Topic Retracted...
Information from a source has brought into question the total accuracy of the topic.
It is the goal of the blog host to publish factual and accurate information. I am sure the total truth is out there and it is just a matter of time before it is revealed. I can not confirm the truth in what others post. I can only confirm what I write. We need to hold ourselves to the total truth and not just partial truth. I apologize for making a quick judgement on what others say.
That being said, the Board and committee's need to be fully transparent. Lack of information and transparency leads to false rumors.
36 comments:
Is the 12/17 6:54 PM comment, the 91st comment, on the "It Only Gets Worse...." page still factual and accurate?
I have stated what I recalled Mr. Reber saying at the last Arch Meeting. I was surprised that when pressed a bit he volunteered that he understood that 3 individuals drove around the community looking for bare bulbs, and wrote up about 50 complaints.
Today when I called him, he initially said he had not made the remark, and then backpedaled, saying "he had been told" that Clancy and 2 others filed the complaints. I find it disingenuous to state that no one knows where these complaints come from, when there are suddenly several dozen submitted.
There need to be restrictions on how many complaints can be filed at a time, and an annual limit per individual. Don't let anyone tell you that there will no longer be a "Complaint driven System". So long as there are no limits put on this practice, we're allowing a few meddlesome individuals to file false complaints that burden the enforcement efforts of the community.
This translates to sewing conflict throughout the community needlessly, and a blatant interference with our enjoyment of our property. It also translates to wasted member funds on unneeded Compliance officers, the levying of fines, and expenses from legal actions.
I commented also at comment 93/ "(it) gets worse"
If you would all just follow the CCR's you signed when you bought here, there wouldn't be any complaints, or nearly as many. Follow the rules you agreed to or get out of our community.
3:59! Are you kidding me? We bought here in 2008 and never had any problems with the covenants until someone decided our lights were out of compliance this year! I’d say the biggest percentage of homes are not in compliance but only some are being singled out. Follow the rules? I know we sure didn’t dig out the covenants to verify our place was in compliance. Let’s get real. There was no barrage of complaints until these past couple of years! Of course we still haven’t received an accurate report of those complaints. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to gather this data
Hey board troll Anonymous 3:59.
You've successfully forced some out, that's true.
Is that the next governing documents amendment, follow the rules or Surfside confiscates your property?
Look out everybody, there coming for us!
What about your transparency? What about you promoting and spreading false rumors? Always easy to point fingers elsewhere than to to look in the mirror, right? On only a rumor you were on here calling people by name shameful and that they should resign, where is their apology?
Due to lack of transparency and the board's track record of not following their own rules, Cox's statement could very well be true and accurate.
I don't know who to believe.
I do know most of this board has to go.
Because of little jimmy boy Clancy's actions and inactions with the water department alone, he must resign or be removed from the board.
Where are the Architectural Committee meeting minutes showing the vote for lighting amendment?
How did they vote and what was the vote result that sent it to the board?
Why shouldn't we know that information?
I know the leadership of this board and J Placers think the rest of us are imbiciles, but we aren't.
Hey Clancy. If I add on to my house, don't get a permit, then get caught, do you still think it's not my, the owner of the asset, responsibility and culpability?
Yesterday before the retraction I came on here to say how I didn't believe the rumor that Cox was spreading. I based my opinion on prior wrong statements Reber had made in the past. I also took into account the emphatic denial by Mr. deLeest, someone who obviously has first hand knowledge on the subject. I also said that if it should be proven that I was wrong I would admit it. I also asked that if it ends up I was right would Cox and friends do the same. Well, I WAS right and as expected the response by Cox and friends was lackluster at best. Instead of owning the mistake and moving onward Cox, in his usual passive aggressive way, couldn't give a sincere apology and even had to make other needless insults towards a Trustee he made a false statement against.
George, to his credit made the retraction. But in my opinion it is woefully lacking given the language previously used against those wrongfully accused members by name. Then of course there has to be the usual "it's the boards fault" remark. Reber is the one who made the false statement right? Other than them making the mistake of hiring this guy, how is the board to blame for that? While I can excuse the original mistake Cox made by trusting him and spreading the now known false statement, I can't excuse they way he did it along with the other inflammatory statements he made including accusing Mr. deLeest of "self pity" when in fact he was telling the truth. A truth that Cox and friends were too quick to ignore. It would have been nice if after that denial someone would have taken a couple minutes of their time to call the office to confirm what was actually true. But I guess some would rather just sit behind a keyboard and type than get to the truth.
Hopefully this will be a learning experience. Time will tell.
de leest may not have written the alleged complaints, but was she one of the three that drove around? Did Clancy and Olds write the complaints? I see the same old cover ups with half truths. Looks like we have the usual suspects.
You and Fred have only stated and argued that Annette did not write and submit complaints.
This is a complete childish high school sideshow.
