Every once in a while we have a common sense solution to a problem.
The comment below was made about the extreme new lighting covenant. It illustrates how there can be a simple solution to a complex issue.
The "anonymous" person making the comment is exactly the kind of members that we need serving on the Board. We thank that person for a least contributing to the discussion. It would be difficult for any reasonable member to disagree with what they have written.
I think it is a good idea to promote a dark sky policy. There is far too much light pollution in Surfside as well as the rest of the developed world. The policy should be implemented slowly concentrating on Surfside owned properties first. Enforcement should target new construction and remodels. Valid complaints need to be addressed. If a neighbors outside light illuminates into your home, that would be a valid complaint. The goal should be to first, prevent new unshielded lights from being installed and second, encourage voluntary compliance when replacing existing unshielded lights. Draconian insistence on immediate compliance or intolerant resistance to beneficial change will only divide the community farther apart.
31 comments:
There are too many people on the planet, and so, there's too much pollution of many kinds. But I don't see the community of Surfside being a hotspot of light pollution, nor does the HOA need a rational reason to set random standards.
We have a community that requires light at night, but you can easily walk to the beach or seek out areas without artificial light in a matter of minutes. In large urban areas that's not possible.
Part of the objective of having an HOA is to be able to address matters that create conflict between neighbors, and that is a responsibility of the HOA whether or not you set an elaborate template of limitations and conditions.
This is not a well designed consistent set of guidelines. Time should be invested in publishing the new policy proposal for all, and allowing some time for thought and feedback. Let's see the data as to how many complaints have been addressed that were valid in recent years, to see if this is really necessary. The McMurphy's conflict with the HOA has gone on since July, and it does NOT address a valid violation.
Want a dark sky policy ? Ban night-time security lights after midnight, and limit all fixtures to 60 watts. Will BOT members agree to that ? Owners ? I doubt either will.
The “ go to hell” reaction is the knee jerk reaction many people have to any kind of change. We live in a homeowner association. We are legally connected to our neighbors. We do not have the privilege of taking the go to hell attitude. We are required to take our neighbors point of view into consideration and to provide constructive feed back. I am certain the board will provide members an opportunity to publicly comment on the proposed lighting covenant. You should take advantage of the opportunity when it is afforded. As members of this association you have the right and the duty to participate in the formation of new covenants and the changing of existing covenants. If your goal is to obstruct and shout hell no, you can and should do that at the public hearing. Of course, if enough members want a dark sky policy, there will be a dark sky policy. If that is the case you should work to keep the policy reasonable and implementation palatable.
As usual, I have to keep deleting comments where someone likes to make the issue about me. I am providing a venue for discussion of the issues. I of course have my opinion, the same as you. I will continue to delete comments directed at me personally.
I think, as stated in comments, that more information is needed. When a proposed covenant change is presented, without facts or statistics, you can expect strong reactions. I think it is reasonable that members be allowed to vote on any covenant change. That is the democratic way and members are more likely to become involved.
Because of the lack of transparency, secrete meetings and special interests, including conflict of interest, no one should be surprised at the reactions of the members. That includes "HELL NO".
7:48....The proposed policy needs to be sent out by mail to all members. For better or worse, we know that posting it on the website isn't likely to be viewed in a timely way. We can also expect minimal attendance at the member meeting scheduled for review. This disconnect isn't an excuse for rushing this stuff into final approval, as this will have a significant effect on member's independent choices, will cause conflict rather than prevent it, and in the process increase legal costs in Surfside.
Yes, we are an HOA community, but rules and restrictions that are impractical and unnecessary cause conflict. Rules need to reflect a demonstrated need or growing problem. I don't think there is such evidence.
Lot of bot n friends on a blog that none of them say they value or read. Must really have a value after all. The only place they are transparent even if anonymous.
Surprisingly enough many of the lighting complaints were AGAINST the J placer's lights shining down in lower homes windows. Some homeowners have taken "lighting security" a bit too far.
I agree that this attempt to resolve lighting complaints is a bit too far. Please show up for the meeting and respectfully express your disapproval.
So let me understand this, according to the covenants 6.2 complainers required All members shall comply with these covenants, but yet today in the Notice of Hearing it states under explanation: The provisions of the proposed covenant would apply to all Surfside parcels from Ocean to J Place! This is considered fair and not just to the advantage of a few?
6.2 Compliance Required. Auto correct is my enemy sometimes
This is because the East side members on the Arch Comm wanted their area excluded. We have some friends on the East side who are upset about it because they want lighting restrictions too.
