This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Happy New Year
2020 has to be better than 2019
Will 2020 be the year that the members take back their HOA?
For that to happen, there will have to be enough members getting involved, to make this happen.
I hope it will.
50 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I hope so. Let's take back our hoa! Power To The Members
Let's start with wasted HOA money. Why oh why do we need 2 compliance people, let alone one?? Do all of you realize PACIFIC COUNTY has 1 compliance officer for the ENTIRE COUNTY!! Why do you feel we need 2 for 3000 homes?? Why the significant increase in complaints? Because we have turned proactive. We have allowed people to turn in complaints not directly in relation to their property, and as many as they want! This needs to stop. For a complaint to be valid, it must directly impact you or its thrown out. We have comittees on everything, why not a none compliant committee? Why waste money on a compliance officer or 2?
The attendance and outcome of the Lighting covenant proposal/review will be an indication of owner's willingness to oppose the HOA's heavy-handed approach. The Board has approved (8 to 0) the implementation of a "Proactive Enforcement" program, which is pretty certain to get under member's skin.
What we have to remember is, the HOA is obligated to address owner complaints and concerns with or without a compliance police force. With the population of the community in the hundreds through at least 6 months of the year, can we justify the cost of one or 2 fulltime compliance officers? Mr. Reber has promoted successfully, the new policy requiring owners to pay a $200 fee, and allow an inspection of their property as part of a title transfer. He has said he was excited about the fees as a means to help pay for compliance officers.
What the community probably needs far more, is an experienced Water Dept. manager, which Reber is not qualified or certified to do. The Board has been unwilling to reel in Mr. Clancy and his abuse of the Complaint System, by filing hundreds of fraudulent "complaints" annually, on owner trees, and now, light fixtures.
The proposed Lighting covenant revision is in part based on his efforts and a couple of other pals, in filing at least 50 lighting complaints. None of these were verified as non-compliant properties, but cited during a daytime drive-thru of the community, none being filed by neighbors as the current policy has been intended to function, on an honor system. The assumption has been that owners will be honest in their use of "complaints", and attempt to work out issues that come up, with neighbors if possible.
Instead we have Committee members and trustees filing multiple complaints at a time, taken from a list, or casually tagged in drive-throughs, by people who are not designated compliance officers, without evidence of violations. This is fraud folks !! And it's being used to justify restrictive policies and wasteful spending on compliance and legal proceedings against the members, with member funds. That is very wrong !!
If more members don't get involved in protecting member autonomy and rights, this community will develop a reputation for unnecessary HOA intrusion into owner's enjoyment of their Surfside property. The HOA attitude toward members has been bad, and it's quickly getting worse, with an unnecessary focus on manipulation of owner's rights.
It is URGENT that owners press for a requirement for owner approval of ANY covenant changes, and this can be a motion at the January member meeting, scheduled by the BOT. Mark Jan. 18 on your calendar as the meeting date. Please express your opposition to these policy changes, and in particular the Lighting policy changes, to be reviewed by members, already approved by the BOT. Send a letter, e-mail Trustees, and/or attend the Saturday meeting, Jan 18.
Well. All it takes is someone to file a PD, a PUBLIC DISCLOSURE asking for all complaints in 2018 and 2019, who turned them in and where the complaining party lives. By law, you must then disclose all the sought after info.
You are correct 2:07 pm. The only time members can make motions, is at the Annual Meeting in July. That is a member meeting. However, that being said, we have seen where the Board will not allow motions at that member meeting. The association lawyer gave false information on members rights to make motions. So, what can you do about it? You can sue them. Who wants to risk their own money on a law suit? The best option is to elect honest members to the Board and remove the bad apples from the Board.
Correct, they are private. But if you are going at act like a government organization, and they do, ie..building plans, fence plans, compliance officer, are own police officer, then you fall under the rules of a government agency. What do they have to hide? A good attorney could take this place down!!
