Surfside Homeowners Association....A failure
The original intent of the developers, was a high end gated community.
When that failed, Their intent then became an effort to sell lots and get their investments back.
From that point on, we became a "Recreational Community" with more mixed use. There are still some who hang on to the failed concept of a gated community. Today, we find those with that mind set, are the ones in power.
Over the past 50 years, the Boards have worked to keep the HOA fair for all members, which they have done with the exception of a few covenants, such as tree height. They did work to keep dues and assessments reasonable for the services provided. For the most part, they did follow rules and regulations.
In the past few years, it has all changed. More and more we are becoming a divided community, mostly due to a few individuals who have become involved in a power grab and an ego trip that promotes their own "special interests". Rules and regulations are deliberately being ignored. The result being legal actions against Surfside that results in fines and other penalties. The Board is deliberately keeping information from the members. In fact, our Board and some committees have become corrupt.
From time to time, a few individuals step up to the challenge of correcting our HOA to make it fair for all members and reflect what the majority of members want. This is seen as a threat to those in power, and they will do anything to silence any dissent. The ugly truth is...they are succeeding.
I have attempted to provide a venue where information can be provided and the members can discuss the issues. Will it make a difference? I don't know. It appears it has the effect of more and more things being secrete. It really is up to the members to take back their HOA. Is that will there?
61 comments:
The will is, but the cash needed for lawyers to do it isnt, n the board knows it. Unless a member with deep pockets steps up to sue themselves. It is what it is. Possible bright side. Is the feds n state might end up forcing the issue. Unfortunately, either way, we, the membership loses.
Hopefully we'll be saying, it was what it was, soon.
George you are so right with your knowledge and common sense! This was one of my points the other day, this is a recreational area, not a gated elite area!
I’ve talked to a few members and they are completely unaware of the new lighting covenant. Maybe it’s time for a special meeting to be called by the members?
Yes George and Cox, maybe it's time for that. I hear Cox has excellent organization skills. Just don't let that guy who can't organize his sock drawer help.
I'll support anything that breaks the monopoly of self interest around here.
Hey Cox. Do you still think I can't organize my sock drawer? I bet I have better organization skills than you.
At 230am? Crawl back in your bottle.
Was hoping for some good dialogue here concerning the problems we are experiencing here in Surfside, but these childish posts from anonymous people, leave me very disappointed. I like hearing different view points, but not in this manner
When you have a board member tell you that yes they are going to vote to implement this new lighting covenant before they’ve heard the input on January 18! Folks we have a problem!!
The nasty posts are all bot, or pro bot. You see our problem.
Well if that’s true, then we really do have a problem! Board members need to remember they are to represent the membership, not special interests!
Don't forget to turn off headlights at night when entering surfside. Interferes with my view out my window.
That's simply not true 10:36. There are just as many nasty comments on here from anti BOT and anti committee people too.
Sorry JoAnne, welcome to the world of social media. You have to take the bad with the good.
Thank you 5:13, for making my point.
Yeah, good luck with that. The Board, in the interests of accuracy, should be renamed the J Place Special Interest Group.
513 - stupid is as stupid posts, troll. Run off, and let the adults talk.
Hey 11/18 9:16 AM.
I'm out of my bottle now. Thanks for popping the cork!
This is one agency where one reports an environmental issue. The agency is the WA State Department of Ecology.
https://ecology.wa.gov
swroerts@ecy.ea.gov
Picture yourself in a room where you have to identify yourself and make your nasty, unproven or questionable comments right to the person you are vilifying. Or having your mother there to listen to you.
I thought I'm in a bottle, lol.
Keep trying to intimidate me.
Like Cox says, you have a stinky-butt mouth.
My mother is dead. She died of cancer when I was 24.
Well my hopes of having a civil, adult dialogue on the problems here in Surfside have been completely destroyed! Was hoping for some ideas or solutions to our particular problem concerning our “bright” lights and the new lighting covenant we will all have to abide by. So I will go elsewhere to talk to adults not childish, mean bantering!
Exactly why bot n friends comment way they do, you leave n they win.
Unfortunately, Riley is the author of the nasty posts, and has been methodically ruining any topic with his pitiful nonsense. He has burned every bridge with members who have tried to discuss issues with him, and has a very hateful attitude, blaming everyone else for his isolation.
