How many trees died today? How many complaints did Clancy write this past month? Who is the next target for a tree complaint? How many tree complaints were dismissed? How many were false? How many trees did you remove from private property as you did at Seabreeze Lake?
The report below does not contain any answers to the above questions. For a larger read, click on the report once or twice. CAUTION: Better get a barf bag before you read it.
 |
| Now compliant...good job |
58 comments:
So you pay title companies to do their job, now we will be taxed for their benefit? Who asked for this major increase with compliance. No one cared before? They gunna start monitoring thought next?
This is some bizarre busy activity among people who have no consideration for the people they are F*cking with. And Manager Reber glorying in the inspections generating income the office can spend. This absurd "law and order" attitude is a paranoid notion that there is non-compliance everywhere and it's a huge problem. Here we see how insignificant it is to them that they will be spending community money to challenge members in Court.
Concentrating on fines and owner retribution results in legal battles. The HOA is inviting this kind of conflict by ramping-up enforcement on silly stuff, aggressively levying fines, and in general, taking an absurdly aggressive posture in a compliant and docile community.
We have a bunch of meddlesome people creating problems in their spare time. These people have a passion to regulate everyone else's lives.
I’m in in with suing these clowns! Show me the money$$$ where do I sign up?
CONTINUING TO BE FED UP
Why don't you lead the group Riley instead of kissing your buddy's a$$.
Mike.... As I have said numerous times here on the Blog - there's no indication that members who do not vote even read the newsletters that are published twice a year. Over a hundred owners are cited for Tree related "violations", yet none of these owners have combined their efforts to sue the HOA, when there is no clear-cut reason for tree topping.
To the Tree Comm. chair, a J Place resident, trees are just a bunch of stuff in the way, even if they have nothing to do with VIEWS. She has been quoted as saying that she would cut so much off of a solitary Spruce tree, it would die and need to be removed.
There's no doubt this policy has destroyed the entire westside, and so ironic that the policy has systematically destroyed the trees that were desperately needed in order to begin selling properties on the barren landscape pulled from a wetland. The HOA planted the trees that they couldn't leave alone 30 years later.
In order to lead a community effort for much needed change, there has to be a group of concerned owners wanting to organize such an effort. I don't see the victims of this policy showing any real resistance or trying to organize.
9:46 - Mike and I agree that the Tree Policy is a disaster and needs to be eliminated. Mike is a nice person with good intentions. We've talked a couple of times about community issues. He's much younger than me, so we aren't buddies, just respectful of one another. Guess you love to insult people as ANONYMOUSE, preoccupied with other people's butts. Atta boy !
I finally agree with you Steve, nobody cares about the tree policy. Most Members that get a notice for tall trees understands the issue and eventually become compliant. It's the 1%'s, like the few that post on this blog, that constantly cry about it.
10:49.....twisting things just like the Mainstream media. Troll.
Again, more B.S. It has not destroyed the entire west side. There are many homes that have trees that are compliant because the members chose to take care of them properly, unlike those who made the choice not to.
And quoted by whom? No doubt you're just repeating hearsay as you tend to do in your manifestos.
Why don't you stand up, if you're so froggy? Oh, just kissing a DIFFERENT set of asses, eh?
Sounds like a person with a view. In this association, you can tear anything down that impedes that all important view.You can lie, cheat, and steal from your neighbors, all guarded by the Association.
Anybody else sick of being forced to belong to this POS group, with no ethics and apparently no boundaries?
LOL, Mike Riley following through on getting 410 signatures, that'll be a first...ROTFL
143 - better than the crap we're getting from your buddies. Proactive enforcement? Put the lawyer on speed dial.
10:49.... You don't understand what you read. I made it clear that owners not voting is inexcusable, and this apathy puts the entire membership in a very vulnerable position. Less than 300 members voted in the last election, or about 15% of the membership. That leaves the status-quo contingent in charge.
This dynamic has led to the ridiculous EAVES restrictions on sheds, and now Transfer Fees and mandatory inspections in a very compliant community. Until the covenants establish that the HOA can trespass on owners property at will, which isn't likely to happen, there will be no legal basis for this mandatory inspection crap.
The point of having the HOA sign a title release is to verify that the owner selling has no debts to the HOA and no unresolved compliance issues. We pay for transfer fees and enforcement with our dues and assessments. In most cases, all the Office has to do is verify the slate is clear. There is NO basis for a closing inspection by the HOA.
