Save Our Surfside...
Global warming and climate change is a scientific reality.
Those facts are out there everywhere. No need to repeat them here.
The "Protect Surfside" gang, for selfish reasons (ocean views) are a contributing factor in destroying our environment and planet.
Those members who "Go Along to Get Along", are just as guilty as those who support topping trees for a view. It is the responsibility of everyone to protect and save our planet. "Trimming Trees" is a code word for topping trees. When you see that term used, BEWARE. It is often used by the Tree Committee.
I find it astounding that some will sort their garbage for recycling, but think it is OK to destroy trees. That is hypocritical in the least. The benefit of trees is well established. What is not well published is the damage done by diseased, dead and dying trees. A dead standing tree is more of a fire hazard than a green healthy tree. A dead tree is a breeding ground and home to invasive insects and disease, not to mention how unsightly they are. Urban Forestry, Federal Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) and the Department of Natural Resources, all oppose tree topping.
Our chipping sight is really intended as a disposal sight for tree topping and tree removal. With it's restrictions, it violates the policy of Fire Wise. They do not support tree topping. It is intended to make it more easy to dispose of forced tree topping with less opposition to the environmental destroying covenant.
Cities and communities, large and small, throughout the North West are promoting planting and protection for trees. Surfside does just the opposite. We are known by many, more and more, for our abusive practice of tree butchering. A UW botanist even publicly stated.." If you want to see examples of how to not care for trees, visit Sirfside"
We need to end the selfish covenant that destroys trees, with the only benefit being a view for a few. The damage and expense far out weights the benefits, which are none.
I an so fortunate to live on the East side where we value trees and the benefits they provide. This includes the removal of dead, diseased and dying trees. I am not a lawyer, but if I was forced to top my trees, I would take a before and after picture, and if that tree became sick or dying, they would see me in small claims court. You can not be forced to kill your trees or devalue your property. The devalue of your property would be a Superior Court issue where you could be awarded much more than in Small Claims Court. Those on the "Tree Committee" who advise you to cut the tree down, or recommend a tree butcher who is not licensed, subject themselves and the association to a lawsuit.
I would support a Tree Committee that worked with the members to promote the benefits of trees and their care. At the present, we have the opposite. It is time to "Save Our Trees" We could be an outstanding community that is known for it's environmental practice and protection.
56 comments:
I'm glad your glad you live on the East side. I'm glad I live on the West side. I don't agree with your opinion here George. It's not as dire as you make it out to be.
How about inviting some friendly protest groups from Seattle and Portland to assist. Once they're aware what the tree committee is doing, their names, and addresses, maybe that will help. Thst may also bring in news crews to help with their/our plight.
A few years back I had 24 flowering plum trees cut back or topped. They were growing in the parking strip of the properties. I was cited by the City of Portland and fined in excess of 25,000.00 dollars and warned of potential jail time. The trees recovered in a much weaker state. I was hauled in front of the city council and warned if I ever did it again the fines and potential jail time would be enforced. They have taken it a step further and now have policy on trees of a certain caliber on private property. You have to get permission and if they agree to let you remove a tree you have to replace trees on your property or pay them to plant them else where. I must confess that they were right and I was wrong. Because the trees mentioned recovered and look ok when they have leaves, But in winter you can see the damage I did, nothing but sucker limbs. I should let some of these wacko Portland Protesters know what Surfside is doing to the trees.
Please do. This association operates in an illegal and unethical fashion. It needs to be held accountable, up to and including dissolution.
I don't agree with you 10:40. Not one bit.
Oct 10 @ 10:40 AM - Unless you are a lawyer or have extensive legal knowledge please don't spout off about " illegal or unethical " actions. Call it actions that you oppose.
They have been fined for illegal actions several times. And they have def been unethical.. Soooooooo
Lots loaded with trees also violates Fire Wise and also goes against stated policy of fire protection experts.
But of course thats OK, right?
Wrong. It is not right to have a lot overgrown and in need of care. All lots should be cleaned, not cleared. That care does not include topping. Dead and diseased trees should be removed. The covenants should also require an owners tree be removed if it presents a safety hazard to an adjoining lot. That would be determined by an arborist, not by a committee that has no understanding of trees, such as we have now.