The main issues are:
Lack of information and transparency.
Two different lighting policies with J Place as the partial demarcation, while J Place does not run fully North-to-South through the entire community.
Amendments to governing documents not being based on a majority vote of the membership.
This will be a learning experience for the board. Time will tell.
Why would a HOA board not fire a General Manager for repeatedly speaking out of turn or speaking inaccurately?
Furthermore, we all know now that the General Manager misled us about his experience.
We have Laura Frazier II and it shows.
This board will blame the General Manager for the lighting fiasco, the same as they blame Bill Neal for the failed water program. This board accepts no responsibility for anything. At least Laura Frazier cost much less than the new clown.
7:30:
You are wrong. I only mentioned Annette by name because I was referring to Cox's comments that were aimed at her. In my comment from yesterday I said quite clearly that I didn't believe it was the 3 that were named.
Which brings me to 7:08.
You are wrong also. Cox himself said that he was told he was mistaken about the people he named. So no cover-ups as you suggest. A rumor was confirmed to be false. End of story.
To 8:03:
That's a good question. After his latest blunder I would be asking for him to be terminated if I was on the board.
And finally, to 8:26:
Bill Neal was in charge of the water department, right? Please explain why he shouldn't be blamed.
6:18....You should read more carefully. I said that initially I was told by Reber that he hadn't said anything about Clancy and others citing bare bulbs to write complaints on, then when pressed he said that he had heard that Clancy had filed A complaint. Really ? We should believe that Clancy filed one complaint ? Yet 50 were suddenly on the docket ?
There were 3 Comm. members, Reber, JoAnne Mc Murphy and myself in the meeting. The meeting was not recorded, and as has been pointed out here in this "thread" - the Comm. has not submitted meeting minutes for publication since August. I've now heard 3 different versions from Reber, so that ought to make it pretty clear that no one wants to tell what they know about these manufactured complaints.
The purpose of a Complaint System is to enable members to take issues they have with their neighbors that can't be easily resolved, to the HOA for help in finding resolution. This practice, known to be used by Mr. Clancy on an annual basis, is an abuse of an honor system. Complaints filed by the dozen against owners they are not neighbors to, are bogus. These are false complaints claiming that the complainer is put upon by these individuals.
The Mc Murphy's have no immediate neighbors. There is unoccupied tree-covered land across the street from them, and there is at least a full lot between them and their nearest neighbor. They have a small glass-covered area light on their driveway side of their house that has a pressed design which serves to defuse the light. They have some holiday lights across their porch. They are perfectly compliant with the existing covenant, in place for at least the last 10 years. They have been hassled since last July, and have not been fully exonerated.
They were issued a complaint based on the new standards which are NOT yet fully approved and enacted. Most of the 50 complaints filed were based on sighting a bulb showing at least a little. Word was that the complaints were cited during daylight hours. So all of this info came from Reber's mouth in the Arch. meeting, yet e has made varying statements since.
These were fake complaints based on the new restrictions, so were not valid and should not have been acted upon. So you think I make this stuff up ? give me a break ! You are a fool. To what end ? We already have chaos, and I'm looking for an HOA with integrity and common sense.
Follow the rules that you acknowledged when you bought here and there won't be any complaints!
Is that the next governing documents amendment 12:16 PM? I'll support that.
How about that everybody. We're making progress with this person!
The overhang limit rule didn't exist when I bought here so there won't be any valid complaints against me.
The next lighting rule didn't exist when I bought here so there won't be any valid complaints against me.
12:30 anonymous. You are mistaken if you think because your lights are in compliance now that they will be if this covenant passes! Nothing will be grandfathered in is what I’ve been told
And 12:19. Follow the rules? We thought we’d been doing that since 2008 but evidently not. I think the decorative lights on our deck is the sticking point, but everything is on hold now. I think when they denied our appeal the thought was, it makes no difference because those lights aren’t going to be allowed! But we don’t know because we’ve to date not received a written reply as to what the problem is with our lights.
Discussions of changing the lighting covenant began last Summer in the Arch. Comm., but there are no minutes published, so no indication that the meetings took place. If verification that these meetings took place does not materialize by next week, and minutes published to verify what was discussed and by whom, the Review Meeting should be deemed premature and invalid.
This is all supposed to be a public process, and what we have seen so far is, that the proposal put forth is not even marginally appropriate to the needs and desires of the members. No physical or written survey has been made of owner's preferences, and the State RCWs require that HOAs practice a democratic style of governance, seeking to serve the entire membership fairly and equitably, and offering opportunities for public comments and input.
It is fully apparent that in order to operate transparently as is required, our community comprised of about 75% part-time residents cannot easily attend Committee meetings mid-week, and require effective minutes be published on the website that outline measures discussed, motions made, and by whom.
