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.
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Only When You Think It Can't Get Any Worse
It does.... This outrage should concern every member...
The newly proposed lighting covenant...More information provided: Click on each page of the discussion for a larger read....
page 1 of 3
page 2 of 3
page 3 of 3
115 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Who are the two low life trustees who have nothing better to do than drive around so they can harass the members. We want their names.
Anonymous 6:59. Easy to attack someone who is unafraid to identify themselves while you hide behind anonymous! And tell me just why his opinions aren’t valid? You give no facts or opinions, just personal attack. Not what we need right now in my opinion
You never believe in the worst of times that it can't get worse, but in Surfside it has. This "Nazi Mindset" has got to be stopped! Do the right thing board and step back from this insanity on lighting. Furthermore, the definition of integrity means doing the right thing: Steve Cox should be instated on board. He's the next in line! Don't know the gentleman but he is a standup guy and doesn't follow the crowd. Lastly, I demand the names of the two board members who have all that time on their hands to lurk over members' property. Who would have imagined that SHOA would stoop to this 12 years ago. THERE IS A DARK CLOUD HOVERING OVER SURFSIDE. I thought the tree gang was bad enough. Pffff!
Thanks Steve, I also have posted similar comments about the amount of members that will be affected by this new code, it's going to be just about everyone. At first I thought I was having to change 3 fixtures, but now looking at the un/acceptable types of fixtures it's going to be ALL of my lights fixtures on my house, that has been here for over 15 yrs.
I need to be there for the next meeting, we all need to be there!
Important for as many as possible come to the January 18th meeting at 9:00am in the surfside business office. Remember the BOT has the vote on this not the membership
The passing of this covenant will assure we will have to hire more compliance officers. I think we have better ways to spend our money. Maybe if we just returned to complaint driven compliance only I feel the person who complains should first contact said person and if no resolution, then file a complaint. This would definitely cut down on these complaints coming from out of the blue. If someone had just knocked on our door with their concerns about our lights, we wouldn’t still be involved in trying to get this resolved. We aren’t unreasonable people and did make adjustments to our lights. Just still blows our minds that someone can drive around and generate complaints! Not the Surfside community we bought and joined back in 2008!
6:59....You're mighty slow picking up on what goes on around you. I said I took hour long drive and looked at exterior lights on homes. We have a list of "acceptable" and "not acceptable" light fixtures. I judged what I saw by the list. I'm not giving an "opinion" about how much this proposal is a bad fit. Nearly everyone will be non-compliant, so I'll bet you are too, "anonymous".
They don't make it easy. You have to rewrite the entire thing in a word processor then turn track changes on then make your edits and any comments you have.
Just send your comments to the BOT members, Winegar in particular. The previous comments are not relevent to simple member input. The Arch Comm. aren't willing to discuss this. Mr. Rogers will instead pontificate on a variety of things, such as movies he's seen.
The complaint system is at the root of this and the tree fiasco (no pun intended). A fundamental right of any person I accused of a violation I is to know their accuser. These complaints need to be public information. There would be a lot fewer of them and perhaps those signed by the names Clancy and Olds may disappear altogether!
Why would there be fewer? Because people would would harass those that make complaints perhaps? That is precisely why the system is the way it is and should be.
The easiest way to avoid a complaint is to make sure you are compliant with the covenants. Many members do so and don't have complaints filed against.
There are two members on Sea Breeze lake who have string lights. Neither are full time residents but burn the lights every night. Its the only thing you see out your windows at night. Why would someone subject all the surrounding members to something they like when they are not even home. It is annoying to say the least.
8:06. You’ve got to be kidding!! Why would looking out and seeing lights be a problem? We look out and only see the dark, very few lights in our area. We’d welcome more!
I agree 9:06. Why is it so annoying? Just because it can be with the new proposal. I would be willing to bet that before this new "lighting" proposal, most of those who are jumping on it's bandwagon, were indifferent to the lighting. Now that it's been made an issue they have them jumping on for the ride. That's what's annoying. What is this? Monkey see, monkey do? Apparently.
Sorry 9:00 what we would achieve is it negate the complaints that are filed by persons who live nowhere near the property they are complaining about, and an awareness between neighbors as to what matters and what doesn’t. If the neighborly complaint is justified and enforceable, take it to the HOA. MANY WON’t because the bulk of those filed today are from people outside of their local area. The new lighting complaints allow the voracious complaint writers to file them without even getting out of their cars. Notice that after the Johannsen fiasco, the number of NO TRESPASSING signs increased ten fold, making it a civil offense to come on property’s without the owners express consent. After seeing what occurred during the earlier fiasco people found a way to keep the HOA off of their property. Thus the purchase of the laser binoculars so the Tree Committee could spy from afar.
I am curious to know if the committee has verified that the lighting fixtures on the approved list is available in stock, in our local area and are they available in non corrosive material ? Guess we need to ask that question at the Jan. meeting.
That reminds me. It is very dark in the winter. I feel vulnerable with all the surrounding homes in total darkness. I find comfort in the lights around me. Somebody is home. I am not alone. Even if they are out of town. In another, lovely HOA, dues are $100 a year. If you have a complaint it is the complainers problem to file suit or fix it with the neighbor. All is calm. It is not possible to "sick the gendarmes" on a neighbor. Thus, reason prevails.
7:57 anonymous, great points and thought process! I think going back to neighbors working together is the answer so the BOT and committees won’t be so “overwhelmed “ with the task of coping with all these complaints! We still need the basic question answered, how many complaints have been filed and how many individuals were involved in these? If they’ve only been by a very few people then we’re working with a false narrative!
I have a question for those that think that neighbor to neighbor would work. I'm going to use a real life example.
A member filed a tree complaint against another. It was determined that the trees were in fact over the covenant height but the member refused to comply. The member who made the complaint offered to cut the trees himself yet the member refused.
I would not cut my trees. My trees are more important than a selfish view. If I was the one who made the complaint, I would say that I was sorry for my selfish complaint and never write another. Trees and neighbors are more important than my selfish view. I would also resign from the tree committee.
The proposed lighting covenant revision has generated a lot of interest. Yesterday this blog had 874 views. This is a record number.
If this covenant change is approved by a majority of the Board, most members will be in violation of the new lighting covenant. A member has proposed on this blog, a reasonable approach without making a majority of the members, law breakers.
The Board is supposed to represent the will of the total membership and not just a few. In my opinion, when this issue comes before the Board in Jan. of 2020, it should be tabled.
11:47....It has been suggested on the blog that neighbor to neighbor negotiations are in most cases enough where exterior lighting is concerned. No one has suggested that regarding tree matters. That is the HOA's kettle of worms, and it isn't at all likely to be negotiable between neighbors.
But bear in mind, creating more restrictions on owner's personal choices will create conflict that could otherwise be avoided. There have not been significant numbers of lighting complaints in previous years, and that's with a very simple covenant. No one seems to know where the notion came from, that Surfside needed an elaborate set of restrictions put in place. There has been no indication that people in the community have in large numbers urged the HOA to adopt a "Dark Night Sky" policy.
When I asked Tom Reber and the 3 members of the Arch Comm. how many fulltime members reside in Surfside, they had no answer. It is believed to be around 300 to 500. So how big a problem can lights be when less than 25% of the members are present through the Winter months ? There have been fewer than a dozen lighting related complaints filed in past years. I was told that this year the complaints numbered over 50 ! And why ? Because Annette deLeest, James Clancy, and Peggy Olds drove around the community looking for bare bulbs, and filed dozens of "complaints".
How is it that being a Trustee or Comm. Chair makes these people self-ordained compliance officers ? You won't find that in your job description folks. In contrast, many owners never file ANY complaints as Surfside residents. There really should be some defined limits on the number of complaints any one owner can file, as Clancy does this crap annually on Trees, and they're really fraudulent claims.
It seems that we should ALL take it upon ourselves to file gratuitous complaints and swamp the system. Trustees are doing it to justify changing the covenants, so why not get in on the action ? If owners start filing hundreds of complaints they will have to deal with it somehow, and setting limits is the place to start.
How about limiting complaints filed at a time to 2. And limiting the annual submission by one owner (or Trustee) to 6. That seems liberal actually.
In a community often wrapped in heavy fog, and often sparsely populated, good lighting when you need it is a requirement. Why would you want your lights to point down at the ground ? We're not hunting nightcrawlers. Most homes have few exterior fixtures, and the ones they do have light up an AREA. You want to see the walkway to your driveway and car. When you are expecting company, you want to have your address visible, and make your home look welcoming.
This is a damn poor community to put these restrictions on, and no one will be seeing clear nighttime skies with any regularity on the peninsula, whatever the restrictions. Mr. Tom Rogers wanted to talk about Sedona New Mexico, and their 40 years of "Dark Night Skies" policies. Even when conditions are basically clear overhead in Surfside, there is usually a low haze of moisture from the Ocean, and the cold temperatures that usually accompany easterly winds and clear skies.
No amount of effort will make Surfside like Sedona, New Mexico. This is a case of a few righteous people deciding to push an impractical bunch of restrictions on the members, and rush it through.
The point I’ve been trying to get information on! Until the BOT gives us a complete report on number of complaints, stays of those complaints and most importantly number of individuals involved in filing those complaints, they cannot possibly make an informed decision in this issue. The fact that anyone and I mean anyone can file a complaint against a member is in my opinion totally ridiculous. If you don’t live here and pay dues and assessments, what right do you have to lodge a complaint concerning my lights or my trees?