Anyone who claims that Surfside looks just fine, hasn't visited a major city in the Northwest in recent years. You won't find any communities with tree height restrictions. It's not sanctioned by the State of WA, or Oregon. Surfside looks like a bad haircut that won't go away. Once mutilated enough, trees just look mutant, and their health goes to hell.
It's a black and white issue, and no excuses for rules that intrude needlessly on owner property rights. Trees are private property.
What Mike doesn't get, is that the only people who will vote on a Tree related measure are the same 300 people who re-elect J Place owners annually. That will not translate to changes to anything but maybe establishing mandatory clean underwear checks.
What leaves the status quo contingent in charge is the fact that the 300 members who bothered to vote, voted for the status quo. That is how it works. The contingency that gets the most votes wins. The contingency that gets The least votes losses. The contingency that doesn’t votes gets to live with the results. BTW, more voters does not mean the losers would become the winners. It could mean that the losers would be even bigger losers. Anyway, it does not matter, winners win and losers whine. It is the natural way of things. Try not to let it get to you. You may become the winners one day and then the losers can whine about the way you do things. One last thing, we lost a true rock legend this weekend, RIP Ginger Baker.
The Tree Committee is doing a great job. Members need to obey the rules.
Topping trees is not a crime nor is it a sin. In Surfside, and many other communities, it is a requirement. Properly done, it does not harm trees. Is it wrong to want to preserve the value of your home? Certainly not. In fact, that is why HOA’s were created. In an HOA your neighbor is not allowed to let his property degrade into a condition that negatively impacts their neighbors property valve. Believe it or not, great views of the ocean will have a positive impact on your property value. The HOA has an obligation to maintain the views of those properties. That is part of its function. If you allow people to purposely devalue view property, why not let the junk cars and trash pile up also? What’s the difference?
This HOA IS not member friendly. It more closely aligns with what the Chinese are doing in Hong Kong., specifically under this and the next posts. BTW to those who think nobody reads this blog, it got you to read it! I
Riley, what are you talking about ? No one has said that topping trees is illegal due to State law. Some cities have adopted strict rules that have accompanying fines for tree topping. Vancouver WA is one, and I believe that both Seattle and Portland have both become proactive in order to save trees. What has been stated is that the State does not SANCTION or support tree restrictions based on "VIEWS".
Changing climate conditions have enabled insects and tree illnesses to have swift and devastating impact on large numbers of trees. As a result, many cities are putting the clamps on random cutting and topping in particular.
The HOA has NO obligation to preserve anyone's views ! You will not find any such guarantee in our covenants. That is nonsense, and that is why the policy has got to go. There is no rational excuse to favor a couple of hundred households on the ridge, at well over a thousand households expense. Add to that, views are not affected by the trees.
Houses on G St. can be 24 feet tall, and the dunes have built to over 24 feet in height. The surfline is about 300 yards or more beyond where it was 40 or 50 years ago when the ridge was developed. The "beach" is moving west at a pretty good clip - that's where your view has gone.
Let's review. People have used the term Nazi, have used the civil rights movement, amazon fires and now Hong Kong. Can you folks be any more over dramatic?
Since Cox is now always bringing up the eaves restrictions maybe he needs a reminder. The only reason that this happen was in response to what Patrick did. Most reasonable people when building a shed, build a shed. He decided to build a mini cabin. In fact it wasn't even described as a shed on his listing. Also of note, he changed his approved plans in doing so. Since people complained that there were no stated limits for eaves the board had no choice but to put it in writing.
BTW, eave restrictions are not just a Surfside thing either. When I built my garage in Seattle there were restrictions in place. If I would have done what Patrick did they would have made me cut them off. Difference there would be I would have no site to go on to complain about it.
Please Mike, come to my door for a signature. I beg you please. I would so like to meet you.
11:21 - First, no one is "whining" - just stating the facts, and second, I don't need you to explain the obvious to me, by ignoring my statement. The Tree Policy is what drives the J Place dominance, and as long as they are allowed/enabled to prevail year after year, we will have this "law and order" type of adversarial governance.
So that means mandatory topping of all trees west of the ridge, tight control of shed roofs (Soooo important), mandatory inspections and transfer fees, (neither meriting a $200 fee), increased fines and enforcement pressure based on the Tree Comm. desire to create more misery and conflict in Surfside.
This makes a lot of fun busy work for Annette and Peggy, and the excitement of burying owners in fines and taking members to Court over trees that don't block ANYONE's views. Nice !
Bot has to do something to create more income, or dues will be raised alot n get peoples attention. Cant have that can we?