I support a protest against tree topping in Surfside or anywhere else. We have the numbers to make a change. There is no question about it being wrong. Miss Peggy and her cohorts can nit defend it. She calls it "trimming". She knows it is wrong. It is nothing more than topping trees for a view. She fools no one. The Surfside fire wise program, headed by Kurt Olds, is a fraud. They can be prosecuted for applying for and accepting State funds by fraudulent means. It is fraud to claim the chipping site is "fire wise" when they do not accept all flammable vegetation materials such as dune grass. Looks like we need another investigation of illegal practice by this HOA.
Firewise does not contain any " laws ". It is a community based program with incentives from the DNR. A laudable program for those who join and adhere to its principles.
Just like Robert's Rules of Order. No legal teeth of any kind but try convincing many of that. They consider it the 11th Commandant.
@ 6:47 am, Numbers?, what number? all 5 or 6 of you?
Still outnumber the one or two of you on this blog, u repeat yourselves so much a bit obvious.
I'm glad that you're glad that you're glad lol.
Let's do a protest outside the next BOT Meeting. Who's in?
Meet at Chevron across from Jack's two hours before?
10/11/19 7:46 AM
Are you one that preaches and demands no or few regulations? I bet you are. Then when self-regulation processes are created, you attack, reject, and fight those.
We all see how unreasonable you are.
7:46 just does not get it, or if they do, they are trying to hide that the surfside fire wise does not follow the DNR rules. When you file for funding, it can't be done under false pretenses. That is breaking the law. Surfside may be required to return those funds. As usual, surfside did not apply for county permits for a dump site. They cite the members and fine them for covenant violations, mostly tree, while they think it is ok for them to violate the rules and laws. Federal, State and County, don't think it is ok.
Why are we continually forced to support an organization that continues to operate in violation of State RFC's?
Oct 11 @ 11:41. Why would we want to drive into OP to just turn around and go to the board meeting ? Makes no sense. Why not meet at Veteran's Park for your folly ? Lots of room for the four (?) of you who may show up.
10/12/19 7:28 AM
It's called operational planning and organizing.
Do you know what that is?
Maybe you adhere to the Libertarian principles, "I got mine, fu yo everyone else".
This concerns you, I see. LOL
Also 7:28 AM
You may come attempt to stop us, oppose us, or physically attack us. You will do so off Surfside property. Where SHOA BOT has no jurisdiction.
I would rather meets at Doc's and have a few beers. We would accomplish just about as much there as at a board meeting. And, certainly feel a lot better. Let's start a new movement. More beer, less BS.
Sounds good. Pool and darts too.
We'll call ourselves Surfside Clan.
The first round is on me.
10:12 @ 10:19 AM. I hope to god that you are pranking us. If not you are in need of serious one on one mental intervention. Maybe you could try the facility down by the Breaker's in Long Beach. Paranoia is the common thread on the blog. Physically attack. Now that's hilarious.
You wish it were. Physical intimidation is not unknown up here, part and parcel with having a Board with no morals and no agenda beyond their own self interests.
I have read this blog for some time now to keep up with events in Surfside as it seems to fill in the large gaps left by information from the HOA. It is interesting to say the least. Unfortunately recently a very very few individuals have turned it into vile personal attacks and childish rhetoric. One can speculate on the persons who may act in this way. I suggest neither one of you are going to change minds. If you insist on your childish ways, I suggest you find some other venue, leave this one for truthful distribution of information.
10:13 @ 11:20 AM - Name one case of physical intimidation against a member. I'm so tired of baseless " statements of fact " that are totally bs. And so you're also saying that your friends and neighbors who choose to serve on the board have no morals? Or join the board for special interests ? I live on G street. What could my tenure on the board get me? I'm serious. Name the instance (s) or stfu.
There have been a number of threats against me and others on this blog. They are mostly veiled threats, but a threat is a threat. I remove them when I see them. It is one reason that I avoid Board meetings. We have members, one or two, that display such hostility and anger, they scare people, including myself. I have been around long enough to recognize statements that are threats.
Here is a "statement of fact" 11:00.
Reasonable people do not make a comment and say "STFU" Your crude dirty mouth betrays you for what you are, an ignorant loud mouth bully.