It’s hard to resist on some of these comments but I have remained silent long enough. Mr Cox is miss informed about my better half going around writing up lighting complaints. Nothing could be farther from the truth and never happened. Who ever informed him that Annette went around writing up complaints is lying! Plain and simple. We have NEVER!!! written any lighting complaints ever! I am disappointed that once again he has chosen to publish incorrect unsubstantiated information. I just don’t understand why he thinks it’s ok. This does nothing more than to stir up more anonymous hate comments which apparently he likes to do!
Well Fred, answer these while you are being so truthful. Has "your better half" ever, written complaints on trees, sheds and other complaints against members? Has she encouraged or assisted others in writing complaints? And how about you? Your answers will be substantiated information. Will you answer, or remain "silent"?
You and Annette like to refer to critical comments as "hate". That is obviously a huge exaggeration. This proposal makes specific references to J Place as being critical to its' implementation, and the entire nature of it is elitist in nature.
I never set out trying to disrespect anyone in particular, but do expect people to be accountable for their actions as Trustees and Committee members, particularly when they decide to change covenants that are functioning just fine. The membership has not called for action on Lighting, nor has there been any survey of what owners want on anything in Surfside.
It was my understanding from what Mr. Reber said this week in the Arch. Comm. meeting, that the individuals I named were the source of the manufactured complaints. If I was mistaken, or he was, it hardly seems a matter to be seen as hateful. If I was incorrect then I guess I apologize. It hardly matters, considering that this is still a creation out of the blue, that puts many restrictions on individual choices, which serves little to no purpose.
If you have read my comments, you know that I have looked over the light fixtures currently being used by owners, and these restrictions will require about 80 to 90% of owners to replace their fixtures. Maybe you don't get that AREA lights are very much the lights of choice, while many homes appear to have very few exterior lights. This is NOT a community wide issue, and that can be easily discerned by driving around the community after dark.
I'm struck by your sense of self pity, that Annette would be mentioned at all as sharing some responsibility for the decisions the BOT makes. If she is opposed to the implementation of this policy, please make that statement public so we can better understand her position on this. If that's the case, I definitely owe you both an apology.
I don't hate anyone, and never speak in such terms on the blog, or anywhere. I do not know people who speak of hate, have no friends who speak of hating other human beings - so you're on your own in this business. There are those who make despicable remarks on the blog, but nothing I ever say publicly or privately can ever be characterized as such.
By the way, I realized I had misspoken regarding Sedona, which I stated is in New Mexico, while I know full well it's in Arizona. Nothing hateful intended Fred.
First off the board hasn't even voted on the proposal yet so I don't understand how Cox can expect Annette or any other board member to make their position public. Besides that, shouldn't they give members the opportunity to give their opinions before they do make their decision in the first place? Isn't that how it's suppose to work?
I do know this as a fact. I was at the board meeting when this was first discussed and Annette was one of the trustees who had some questions about the proposal while the newly elected Blog favorite board member Scott was for it, yet he seems to get a pass on this.
I also don't understand why Cox and others keep trying to make this a J place thing. This was proposed by the Arch Comm which isn't full of J place members. As others besides myself have said the reason it was written as a West side only was due to East side members on the committee not wanting it in their area. In my opinion that isn't right or fair.
Bottom line. I feel that until the board actually votes and you actually know their position it is irresponsible to say or accuse any trustee until you know the facts.
To the hate thing. When you make statements, even if done so politely, that are incorrect that gets others riled up it promotes hate. I can understand Fred's position when his wife gets attacked with people making false statements. I also find it interesting the position Cox takes when you consider he has done the same in the past. Then look at what he wrote. He says that if he was incorrect then "I guess I apologize". Well there's the big difference between him and I. If I was to make a false statement against someone I would apologize because to me truth does matter.
Lastly, the self pity remark was uncalled for, but once again unfortunately not surprising given who made it.
With Mrs. de leest being a part of the Arch. committee and writing the covenant, it seems reasonable to conclude that she favors it. Do you really think she has not made up her mind before the hearing? Get real.
Here we go again, more lies, you people are ruthless, Hiding behind anonymous, Annette is a co-trustee assigned to the committee, Annette is not on the arch committee, did not write the proposed covenant changes. Geez people stop with the accusations, get the right information before you embarrass yourselves. You will find out how she votes at the January meeting. I will be there also with a lot of you speaking my peace against this covenant change.
So would this invasive lights thing also apply to the Surfside Inn, Surfside Market and the American flags in the HOA that are lit up at night? We also cant forget about the houses that are hooked up to our water outside of the Surfside area.
I just love the last paragraph of the Notice Of Hearing. “The architectural committee considered the interests of members that want a dark sky and members that want lighting on their property for safety”. Are you kidding me? So those of us on the Oceanside if JPl cannot have lighting for safety? We can only provide a dark night sky for some reason! We were told at our lighting complaint appeal that lighting does not provide for safety as in alerting criminals that we are home! This difference in treatment and recognizing for some that lights do provide safety, but for others it’s unimportant in comparison to the enjoyment of a dark night sky! I think all members are to be treated the same, not divided by J Pl as a marker!
Fact Check: The comment by Fred de leest is in error. Annette de leest IS a member of the Arch Committee. As stated in the Surfside Policy Manual on page 70, line 3
"In the case of committee assignment, the Designated Trustee should be an active member of the committee".
I asked the same thing about the reader board at the Veterans Memorial Park that stays lit up all night and it faces our house. We had to complain about it because it had no deflector and it literally lit up our house!! They put the deflector on it, but it still bothers us.
to 11:07 - getting back to the notion that neighbor to neighbor solutions do not work. If neighbor A complains to neighbor B that his tree is too tall, and neighbor B refuses to take action - Neighbor A would have to file his own civil complaint against neighbor B. This would make neighbor A think twice about how much he cares about his neighbor's tree height. The current systems plays off emotional junk. People want to win, especially if it is free.
The BOT has already approved of the Lighting proposal, and has had the Member Review scheduled for the day of the January Board Meeting. So there IS reason for concern. The new proposal could have been published on a single sheet of paper and sent out with the Biannual newsletter, but that would be too transparent and considerate. All but the drawings is on the website.
The proposal has new covenant wording, as well as pictures/cartoons of lighting that are categorized as "acceptable" and "not acceptable". This is one of the main problems with this proposal. No one took the time to notice that most of the exterior lights on homes are AREA lights, and area lights will be banned. Most of the "unacceptable" light fixtures can be annoying or perfectly acceptable depending on the wattage.
The Board has no obligation to alter the existing proposal one iota, regardless of owner comments at this January meeting, but for those who oppose this policy/covenant change, not attending this meeting and speaking your piece, assures that this will go forward without any changes.
Personally, I think the entire thing needs to be taken back into committee and made practical by surveying what owners already have, and adding some clarity to the language. This business of lights facing "downward" is ridiculous. Area lights are intended to light an area for specific reasons. Limiting wattage in ALL exterior fixtures to 60 watts could be enough. As the policy is written, there are no limits on motion-detector lights, and 75 watts is the limit on most. Bulbs cannot show, and carriage lights would be banned. I estimate that about 80% of homes have "unacceptable fixtures" and will non-compliant.
And add to that there will be no decorative string lights and no lights for July 4th or any other holiday except thanksgiving and Christmas! Oh yes, and there’s that added little thing about the property has to inspected to make sure it’s in compliance before a sale of the property goes through. In the HOAs we’ve been involved in, only the status of the dues and assessments affects the closing of a real estate procedure!
The elephant in the room is J Place. It is the same gang pushing for this as they do topping trees for their own view.
The two trustees on the Architecture committee ate Kurt Olds and Annette de leest, both J Place residents. Tom Rodgers and Cindi Pellerin, committee members, are also J Place residents.
Allow the trees to grow, and the J Place gang will not see any light below them in the harassment zone.
You've made this comment at least a couple of other times about other things. The only option to fully accepting this as it is, is to make your objections known.
Just as many J place homes have unacceptable light fixtures as elsewhere in the community, and that's because we all need an area light or two for dark nights. A light on the front of a house that only points downward, will light-up the ground beneath it, which doesn't do any good. It will not light the driveway where you may be loading or unloading things from your car, and will not light your address numbers for guests who may have never been to your home.
It doesn't merit breaking a leg trying to find your car, so that someone's dream of a dark night community is fulfilled. We live in a stormy foggy dynamic place, that is beautiful because it is wild. Clear skies at night are a rarity, and the community is only lit as much as needed. Everyone appreciates the wildness here, but good lighting IS a safety factor, when the fog is thick as soup, or you just want to return to the house from your driveway without falling over something in the dark.
Thanks for acknowledging your error. Some very outspoken people on here never do or do so disingenuously and insincerely. Thanks for standing up for yourself and Annette Fred!
Can anyone tell for sure what requirements would apply east of those with J Place addresses? Does J Place run North to South through our entire community?
The answer to the above is in the Notice of Hearing, last sentence under Explanation. The provisions would only apply to the parcels from the Ocean to J Place. The notice of hearing is in the packet you should have received with your yearly statement for dues and assessments!
December Newsletters should be in the mail. Notice of a member meeting are to be sent no later than 30 days prior to the meeting. For unknown reasons, the HOA is in a hurry to get this new policy in the works. It is NOT at all practical, and was created without determining what owners already have, or inquiring what owners want.
It's a disturbing trend that began with the SHED EAVES covenant. A new Title Change /Compliance Inspection policy was enacted in recent months, requiring owners pay a $200 fee for the simple procedure, and a mandatory property Inspection is required. This ignores the fact that simple record-keeping by the Office should make checking records for compliance a matter of a few clicks.
It also will require paid compliance inspectors to visit your property before a sale can proceed. So one of the most basic services our dues and assessments should cover, title change, now costs $200, and our dues and assessments of course, pay for the wages of the compliance officers and Office Clerks. It seems that this should draw strong objections from owners, as we are being bilked.