The Lighting issue will be discussed here by rational people. Committees have a tendency to make rules for rules sake, not thinking of what is reasonable and practical. There should be as little ambiguity in setting standards and restrictions, as possible. Policy made in a bubble often lacks practicality.
A lot of people like having a few led white string type lights on a patio or along their yard. It has a cheery effect without being gaudy. There's no rationale for restricting them. Colored lights can be limited to holiday time between Thanksgiving and mid January.
Limiting wattage of outside lights to 60 seems alright, instead the new guidelines set it at 75, which is okay, just not necessary. The wording of the new guidelines should make it clear, that owners should try to minimize lighting that goes beyond their lot-lines, and focus security lights with that in mind. But neighbors should be able to negotiate some of this.
It seems that part of the problem with Joanne's situation has to do with Arch. comm. persons being too eager to deploy the new standards, and the BOT not specifying that these standards are not yet fully approved or instated. The proposed policy changes should be sent out by the HOA in a mailer prior to the Member Meeting scheduled in January I believe. Publishing these proposed standards in the Weekender is a start. There seems to be an embrace of a general sneakiness by the HOA in handling all such things.
Thank you Steve for a sensible post! I had hoped the proposed covenant would be sent out with the weekender, but we’ll see. The board decided to send the new proposed covenant in December with the notices for dues and assessments. I don’t think that’s ample time for everyone to acquaint themselves with this. We are planning on making copies of said new covenant and going door to door. Anyone interested in helping, let me know.
BTW: Joanne, you seem to me like a down to earth person who is concerned.
JoAnne, you are doing exactly what the Board and its supporters want you to do. That is, leave this source of valuable, true information available to the members. The childish banter you read on this blog is in FACT members and supporters of the Board making these posting and hoping to drive sensible, problem solvers such as yourself, away from the blog in essence shutting it down and curbing any threat to their power. What you see is a post degrading one person, then immediately another post childishly berating the previous posting. In almost all of the cases, these are done by the same person in an effort to drive people away from the blog. If you can carve out those ridiculous antics, you will have a great source of information. As for the lighting, Surfside is the only neighborhood, not only here, but in most other neighborhoods, that I have seen that is imposing such finite limitations on lighting. It is just a power trip by a few. As for the post some time back about a cancer patient moving here because it was dark, think about it, tests have shown that only people working under intense light for long periods may have a connection with cancer, and then if the individual making this claim had given the rest of the study, it would have stated the results were "inconclusive". I believe there are a lot more steps I would take if I was diagnosed with cancer than to move myself to a place where there were "lighting covenants" and then to admit I covered my windows with heavy shades to keep out what light there was. Did you also keep out dayl8ght? Can't shut that one off or regulate it, other than Daylight Savings time. If thee blinds didn't work them back! Don't try and blame somebody else for it! You see what ludicrous statements these people make? Separate the wheat from the chaff, and you will learn much about the folks wanting to make this their own "kingdom". BTW this Board and supporters of same, remind me of the current U.S. House of Representatives, "spend money, do nothing constructive to support your constituents, in fact block any positive changes, keep them in the dark and waste time and money on charades".
We have serious issues to discuss here.
The back and forth between Mr. Cox and Mr. Riley seems to be a personal issue and for me and others is very boring and adds nothing to a discussion to the topic and other issues. I will be removing any further of these back and forth insults. Bottom line....Stick to the topic and/or other issues.
Thank you 11:12. I do not have an axe to grind, but I do feel the membership should all be treated equally and that is not the case now. I also know from experience that when you serve on a board you are to be open to people’s concerns. This is not the case now as I know for a fact one board member is going to vote for the new covenant and sees no problem with it! This before even listening to the comments at the heating January 18, 2020. Alarming to me!
Thank you George! I have been feeling like it was when we were raising our boys and I did the washing your mouth out with soap thing! These two or whoever are acting like obnoxious kids.
I have only a couple of posts on this topic, and my name is on them. I'm not to blame for this Riley stuff. I respond to him as little as possible.
Why won't the board seat you Cox? It looks like you burnt a bridge.
You say Annette accosted you at the chipping site. Do you think you're an angel even though someone approached you in that way?
The Board does what it feels like, unencumbered by things likes rules, covenants, and State law.