All of these comments need to be made in person, or in writing, preferably both at the hearing. Keep in mind, you live in a homeowners association. If a covenant change is being proposed you cannot just dismiss it because you do not think it is needed or warranted. Everyone gets a say here. Work together folks, or live with the outcome. Light pollution is a big problem for many members. Personal rights cannot infringe on the rights of others. A reasonable lighting covenant can be negotiated only if you are willing to participate in the process. Don’t let the few folks who drafted the proposed lighting covenant work in a vacuum, give them your thoughts and concerns at the hearing. The final product may be quite different than the proposed.
In response to 10:43, the proposed covenant was worked on in a vacuum by choice. “Everyone gets a say here”. Not if they’re not aware of what’s going on. I’ve talked and given out the printed proposed new lighting covenant to at least 20 members, and not one of those people knew anything about what’s going on. Members can’t discuss if they’re not aware. Even if you read the minutes of the board meetings, the minutes of the architectural committee and read the weekly newsletter there is no complete information. I am aware it was noted on the official website, but not many people take the time to scour that for up-to-date information
The members are in a vacuum as they were kept this way!
Who wrote the new lighting covenant? They hide behind it being a committee. Show me the minutes and the committee vote for it. I think you will find it is really that tree bunch. Those in control deliberately keep full information from the members. These are dishonest people.
Yet more shameless nepotism from J Placers.
We either need to take this association back, or disband it.
Just as. a practical matter, the proposal as stated is way too broad. It does sound like four or five vocal people got together to feel powerful and "get results". The results, however, are an undue hardship on owners with no benefit to the larger community.
For instance: My outdoor lights do not bother anyone, and are shielded by trees. They fit squarely in the "bad lights" column. With plastic lenses, They were chosen for marine environments and durability. I am sure that when they are on there is no "light pollution", as they only have 60 watt bulbs. They simply light up the garage and the front porch.
So with no rational intrusion, I could be fined or a lien placed on my property for no reason except these four or five busybodies who want to feel powerful and "get results". I believe that placing an undue hardship on the property owner is something that would stand up in Court.
To 10:39. There are no J Placers on the committee that came up with these proposed changes, so thanks for yet again another dig at putting a divide between Surfside areas!
So 1:42 who did come up with this new proposed covenant? I have been unable to find any mention of it in the architectural committee meeting minutes. The new covenant referring to a dark sky between the ocean and J Street puts J street right in the document
2:07 Arch committee. The two trustees did not write the document, they could not convince the committee that dividing Surfside as written was a bad idea. So come to the Jan meeting to voice your concerns since this new proposal is a total disaster.
Oh trust me we will be there!
1:42.... The divide is stated clearly in the new policy proposal, by using J Place as the demarcation for a new policy's domain. Who did it is secondary to why. We need to see how many complaints were filed the last 3 to 5 years, to see if there really is any justification for this complex set of standards. It does not reflect significant interest in dark nighttime skies, nor is it likely that is the overarching goal of this rewrite.
Creating a policy for which there is no evidence more restrictions are needed, justifies suspicion as to why, and who is driving this. In general, there seems to be a big law and order push, which is only about authority. More useless restrictions translates to more conflict and legal spending, the HOA's current "jones". Force !!
Is that any way to build and unite a community ? Of course not.
7:01 you’re right on point! I’ve inquired into this sudden interest in lighting complaints. We received one in July. I would like to see how many were issued, how many appeals and the status of the remaining ones. Of course, to know a true and honest report you need to know who filed the reports? As we are not privy to that information, I would propose a Trustee be given the task of compiling such a report. There might possibly be some very helpful information to glean from those names. Only that trustee would know the identify but if a pattern was established perhaps this whole mess could be put aside!
I'm sure if a count was made, it would be same results as tree complaints. Almost all are very recent n by same few people.
It is counter-productive to solve an issue of too many complaints by putting the whole community in the complaint column. I mean, if there were four or five problems before, there would now be hundreds. This half-baked scheme is going down the same road as trees and shed roofs - just making work - for whom?
7:38....There have been over 130 tree "complaints" filed this year. Of the other issues combined, routinely 30 or so. Maybe someone is filing bogus complaints to make the appearance of a problem, but past years have seen very few complaints about lights. Owners need to see proof that this is and has been an issue in recent years, in order to justify a major policy change.