If we are reading the dues and assessment instructions correctly for 2020, it appears there is no longer a no fee pay half now, pay half later option? This option was available for 2019 and we used it to help spread the payment out, and minimize the impact on our monthly fixed income. Did the board announce eliminating this option somewhere?
So a few people decide what is good for everybody without question? Who gives a darn about the IDA? They are not a public governing body, there are no IDA sponsored civil laws. This smells like the crap the ARC pushed in the shed overhang fiasco. Some people don’t even know their significant other is making these assumptions, as long as it benefits J Place. Speaking of that, my neighbor on the hill (that being J Place, I am a “flatlander”) is a part timer. When here, he likes to turn on his string lights so he can enjoy his deck.. guess I am going to have to file a complaint against him. I will explain that his fellow J neighbors decided he can't have them on but for those “special occasions “. I am sure he will understand. What’s more I don’t know where these almighty “darkness” worshippers live, but on any clear night ( of which there are few) I can stand in my backyard and see the Big Dipper, Little Dipper, and seasonally Orion’s Belt, Arcturus, The Northern Star, et al. Hell, if you want darkness, go out to the beach, that is what most of the posters here tell others to do if they have a problem. We have heard of “the few against the many” , well folks, that’s what this is. I wasn’ t aware that obtaining a mortgage on J Place meant you owned everything west to the Ocean”. Obviously some do. Ever think this was a quieter, more friendly place before A and O took up permanent residence here.
Have to hand it to the ARC. They took a document that was 3/4 page in big type and transformed it into a 2 page, small type document that happened to upset all of the residents living “west of J”. They said it couldn’t be done, well you showed them didn't’ You!
To be fair, it needs to be said that the Arch. Comm. has about 3 J Pl. owners, but is a mix. It sounds like Clancy (not on the Comm.)and a couple of other J pl. owners filed about 50 complaints after looking for bare bulbs (in the daytime).
But five of the eight Trustees approved the proposal to be reviewed, and it would then be enforceable with or without changes as the BOT decides. Still it is odd, and not really acceptable, that J Pl. is the demarcation, as if this is created entirely for J Place owner's benefit. The rumor is, that this has not been shown to an attorney as is routinely required, so it's shaky on many counts.
The 50 complaints by J place owners is just a rumor that keeps getting repeated as if it's a fact.
The J place demarcation was decided by the Arch Comm because the East side members didn't want the proposal to cover their side, not for it to be a benefit for J place owners. In fact the main person on the committee who is pushing for it is a flatlander, not a J place resident.
And remind me, where does the Chair person for the Arch Comm live?
The current language states that the demarcation is J Place. This demarcation based on the will of a select few on the committee who are writing the CC&R is totally inappropriate and won't stand up in court. It is the epitome of a self-serving special interest and conflict of interest.
The cowards on the Arch. committee won't disclose who wrote this garbage or how they voted. Where are the minutes. If they wrote it and they voted on it, it should be disclosed to the members. Is there at least one stand up person in the bunch? It appears, NOT
12:01. No rumor as this was reported at the architectural committee meeting that I attended. The number 50 was reported by the manager when the question came up on how many this year! As to the covenant being written in this manner of splitting up the membership by physical address for the benefit and desire of whoever voiced their opinion, not cool! Serving on a committee or the board means you are to act in the best interest of all, not a chosen few! I don’t believe this could stand up under review by a lawyer
Starting in March of this year the architectural committee meeting minutes do not even record who was present at those meetings. No minutes showing the actual recording of the business that was done during those meetings. Minutes from other committee meetings are informative and done in the correct format! I’m referring to the documentation on the “official website”. I know I can go to the office and check, but all other years seem to be easily available on the website
12:01....There hasn't been any survey of owner's opinions on this, so this explanation is B.S. The Committee that put this together made this decision, so you want to tell us that one or 2 people on the Comm. said the Eastside didn't want it ? There are over 2000 households in Surfside, and the opinions of the half dozen or so Arch. Comm. members have no business pretending to speak for the membership, when there has been NO effort to determine what members want.
I drove through the community and anyone can plainly see that area lights are the preference on nearly ALL homes. In an area often blanketed with thick fog, no one benefits from lights that point at the ground ! There has never been any discussion of making Surfside a "Dark Night Sky" community, and it is totally impractical in this community.
The proposal is inconsistent. It allows 75 watt bulbs where 60 watts in an area light would suffice, but does not limit wattage on motion detecting lights. It bans "string lights" without there being any explanation why, yet allows garden and pathway lights. Light is intended to be a tool, and that's why there are a host of different types for different purposes.
Lights that shine down are fine in a ceiling over a porch, but useless on the side of a building. This is a ridiculous proposal that should have been stopped by the BOT. No standards of this kind should be allowed in Surfside without sending a survey to allow owners to weigh in. In this case, a few folks have put together an intrusive and impractical set of standards without even recording what owners have as the starting point.
12:01....Mr. Reber stated that Clancy, deLeest and Peggy Olds filed the complaints after driving through the neighborhood. He stated this at the last Arch. Comm. meeting, so this was not an idle statement. I pointed out that it was strange that there were suddenly dozens of complaints about lights, where in past years there were less than a dozen in a year. I asked what the explanation was for this.
Mr.Cox the above post is incorrect and not true! I have already addressed this issue on this subject. Please retract your accusations as they are NOT true! We checked you source and again it is NOT true that Annette has written any lighting complaints! Geez you need to move on!
Mr. deLeest...I have made a statement that I believed accurate, making it clear that it was my recollection of what Mr. Reber said at the Arch. meeting I attended last week. I have explained the circumstances, and was frankly, very surprised that Mr. Reber offered an honest explanation. He said it was his understanding that the 3 individuals I named drove around the community looking for bare bulbs, and submitted about 50 complaints.
Apparently I am mistaken in which names were given, and I'll have to assume that you are being honest in saying Annette was not one of the individuals named. As my intentions are never personal, nor to defame anyone unduly, I apologize for my misstatement, and any distress it may have caused.
I called Mr. Reber today to ask who the individuals were that he named, and he initially claimed that he didn't name anyone, and didn't know. When I insisted that was not consistent with what I knew I had heard, he said that he knew that he had heard that Clancy had participated, and didn't know anything more. I know that I heard 3 individuals named, so gather your own conclusions.
The whole point is, there has not been a sudden surge of complaints about lighting in Surfside, and the appearance of an overwhelming compliance situation has been totally fabricated by Trustees and Comm. members writing up false complaints to flood the system. That is dishonest and intentionally misleading so as to justify putting in place a very constrictive impractical policy bent on creating work for compliance. Mr. Reber has said he would like to hire 2 Compliance Officers. That translates to wasted member dollars folks !
Mrs. deLeest is the Comm. trustee, and as such, shares responsibility in the promotion of this ridiculous policy, and with knowledge of false complaints filed to justify it. The Committee of 6 or 7 members has decided they will be the judge of what the community needs, knowing that the response of the membership, even if sharply opposed, need not be seriously considered by the Board of Trustees.
All that can be done at this point is to pile as many dissenting owners into the meeting as possible, and tell them this is NOT acceptable, and that ONLY a covenant that takes owner's wishes into account, will be. It is not intended that in a democratic format the members are not asked for input, but are simply dictated to.
To start with, it is unrealistic to suggest that practical safe lighting will not pass property lines. The criteria for this needs to be reviewed and made practical. Otherwise, the HOA should be considered responsible for any accidents and theft that occurs once this absurd policy goes into effect.
Thanks Steve, I especially agree with your closing statement, the BOT needs to be held responsible for any accident or theft that occurs because of this policy change.
Also, to all members. If you can't attend the meeting on Jan 18th, please write a letter with your concerns and email it to every BOT member, their emails addresses can be found on the "official" SS website.
Thanks for what 1:32. Thanks for slandering individuals? Thanks for all the lies and distorted information he’s posted? Someone made a comment comparing this to the Nazis. I would like to challenge that comparison. When people follow someone blindly without questioning the facts then I suggest YOU have become vulnerable TO THOSE WHO SEEK TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS ON YOU!
“Apparently I am mistaken”? I suggest it was an attempt to discredit Ms deLeest. As have many other fabrications made by you on this blog. You could not just admit your lie, because in the very next paragraph you tried to blame and accuse others for your lies. Ending with I know what I heard so gather your own conclusions”. You are a piece of work Mr Cox. You can’t even give a meaningful apology and admit you lied to the members on this blog.
After reading the post by Know the facts I’m wondering if we need a little fact checking on posts by Cox. How much of what he says is really the truth or just jockeying for another Blogger of the year award!
Mr Cox, that was the weakest apology I have ever seen written and yet you don’t? However moving on, I for one will be at the January meeting voicing my opposition to this proposed lighting covenant. Enough said!
I've stated before, a lie is intentional, and I never intend to mislead anyone. Don't know what Nazis have to do with anything. Do you take any personal responsibility for what restrictions are put on the members, when we REALLY should have a direct opportunity to vote on covenant changes ? You speak up, resist or shut-up. Those are our options.
There is no purpose in intentionally misrepresenting the truth unless you have something to gain. It gives me no joy or glory to discredit anyone, but those who choose to serve as Board Trustees and serve on Committees need to make decisions that serve the entire community in an obvious way, and expect to be held accountable for their decisions.
The Arch. Comm. and Mr. Reber want this proposal to move forward, so they are the only ones who stand to gain by misrepresenting what this is all about. I get that you have a stick up your butt over my being willing to criticize the HOA, but my objective is only to get the truth out there, by offering what I do know.