JoAnne.. You should not have to ask that a motion be placed on the ballot, but with the games they play at obstructing a motion they don't like, I would submit your motion in writing to the Board soon and ask that it be placed on the Annual Meeting agenda. They are required to give you an answer to your email within ten (10) business days. The reply might be that it will be presented to the Board.
If your motion contradicts the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws or Federal, State and County rules, regulations or ordinances, they would have ;legal grounds to deny your motion. If they deny your request for a motion before or during the Annual Meeting, and it does not violate the above, you then have cause for legal action.
Another way to get changes is to make a motion on a Bylaw item. This was falsely challenged by the HOS attorney. This can be done at the Annual meeting. I am not an attorney and this is my opinion. I urge you or anyone to contact your own personal attorney for advice. They might even write a letter to the Board representing you. This could all get expensive. The Board has shown that they are willing to spend unlimited amounts of member money fighting the very members they are supposed to represent.
When Deb Blagg was an active member, she proposed a "go fund me" account where members could donate money to a legal fund. I and others favored that and offered to donate money. She sold out and moved. Is it worth all the effort and cost to fight? It appears that most members don't, and the bad guys are counting on that.
I still maintain the best solution is in the election and removal of Board members. With the mess we have now, it will be difficult to find members who will want to even run for the Board and be associated with them in any way. They are also counting on that. Can it be fixed? I think it can, but will take several elections to do it and that's not even for sure.
Final option....Dissolve the HOA... You would want to consult an attorney about the legal steps to do this. Long answer to a short question, but there is no easy answer. Sooner or later, this organization is going to cross the wrong or maybe right person, and we will finally get the change needed, if it's not to late, and that may be where we find ourselves today. A Shame.
George - What are you saying ? You are not correct. This IS a member meeting! It was called by the BOT, but it is still a member meeting. That should mean, (though the HOA attorneys have claimed otherwise), that this is a meeting where owners can make motions. There should be a motion (and vote on it), to the effect that a covenant change proposal supporting the instatement of an owner approval requirement for covenant changes WILL appear on the ballot next July/Annual Meeting!
This is NOT a board meeting. Read the announcement.
I do think I am correct. This is not a "member meeting" This is nothing more than a formality hearing where members can express their view points. Our governing documents clearly define the definition of a "member meeting". We only have one. This is a Board controlled meeting.
I don't like it any better than you, but until the Bylaws are changed, the Board has the sole responsibility to do whatever they want with the covenants. That is why we want a change in the Bylaws that would require a member vote of approval on any covenant change.
I really wish that I was wrong on this, but this is old ground that has been covered in the past. Make a motion for a Bylaw change and follow the same procedure as I advised JoAnne. As I said, I am not an authority or lawyer on this. I suggest you consult one.
It should be obvious to most everyone by now...The deck is stacked in favor of the bad guys.
It is a Hearing for a single purpose. The board is asking for member input on a proposed covenant revision. That is the only appropriate topic to consider at this hearing.
I've notice on a resent visit to the SHOA office that they have the hand out of exceptionable lighting fixtures on the counter as if this change of covenants is already in place?
George....I should have realized that this matter has been discussed enough that you would know better than I what the docs say. I have to say that I'm wrong about this, and I apologize for calling your statement into question. I thought I had seen this meeting referred to as a "member meeting".
7:00 p.m. states it accurately. The Articles are somewhat confusing on this as they say that the Bylaws can be changed at any meeting, by a majority vote of the members. The Bylaws later say something somewhat different.
But the covenants specify a "hearing" where the members are free to comment on a proposed covenant change. So a covenant change requiring that members must be allowed to vote to approve or disapprove of proposed covenant changes should be prepared and submitted well before the Annual Mtg. The pertinent covenant states that the request to put it on the ballot must precede the Annual Meeting (member meeting) by a specified length of time.
My mistake. It is somewhat confusing in our docs, and seemingly assumed that it won't likely ever happen. We should make preparations to put this on the ballot, as such changes need the balance of member input and BOT goals.