You are right on 12:48. There are some horrible human beings that come on this blog. They are hate-filled towards any member that isn't part of their clique. Ask Deb, Patrick, Steve, Mike and our blog host, George to name a few. They make malicious remarks and force members on this blog into seclusion of further comments to the point of slander. "HOW YOU MAKE OTHERS FEEL ABOUT THEMSELVES, SAYS ALOT ABOUT YOU" I have personally met the Tree Boss Lady and she is a perfect example of horrible. Her actions are purely for personal reasons and she finds satisfaction in constantly annoying and upsetting members. In the 12 years I have owned property in Surfside, I believe the bullying and harassment to certain members has become an epidemic. This plague has caused so much distrust and dysfunction that dissolution of this HOA appears to be the only cure. Thank you George for what you are trying to do. You are a tougher cookie than I am with some of
On this blog. I would have given up long ago!
A few years back we had a county commissioner at a board meeting. He explained a plan to install a new outfall for the lakes and canals. The plan was to join the canal and Sea Breeze lake and use one new outfall that would not constantly be blocked by high tides and storms. Greatly reducing the county's cost of unplugging the current outfalls. The county was going to pay for the work at no cost to Surfside. James Flood shut the commissioner down and stated surfside was not interested. Not one board member raised an objection. So you wanted an example here it is. James Flood home sits almost atop one of the current outfalls and by the county clearing it out maintains Flood's view. The plan was to abandon that outfall. So Flood trumped all the people on the lake and canal that fight erosion from high water when the outfalls are plugged. Not only was it a conflict of interest but he screwed a lot of the owners for his own personal
Right 2:21 He even made it a board goal to "protect views" mainly his. When he didn't get re-elected, he stormed out of the annual meeting like a big baby. Maybe Williams will do the same next year. Oh yes, for the bully comment, Flood does live on G Street, just like you, Mr. KS.
KS likes to sit in hid open garage with drink in hand, watching for the Bird Lady and her sea gulls that decorate his roof. He needs to do us all a favor and shut his mouth and his garage door. That would help the looks of stumpside more than anything.
The crude but spot on question was to name even one case of actual physical intimidation. Still waiting for someone to describe one.
As for Flood I was at the board meeting with the County commissioner. Flood embarrassed himself and us all but certainly didn't threaten anyone.
So now Oct 14 @ 3:14 PM has an issue with Kirby sipping on an ice cold Rainier? Maybe you're just pissed that you haven't been invited to have one.
And you're hilarious George. Who really cares about the ramblings of an elderly person with his own pathetic soapbox?
I have no idea what brand of beer he drinks or the hard stuff. As for "the ramblings of an elderly person with his own pathetic soapbox" It provides a place for your ramblings. That's what is pathetic. His drinking is his problem, not mine. I would not know him if I saw him, and he would not know me, but he sounds like another big bully.
1054 - once again you attack the only dependable information source in this association. Is the truth once again too painful? Sounds like it.
Let's dissolve this mess, and put you out of your misery.
Again with the B.S. personal threat excuse as a reason to not attend board meetings. That's all it is, an excused. The host has hidden behing this along with his age for years.
Again, if someone wanted to "attack" him, who would be stupid enoughto do it at a board meeting with people and a deputy there? Everyone knows where everyone lives around here. If someone wanted to do harm they could easily just go to his house, catch him while he is driving around the west side taking pictures or outside of Jacks when he is buying his cigs.
But notice how he has no issue with building personal animosity aginst people who volunteer for the Tree committee, who happen to be women. Meanwhile they continue to do what's asked of them, proven they are more of a man than little drama queen George.
To 1:22
In your case I believe you are suppose to spell clan with a K.
Just sayin
That does it 2:45. You have crossed the line. FALSE NEWS...I do not buy my cigs at Jacks and I am not little. I just wanted to set the record straight. You need to take an anti-angry pill with your prune juice. lol
Good for you George, that was funny! What about the Queen part? LOL
Many of us know that you roll your own foul smelling cigarettes and don't care. But it is a FACT that you are in the diminutive range.
The Blog continues to bring information to the members who visit it. It is often information not otherwise offered in Surfside, and that's a fact. Those who have been exposed in their contradictory statements, conflicts of interest, mean-spirited useless comments - sometimes take offense, and here we have many of their pitiful comments, attempts to insult George and pretend he doesn't have the "chops" anymore, has nothing to offer.
It is perfectly obvious that his age does not have any significance, and he continues to provide a service to the membership that not otherwise available.