Who the individuals were who filed the bogus complaints is hardly that important. ALL of the Trustees and Arch Comm. members know who submitted these fake complaints, whatever they may claim. I suggest you reset your compass and direct your energy toward the betterment of the community and the rights of the members, rather than kissing the HOA's butt.
I've got nothing in particular against the deLeests, but Annette has a way of seeing the community as her oyster, and not OUR oyster bed. This new Lighting policy is HOA intrusion on owner's rightful choices, and like the Tree Comm./Topping policy that deLeest promotes, is elitist and inappropriate.
I made as much of an apology as is merited. Promote selfish values without member input, and you are NOT serving the community as a whole. They could have approached this covenant with care and consideration of what the members want, but didn't bother, and are in a big hurry to make it mandatory. They have used fake "complaints" based on the new covenant, which has not been enacted yet, and are using this as justification to promote this policy.
It guarantees that there will be a lot of compliance notices going out, people wanting to peer at your property, and demands that nearly everyone change light fixtures, which in some cases are very much liked by the owners.
3:38 - When the HOA has continually failed to be honest and transparent with the members, where do you think you're going to get the truth, Mr. fact checker ? I try to help George in getting the information we know about, out to the members. Unfortunately, only so many scan the blog. I get that too - people talking nonsense about Nazis, and accusations of lies, lots of lies that cannot be confirmed.
Still, everything I have stated is accurate, but the identities of the fake complaint-writers cannot be confirmed. There are about 6 Arch. Com. members, 8 Trustees, and Mr. Reber, and I'm guessing they all know who submitted the false complaints. If you can't figure out what's going on you're ignoring the obvious.
Fred, as the Trustee on this committee Annette should have been overseeing this for practicality. Annually, there have been very few lighting complaints, and no discussion community-wide about a burning need for "Dark Skies". I get the concept, as I backpacked in wilderness areas every Summer until I was about 40, and I understand the fascination.
This residential area is quite dark much of the year, because there are fewer than 500 fulltime residents. This is NOT a practical policy. It is a concern that the BOT approved this for review, and we know that there is no known precedent for the BOT changing course on a covenant change. There's little reason to think that common sense will be a factor. Annette could have brought that to bear, and it doesn't appear that she objected.
Does she oppose this policy ? If she does I'd like to hear it, and I assure you I will apologize in person. I presume she supports it.
Steve would be serving on the BOT now if they had followed past practices. I’m sure he would gladly be donating his time now if that would have been done. Just an observation!
The one thing to be thankful for is that the vote on this new lighting covenant was originally on the October BOT agenda. The proposed motion was to send out the required notices in November and the BOT were to vote at the December 7th meeting. Thank goodness they decided to wait and mail the Hearing Notice out with the yearly dues and assessments notice and delay the hearing until January 18th. At least now more members are aware of the proposal and will have the time to voice their opinion either in person or by written opinion. One way or another the BOT will be able to make a decision based on members input
Thank you for your vote of confidence JoAnne, and I feel badly you have been targeted unjustly based on unapproved standards. I agree that the brief delay MAY result in this covenant change being sent back for revision, but that hasn't been the pattern of past practice, and being honest about the sudden surge of complaints is yet to be seen.
I don't see this new proposal directly affecting my wife and I, but something so nebulous and restrictive can always be contorted to serve a negative purpose - hassle most anyone. I just see the useless intrusive "law and order" attitude that is so destructive to HOAs in full display, and I don't want to see that happening in my community. What's the obsession with dealing out pain and conflict, and feeding the bevy of attorneys our member funds ? It's just meanness brought to you by your friendly HOA.
You are the one fixed on Annette nitwit. I'm talking about the Lighting Proposal that will soon be enacted and forced down your throat. I hope the deLeests have a nice Christmas. You, anonymouse, can go to hell.
Another pointless comment by 6:10. How does that do anything for the conversation but turn people against "you"? Please at least give an opinion about shoa, one that adds to the conversation.
I think the person we should be questioning on 50 Lighting complaints is our BOT member CLANCY. I dont understand how other members of the board can allow CLANCY to continue to submit multiple ( 50 ??) complaints. CLANCY is a sad excuse of BOT member and has cost the membership many dollars Because CLANCY did submit these complaints to try and misrepresent how many lighting complaints there are he should have to recuse himself from voting on any Lighting changes. Other Board members do the right thing!!!
I'm sure they appreciate your well wishes. Just as I'm sure you have also posted anonymously many times. When push comes to shove your character shows and you resort to names...
I would have rather had George delete my response at 9:23 to a lengthy abusive post that George deleted. I try to keep my critiques on individuals involved in the HOA focused on their actions and words as they pertain to community issues and our governance. I realize that everyone intends to make a contribution of value, and not only their time.
I was very involved with our HOA in Lacey for 5 years, and served as Board vice-president of a 7 member Board. I know that it tends to be a thankless job, but it means a lot when people appreciate something you've worked on. I don't harbor grudges over differences of opinion. I have no tolerance for idle meanness such as often surfaces on the Blog, but try to stick to the topics if possible. My post at 9:23 was in response to 2 paragraphs of rambling nasty accusations that were unfounded and intolerable, posted by the person posting at 8:19.
That's the ugly side of allowing anonymous comments, and some people are obviously compelled to repeat the ugliness endlessly. It's a clear sign of mental illness. Get help, get better, feel better.
I hope everyone has a nice Christmas, and we can always try to be nicer in the new year.
Long, lengthy, abusive? Compared to what your posts with name calling? While you may be the favorite of the blog host and anything contrary gets deleted there are many who do not appreciate your approach. If you really just stuck to facts, without stating your opinion as such, things would be better... Delete in 1, 2, 3...
The Reverend said...
And there it is, the usual Cox dodge. "Apparently"? What a joke.
He has no problem making accusations and spreading rumors but not man enough to admit when he is wrong. Even now he couldn't resist taking another shot at Annette with the oyster comment. For some reason he continues to aim his ire at her more than any other Trustee.
This isn't the first time he has done this to her and obviously with the latest comments it won't be the last. Remember when he did this before and Annette went to him to set him straight? Did he apologize? No. He cried out that he had been "accosted". Whether you agree with her or not one thing is undeniable. Annette has donated a bunch of her free time as a Trustee, committee member and other duties for our community. Meanwhile Cox has spent most of his time working to be a social media personality. And Btw, it's not presume. In his case it's ASSume. Own it.
Mr Cox, I will be waiting for your apology at the January meeting. I’m surprised at some of your comments , being that you have stated you have experience being on a board in the past. You apparently do not know how committees work. The trustee does not tell the committee what to do or how to do it, that’s the committees responsibility. The trustee guides the process and submits it to the board. They can make suggestions but should not force their will on the committee. You have already crucified the trustees on this subject and it has not even been through the entire process yet (January meeting) at which point they have a number of options going forward.
I know this is a unpopular subject and I for one will be at the meeting to voice my objections and displeasure at these proposed lighting changes. What ever happened to neighbors working it out between them? If that does not work, then and only then should a complaint possibly be warranted. If the complainer is not personally impacted by the offending light no complaint should be allowed! We have lived here on J Place for only 9 months, and yes there are some pretty bright lights down below that shine in some pretty awkward directions. If they really bothered us, I would go and speak to the owner and work it out. We know how it feels being on the other side of this issue.
When we lived down below for the last 8 years we were subject to a lighting complaint last year from a J Place owner three blocks away, I would of appreciated that owner coming and talking up to us but I guess some folks are not comfortable doing it that way. I went ahead and covered the glass to shine downward but to no avail (you could still see the dull glow thru the glass) finally replaced the coastal nautical style lighting that had been on that home the past 20 years. Didn’t make much sense to us because there is now much more light on that home then before but you can’t see the bulb! So we know that this covenant needs some tweaking.
I hope the board does the right thing, I cannot speak for my wife as she is just one of 9 votes, but this revision is bad for Surfside in many ways, not just going against the bylaws! So can we put this to rest for now and enjoy the hoildays? Come to the January meeting and speak your peace and let’s be neighbors.
Fred there is not a vote of 9. Right now only 8 members on the BOT and I believe the president only votes if there is a tie Also the neighbor thing is a thing of the past I guess. I know no one came and told us our lights were a problem to them. The board voted at the August meeting to change from complaint driven to compliance reporting. The vote was yes-8. No-0. So evidently are going to have this compliance officer driving around reporting items out of compliance. Don’t know why this is so urgent right now but the board did vote for compliance in august
115 comments:
Who are the two low life trustees who have nothing better to do than drive around so they can harass the members. We want their names.
What bothers me is that this blog continues to give space to Cox's opinions.
Anonymous 6:59. Easy to attack someone who is unafraid to identify themselves while you hide behind anonymous! And tell me just why his opinions aren’t valid? You give no facts or opinions, just personal attack. Not what we need right now in my opinion
I am 100% in agreement with Mr. Cox on this covenant change.
You never believe in the worst of times that it can't get worse, but in Surfside it has. This "Nazi Mindset" has got to be stopped! Do the right thing board and step back from this insanity on lighting. Furthermore, the definition of integrity means doing the right thing: Steve Cox should be instated on board. He's the next in line! Don't know the gentleman but he is a standup guy and doesn't follow the crowd. Lastly, I demand the names of the two board members who have all that time on their hands to lurk over members' property. Who would have imagined that SHOA would stoop to this 12 years ago. THERE IS A DARK CLOUD HOVERING OVER SURFSIDE. I thought the tree gang was bad enough. Pffff!
Thanks Steve, I also have posted similar comments about the amount of members that will be affected by this new code, it's going to be just about everyone. At first I thought I was having to change 3 fixtures, but now looking at the un/acceptable types of fixtures it's going to be ALL of my lights fixtures on my house, that has been here for over 15 yrs.