To answer your question 10:47... No, you do not have to attend the meeting for your comments and edits to be considered, However, that being said, my experience has been...
Especially if there is a large number, the Board members will not take the time to read all of them. It is likely that there will be a brief memo to the Board members stating how many favored and how many were against. As I have stated before, no matter what the totals are, the Board can vote however they want, the members be damned.
A large number of members attending can have an influence on the Board decision. If they care enough to attend and speak, it can make a case that one side or the other cares the most and lack of attending or writing comments can give an indication that a majority don't care one way or the other. Remember the old saying "The squeaky wheel gets the oil"
From the comments I have seen on here, there seems to be an indication that the Board minds are already made up. An impartial Board would have an open mind to consider all the information and member comments in person and writing. Unfortunately, we have seen the actions of this partial Board.
As I have said before, If I was on the Board, I would make a motion at the start, to table any consideration of this covenant change. This would save a lot of grief for everyone. Of course, it could always rear it's ugly head again. Maybe by that time there would be a new covenant policy that required a member vote on any change to the covenants. That's where the effort should be.
Short answer. Write, It can't hurt, unless you support the change.
Anonymous 8:50. But yet no copies of the lengthy new proposed lighting covenant!! They should have been attached to the hearing notice in my opinion. Thus is is exactly why I made copies and trying to get as many as possible passed around! If anyone wants to help me it would be appreciated!
Good question 2:07. The quick answer is this, those making the claims concerning Clancy don't care if the omplaints are valid or not. They feel that people shouldn't have to follow the covenants so in the end they don't really care how many are made.
Add to it this. The continued statement about 100"s of complaints by Clancy is a rumor. Same with the accusations about committee members filing complaints, again just rumors being repeated with no facts to back them up. You would think after recent events with rumors people would stop, but no it continues.
Proof or not 4:00, the huge increase in complaints filed in a very short period, could hardly be explained any other way. I would bet they were at least turned in in batches. We are not stupid.
Notice that 2:07 ends their comment with LOL. This person thinks it's funny that hundreds of complaints are being filed. Mr. Cox understands like any rational person, that if you make such statements about people without evidence you are making yourself very vulnerable to a lawsuit. Mr. Clancy has become well known for these practices, and the BOT lets him get away with it.
It's a twisted misuse of what is intended to be an honor system. You know, like a roadside vegetable stand, or a firewood seller leaves an honor box for you to pay for what you take ? The "Complaint System" is intended to be an alternative for owners who have conflicts with neighbors, but can't resolve it amicably. They can ask the HOA to intervene and help find resolution.
Laura Frasier managed the Office AND was the Surfside Compliance Officer. She got paid fulltime for ONE job. With the system the BOT has approved, our member funds will pay for as many as 2 or 3 Compliance police. Sound good ?
And we now have mandatory compliance inspections before we can change titles on our property, which we must pay $200 for, letting the HOA get in the middle of our selling our property. Instead of simply checking records on their computer, using a few clicks, and changing the owner's information, a few more clicks - you get to pay for all of this bullsh*t, courtesy of the BOT and Mr. Reber ! Enjoy, LOL.
Can the Surfside BOT really stop a sale over this $200 compliance inspection? Does anyone know? They may be counting on people voluntarily complying with this policy. Additionally, where is this in writing?
Anonymous 8:08. Yes they can. Look at the bias’s August minutes under new business. Motion made and approved! You can find the minutes in the “official” surfside website under meeting minutes. Interesting reading for sure. This covenant really concerns me as we’ve lived in two other HOA in much bigger places than surfside and never had to worry about this messing up our sales or our purchases!
8:08....You ask a very important question. This policy has been approved by the BOT in the last few months, but there has been no published info on the website in this regard. The claim was, that realtors were pressing the HOA to do this, which I think is not the HOA's concern. Some realtors will tell prospective buyers anything that they think they can get away with that will help make the sale.