The HOA spent about $100,000 in legal fees trying to make an issue out of the Johansen shed. They failed in Small Claims, and refused to mediate the issue at a cost of $100. Instead, they took him to Superior Court, then withdrew the lawsuit because they knew they could not win.
All of this asinine b.s. over a 3 year period, ending with our Insurance carrier canceling our policy due to too many claims. Our current Insurance is about $20,000 a year more expensive. ONE owner could have been allowed a variance, and warned against any further violations. A minor infraction does not justify creating a community-wide restriction, when MANY sheds have porches in the community.
Homes are not restricted in style and design, why should sheds ? And NO the County does not restrict appurtenances on legal sheds. The Johansen thing was a grudge match between a few nutjobs on the BOT, Williams in particular. They wouldn't settle for a simple solution. No one in the community is adversely affected by shed eaves or well-built sheds. It's a fallacy and strictly a personal vendetta against RV owners in particular.
Mike, we will sign up. Let me know where. I would love for us “hoa” to sue or for this hoa to be dissolved
Repeating the same thing over and over, doesn't make it true!!
if your Trump it does
George is on a deleting rampage.
Steve Cox - Not all homes on G can build to 24 feet. Ours is in a 16 foot area as are many of my neighbors. Now possibly that rule has been changed since we bought in 2001 so I will stand corrected ifyourpost is proven to be true.
The job you people did on Patrick was pathetic. A stacked tight Board, with clowns like you for syncophants. Be proud of blowing all that money on useless legal fees!
You can keep cutting and pasting the same old crap - we still remember.
I'm in. This association needs to die, in one fashion or another.
The community is divided into dozens of micro-units to disguise the on-going massacre of community trees, orchestrated by J Place owners on the Tree Committee. With the surf moving farther away from J Place each year, and the dunes now doubling in size and breadth, it doesn't really matter if some houses are 16 feet - it's all quite random and has nothing specifically to do with "Views" or property values.
Butchered trees throughout the community DOES effect property values and steals away the appeal of buying in such a manipulated landscape.
By the way - I mispoke - Mike Riley IS NOT a nice person. Every time I try to converse with him he finds something to take offense to. He should not waste his time trying to champion a cause in Surfside. He is unwilling to listen and learn from others, and has little knowledge of Surfside. I do not support any effort he may put in motion.
Right on Steve, now that's at least one thing we agree on. MR is a crazed weasel.
Once again, more B.S. repeated from Cox.
The Tree committee, or any committee for that matter doesn't enforce anything. All they do is investigate if a complaint is valid and report the findings back to the office. If you want to blame someone, blame the person who didn't follow the rules they agreed to when they bought here that got the complaint, not a committee that is only validating it..
And your constant false statement that trees don't block anyone's views is just that, false. There are cases were that has been proven, plus one of the main reasons there aren't many now is because of the covenants in place. If the covenants weren't in place views would be lost. Anyone who doesn't live ocean front knows this and repeating such nonsense doesn't make it so.
And your remarks towards Peggy and Annette are petty and uncalled for. They are only doing what the HOA has tasks them to do.
Just because you repeat this BS time and again doesn't make it true.
Its about power and egos, nothing else.
Tree Committee members promote this policy by being part of the enforcement mechanism. Claiming otherwise is a lie. The covenants DO NOT protect anyone's "right" to a view, and the policy has NO legal foundation. All that is necessary is for the spineless owners who put up with this to organize among themselves.
Know why Small Claims have NOT supported Surfside's cases against sheds ? Because there is no basis for a policy departure from the County's ordinances. They do not disallow appurtenances, and neither did the original Surfside covenants when Johansen was cited.
With NO covenant stating views are guaranteed, the Courts will not support mandatory Tree cutting.
What we know for a fact is, no effort is expended to determine if trees block any views, and the beach is about a quarter mile away from J Place, and moving farther away every day.
Many G street homes had views 50 years ago, with the beach about 50 yards away. Nature is powerful and humans should accept that time changes the landscape. Tree topping has turned Surfside into a very ugly place. Fortunately, the rest of the penninsula offers great beauty.
Some Surfside owners are so pleased with themselves for living on the ridge, they imagine that everyone is envious, feel that they are special human-beings, and fail to see the ugliness their passion to top trees has created. The rest of us see the tragedy of this travesty.