I need to be there for the next meeting, we all need to be there!
Important for as many as possible come to the January 18th meeting at 9:00am in the surfside business office. Remember the BOT has the vote on this not the membership
The passing of this covenant will assure we will have to hire more compliance officers. I think we have better ways to spend our money. Maybe if we just returned to complaint driven compliance only I feel the person who complains should first contact said person and if no resolution, then file a complaint. This would definitely cut down on these complaints coming from out of the blue. If someone had just knocked on our door with their concerns about our lights, we wouldn’t still be involved in trying to get this resolved. We aren’t unreasonable people and did make adjustments to our lights. Just still blows our minds that someone can drive around and generate complaints! Not the Surfside community we bought and joined back in 2008!
6:59....You're mighty slow picking up on what goes on around you. I said I took hour long drive and looked at exterior lights on homes. We have a list of "acceptable" and "not acceptable" light fixtures. I judged what I saw by the list. I'm not giving an "opinion" about how much this proposal is a bad fit. Nearly everyone will be non-compliant, so I'll bet you are too, "anonymous".
Does anyone plan on submitting comments by email or letter?
I would like to submit by letter or email, but not sure how too?
They don't make it easy.
You have to rewrite the entire thing in a word processor then turn track changes on then make your edits and any comments you have.
On the official website there is a line : contact us I think it say, just click on that and it takes you to the email format. Good luck!
Just send your comments to the BOT members, Winegar in particular. The previous comments are not relevent to simple member input. The Arch Comm. aren't willing to discuss this. Mr. Rogers will instead pontificate on a variety of things, such as movies he's seen.
Fine me, I am not changing anything
The complaint system is at the root of this and the tree fiasco (no pun intended). A fundamental right of any person I accused of a violation I is to know their accuser. These complaints need to be public information. There would be a lot fewer of them and perhaps those signed by the names Clancy and Olds may disappear altogether!
Why would there be fewer? Because people would would harass those that make complaints perhaps? That is precisely why the system is the way it is and should be.
The easiest way to avoid a complaint is to make sure you are compliant with the covenants. Many members do so and don't have complaints filed against.
There are two members on Sea Breeze lake who have string lights. Neither are full time residents but burn the lights every night. Its the only thing you see out your windows at night. Why would someone subject all the surrounding members to something they like when they are not even home. It is annoying to say the least.
8:06. You’ve got to be kidding!! Why would looking out and seeing lights be a problem? We look out and only see the dark, very few lights in our area. We’d welcome more!
I agree 9:06. Why is it so annoying? Just because it can be with the new proposal. I would be willing to bet that before this new "lighting" proposal, most of those who are jumping on it's bandwagon, were indifferent to the lighting. Now that it's been made an issue they have them jumping on for the ride. That's what's annoying. What is this? Monkey see, monkey do? Apparently.
Sorry 9:00 what we would achieve is it negate the complaints that are filed by persons who live nowhere near the property they are complaining about, and an awareness between neighbors as to what matters and what doesn’t. If the neighborly complaint is justified and enforceable, take it to the HOA. MANY WON’t because the bulk of those filed today are from people outside of their local area. The new lighting complaints allow the voracious complaint writers to file them without even getting out of their cars. Notice that after the Johannsen fiasco, the number of NO TRESPASSING signs increased ten fold, making it a civil offense to come on property’s without the owners express consent. After seeing what occurred during the earlier fiasco people found a way to keep the HOA off of their property. Thus the purchase of the laser binoculars so the Tree Committee could spy from afar.
I am curious to know if the committee has verified that the lighting fixtures on the approved list
is available in stock, in our local area and are they available in non corrosive material ?
Guess we need to ask that question at the Jan. meeting.
Anybody checked to see which Board members relative(s) sell the approved lighting?
That reminds me. It is very dark in the winter. I feel vulnerable with all the surrounding homes in total darkness. I find comfort in the lights around me. Somebody is home. I am not alone. Even if they are out of town.
In another, lovely HOA, dues are $100 a year. If you have a complaint it is the complainers problem to file suit or fix it with the neighbor. All is calm. It is not possible to "sick the gendarmes" on a neighbor. Thus, reason prevails.
Great question.
7:57 anonymous, great points and thought process! I think going back to neighbors working together is the answer so the BOT and committees won’t be so “overwhelmed “ with the task of coping with all these complaints! We still need the basic question answered, how many complaints have been filed and how many individuals were involved in these? If they’ve only been by a very few people then we’re working with a false narrative!
I have a question for those that think that neighbor to neighbor would work. I'm going to use a real life example.
A member filed a tree complaint against another. It was determined that the trees were in fact over the covenant height but the member refused to comply. The member who made the complaint offered to cut the trees himself yet the member refused.
So, what would you folks do?
I would not cut my trees. My trees are more important than a selfish view. If I was the one who made the complaint, I would say that I was sorry for my selfish complaint and never write another. Trees and neighbors are more important than my selfish view. I would also resign from the tree committee.
Who's Mr. Rogers?
Show him some respect please.
Good luck at that January meeting.
It's been alleged on here that some submit false complaints.
It’s justification to hire more compliance officers
The proposed lighting covenant revision has generated a lot of interest. Yesterday this blog had 874 views. This is a record number.
If this covenant change is approved by a majority of the Board, most members will be in violation of the new lighting covenant. A member has proposed on this blog, a reasonable approach without making a majority of the members, law breakers.
The Board is supposed to represent the will of the total membership and not just a few. In my opinion, when this issue comes before the Board in Jan. of 2020, it should be tabled.
Just received the Weekender in my emails this morning. Finally a the legal notice of the January 18, 2002 hearing!
I think you mean 2020 and not 2002.
Oh yes! My fat fingers! Thank you
11:47....It has been suggested on the blog that neighbor to neighbor negotiations are in most cases enough where exterior lighting is concerned. No one has suggested that regarding tree matters. That is the HOA's kettle of worms, and it isn't at all likely to be negotiable between neighbors.
But bear in mind, creating more restrictions on owner's personal choices will create conflict that could otherwise be avoided. There have not been significant numbers of lighting complaints in previous years, and that's with a very simple covenant. No one seems to know where the notion came from, that Surfside needed an elaborate set of restrictions put in place. There has been no indication that people in the community have in large numbers urged the HOA to adopt a "Dark Night Sky" policy.
When I asked Tom Reber and the 3 members of the Arch Comm. how many fulltime members reside in Surfside, they had no answer. It is believed to be around 300 to 500. So how big a problem can lights be when less than 25% of the members are present through the Winter months ? There have been fewer than a dozen lighting related complaints filed in past years. I was told that this year the complaints numbered over 50 ! And why ? Because Annette deLeest, James Clancy, and Peggy Olds drove around the community looking for bare bulbs, and filed dozens of "complaints".
How is it that being a Trustee or Comm. Chair makes these people self-ordained compliance officers ? You won't find that in your job description folks. In contrast, many owners never file ANY complaints as Surfside residents. There really should be some defined limits on the number of complaints any one owner can file, as Clancy does this crap annually on Trees, and they're really fraudulent claims.
It seems that we should ALL take it upon ourselves to file gratuitous complaints and swamp the system. Trustees are doing it to justify changing the covenants, so why not get in on the action ? If owners start filing hundreds of complaints they will have to deal with it somehow, and setting limits is the place to start.
How about limiting complaints filed at a time to 2. And limiting the annual submission by one owner (or Trustee) to 6. That seems liberal actually.
In a community often wrapped in heavy fog, and often sparsely populated, good lighting when you need it is a requirement. Why would you want your lights to point down at the ground ? We're not hunting nightcrawlers. Most homes have few exterior fixtures, and the ones they do have light up an AREA. You want to see the walkway to your driveway and car. When you are expecting company, you want to have your address visible, and make your home look welcoming.
This is a damn poor community to put these restrictions on, and no one will be seeing clear nighttime skies with any regularity on the peninsula, whatever the restrictions. Mr. Tom Rogers wanted to talk about Sedona New Mexico, and their 40 years of "Dark Night Skies" policies. Even when conditions are basically clear overhead in Surfside, there is usually a low haze of moisture from the Ocean, and the cold temperatures that usually accompany easterly winds and clear skies.
No amount of effort will make Surfside like Sedona, New Mexico. This is a case of a few righteous people deciding to push an impractical bunch of restrictions on the members, and rush it through.
The point I’ve been trying to get information on! Until the BOT gives us a complete report on number of complaints, stays of those complaints and most importantly number of individuals involved in filing those complaints, they cannot possibly make an informed decision in this issue.
The fact that anyone and I mean anyone can file a complaint against a member is in my opinion totally ridiculous. If you don’t live here and pay dues and assessments, what right do you have to lodge a complaint concerning my lights or my trees?
Status
Lights are not the problem. Trees are not the problem. Eight board members and a few committee selfish members, are the problem.
It’s hard to resist on some of these comments but I have remained silent long enough. Mr Cox is miss informed about my better half going around writing up lighting complaints. Nothing could be farther from the truth and never happened. Who ever informed him that Annette went around writing up complaints is lying! Plain and simple. We have NEVER!!! written any lighting complaints ever! I am disappointed that once again he has chosen to publish incorrect unsubstantiated information. I just don’t understand why he thinks it’s ok. This does nothing more than to stir up more anonymous hate comments which apparently he likes to do!
Well Fred, answer these while you are being so truthful.
Has "your better half" ever,
written complaints on trees, sheds and other complaints against members? Has she encouraged or assisted others in writing complaints? And how about you? Your answers will be substantiated information. Will you answer, or remain "silent"?