Our great neighbors moved here from Post Falls, Idaho. The condo had been abused in various ways, many light switches didn't work, the stove didn't work, and the oven had been wired directly into the wall socket. How weird is that ? They had also been renting the place short term, which is forbidden in S.S.. Unfortunately, my neighbors bought the place without looking at it in person.
They spent thousands of dollars correcting the electrical system, and remodeling, some of which they expected to do. But the local Anchor realtor left them totally unaware that it was non-functional. When they moved-in, all of the rooms, cupboards and closets had the doors removed, all stacked in a bedroom.
At any rate, this new policy should require the same review as the lighting proposal, seems to me. The intention is obviously to slip it by the membership quietly. As for the inspections, the Business Office sends all compliance letters out, so should be able to easily keep track of owner's compliance, and whether they have resolved such issues before putting their property up for sale.
I guess you're right JoAnne. They must not need a policy or a governing documents amendment. I wonder how this is being implemented. I'll review my title documents and ask a real estate attorney.
Steve those types of problems would have been caught by property inspection asked for by the buyer before closing. Has nothing to do with the SHOA inspection for title change. Our inspection only pertains to our covenants being in compliance. Nothing except covenant compliance, which in my view if it hasn’t been a problem for years, why tie up a transaction because of the HOA ignoring it previously. This is just one more way for “someone else” to bring properties into compliance and require a compliance officer to do this task!
I haven't asked my neighbors a lot of questions about this, but I do know that the Anchor Realtor was trying to rush the deal through, know the property had been rented out many times and was shocked at the issues the place had when they moved in. I don't know what the story was with the inspection, or lack of it. The realtor had to be aware of this and wasn't coming clean on it.
You misunderstood my point. The HOA does not need to adjust our procedures to accommodate the Realtors. As I already said, the office should be capable and responsible enough to track compliance on each property in their computer data base.
The same above situation occurred to my neighbor, a disabled lady. Wouldnt trust some realtors farther than could toss them. Wouldnt be surprised if realtors behind tree policy n lighting. Greed is a familiar story.
Anonymous 7:35. That’s too bad. When we bought here in 2008 we received a folder with the by-laws and covenants, lots of other information and some gift certificates! I wonder why this has changed?
It better change back with a quickness now. They will be charging now which is supposed to cover that cost and others. I'll be watching them and listening about this.
Ref: 7:25. The buyers of this property should file a complaint with the WA State Board of Realtors. This realtor was not forthright regarding this sale. Even though the buyers made a mistake by not getting an inspection, the realtor knew issues( were the buyers told that the unit next to them had to be gutted, due to asbestos in the walls and ceiling? Most of us knew that!)
9:36....You are incorrect. The unit next to them was gutted because of broken water pipes during a cold snap in Winter. The 4 units had water pipes in the attic, and the owners were not in Surfside at the time. There was no asbestos involved. A top-notch remodel was the positive outcome, with a very large insurance settlement to work from.
Apparently a lot of people have very poor memories, as no one would have said anything about this other than the truth.
50 comments:
I hope so. Let's take back our hoa!
Power To The Members
Let's start with wasted HOA money. Why oh why do we need 2 compliance people, let alone one?? Do all of you realize PACIFIC COUNTY has 1 compliance officer for the ENTIRE COUNTY!! Why do you feel we need 2 for 3000 homes?? Why the significant increase in complaints? Because we have turned proactive. We have allowed people to turn in complaints not directly in relation to their property, and as many as they want! This needs to stop. For a complaint to be valid, it must directly impact you or its thrown out. We have comittees on everything, why not a none compliant committee? Why waste money on a compliance officer or 2?
The attendance and outcome of the Lighting covenant proposal/review will be an indication of owner's willingness to oppose the HOA's heavy-handed approach. The Board has approved (8 to 0) the implementation of a "Proactive Enforcement" program, which is pretty certain to get under member's skin.