4:33....You and others keep bringing up Annette Deleest. I have not been particularly critical of her, nor do I harbor harsh feelings toward anyone in Surfside. I make it clear that I despise the Tree Policy, feel it is entirely clear that it has destroyed the landscape of the community, and represents an institutionalized social strata, giving some non-specific number of ridgetop owners unique authority to demand the topping of trees belonging to OTHER owners west of the ridge.
It is a tree destroying machine that is protected at all costs by the BOT and most J place owners.
Annette is an intelligent and motivated person who is very dedicated, along with Peggy Olds. chair and J place owner, to rigorous enforcement of this policy. I don't know anyone but Larry Raymer on the Tree Comm., and I have great respect for Larry. He has a very different attitude toward the Tree Policy. Not knowing Olds or DeLeest personally, I have no reason to doubt that they are in some ways, good people.
I DO NOT think their service on the Tree Committee reflects an of awareness of the inappropriateness of this policy, nor are they willing to look at the physical damage this policy has done to personal property, trees owned by neighboring members. I don't think they care to consider the great expense and inconvenience this puts on families who may not have a lot of extra money to throw at frivolous restrictions the HOA has invested so much time and money in. Each year, thousands of dollars are spent enlisting law firms to advise and send threatening letters to owners, in the pursuit of this enforcement.
If the community is going to waste the money threatening and suing members. how about just putting together a fund that pays for the costs of maintenance otherwise demanded of the tree owners ? You want to make tree topping a requirement ? Pay for it. We've never heard any J place owners offering to pay for this useless policy, yet they won't consider giving it up. I guess it's the Class structure it creates that they embrace the most. The rest of us don't see why anyone in the community deserves special rights, nor do we buy that some owners are just of a higher class.
Hello, I’m new to community and have just listened to members & remained silent for a year. I believe your blog host is correct on most of issues. This HOA has run amuck and does not represent the will nor good of majority. I would seriously consider contacting a outside agency to investigate what I see as fraud / misuse of funds to start with.
The tree covenants are clearly designed for a small minority & wake up - it’s 2019 topping of trees is worst thing you can do for a Trees health per ISA ( international society of arborists). This causes disease, decay & death.
The lightning.. really is this the will of the majority? It seems that it’s time to nip this in bud before things get out of hand.
They are out of hand now. It is time for the members to stand up and say...NO MORE! We need to remove these idiots from the board.
That isn't going to happen. A modest number of members visit the Blog, but not enough to be significant. Owners have not had a history of seeking out information or demonstrating concern about the direction the Board may be taking. And the people who have worked on this are not "idiots", but as a committee have tried to find compromises. What resulted is not practical.
The new lighting standards are published on the Surfside website. They show an abstract concept of something we take for granted as being an owner's right to choose what fits their needs. Light fixtures are designed by lighting companies which no doubt consult designers and Architects to select the products they sell. Different types of fixtures are designed for specific purposes, with some intending to light large areas and some small areas.
Virtually all fixtures have frosted globes or valances to soften and diffuse the sight of the bulb or light source, and many intended to focus light, cover the bulb, such as pot-lights and security lights. To require that the bulb be entirely invisible and shine downward defeats the purpose of many fixtures and their intended use. To actually state the absurdity that lights will not cross property lines is just plain ridiculous.
To state that lighting should be positioned so it doesn't shine directly on neighbor's property or windows, and to consult neighbors on such decisions, is reasonable. To limit the hours of use of night lights is the best way to allow for dark skies and stargazers. Limiting wattage/lumens is the best way to limit community saturation.
The "new" standards put unrealistic limits on many elements, while not stating clear limits on wattage from security lights and spots, and setting too generous standards - 75 watts - on lights in general. And what is the problem with having low watt white lights on a string ? These are generally LED lights with minimal lumens. Limiting the use of these to white and requiring they not be on all night seems enough limitation.
In setting these standards we need to take into account what people want, and many folks enjoy the cheeriness of white string lights. These are even made for campers, with a solar cell that powers them.
Most communities have dates set for holiday light use, which seems practical in Surfside as well. But owners should not be in the position of being told what fixtures are acceptable, beyond requiring the bulb be covered by a frosted globe or valance, which most do.
Will a large contingent of owners show-up for the January meeting to review the new policy ? We can hope so. But will the BOT and Arch. Comm. be responsive to owner input ? Very big question mark. The policy as written goes too far to try and limit light itself and fixture choices. Much of this can be worked out between neighbors, and doesn't need to be dictated in detail.