You and Annette like to refer to critical comments as "hate". That is obviously a huge exaggeration. This proposal makes specific references to J Place as being critical to its' implementation, and the entire nature of it is elitist in nature.
I never set out trying to disrespect anyone in particular, but do expect people to be accountable for their actions as Trustees and Committee members, particularly when they decide to change covenants that are functioning just fine. The membership has not called for action on Lighting, nor has there been any survey of what owners want on anything in Surfside.
It was my understanding from what Mr. Reber said this week in the Arch. Comm. meeting, that the individuals I named were the source of the manufactured complaints. If I was mistaken, or he was, it hardly seems a matter to be seen as hateful. If I was incorrect then I guess I apologize. It hardly matters, considering that this is still a creation out of the blue, that puts many restrictions on individual choices, which serves little to no purpose.
If you have read my comments, you know that I have looked over the light fixtures currently being used by owners, and these restrictions will require about 80 to 90% of owners to replace their fixtures. Maybe you don't get that AREA lights are very much the lights of choice, while many homes appear to have very few exterior lights. This is NOT a community wide issue, and that can be easily discerned by driving around the community after dark.
I'm struck by your sense of self pity, that Annette would be mentioned at all as sharing some responsibility for the decisions the BOT makes. If she is opposed to the implementation of this policy, please make that statement public so we can better understand her position on this. If that's the case, I definitely owe you both an apology.
I don't hate anyone, and never speak in such terms on the blog, or anywhere. I do not know people who speak of hate, have no friends who speak of hating other human beings - so you're on your own in this business. There are those who make despicable remarks on the blog, but nothing I ever say publicly or privately can ever be characterized as such.
By the way, I realized I had misspoken regarding Sedona, which I stated is in New Mexico, while I know full well it's in Arizona. Nothing hateful intended Fred.
First off the board hasn't even voted on the proposal yet so I don't understand how Cox can expect Annette or any other board member to make their position public. Besides that, shouldn't they give members the opportunity to give their opinions before they do make their decision in the first place? Isn't that how it's suppose to work?
I do know this as a fact. I was at the board meeting when this was first discussed and Annette was one of the trustees who had some questions about the proposal while the newly elected Blog favorite board member Scott was for it, yet he seems to get a pass on this.
I also don't understand why Cox and others keep trying to make this a J place thing. This was proposed by the Arch Comm which isn't full of J place members. As others besides myself have said the reason it was written as a West side only was due to East side members on the committee not wanting it in their area. In my opinion that isn't right or fair.
Bottom line. I feel that until the board actually votes and you actually know their position it is irresponsible to say or accuse any trustee until you know the facts.
To the hate thing. When you make statements, even if done so politely, that are incorrect that gets others riled up it promotes hate. I can understand Fred's position when his wife gets attacked with people making false statements. I also find it interesting the position Cox takes when you consider he has done the same in the past. Then look at what he wrote. He says that if he was incorrect then "I guess I apologize". Well there's the big difference between him and I. If I was to make a false statement against someone I would apologize because to me truth does matter.
Lastly, the self pity remark was uncalled for, but once again unfortunately not surprising given who made it.
Kind of like "we will see whats in the bill after we pass it? Puleeeez.
With Mrs. de leest being a part of the Arch. committee and writing the covenant, it seems reasonable to conclude that she favors it. Do you really think she has not made up her mind before the hearing? Get real.
Here we go again, more lies, you people are ruthless, Hiding behind anonymous, Annette is a co-trustee assigned to the committee, Annette is not on the arch committee, did not write the proposed covenant changes. Geez people stop with the accusations, get the right information before you embarrass yourselves. You will find out how she votes at the January meeting. I will be there also with a lot of you speaking my peace against this covenant change.
So would this invasive lights thing also apply to the Surfside Inn, Surfside Market and the American flags in the HOA that are lit up at night? We also cant forget about the houses that are hooked up to our water outside of the Surfside area.
I just love the last paragraph of the Notice Of Hearing. “The architectural committee considered the interests of members that want a dark sky and members that want lighting on their property for safety”. Are you kidding me? So those of us on the Oceanside if JPl cannot have lighting for safety? We can only provide a dark night sky for some reason! We were told at our lighting complaint appeal that lighting does not provide for safety as in alerting criminals that we are home! This difference in treatment and recognizing for some that lights do provide safety, but for others it’s unimportant in comparison to the enjoyment of a dark night sky! I think all members are to be treated the same, not divided by J Pl as a marker!
Fact Check:
The comment by Fred de leest is in error. Annette de leest IS a member of the Arch Committee.
As stated in the Surfside Policy Manual on page 70, line 3
"In the case of committee assignment, the Designated Trustee should be an active member of the committee".
George is correct, I stand corrected for the wording in the policy manual.
I asked the same thing about the reader board at the Veterans Memorial Park that stays lit up all night and it faces our house. We had to complain about it because it had no deflector and it literally lit up our house!! They put the deflector on it, but it still bothers us.
to 11:07 - getting back to the notion that neighbor to neighbor solutions do not work. If neighbor A complains to neighbor B that his tree is too tall, and neighbor B refuses to take action - Neighbor A would have to file his own civil complaint against neighbor B. This would make neighbor A think twice about how much he cares about his neighbor's tree height. The current systems plays off emotional junk. People want to win, especially if it is free.
The BOT has already approved of the Lighting proposal, and has had the Member Review scheduled for the day of the January Board Meeting. So there IS reason for concern. The new proposal could have been published on a single sheet of paper and sent out with the Biannual newsletter, but that would be too transparent and considerate. All but the drawings is on the website.
The proposal has new covenant wording, as well as pictures/cartoons of lighting that are categorized as "acceptable" and "not acceptable". This is one of the main problems with this proposal. No one took the time to notice that most of the exterior lights on homes are AREA lights, and area lights will be banned. Most of the "unacceptable" light fixtures can be annoying or perfectly acceptable depending on the wattage.
The Board has no obligation to alter the existing proposal one iota, regardless of owner comments at this January meeting, but for those who oppose this policy/covenant change, not attending this meeting and speaking your piece, assures that this will go forward without any changes.
Personally, I think the entire thing needs to be taken back into committee and made practical by surveying what owners already have, and adding some clarity to the language. This business of lights facing "downward" is ridiculous. Area lights are intended to light an area for specific reasons. Limiting wattage in ALL exterior fixtures to 60 watts could be enough. As the policy is written, there are no limits on motion-detector lights, and 75 watts is the limit on most. Bulbs cannot show, and carriage lights would be banned. I estimate that about 80% of homes have "unacceptable fixtures" and will non-compliant.
And add to that there will be no decorative string lights and no lights for July 4th or any other holiday except thanksgiving and Christmas! Oh yes, and there’s that added little thing about the property has to inspected to make sure it’s in compliance before a sale of the property goes through. In the HOAs we’ve been involved in, only the status of the dues and assessments affects the closing of a real estate procedure!
The elephant in the room is J Place. It is the same gang pushing for this as they do topping trees for their own view.
The two trustees on the Architecture committee ate Kurt Olds and Annette de leest, both J Place residents. Tom Rodgers and Cindi Pellerin, committee members, are also J Place residents.
Allow the trees to grow, and the J Place gang will not see any light below them in the harassment zone.
If anyone thinks the bot gives a damn what we think, you haven't been paying attention.
You've made this comment at least a couple of other times about other things. The only option to fully accepting this as it is, is to make your objections known.
Just as many J place homes have unacceptable light fixtures as elsewhere in the community, and that's because we all need an area light or two for dark nights. A light on the front of a house that only points downward, will light-up the ground beneath it, which doesn't do any good. It will not light the driveway where you may be loading or unloading things from your car, and will not light your address numbers for guests who may have never been to your home.
It doesn't merit breaking a leg trying to find your car, so that someone's dream of a dark night community is fulfilled. We live in a stormy foggy dynamic place, that is beautiful because it is wild. Clear skies at night are a rarity, and the community is only lit as much as needed. Everyone appreciates the wildness here, but good lighting IS a safety factor, when the fog is thick as soup, or you just want to return to the house from your driveway without falling over something in the dark.
I just cannot find a reason why this proposal would improve anyone's life. It simply does not make any sense.
Thanks for acknowledging your error. Some very outspoken people on here never do or do so disingenuously and insincerely.
Thanks for standing up for yourself and Annette Fred!
And some demand apologies where none are merited.
Yep, the new Fred. No longer the angry J Place Mr. Annette. Buy that, and I have a bridge to sell ya. Oh what games we play...
And some demand to be thanked. No need for more words.
The figure for lighting fixtures comes from International Dark-Sky Association (IDA).
Now there's some truth.
Can anyone tell for sure what requirements would apply east of those with J Place addresses?
Does J Place run North to South through our entire community?
What requirements apply from 295th Street North to 300th Place?
The answer to the above is in the Notice of Hearing, last sentence under Explanation. The provisions would only apply to the parcels from the Ocean to J Place. The notice of hearing is in the packet you should have received with your yearly statement for dues and assessments!
I haven't received anything in the mail.
December Newsletters should be in the mail. Notice of a member meeting are to be sent no later than 30 days prior to the meeting. For unknown reasons, the HOA is in a hurry to get this new policy in the works. It is NOT at all practical, and was created without determining what owners already have, or inquiring what owners want.
It's a disturbing trend that began with the SHED EAVES covenant. A new Title Change /Compliance Inspection policy was enacted in recent months, requiring owners pay a $200 fee for the simple procedure, and a mandatory property Inspection is required. This ignores the fact that simple record-keeping by the Office should make checking records for compliance a matter of a few clicks.