What we have to remember is, the HOA is obligated to address owner complaints and concerns with or without a compliance police force. With the population of the community in the hundreds through at least 6 months of the year, can we justify the cost of one or 2 fulltime compliance officers? Mr. Reber has promoted successfully, the new policy requiring owners to pay a $200 fee, and allow an inspection of their property as part of a title transfer. He has said he was excited about the fees as a means to help pay for compliance officers.
What the community probably needs far more, is an experienced Water Dept. manager, which Reber is not qualified or certified to do. The Board has been unwilling to reel in Mr. Clancy and his abuse of the Complaint System, by filing hundreds of fraudulent "complaints" annually, on owner trees, and now, light fixtures.
The proposed Lighting covenant revision is in part based on his efforts and a couple of other pals, in filing at least 50 lighting complaints. None of these were verified as non-compliant properties, but cited during a daytime drive-thru of the community, none being filed by neighbors as the current policy has been intended to function, on an honor system. The assumption has been that owners will be honest in their use of "complaints", and attempt to work out issues that come up, with neighbors if possible.
Instead we have Committee members and trustees filing multiple complaints at a time, taken from a list, or casually tagged in drive-throughs, by people who are not designated compliance officers, without evidence of violations. This is fraud folks !! And it's being used to justify restrictive policies and wasteful spending on compliance and legal proceedings against the members, with member funds. That is very wrong !!
If more members don't get involved in protecting member autonomy and rights, this community will develop a reputation for unnecessary HOA intrusion into owner's enjoyment of their Surfside property. The HOA attitude toward members has been bad, and it's quickly getting worse, with an unnecessary focus on manipulation of owner's rights.
It is URGENT that owners press for a requirement for owner approval of ANY covenant changes, and this can be a motion at the January member meeting, scheduled by the BOT. Mark Jan. 18 on your calendar as the meeting date. Please express your opposition to these policy changes, and in particular the Lighting policy changes, to be reviewed by members, already approved by the BOT. Send a letter, e-mail Trustees, and/or attend the Saturday meeting, Jan 18.
There is only one compliance person, Scott left for health reasons.
How does Mr Cox know that all of Mr Clancy's complaints were fraudulent?? Until the CC&R's say there is a limit, why are you complaining lol
It is my understanding that members can't make motions. Am I correct?
Again, the entire PACIFIC COUNTY has 1 officer, Tammy Engle. Why does Surfside feel the need for 1 let alone 2? Wasted money
Very few care, because very few are aware of what goes on until it effects them, which is on purpose. As far as a bad rep. Too late.
Well. All it takes is someone to file a PD, a PUBLIC DISCLOSURE asking for all complaints in 2018 and 2019, who turned them in and where the complaining party lives. By law, you must then disclose all the sought after info.
Surfside is not public. It is private. That's what they told me.
Clancy should only be allowed to file a complaint if it directly impacts him, not 3,4 blocks away or a mile away. He needs called out on his bullshit
You are correct 2:07 pm. The only time members can make motions, is at the Annual Meeting in July. That is a member meeting. However, that being said, we have seen where the Board will not allow motions at that member meeting. The association lawyer gave false information on members rights to make motions. So, what can you do about it? You can sue them. Who wants to risk their own money on a law suit? The best option is to elect honest members to the Board and remove the bad apples from the Board.
I hope we hear from EPA in 2020.
George, do you need to ask your motion be put on the agenda or can a member make a motion from the floor?
Correct, they are private. But if you are going at act like a government organization, and they do, ie..building plans, fence plans, compliance officer, are own police officer, then you fall under the rules of a government agency. What do they have to hide? A good attorney could take this place down!!
This is 2:07 PM.
I just asked for a confirmation.
Someone has mentioned making a motion at the January 18 BOT Meeting.
Is the intent to try anyway?
JoAnne..