The Arch. Comm. members who were present at the meeting I attended laughed at Mrs. Murphy and myself for even suggesting our opinions should be considered, telling us they had no interest in discussing the new lighting proposal. Tom Rogers put on quite a display of disrespect and self satisfied rambling conversation about various subjects including movies he's seen lately, then told us about how Sedona Arizona has been a "Dark Night Sky" Community for forty years without a great amount of crime resulting.
The Committee has maintained that lights on homes overnight encourage break-ins, rather than prevent them - a generalization that has not been widely embraced or substantiated. Surfside tends to be very dark at night, most of the year, and we certainly have nothing in common with Sedona Arizona. He then went on a tirade to end the meeting, claiming he had neighbors shining spotlights in his windows since he began on the committee, which of course is ridiculous.
It is not widely known that Tom Rogers has been on the committee, nor do many care. Somehow the significance that these new restrictions will negatively effect the quality of life for most of the 2000+ households in Surfside, escapes his self-centered view of his role on the Architectural Committee. Being laughed at is not an issue when you know what you're about, and know it is intended to diminish your value in the face of pompousness.
The issue is, there has been no effort made to determine what the members want and need to light their homes and safely come and go. Sedona ?
Sedona is mostly a gated retirement community with more law enforcement. We are remote with little police presence n alot of recovery centers. We have alot of low income law breakers also. Apples n oranges comparison.
If Mrs. Murphy was present at the Arch meeting she should be able to confirm exactly what Mr. Reber said regarding who wrote the complaints along with the rest of what Mr. Cox provided in his minutes and above.
I asked her that question myself and she had not caught what names were said. The point is, a group of folks went out and looked for bare bulbs and wrote up 50 complaints. That she did confirm.
When I called Reber and asked him the same question, he claimed he didn't say anything about it. When I insisted that was not true, he said Oh, Clancy said he filed A complaint. Then said he'd take a polygraph - which made me laugh, as I was just asking a simple f*ing question, and he had just lied to me, then claimed he wasn't a liar.
But initially his reply just flowed right off his tongue such that I was kind of shocked, but deleest claimed to not be one of the folks involved. I know Clancy was named and 2 others, but Reber's voice kind of trailed off, maybe realizing he had said too much. Believe what you want wise guy. This was a trumped-up ruse to create the appearance of a rush of complaints and an enforcement crisis.
So they have a nice big macaroni salad of a policy that is contradictory and complex, an enforcement nightmare for everyone in the community. Happy Holidays, Surfside style.
Wiseguy says...
The point isn't whether or not I agree with the proposed policy.
The point is how you state your opinion as fact and don't own it when proven wrong.
Kind of rushing the gun there, he hasnt been proven wrong, at worst, just not "AS" right. But point made about suddenly a bunch of bot n com generated complaints very obvious just the same.
Very true 8:03 AM.
Remember at the July 2019 Annual Meeting when DuWayne Mott spoke about the supposed need for a new lighting CC&R. He said the current one was causing problems between community members, putting one against another. Now we know what a lot of you have suspected for a long time. Some of our board members are the ones causing problems between community members and putting one against another.
50 Lighting Complaints Written and Submitted By BOT Members
The current one isn’t causing problems between neighbors only other “members” who choose to drive around and submit complaints. We are the perfect example of this. When we received our complaint in July and were forced into this continuing issue, we were “comforted “ repeatedly by the committee and the BOT that a new covenant was being worked on! What a joke! Thank goodness thus has all came out and this new covenant wasn’t passed on December 7th as was on the boards agenda!!
First I want to say that the proposed covenant changes replace a small, practical problem with a big one that divides the community. Sedona is an arid climate. Bainbridge is sheltered Puget Sound.
Then I want to share my struggles with outdoor lighting on the beach. We are in a marine air, corrosive environment where everything rusts over time.
I have replaced lights several times over the 15 years I have owned property "down on the flat". Light and motion sensors corrode and don't work for very long. Then they malfunction. Front porch lights gather water, and wind up as bare bulbs pretty soon. The bare bulbs that were noted in the neighborhood were, at one time, regular fixtures. Birds perch on The barn lights with nice covers and make a mess. So I go through these cycles of fixtures falling apart and replacing them.
I have found through trial and error that the only things that work for me are the porthole type outdoor lights and the boardwalk type of marine lighting. The more plastic, the better. They need an indoor switch to turn off and on. Neither of these are on the acceptable lighting list. None of this is improved by the cheap imports at Home Depot.
This is a practical problem, not an issue to litigate.
Do you mind posting some more information so I can look at those lights 12:22?
Anonymous 12:37. You can find that diagram on the official website under the notice of the the hearing. You do have to click on the black words to take you to the documents. Hope this helps
I was talking about the porthole and boardwalk types of light.
Why not file a PD, a PUBLIC DISCLOSURE! By law, surfside will have to disclose who has filed all the complaints! Alas,The truth will be shared.
Post a Comment