It also will require paid compliance inspectors to visit your property before a sale can proceed. So one of the most basic services our dues and assessments should cover, title change, now costs $200, and our dues and assessments of course, pay for the wages of the compliance officers and Office Clerks. It seems that this should draw strong objections from owners, as we are being bilked.
If we are reading the dues and assessment instructions correctly for 2020, it appears there is no longer a no fee pay half now, pay half later option? This option was available for 2019 and we used it to help spread the payment out, and minimize the impact on our monthly fixed income. Did the board announce eliminating this option somewhere?
Disregard the above , this option exists for Pacific county property taxes , not HOA dues, sorry, age associated memory challenges here.
So a few people decide what is good for everybody without question? Who gives a darn about the IDA? They are not a public governing body, there are no IDA sponsored civil laws. This smells like the crap the ARC pushed in the shed overhang fiasco. Some people don’t even know their significant other is making these assumptions, as long as it benefits J Place. Speaking of that, my neighbor on the hill (that being J Place, I am a “flatlander”) is a part timer. When here, he likes to turn on his string lights so he can enjoy his deck.. guess I am going to have to file a complaint against him. I will explain that his fellow J neighbors decided he can't have them on but for those “special occasions “. I am sure he will understand. What’s more I don’t know where these almighty “darkness” worshippers live, but on any clear night ( of which there are few) I can stand in my backyard and see the Big Dipper, Little Dipper, and seasonally Orion’s Belt, Arcturus, The Northern Star, et al. Hell, if you want darkness, go out to the beach, that is what most of the posters here tell others to do if they have a problem. We have heard of “the few against the many” , well folks, that’s what this is. I wasn’ t aware that obtaining a mortgage on J Place meant you owned everything west to the Ocean”. Obviously some do. Ever think this was a quieter, more friendly place before A and O took up permanent residence here.
Have to hand it to the ARC. They took a document that was 3/4 page in big type and transformed it into a 2 page, small type document that happened to upset all of the residents living “west of J”. They said it couldn’t be done, well you showed them didn't’ You!
The worst part is that they can show us again by passing this covenant on January 18th!
To be fair, it needs to be said that the Arch. Comm. has about 3 J Pl. owners, but is a mix. It sounds like Clancy (not on the Comm.)and a couple of other J pl. owners filed about 50 complaints after looking for bare bulbs (in the daytime).
But five of the eight Trustees approved the proposal to be reviewed, and it would then be enforceable with or without changes as the BOT decides. Still it is odd, and not really acceptable, that J Pl. is the demarcation, as if this is created entirely for J Place owner's benefit. The rumor is, that this has not been shown to an attorney as is routinely required, so it's shaky on many counts.
It's already decided.
We need to be respectful.
I see several issues that could possibly lead to SHOA embarrassment in court. I stated one in an earlier post.
Wow, I bet you're right.
They want it dark so they can see Uranus better with there spot scopes lol
We plan on cruising J Place to look for violations. Being on J, we know we won’t be bothered by Clancy and his group as they won’t be anywhere near J.
Is that an adjunct of the Flat Earth society?
Why? We are getting shafted by J Placers once again. This is blatant self interest!
The 50 complaints by J place owners is just a rumor that keeps getting repeated as if it's a fact.
The J place demarcation was decided by the Arch Comm because the East side members didn't want the proposal to cover their side, not for it to be a benefit for J place owners. In fact the main person on the committee who is pushing for it is a flatlander, not a J place resident.
And remind me, where does the Chair person for the Arch Comm live?
Under a rock?
The current language states that the demarcation is J Place.
This demarcation based on the will of a select few on the committee who are writing the CC&R is totally inappropriate and won't stand up in court. It is the epitome of a self-serving special interest and conflict of interest.
The cowards on the Arch. committee won't disclose who wrote this garbage or how they voted. Where are the minutes. If they wrote it and they voted on it, it should be disclosed to the members. Is there at least one stand up person in the bunch? It appears, NOT
Start writing letters and email them to all members of the BOT.
12:01. No rumor as this was reported at the architectural committee meeting that I attended. The number 50 was reported by the manager when the question came up on how many this year!
As to the covenant being written in this manner of splitting up the membership by physical address for the benefit and desire of whoever voiced their opinion, not cool! Serving on a committee or the board means you are to act in the best interest of all, not a chosen few!
I don’t believe this could stand up under review by a lawyer
Starting in March of this year the architectural committee meeting minutes do not even record who was present at those meetings. No minutes showing the actual recording of the business that was done during those meetings. Minutes from other committee meetings are informative and done in the correct format! I’m referring to the documentation on the “official website”. I know I can go to the office and check, but all other years seem to be easily available on the website
12:01....There hasn't been any survey of owner's opinions on this, so this explanation is B.S. The Committee that put this together made this decision, so you want to tell us that one or 2 people on the Comm. said the Eastside didn't want it ? There are over 2000 households in Surfside, and the opinions of the half dozen or so Arch. Comm. members have no business pretending to speak for the membership, when there has been NO effort to determine what members want.
I drove through the community and anyone can plainly see that area lights are the preference on nearly ALL homes. In an area often blanketed with thick fog, no one benefits from lights that point at the ground ! There has never been any discussion of making Surfside a "Dark Night Sky" community, and it is totally impractical in this community.
The proposal is inconsistent. It allows 75 watt bulbs where 60 watts in an area light would suffice, but does not limit wattage on motion detecting lights. It bans "string lights" without there being any explanation why, yet allows garden and pathway lights. Light is intended to be a tool, and that's why there are a host of different types for different purposes.
Lights that shine down are fine in a ceiling over a porch, but useless on the side of a building. This is a ridiculous proposal that should have been stopped by the BOT. No standards of this kind should be allowed in Surfside without sending a survey to allow owners to weigh in. In this case, a few folks have put together an intrusive and impractical set of standards without even recording what owners have as the starting point.
12:01....Mr. Reber stated that Clancy, deLeest and Peggy Olds filed the complaints after driving through the neighborhood. He stated this at the last Arch. Comm. meeting, so this was not an idle statement. I pointed out that it was strange that there were suddenly dozens of complaints about lights, where in past years there were less than a dozen in a year. I asked what the explanation was for this.
Mr.Cox the above post is incorrect and not true! I have already addressed this issue on this subject. Please retract your accusations as they are NOT true! We checked you source and again it is NOT true that Annette has written any lighting complaints! Geez you need to move on!
Mr. deLeest...I have made a statement that I believed accurate, making it clear that it was my recollection of what Mr. Reber said at the Arch. meeting I attended last week. I have explained the circumstances, and was frankly, very surprised that Mr. Reber offered an honest explanation. He said it was his understanding that the 3 individuals I named drove around the community looking for bare bulbs, and submitted about 50 complaints.
Apparently I am mistaken in which names were given, and I'll have to assume that you are being honest in saying Annette was not one of the individuals named. As my intentions are never personal, nor to defame anyone unduly, I apologize for my misstatement, and any distress it may have caused.
I called Mr. Reber today to ask who the individuals were that he named, and he initially claimed that he didn't name anyone, and didn't know. When I insisted that was not consistent with what I knew I had heard, he said that he knew that he had heard that Clancy had participated, and didn't know anything more. I know that I heard 3 individuals named, so gather your own conclusions.
The whole point is, there has not been a sudden surge of complaints about lighting in Surfside, and the appearance of an overwhelming compliance situation has been totally fabricated by Trustees and Comm. members writing up false complaints to flood the system. That is dishonest and intentionally misleading so as to justify putting in place a very constrictive impractical policy bent on creating work for compliance. Mr. Reber has said he would like to hire 2 Compliance Officers. That translates to wasted member dollars folks !
Mrs. deLeest is the Comm. trustee, and as such, shares responsibility in the promotion of this ridiculous policy, and with knowledge of false complaints filed to justify it. The Committee of 6 or 7 members has decided they will be the judge of what the community needs, knowing that the response of the membership, even if sharply opposed, need not be seriously considered by the Board of Trustees.
All that can be done at this point is to pile as many dissenting owners into the meeting as possible, and tell them this is NOT acceptable, and that ONLY a covenant that takes owner's wishes into account, will be. It is not intended that in a democratic format the members are not asked for input, but are simply dictated to.
To start with, it is unrealistic to suggest that practical safe lighting will not pass property lines. The criteria for this needs to be reviewed and made practical. Otherwise, the HOA should be considered responsible for any accidents and theft that occurs once this absurd policy goes into effect.
Thanks Steve, I especially agree with your closing statement, the BOT needs to be held responsible for any accident or theft that occurs because of this policy change.
Also, to all members. If you can't attend the meeting on Jan 18th, please write a letter with your concerns and email it to every BOT member, their emails addresses can be found on the "official" SS website.
Thanks for what 1:32. Thanks for slandering individuals? Thanks for all the lies and distorted information he’s posted? Someone made a comment comparing this to the Nazis. I would like to challenge that comparison. When people follow someone blindly without questioning the facts then I suggest YOU have become vulnerable TO THOSE WHO SEEK TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS ON YOU!
“Apparently I am mistaken”? I suggest it was an attempt to discredit Ms deLeest. As have many other fabrications made by you on this blog. You could not just admit your lie, because in the very next paragraph you tried to blame and accuse others for your lies. Ending with I know what I heard so gather your own conclusions”. You are a piece of work Mr Cox. You can’t even give a meaningful apology and admit you lied to the members on this blog.
After reading the post by Know the facts I’m wondering if we need a little fact checking on posts by Cox. How much of what he says is really the truth or just jockeying for another Blogger of the year award!
Mr Cox, that was the weakest apology I have ever seen written and yet you don’t? However moving on, I for one will be at the January meeting voicing my opposition to this proposed lighting covenant. Enough said!