You should not have to ask that a motion be placed on the ballot, but with the games they play at obstructing a motion they don't like, I would submit your motion in writing to the Board soon and ask that it be placed on the Annual Meeting agenda. They are required to give you an answer to your email within ten (10) business days. The reply might be that it will be presented to the Board.
If your motion contradicts the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws or Federal, State and County rules, regulations or ordinances, they would have ;legal grounds to deny your motion. If they deny your request for a motion before or during the Annual Meeting, and it does not violate the above, you then have cause for legal action.
Another way to get changes is to make a motion on a Bylaw item. This was falsely challenged by the HOS attorney. This can be done at the Annual meeting. I am not an attorney and this is my opinion. I urge you or anyone to contact your own personal attorney for advice. They might even write a letter to the Board representing you. This could all get expensive. The Board has shown that they are willing to spend unlimited amounts of member money fighting the very members they are supposed to represent.
When Deb Blagg was an active member, she proposed a "go fund me" account where members could donate money to a legal fund. I and others favored that and offered to donate money. She sold out and moved. Is it worth all the effort and cost to fight? It appears that most members don't, and the bad guys are counting on that.
I still maintain the best solution is in the election and removal of Board members. With the mess we have now, it will be difficult to find members who will want to even run for the Board and be associated with them in any way. They are also counting on that. Can it be fixed? I think it can, but will take several elections to do it and that's not even for sure.
Final option....Dissolve the HOA...
You would want to consult an attorney about the legal steps to do this. Long answer to a short question, but there is no easy answer. Sooner or later, this organization is going to cross the wrong or maybe right person, and we will finally get the change needed, if it's not to late, and that may be where we find ourselves today. A Shame.
George - What are you saying ? You are not correct. This IS a member meeting! It was called by the BOT, but it is still a member meeting. That should mean, (though the HOA attorneys have claimed otherwise), that this is a meeting where owners can make motions. There should be a motion (and vote on it), to the effect that a covenant change proposal supporting the instatement of an owner approval requirement for covenant changes WILL appear on the ballot next July/Annual Meeting!
This is NOT a board meeting. Read the announcement.
I do think I am correct. This is not a "member meeting" This is nothing more than a formality hearing where members can express their view points. Our governing documents clearly define the definition of a "member meeting". We only have one. This is a Board controlled meeting.
I don't like it any better than you, but until the Bylaws are changed, the Board has the sole responsibility to do whatever they want with the covenants. That is why we want a change in the Bylaws that would require a member vote of approval on any covenant change.
I really wish that I was wrong on this, but this is old ground that has been covered in the past. Make a motion for a Bylaw change and follow the same procedure as I advised JoAnne. As I said, I am not an authority or lawyer on this. I suggest you consult one.
It should be obvious to most everyone by now...The deck is stacked in favor of the bad guys.
It is a Hearing for a single purpose. The board is asking for member input on a proposed covenant revision. That is the only appropriate topic to consider at this hearing.
I've notice on a resent visit to the SHOA office that they have the hand out of exceptionable lighting fixtures on the counter as if this change of covenants is already in place?
Picky point but we probably have 700-600 homes in Surfside and not 3,000. RV's and vacant lots make up a majority of our 2,000+ lots.
George....I should have realized that this matter has been discussed enough that you would know better than I what the docs say. I have to say that I'm wrong about this, and I apologize for calling your statement into question. I thought I had seen this meeting referred to as a "member meeting".
7:00 p.m. states it accurately. The Articles are somewhat confusing on this as they say that the Bylaws can be changed at any meeting, by a majority vote of the members. The Bylaws later say something somewhat different.
But the covenants specify a "hearing" where the members are free to comment on a proposed covenant change. So a covenant change requiring that members must be allowed to vote to approve or disapprove of proposed covenant changes should be prepared and submitted well before the Annual Mtg. The pertinent covenant states that the request to put it on the ballot must precede the Annual Meeting (member meeting) by a specified length of time.
My mistake. It is somewhat confusing in our docs, and seemingly assumed that it won't likely ever happen. We should make preparations to put this on the ballot, as such changes need the balance of member input and BOT goals.