I don't live in SS full time and I have been prowled many times over the years, I started leaving my outside lights on when I am away for security reasons, so far, this have eliminated any pilfering of my property. Now I'll probably be told to turn my lights off and replacing them while I'm at it. I hope SS will be compensating me when I get ripped off again?
And please, don't tell me to get sensor lights. I have already used them, they don't last long at the beach, especially when you are near the surf, I replaced several fixtures, then I tried the timed lights, they didn't seem to work well either, kept burning the lights out. Now I'm back to reg basic futures and they work fine.
Totally ridiculous, first place I've EVER lived, n ive been around because of my past occupation, that had lighting limitations. Talk about micro-management! Any problems with next door neighbors were handled privately. Course hardly anyone knows how to talk or be a good neighbor anymore. I'm starting to agree with my mothers statement later in her life, "i've lived too long".
Agreed! Only difference is holiday lights! As I stated previously the 4th of July is a huge celebration and I want to celebrate as I’ve always done. Too much micro management!
The response to our complaint about our lighting complaint included the statement from the BOT “ lighting does not deter crime”.
I also agree about the motion detector fixtures. We tried them and the last for a very short period of time! Another expense we really don’t need
Us too. We’ve lived, bought and sole in two HOA and never had such covenants. And one of those homes was on a golf course! When we made the decision to move here permanently we listed pros and cons, living in a HOA wasn’t a negative to us. We bought in 2008 and have had no problems until now. So very disappointed
This is nothing more than the same old bag tree bunch imposing their will on others. What's next? House color? Yard decor? Ego and power. Just more of the same. If you like these kind of restrictions, your living in the wrong area. Leave the members alone. As for white lights, I want colored at Christmas and the 4th. Heavy duty outside bulbs are 75 wt. and 150 watt.
I do not agree with Mr. Cox that not enough people view the blog to make it significant. Issues are being discussed and members are becoming more aware of the real troubling issues.
The number of votes Mr. Cox received in the Board election was in a large part, due to his comments on this blog.
Many of those who do vote, do follow the blog for information that is not otherwise available. This blog is the only venue where members can have a discussion on issues. The association does not provide any means where such discussions can happen.
One voice speaking the truth is better than none. For a small local blog to have over a half million views and a newspaper article, is significant. I am consistently seeing 400 to 500 views a day. This is not insignificant.
Thank you to those who take the time to give thoughtful comments and questions. I have been told many times of those who say they read the blog, some on a regular basis and some only occasionally, but do not comment. The information posted here does generate comments, but more importantly, it generates discussion among neighbors. The lighting covenant is a recent example.
You better believe the Board does not think the blog is insignificant. They want you to think it is. This blog reaches many more than the members, it reaches local, County, State and Federal agencies and officials. In the long run, this could be more important than the insignificant number of members that read the blog.
George, I would have expected that you would view my comment in terms of a reply to a statement assuming we can easily dissolve the HOA. I have lauded the value of the Blog as a source of information, and complimented you frequently for your work and dedication.
It definitely seems to me that readership has slacked off, and I think that part of it is that the Board has become more insular and self-entitled to deem anything at all controversial to be subjects for closed sessions, which have long been used inappropriately. When the BOT remains mum about subjects brought to light on the Blog, further discussion on the Blog seems to fade as well.
One Blog participant in particular has been commonly creating personal spats and insult exchanges that just ruin any attempt at discussion.
I agree that my openness in addressing community issues on the Blog contributed to the vote count. On the other hand, I have tended to make too many entries at times, in part because there seems so little participation.
I imagine there's an ebb and flow that varies with the topics and community concerns. But I wasn't belittling the Blog in general, and my participation should make it obvious that I know it helps get the word out about the many things the BOT chooses to keep from the members.
But it's ridiculous to let an idle comment I made, specifically in reply to a rallying cry for dissolution, as an overall comment on the Blog's value. My comment also was in regard to the likelihood of a large turn-out at the January meeting, impactful resistance to the Lighting Standards, or the likelihood of board adjustments to the standards. Owners may or may not be aware that the "new" standards are published, and the HOA may or may not send the text to owners in notice of the January meeting.
