy I wouldn't what you to stop. Hate to see what would happen if you went through withdrawals.
1:24....You have no worthwhile comments to make. Obviously, buildings that are within the required limits block your views, as you said, which is what I've been saying all along. You don't read detail well. I told you that my referring to writing as "therapy" was not to be taken literally. I enjoy writing. Get it ?
I don't have a view, but if I did, I would rather look at trees than the back of condo's and stumps. Most of the time, you can't see the ocean for the fog. I think most of the pictures taken of the ocean are from the sandy beach or of the beautiful sunsets. I don't think trees of any height will change that.
You're a fine one to talk about detail reading. You keep saying trees don't block views. I gave examples to counter that you avoided answering. @ 11:12 once again you said there are no trees blocking views and then go back into your long B.S which included saying that trees would have to be 200 ft to limit/block partially a view. I counter that wrong statement then in 2:21 your agreeing with me? I didn't realize that being a troll was part of your therapy.
Bottom line, you can use all the facts and figures, topographic maps and mathematicians you want to try and validate your opinion that trees cannot block views. I tend to go a simpler easier route. I go out and walk J and use my eyes and see clearly that there are trees that do block views and if the covenants weren't in place views would either be severely limited or gone. Saying otherwise is not only wrong it's foolish.
Now of course since your personality requires you to come back to have a last word, go for it and continue your therapy session. There is no need to tell us you enjoy writing since we are subjected to your daily manifesto's. Hearing your lack of speaking skills at the annual meeting I understand why you enjoy writing.
Even when you feel as though your HOA rules have turned into an implacable steel trap determined to ruin your life at every turn, find comfort in this: Homeowners associations are bound by the rule of law, no matter what the president of the board says. State and federal law restrict the homeowners association's abilities to restrict you.
Below, find eight things your HOAs can't do.
1. Discriminate against you
Your homeowners association's board may like to play tyrant, but here's a line that can't be crossed: the Fair Housing Act.
This HOA new practice of trimming trees before sale can be completed - great complaint item to the Feds eh?
Hope someone OR all of us should submit a complaint thru this process!
I repeat to get msg/idea'r to everyone!
Even when you feel as though your HOA rules have turned into an implacable steel trap determined to ruin your life at every turn, find comfort in this: Homeowners associations are bound by the rule of law, no matter what the president of the board says. State and federal law restrict the homeowners association's abilities to restrict you.
Below, find eight things your HOAs can't do.
1. Discriminate against you
Your homeowners association's board may like to play tyrant, but here's a line that can't be crossed: the Fair Housing Act.
The new practice of this HOA requiring trees to be trimmed before sale is completed. This practice would make a great complaint to the eh?
I suggest we all fill out online form:
HUD Form 903 Online Complaint
for HOA discriminating's against homeowners who like their trees and not wanting to cut them to SELL their home.
Also how about ridge owners should cut their trees so we can have a view of morning sunrises? Interesting fact: How many board members have bought in tree restricted area and later moved UP above these restrictions?
Have you'all filled out yer forms?
Please do as a lot of surfsiders are disbled vets and that makes a big statement with HUD.
What were saying is here: I may want to sell my property but HOA is preventing me from doing so because of Tree Height cutting for certain residents (Bu tnot all residents)
I think it’s very important to get the vote to change or amend the covenants in the hands of the membership. Anything as important as these decisions needs to be approved or rejected by the majority of us, not just the board. Too many there now want it their way or no way! Sorry but that’s just my observation over these past few months in dealing with our problem
Post a Comment