I've stated before, a lie is intentional, and I never intend to mislead anyone. Don't know what Nazis have to do with anything. Do you take any personal responsibility for what restrictions are put on the members, when we REALLY should have a direct opportunity to vote on covenant changes ? You speak up, resist or shut-up. Those are our options.
There is no purpose in intentionally misrepresenting the truth unless you have something to gain. It gives me no joy or glory to discredit anyone, but those who choose to serve as Board Trustees and serve on Committees need to make decisions that serve the entire community in an obvious way, and expect to be held accountable for their decisions.
The Arch. Comm. and Mr. Reber want this proposal to move forward, so they are the only ones who stand to gain by misrepresenting what this is all about. I get that you have a stick up your butt over my being willing to criticize the HOA, but my objective is only to get the truth out there, by offering what I do know.
Who the individuals were who filed the bogus complaints is hardly that important. ALL of the Trustees and Arch Comm. members know who submitted these fake complaints, whatever they may claim. I suggest you reset your compass and direct your energy toward the betterment of the community and the rights of the members, rather than kissing the HOA's butt.
I've got nothing in particular against the deLeests, but Annette has a way of seeing the community as her oyster, and not OUR oyster bed. This new Lighting policy is HOA intrusion on owner's rightful choices, and like the Tree Comm./Topping policy that deLeest promotes, is elitist and inappropriate.
I made as much of an apology as is merited. Promote selfish values without member input, and you are NOT serving the community as a whole. They could have approached this covenant with care and consideration of what the members want, but didn't bother, and are in a big hurry to make it mandatory. They have used fake "complaints" based on the new covenant, which has not been enacted yet, and are using this as justification to promote this policy.
It guarantees that there will be a lot of compliance notices going out, people wanting to peer at your property, and demands that nearly everyone change light fixtures, which in some cases are very much liked by the owners.
3:38 - When the HOA has continually failed to be honest and transparent with the members, where do you think you're going to get the truth, Mr. fact checker ? I try to help George in getting the information we know about, out to the members. Unfortunately, only so many scan the blog. I get that too - people talking nonsense about Nazis, and accusations of lies, lots of lies that cannot be confirmed.
Still, everything I have stated is accurate, but the identities of the fake complaint-writers cannot be confirmed. There are about 6 Arch. Com. members, 8 Trustees, and Mr. Reber, and I'm guessing they all know who submitted the false complaints. If you can't figure out what's going on you're ignoring the obvious.
Fred, as the Trustee on this committee Annette should have been overseeing this for practicality. Annually, there have been very few lighting complaints, and no discussion community-wide about a burning need for "Dark Skies". I get the concept, as I backpacked in wilderness areas every Summer until I was about 40, and I understand the fascination.
This residential area is quite dark much of the year, because there are fewer than 500 fulltime residents. This is NOT a practical policy. It is a concern that the BOT approved this for review, and we know that there is no known precedent for the BOT changing course on a covenant change. There's little reason to think that common sense will be a factor. Annette could have brought that to bear, and it doesn't appear that she objected.
Does she oppose this policy ? If she does I'd like to hear it, and I assure you I will apologize in person. I presume she supports it.
Steve would be serving on the BOT now if they had followed past practices. I’m sure he would gladly be donating his time now if that would have been done. Just an observation!
The one thing to be thankful for is that the vote on this new lighting covenant was originally on the October BOT agenda. The proposed motion was to send out the required notices in November and the BOT were to vote at the December 7th meeting. Thank goodness they decided to wait and mail the Hearing Notice out with the yearly dues and assessments notice and delay the hearing until January 18th. At least now more members are aware of the proposal and will have the time to voice their opinion either in person or by written opinion. One way or another the BOT will be able to make a decision based on members input
seems like the BOT is trying to take steps, although smallish, in the right direction toward transparency?
Thank you for your vote of confidence JoAnne, and I feel badly you have been targeted unjustly based on unapproved standards. I agree that the brief delay MAY result in this covenant change being sent back for revision, but that hasn't been the pattern of past practice, and being honest about the sudden surge of complaints is yet to be seen.
I don't see this new proposal directly affecting my wife and I, but something so nebulous and restrictive can always be contorted to serve a negative purpose - hassle most anyone. I just see the useless intrusive "law and order" attitude that is so destructive to HOAs in full display, and I don't want to see that happening in my community. What's the obsession with dealing out pain and conflict, and feeding the bevy of attorneys our member funds ? It's just meanness brought to you by your friendly HOA.
Happy Holidays the Surfside way.
You are the one fixed on Annette nitwit. I'm talking about the Lighting Proposal that will soon be enacted and forced down your throat. I hope the deLeests have a nice Christmas. You, anonymouse, can go to hell.
Another pointless comment by 6:10. How does that do anything for the conversation but turn people against "you"? Please at least give an opinion about shoa, one that adds to the conversation.
I think the person we should be questioning on 50 Lighting complaints is our BOT member CLANCY. I dont understand how other members of the board can allow CLANCY to continue to submit multiple ( 50 ??) complaints. CLANCY is a sad excuse of BOT member and has cost the membership many dollars
Because CLANCY did submit these complaints to try and misrepresent how many lighting complaints there are he should have to recuse himself from voting on any Lighting changes. Other Board members do the right thing!!!
I'm sure they appreciate your well wishes.
Just as I'm sure you have also posted anonymously many times.
When push comes to shove your character shows and you resort to names...
10:09
Yes you are correct. The whole new lighting proposal does smell. Members of this Board do not like to be called out.
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas 10:09 and 10:25.
I would have rather had George delete my response at 9:23 to a lengthy abusive post that George deleted. I try to keep my critiques on individuals involved in the HOA focused on their actions and words as they pertain to community issues and our governance. I realize that everyone intends to make a contribution of value, and not only their time.
I was very involved with our HOA in Lacey for 5 years, and served as Board vice-president of a 7 member Board. I know that it tends to be a thankless job, but it means a lot when people appreciate something you've worked on. I don't harbor grudges over differences of opinion. I have no tolerance for idle meanness such as often surfaces on the Blog, but try to stick to the topics if possible. My post at 9:23 was in response to 2 paragraphs of rambling nasty accusations that were unfounded and intolerable, posted by the person posting at 8:19.
That's the ugly side of allowing anonymous comments, and some people are obviously compelled to repeat the ugliness endlessly. It's a clear sign of mental illness. Get help, get better, feel better.
I hope everyone has a nice Christmas, and we can always try to be nicer in the new year.
Long, lengthy, abusive?
Compared to what your posts with name calling?
While you may be the favorite of the blog host and anything contrary gets deleted there are many who do not appreciate your approach. If you really just stuck to facts, without stating your opinion as such, things would be better...
Delete in 1, 2, 3...
The Reverend said...
And there it is, the usual Cox dodge. "Apparently"? What a joke.
He has no problem making accusations and spreading rumors but not man enough to admit when he is wrong. Even now he couldn't resist taking another shot at Annette with the oyster comment. For some reason he continues to aim his ire at her more than any other Trustee.
This isn't the first time he has done this to her and obviously with the latest comments it won't be the last. Remember when he did this before and Annette went to him to set him straight? Did he apologize? No. He cried out that he had been "accosted". Whether you agree with her or not one thing is undeniable. Annette has donated a bunch of her free time as a Trustee, committee member and other duties for our community. Meanwhile Cox has spent most of his time working to be a social media personality. And Btw, it's not presume. In his case it's ASSume. Own it.
Those posts were not by the same person Cox.
A clear sign of mental illness?
Getting some more therapy today, I see, Cox.
Mr Cox, I will be waiting for your apology at the January meeting. I’m surprised at some of your comments , being that you have stated you have experience being on a board in the past. You apparently do not know how committees work. The trustee does not tell the committee what to do or how to do it, that’s the committees responsibility. The trustee guides the process and submits it to the board. They can make suggestions but should not force their will on the committee. You have already crucified the trustees on this subject and it has not even been through the entire process yet (January meeting) at which point they have a number of options going forward.
I know this is a unpopular subject and I for one will be at the meeting to voice my objections and displeasure at these proposed lighting changes. What ever happened to neighbors working it out between them? If that does not work, then and only then should a complaint possibly be warranted. If the complainer is not personally impacted by the offending light no complaint should be allowed! We have lived here on J Place for only 9 months, and yes there are some pretty bright lights down below that shine in some pretty awkward directions. If they really bothered us, I would go and speak to the owner and work it out. We know how it feels being on the other side of this issue.
When we lived down below for the last 8 years we were subject to a lighting complaint last year from a J Place owner three blocks away, I would of appreciated that owner coming and talking up to us but I guess some folks are not comfortable doing it that way. I went ahead and covered the glass to shine downward but to no avail (you could still see the dull glow thru the glass) finally replaced the coastal nautical style lighting that had been on that home the past 20 years. Didn’t make much sense to us because there is now much more light on that home then before but you can’t see the bulb! So we know that this covenant needs some tweaking.
I hope the board does the right thing, I cannot speak for my wife as she is just one of 9 votes, but this revision is bad for Surfside in many ways, not just going against the bylaws! So can we put this to rest for now and enjoy the hoildays? Come to the January meeting and speak your peace and let’s be neighbors.
Fred there is not a vote of 9. Right now only 8 members on the BOT and I believe the president only votes if there is a tie
Also the neighbor thing is a thing of the past I guess. I know no one came and told us our lights were a problem to them. The board voted at the August meeting to change from complaint driven to compliance reporting. The vote was yes-8. No-0. So evidently are going to have this compliance officer driving around reporting items out of compliance. Don’t know why this is so urgent right now but the board did vote for compliance in august
There is a big difference between how things should be, and how things are in shoa. Better hope member apathy continues.
Post a Comment