All members have the right to have safety and security..It is a basic right
While Surfside has contracted for the service of a Pacific County Deputy,, it is only for eight (8) hours a day for five (5) days of the week. The majority of his duty is during the day light hours. Not all his time is spent on patrol. He works forty (40) hours a week, which has 168 hours.
Especially during the Winter months we experience darkness for up to fifteen (15) hours each day.
Most of the children are catching a bus and exiting during darkness. They board the school bus at the end of their driveways a distance from their homes. The school bus does have flashing lights when loading and discharging the children, but many are waiting for the bus in darkness. Most of the very young are accompanied with an adult, but most older children are not. This is a safety and security concern for the parents. Surfside, especially because of the distance from schools and long routes, have students traveling for an hour, which puts them outside waiting for the bus, much longer than students in other locations.
Surfside, compared to other communities, has many senior citizens living here. Many are widowed living alone. Those living alone tend to be more fearful for their security. Many will not answer a ring or knock at the door, especially during darkness. An after dark car in the driveway or knock on the door is fearful and stressful. Seniors are prone to falling which is the number one cause of injury for them. It is essential that they have lighting for safety and security. A compliance officer driving around slowly at night looking for lighting violations, also is a cause for concern by seniors. They do not need more stress in their lives.
Statistics prove that most property theft occurs at night and the thieves look for easy opportunities. They choose an unlighted property over a lighted one. Our community has many part time residences that tend to be more vacant during the dark Winter months than the longer day light months of Summer. We also have a large number of storage sheds. Recently there has been an increase in theft from sheds. In one recent incident, a whole house had it's belongings stolen. Any law enforcement official will tell you that lighting deters crime. It is a fact.
It is obvious but not admitted, that the new proposed lighting covenant has not been submitted to the association attorney for review. It is difficult to believe that any attorney would approve such a covenant, especially as poorly written as this. A covenant that lessons any members ability to provide security and safety on their property or frontage road or street where their children are, will subject the Surfside Homeowners to costly law suits.
A covenant that applies to only a portion of Surfside and requires the replacement of existing lights, makes no sense at all.
While the above discussion has focused on children, seniors and property, the concerns apply to all members. Safety and security should be the number one priority. This ill conceived proposed covenant is contrary to what Surfside members want. They want more safety and security, not less. Those responsible need to admit their mistake and apologize to the community.
37 comments:
Cut the patrol hours way down in surfside. Since county cuts a few years ago,
Travis spends majority of time outside of surfside. We pay for ocean park n beyond. Ive seen him in LB alot, patrolling sandridge.
Although safety and security are important to all people, they are not a basic right. If they were, victims of crime could sue the police for failure to keep them safe and secure. Safety and security are a commodity that we pay for. The more you pay the safer and more secure you are. Better and more locks, more and better trained police and firemen, video and motion sensors, personal bodyguards. How much does your community and you personally want to spend to achieve a safe and secure existence. Of course there is a trade off, how much are you willing to endure to achieve a safe and secure existence. I personally do not want to see our community lit up like a prison yard in the name of safe and secure existence.
7:12 is J Place BS. More you pay the safer you are. Less you pay, less view you have and where you live makes you less deserving of safety and security. Same old elitist attitude. It is more like a concentration camp than a prison yard. I am willing to endure your BS until you and your kind are shut up and removed from the board and committees.
If you did some research on safety sites you would find that they recommend to not have constant lights on for safety in rural areas like ours and instead people should use motion detection lights instead. Statistics have shown that constant lights instead of being a deterrent actually help the prowlers.
Again, this was for rural areas which we are.
The contract between SHOA and PCSO does NOT state what you have posted. And your math has me totally confused...how does 40 hours a week equal 168 hours? George, if you do not have a copy of the contract I will be happy to email it to you.
I won't question your comment about crimes happening at night (or in the dark), but the perp who invaded my property here in SHOA did so in the middle of the day. Everybody needs to keep their eye's and ear's open and call the sheriff when suspicious things are happening.
The lighting covenant is total BS and I emailed SHOA to inform them how I felt. I have no doubt this will be settled in court. Same with their $200 exit charge for people selling property.
Well we kinda feel like we’re serving prison time with the continued controversy over our lights! We were told by members of the board that lights do not deter crime which was part of our appeal. Also please note that after placing black tape around our porch and garage lights so that they shined directly down, we were in darkness between the back steps and our garage! Safety was not an issue as we appealed with no full time neighbors and no houses to the north of us, we were completely in the dark. The board said there was no justification in lighting up more than our parcel per the covenants wording, but yet denied our appeal for decorative lights per 2.17a. We certainly weren’t interfering with any one else’s property!
So if you want to live under these restrictions that in our view are unreasonable, have at it because the board has already approved it and the hearing is only because it’s required! And I don’t want to live under even a darker sky from J place to the ocean just because a very few desire this ! I’m sure one of the reasons our appeal was turned down was because under the new covenant there will be no string lights and they were being proactive!