Will the HOA send the notices out well ahead of the meeting, and make it clear that it is the last chance to give input ? My optimism or lack of it, is the result of seeing the Board become less and less transparent in transacting public business.
Thank you for the clarification. I continue to think that the number who view the blog is significant no matter how many. I would hate to think that I am wasting my time in providing this service to the members. While we have several thousand members, it is the three to four hundred members that vote, are the ones I am trying to reach. Thanks for your comments.
You are for sure not wasting your time! Your straight forward way of putting things out there really helps. I also hope there are many out there who are taking this all in.
The proposed new lighting covenant was discussed to sent out in December and the public input January 18th and then the board will vote. No public vote
As I’ve said before I’m going to try and get the information out as best I can!
To the person...
Who keeps repeating the "I support Adam Schiff" and "Impeach Trump"...
I suspect that you are new on this blog. The blog readers have expressed that they don't want to have political comments on here. Please honor their wishes. I even tried a separate page for political views, but there seemed to be a lack of interest in it. If I see a demand for it, I will reinstall it. I and others may or may not agree with your endorsements, but please be considerate and not post them here. Thanks.
Officially there are about 2,100 members and not several thousand. One vote per lot folks so let not inflate the numbers to puff yourself up.
Fact check...
Several is more than one.
It is not one vote per lot,
It is one vote per member.
I'm not sure why this is always coming up. There are about 2050 member households, one vote per household, with each name on the title being entitled to membership. So we can probably assume there are about twice as many members as votes can be cast. Family members have some rights of membership too.
Wrong again Mr. Cox...best try reading the By-Laws before speaking...
ARTICLE II
Membership
Section 1. The membership of the corporation shall consist of the incorporators, owners or purchasers of one
or more tracts at Surfside Estates and other persons, all as approved by the board of trustees or its
membership committee. Ownership of a tract at Surfside Estates is not a condition precedent to membership;
however, no tract may be purchased at Surfside Estates without becoming an approved member of this corporation. No person or purchaser of tracts shall have more than one membership regardless of the number of tracts so owned or purchased, and the interest of each member shall be equal to that of any other member, and no member can acquire any interest which shall entitle him to any greater voice, vote or authority in the corporation than any other member. If any tract or tracts are held by two or more persons, the several owners of such interest shall be entitled collectively to cast one vote.
Apples n oranges Mr. Anonymous. Comprehension skill need some work. Big dif between what you read and what was wrote.
1:13....Boy, there are people just dying to prove me wrong on the silliest stuff. It is rare I'm proven incorrect, but I have demonstrated I have no problem admitting it, if proven so.
I'm afraid you don't understand what you are reading. In the state of Washington, husband and wife are equal partners in ownership of their property, and titles read as such. The term "membership" as used here, only regards the number of votes designated per member household. So neither husband or wife need be the designated "member" because it only has significance in terms of elections and voting on designated issues.
Read the last sentence.
Please note that Peg Olds is chair of the Tree Committee, and her husband is a seated trustee. They can only fill these roles in the HOA if members of the HOA. Either husband or wife can legally vote on behalf of their membership, not both, and they can only yield one vote for any given candidate or issue.
Better re-read it yourself...you assume that because there are X number of platts that there are that many votes available...and like I said, you are wrong. I am only referencing votes. Being a member and being a voting member are 2 different things. The only thing that matters when it comes to getting changes is VOTES.
Golly, you are impervious to the truth. You stated that there are only 2050 or so members, which we pointed out is NOT true. The quote you provided states that whoever is on the title is a member, and each household gets but ONE (1) VOTE.
It is a mystery what you are talking about now. Changes effect all of the members bubba.
George:
Take a look at Pacific County Provides Information page comment 11/20 10:41.
You are allowing political content on your blog.
I fully support Adam Schiff!
Sorry Stevie, it isn't rare that you have been proven wrong. It's just that in your mind with its grandiose attitude you mistakenly feel you are always right.
Btw, I propose a holiday drinking game. Take a drink every time the Cox mentions either of the Old's or Annette and you will be filled with holiday cheer. I would include trees with that but wouldn't want to be responsible for alcohol poisoning.
You'll experience long periods of thirst if left to my mention of these people. As for the Tree stuff, it overshadows everything the community does or hopes to represent. There are plenty of much better games, and if you want to drink, drink. You just can't get a life can you ? I talk about issues, you harass me. Goodbye.....
Post a Comment