12/26 7:00 PM:
Do I have to attend the meeting on January 18th for my comments and edits to be considered?
To answer your question 10:47...
No, you do not have to attend the meeting for your comments and edits to be considered, However, that being said, my experience has been...
Especially if there is a large number, the Board members will not take the time to read all of them. It is likely that there will be a brief memo to the Board members stating how many favored and how many were against. As I have stated before, no matter what the totals are, the Board can vote however they want, the members be damned.
A large number of members attending can have an influence on the Board decision. If they care enough to attend and speak, it can make a case that one side or the other cares the most and lack of attending or writing comments can give an indication that a majority don't care one way or the other. Remember the old saying "The squeaky wheel gets the oil"
From the comments I have seen on here, there seems to be an indication that the Board minds are already made up. An impartial Board would have an open mind to consider all the information and member comments in person and writing. Unfortunately, we have seen the actions of this partial Board.
As I have said before, If I was on the Board, I would make a motion at the start, to table any consideration of this covenant change. This would save a lot of grief for everyone. Of course, it could always rear it's ugly head again. Maybe by that time there would be a new covenant policy that required a member vote on any change to the covenants. That's where the effort should be.
Short answer. Write, It can't hurt, unless you support the change.
Anonymous 8:50. But yet no copies of the lengthy new proposed lighting covenant!! They should have been attached to the hearing notice in my opinion. Thus is is exactly why I made copies and trying to get as many as possible passed around! If anyone wants to help me it would be appreciated!
George look at 10:16! Something is fishy😡
Thanks 3:20 and JoAnne. It has been removed. Every once in a while this stuff gets through Goggle and my filters.
Good question 2:07. The quick answer is this, those making the claims concerning Clancy don't care if the omplaints are valid or not. They feel that people shouldn't have to follow the covenants so in the end they don't really care how many are made.
Add to it this. The continued statement about 100"s of complaints by Clancy is a rumor. Same with the accusations about committee members filing complaints, again just rumors being repeated with no facts to back them up. You would think after recent events with rumors people would stop, but no it continues.
Folks wouldn’ talk that way about Clancy if he didn’t brag about doing it.
Proof or not 4:00, the huge increase in complaints filed in a very short period, could hardly be explained any other way. I would bet they were at least turned in in batches. We are not stupid.
Notice that 2:07 ends their comment with LOL. This person thinks it's funny that hundreds of complaints are being filed. Mr. Cox understands like any rational person, that if you make such statements about people without evidence you are making yourself very vulnerable to a lawsuit. Mr. Clancy has become well known for these practices, and the BOT lets him get away with it.
It's a twisted misuse of what is intended to be an honor system. You know, like a roadside vegetable stand, or a firewood seller leaves an honor box for you to pay for what you take ? The "Complaint System" is intended to be an alternative for owners who have conflicts with neighbors, but can't resolve it amicably. They can ask the HOA to intervene and help find resolution.
Laura Frasier managed the Office AND was the Surfside Compliance Officer. She got paid fulltime for ONE job. With the system the BOT has approved, our member funds will pay for as many as 2 or 3 Compliance police. Sound good ?
And we now have mandatory compliance inspections before we can change titles on our property, which we must pay $200 for, letting the HOA get in the middle of our selling our property. Instead of simply checking records on their computer, using a few clicks, and changing the owner's information, a few more clicks - you get to pay for all of this bullsh*t, courtesy of the BOT and Mr. Reber ! Enjoy, LOL.
Can the Surfside BOT really stop a sale over this $200 compliance inspection?
Does anyone know? They may be counting on people voluntarily complying with this policy. Additionally, where is this in writing?
Anonymous 8:08. Yes they can. Look at the bias’s August minutes under new business. Motion made and approved! You can find the minutes in the “official” surfside website under meeting minutes. Interesting reading for sure. This covenant really concerns me as we’ve lived in two other HOA in much bigger places than surfside and never had to worry about this messing up our sales or our purchases!