So who are the rest of us. That does not include me. I think you meant to say, myself and maybe a few others see the tragedy of this travesty. You really are not so arrogant as to believe that everyone agrees with your opinion. What kind of evidence do you require to state that trees block views? Stand on the ridge and look west. Tall trees are not invisible nor are the transparent. Ergo, trees between me and my view block my view. Courts have consistently upheld tree height restrictions. A simple search on google will verify that statement. What we know for a fact is this. The current covenants restricts the height of trees and structures on certain lots. To willfully ignore those restrictions will, rightfully so, result in enforcement actions by Surfside. To encourage members to ignore or violate the covenants is bad advice.
To the people that keep putting out the J place hate a question. Do you realize that at least have of the J place members are under the same tree height restrictions, including the Olds, and are subject to possible complaints?
9:21, never underestimate the arrogance of Cox.
To Cox, what does the distance of the beach away from J have to do with anything. As most who have come on here have said, its about seeing the ocean and the horizon, not the beach so your constant harping is moot.
Mr. Cox seems to take what is called the moral high ground. Of course it is not illegal to trim your trees, just immoral. Of course the covenants require certain lots to maintain there tree heights to a sight specific height but following the those covenants is immoral. I oppose the tree height covenants, therefore, the majority of members oppose the tree height covenants. Anyone notice a pattern? Mr. Cox is very opinionated and he arrogantly thinks his opinions are shared by all.
His opinions are desired more than your tired drivel. He puts out rational ideas - you simply attack. You and yours will eventually watch your toy disband ed and thrown to the wind.
Wrong 9:23...That's why Steve wasn't elected to the BOARD, he repeats the same erroneous information over and over.
Nobody has anything to fear as long as you follow the covenant. Most of the outcry is from members who choose to violate the rules.
There are no more than 300 homes on the ridge that are on high enough ground to claim to be "view properties". This policy, which it is said protects ridgetop views, does not have an accompanying covenant that PROTECTS views. This is what is called "dishonesty". A big LIE that is perpetuated by the HOA.
What I have maintained is that trees are private property 7:17 and others. So what the property owner wants to do with their trees is their business, as I see it. This is a big intrusion on members west of the ridge in terms of expense. It costs hundreds to have a tree trimmed, and easily over $1000 to have several trees trimmed.
Arborists say that trimming should be done sparingly or not at all, and trees should never be topped. It's bizarre to have a community policy that knowingly damages owner's trees and ignores proper care, all at the tree owner's expense, with NO covenant to support a NEED to top trees, or any explanation WHY this must be done in the covenants.
It is interesting that people comment here from time to time, claiming that other communities have similar restrictions in their HOAs, yet no one can site any examples on the peninsula. And here the claim that Courts have ruled in favor of HOAs rights to restrict trees, but NO instances sited of Surfside members losing such a Court battle.
There is no legal basis for this policy written in the covenants, and therefore it cannot be legally defended in the HOA's favor. No, I'm not an attorney - but without a written covenant that protects the "view" of ridgetop owners, it cannot be claimed that anyone "should have known what the covenants require" when there is no rational reason why trees should be the same height as houses nearby. It makes no sense on the face of it.
Wrong 1053 - Steve didn't get elected because your buddies cooked the election - like usual. Crooked is as crooked associates with.
Wrong again 5:46.
One of the big reasons he didn't get elected is because he thought that being vocal on a blog was all the qualifications he needed, unlike other candidates who actually get out and do things for the community and also got out to know it's members.
The other big reason is the majority of people who care enough to vote don't agree with him. That's a simple fact that you and he continue to ignore and instead want to blame others and spread the usual conspiracy b.s.
perfectly said October 9, 2019 at 6:09 PM. I agree fully
10:53....I haven't received any violation notices as an owner in Surfside. Guess your simple explanation isn't based on any real information. That's what bugs you about my statements -
they're accurate and reasonable. J Place dominance in elections is all about preserving special rights for J Place owners at the rest of the community's expense. Anyone with trees on their property has plenty of reason to resist this destructive discriminatory Policy.
There's nothing "erroneous" about my statements. I have mentioned before that Policies of this kind cannot be verified to exist in our area, and that municipalities in the N.W. and elsewhere are putting restrictions on tree cutting, with potential fines for topping, etc. Here on the other Tree related topic on this Blog we have a statement by a Portlander verifying they were fined $20,000 for unpermitted tree cutting. Suggest you read it.
This isn't Portland. Suggest you understand that.
This is a piece of s___ POS. Understand that?
The means used to obtain signatures for something like this is key to whether it is considered a valid campaign. What you describe sounds pretty sketchy to pass for valid signatures.
You should contact Ms. Blagg. She tried her little coup and it crashed and burned. You will not get the support that you think you will. You even loss Cox.
Just trying to save you some embarrassment.
Post a Comment