So let's add this to the mix. Because Mr. Clancy interfered with proper permitting at the Water Dept., the community was fined a very large sum - I'm recalling $12,000 - over a year ago. The permitting was disallowed due to inaccurate information provided to the County. We were issued a mandate of Wetland mitigation, or to relocate the new Filter Plant, and other facilities of the Water Dept.
Mr. Clancy took it upon himself to set up a meeting with the County to try and resolve the matter, once again without any Board approval. He did not show up for the meeting, which enraged the County rep, and a fine of $1000/day was to begin on Oct. 1st. Larry Raymer and Bill Neal were able to have the fines delayed, while discussing mitigation through purchase of off-sight property. The current proposal is that Surfside will purchase about 3 acres of property off-sight, at $90,000 per acre. That would be $270,000.
Presumably, if Surfside rejects this resolution, fines of $1000/day will begin until this matter is brought to a conclusion with the County, who are acting on behalf of the State.
Members were warned at election time that Mr. Clancy often takes undue unapproved action on his own, misrepresenting himself as an appointed agent of a specific action, and it often creates problems. On an annual basis he submits dozens of tree complaints, abusing a complaint-driven system, by misrepresenting these complaints as valid, when that is not the case. Hundreds of trees do not interfere with his view, and submitting handfuls of complaints is an abuse of his role as both a member and a Trustee.
Mr. Clancy was elected as one of 3 J Place owners who ran under the slogan "SAVE OUR SURFSIDE". The Board should have reigned him in from the start, but instead, he went "rogue" again, putting Surfside right in the County's crosshairs. Now we'll all pay the price. The HOA let this issue smolder for well over a year without seriously trying to resolve it, and now we're getting screwed for $270,000 to convert land to wetlands off-sight.
Mr. Clancy should be removed or resign. He is a self entitled fool.
How do you or anyone know how many tree complaints were submitted by Clancy or anyone else? They are submitted with a name that is kept anonymous (supposedly) by the Tree Committee? Either you are a tree committee member who has violated their oath or you are blowing smoke.
Keep it handy, Mike.
You can use it at the inevitable lawsuit that will end this nightmare.
10/16 12:00PM. We know because he has openly bragged about it in front of others. At one time proud that he had over 70 at one time!
12:pm, oath? Good one,lmao
First thing to challenge in the lawsuit - the ability to address your accuser.
Somebody's going to make some good money - ours.
12:00 - You make it so obvious that you are Annette or Peggy. You aren't concerned about the community's solvency or that huge amounts of money will be poured down a hole, all because of Clancy's rogue actions. All you want to know is, how do we know Clancy has filed hundreds of tree complaints single-handedly. You are pitiful.
Well 9:10, it is obvious you are either a troll or just a fool making false allegations against people.
Not that it matters to the haters, the committees do not get the names of the people who made the complaint, only the office has that information. Committees only check to see if the complaint is valid. This has been said countless times.
Goody for you. Since Clancy brags about his bogus complaint machine, you undoubtedly are aware that he does this every year. A valid complaint is based on REAL circumstances. The entire BOT and Tree Comm. are well aware that Clancy submits hundreds of complaints, and that they are taken from a list and are not based on his VIEWS being blocked by trees on these hundreds of properties.
It's of no significance to you that this same Trustee is single-handedly responsible for the failure of proper permitting at the Waterworks, and bears the responsibility for major management failures. His decision to ignore the engineer's elevation requirement of the Equp. Warehouse to save money on gravel, caused flooding the first year, which required an expensive project to put in drain fields.
His decision to misrepresent the property that was being permitted resulted in the failed permitting and State fines of about $12,000. His unapproved actions in scheduling a mitigation meeting which he failed to attend, resulted in the State/County fine of $1000/day to commence on Oct. 1st. Only intervention by Bill Neil and Larry Raymer stalled the fines until Oct. 30th.
So Clancy's actions have led to a mandated mitigation plan that we must agree to by Oct. 30th, at an estimated cost of $270,000. Tree comm. concerns are trivial by comparison to the shit-storm of problems and expense created by this one man's poor judgement. (Remember "Save our Surfside" as his re-election slogan ?) Your priorities are WAY out of whack !
Fact check..
Your right on, except for one thing...It was not "Save our Surfside", it was "protect Surfside" It is the members who need to "protect Surfside" Protect Surfside from Clancy and his friends. Those friends are the few on J Place. Everyone else, including the Board, have had enough of him.
Post a Comment