Many complaints are frivolous and foolish, and don't merit any serious consideration. Filing a complaint does not assure any action will be taken, only that the situation will be assessed for validity.
Most issues with lights should be easily negotiated between neighbors, and lowering wattage can remedy 90% of lighting issues. The new standards do not limit wattage on motion sensor lighting, and designating some fixtures as unacceptable ignores the reality that virtually all fixtures can be made acceptable by lowering the wattage.
I think 8:25 hits the nail on the head.
Why are we making life easier for stalkers, voyeurs, thugs, and thieves?
If you want an answer to that, look at the 9-27-19 weekender and you will see the response to our lighting complaint appeal! “ studies have found that most burglaries occur during the day and that the amount of lighting at night does not reduce crime”!!! I contacted the County Sheriff and he provided me with information that shows much to the contrary! Our appeal was denied by the way, so I guess we’re still out of compliance
Just a bit of a reality check here. Because a neighbor says they didn't file a complaint doesn't mean they didn't. That is just one of the reasons that the complaint system is the way it is where only the office knows who has filed a complaint. This can help avoid potential conflict and retaliation. It would be nice if issues could be solve just between neighbors but unfortunately that isn't how things work now a days.
What I find interesting is up to now nobody has been complaining about the light covenants as they are. There really aren't that much changes in the proposal except for spelling out what is approved and what is not so everyone can be informed of lighting that is acceptable.
142 - then why do they specifically mention that one street only!
As time dividing the community, you and your buddies have already accomplished that task.
Getting tired of bot members and friends feeling the need to tell us all Rome is not burning, yet offer no facts, or deny those presented n undeniable.
Simple answer, because what you consider undeniable IS deniable. Add to that the big fact that we actually love it here. Sorry for you that you don't.
314 - is it love or the love of control? I am not willing to give up my freedom to what amounts to a special interest group.
4:08 - I asked the Arch. Comm. and Mr. Reber how many full time residents live in Surfside, and no one ventured a guess. I asked how many lighting complaints had been received this year, mentioning that I knew it hadn't been over a dozen annually up to this year and They said at least 50 complaints were generated by a couple of Trustees driving around S.S.in the daytime, looking for bare bulbs.
The "new"proposal has rough diagrams of lighting fixtures in two categories, unacceptable and acceptable. I presume that no one bothered to look at what most houses have for exterior lights, because 8 out of 10 will be non-compliant. I didn't make an exaustive search, but this policy will not be popular as written.
Probably about 80% are "area lights" that light an area such as a walkway or driveway, and about half of those are fixtures that allow the bulb to show below a bell shaped hood. About another 25% are bare bulb "carriage lights" in a fasceted clear box. Also very common are the ship-style oval caged fixtures, usually heavily frosted.
If you look over the "acceptable" list, most are not anything we can say we've seen anywhere, so it is a question where these fixtures are used. Wattage is key to glare, yet the proposal does not limit motion-sensor lights in wattage. Directional lights are not clearly limited in wattage, and obviously cannot be made to shine downward, meant to be area lights for security.
Recessed lights are practical on porch ceilings, but most homes have modest 60 watt lights in common fixtures, all in the "unacceptable" column. Someone has it in for the RV crowd, so want to ban "string lights" all together, yet "holiday lighting is allowed. If not on a string, what the hell is "holiday lighting" ? Low watt LED white lights are festive, cast soft light, and are popular on decks and porches.
Where did this notion of making Surfside a "Dark Night Sky " community come from ? Stargazing is popular, but the N.W. Coast spends much more time shrowded in fog, often heavy enough to make you want- What ? a nice bright area light or floodlight. Lighting companies design lights for specific uses, and owners choose accordingly.
There are much better places to view the night sky, such as the high mountains in warmer months, and the S.W. part of the U.S. When I said in the meeting that the HOA has not made an effort to take a survey of owner preferences I was told by Mr. Tom Rogers that Sedona New Mexico has been a dark sky community for decades without an uptick in crime. This is not Sedona. Good Tom, how about you move there.
In a region that is commonly watching storms pass through and has periods of daily fog, owners want practical lighting, and aren't interested in creating a dark sky in a community that only has about 500 residents scattered throughout most of the year.
This is policy made ina bubble, and has nothing to do with what owners want. I urged the committee to delay the Owner review of this proposal until the Annual Meeting, when we know a larger crowd can weigh in. I was laughed at for thinking my remarks should have any significance, and told to attend the Review meeting Jan 18th.
Post a Comment