JoAnne (9:34 AM): Is there a SHOA policy? Have the CC&Rs been amended for this?
By the way, in order for the SHOA governing documents to be valid they must be filed with the county.
Correct above to Board. Hate when I don’t catch these errors🤣
8:08....You ask a very important question. This policy has been approved by the BOT in the last few months, but there has been no published info on the website in this regard. The claim was, that realtors were pressing the HOA to do this, which I think is not the HOA's concern. Some realtors will tell prospective buyers anything that they think they can get away with that will help make the sale.
Our great neighbors moved here from Post Falls, Idaho. The condo had been abused in various ways, many light switches didn't work, the stove didn't work, and the oven had been wired directly into the wall socket. How weird is that ? They had also been renting the place short term, which is forbidden in S.S.. Unfortunately, my neighbors bought the place without looking at it in person.
They spent thousands of dollars correcting the electrical system, and remodeling, some of which they expected to do. But the local Anchor realtor left them totally unaware that it was non-functional. When they moved-in, all of the rooms, cupboards and closets had the doors removed, all stacked in a bedroom.
At any rate, this new policy should require the same review as the lighting proposal, seems to me. The intention is obviously to slip it by the membership quietly. As for the inspections, the Business Office sends all compliance letters out, so should be able to easily keep track of owner's compliance, and whether they have resolved such issues before putting their property up for sale.
I guess you're right JoAnne. They must not need a policy or a governing documents amendment. I wonder how this is being implemented. I'll review my title documents and ask a real estate attorney.
Steve those types of problems would have been caught by property inspection asked for by the buyer before closing. Has nothing to do with the SHOA inspection for title change. Our inspection only pertains to our covenants being in compliance. Nothing except covenant compliance, which in my view if it hasn’t been a problem for years, why tie up a transaction because of the HOA ignoring it previously. This is just one more way for “someone else” to bring properties into compliance and require a compliance officer to do this task!
I haven't asked my neighbors a lot of questions about this, but I do know that the Anchor Realtor was trying to rush the deal through, know the property had been rented out many times and was shocked at the issues the place had when they moved in. I don't know what the story was with the inspection, or lack of it. The realtor had to be aware of this and wasn't coming clean on it.
You misunderstood my point. The HOA does not need to adjust our procedures to accommodate the Realtors. As I already said, the office should be capable and responsible enough to track compliance on each property in their computer data base.
The same above situation occurred to my neighbor, a disabled lady. Wouldnt trust some realtors farther than could toss them. Wouldnt be surprised if realtors behind tree policy n lighting. Greed is a familiar story.
Please post the address of the property in question. I would like to know the realtor to avoid. Thank you.
When I bought here in April 2018, the hoa did not provide me any hard copy hoa information.
7:25 - Rich McQuerry was the Anchor realtor who handled their sale.
Anonymous 7:35. That’s too bad. When we bought here in 2008 we received a folder with the by-laws and covenants, lots of other information and some gift certificates! I wonder why this has changed?
I moved here in 2012 n got nothing, ever.
It better change back with a quickness now. They will be charging now which is supposed to cover that cost and others.
I'll be watching them and listening about this.
Ref: 7:25. The buyers of this property should file a complaint with the WA State Board of Realtors. This realtor was not forthright regarding this sale. Even though the buyers made a mistake by not getting an inspection, the realtor knew issues( were the buyers told that the unit next to them had to be gutted, due to asbestos in the walls and ceiling? Most of us knew that!)
9:36....You are incorrect. The unit next to them was gutted because of broken water pipes during a cold snap in Winter. The 4 units had water pipes in the attic, and the owners were not in Surfside at the time. There was no asbestos involved. A top-notch remodel was the positive outcome, with a very large insurance settlement to work from.
Apparently a lot of people have very poor memories, as no one would have said anything about this other than the truth.
Post a Comment