The first comment doesn't get what the issue is. It isn't about what we pay for what services from the Deputy. That issue has been discussed at length, and we receive as much service from the County as can be enabled by their budgeting of time and money. Some service is better than a rent-a-cop, and Surfside, with an annual budget of about 1.4 MILLION dollars can afford to cover costs that help patrol adjacent neighborhoods, which helps Surfside as well.
7:12 also doesn't get what is being discussed. Have you actually looked this proposal over ? I suggest that you drive around the community well after dark and determine if this looks like a "prison yard". The lighting covenant currently in place has served the community well for about 10 years or more and it has been established that complaints have been very few annually, and the management of them has required a minimal effort in time and expense.
It has also been established that a Trustee and friends filed about 50 complaints all at once, to help justify a more restrictive covenant. They drove around part of the community during daylight hours, looking for bare bulbs, and cited these properties without evidence of a violation.
There has not been a ground swell of members demanding dark nighttime skies, so why this was considered a criteria for a very restrictive lighting covenant is a quandary. As George eloquently states, safety and practicality are the primary goals a lighting covenant needs to address.
The original covenant is misleading and should be amended for clarity, but kept simple, limiting wattages and allowing owners to make their own choices about fixtures and function. But light will never observe property lines, and common sense tells us, that your neighbor doesn't want a high wattage motion detector light blasting directly into their home.
So a covenant that stresses that lights must be positioned with consideration of neighboring properties should be adequate to adhere to, without sacrificing adequate use of area lights which about 90% of homes have at their entrances.
As you look out across Surfside, what is striking is really that it is so DARK overall. For about 6 months out of the year there aren't more than a few hundred residents present at one time, and most have no night lights at all. When we are in Surfside, we do not leave a light on all night. When in Lacey WA, we do, and most of our neighbors do as well.
10:06 - Surfside is a residential neighborhood with many of the owners being part-time residents. There is no simple formula for what is most safe, and no one has suggested leaving lights on all the time. A number of comments here recently have pointed out that motion-detector lights tend to not fare well in our climate.
The absence of visiting neighbors and minimal traffic during much of the year is much more of a factor than if a light is a motion-detector or not. But most folks use a night-detector for lights that shine during the night. It appears thatmost choose to have no lights at all during their absence.
I like to leave my light on in the evening and when I am gone. It just feels better to me, why isn't that a choice as long as I don't bug my neighbors?
Motion detectors do not last long here, replaced several before just going to straight on/off lights.
What if most of the comments from members support the proposed lighting covenant? What if the board gets more positive comments for he proposed lighting covenant than negitive comments? Will you accept that as the majority preference and accept and abide by the new rule? I personally like the dark sky proposal, but if most are against it, I will accept that and move on.
Anonymous 11:07. Do you really believe that the majority of the members support this covenant? If so then you haven’t talked to many members recently. I for sure have visited with many while I have been providing members with copies of the proposed covenant. So far I have not found one person who agrees in any way shape or form. I have been met with nothing but surprise and disbelief from people. I’m sure there are a few who want this restrictive, controlling rule, but I sure haven’t met any yet!
Most are afraid to say they like it or not. They will be repeatedly attacked and called names.
JoAnne: What did you think about the shed overhang amendment? I was there at the hearing and asked a question. I asked, "Why regulate overhang amount?" Did you attend that hearing? The Trustees had no interest in addressing my question. Other members spoke up and resisted. The Trustees didn't care. The Trustees said it is a standard. Members present at the hearing correctly called their BS and stated there is no building standard for overhang amount.
I can't wait to find out how this next amendment hearing will go. You and Steve Cox have said yourselves the Trustees have already decided. I completely agree with you. Do these Trustees really deserve respect and politeness?
Are you going to propose anything for the July Annual Meeting?
It would not surprise me if the persons supporting this covenant change generate many letters to the BOT, authored by a few, so the BOT can say they have a majority of the support. If this occurs, each letter must be unequivocally verified as being an authentic letter submitted by the signed author, subject to investigation.
Easy on the conspiracy theories 8:14 AM. This board doesn't need to conspire. This board just does as it wants and very few do anything about it. I guess fear keeps this board and it's special interest protectors in power and action, or inaction.
In answer to anonymous 7:39, no I did not attend that meeting. We’ve always just gone along with faith in the board who served our interests as best we knew in the past. Information, bought here in 2008 moved here permanently 2017 with the best intentions of enjoying our last years here at the place we love so much.
Then July 2019 after doing some improvements on our house ie: a covered deck and adding decorative lights and new LED porch lights, we get a complaint from Surfside that we are out of compliance with our lighting! We made some adjustments with our lights, cited that decorative lights are acceptable under the current covenant 2.17a. We were denied our appeal and it is almost 2020 and we still don’t have a letter or even a conversation with the board to know what more we have to do! Only that everything is on hold!
Well I’ll tell you I had no desire to get involved in the politics here, but I could see if someone didn’t do something this covenant was going to be passed with no discussion and I couldn’t just sit by and see this happen!
Anyway long story short I’ve tried to get this information out to the members with George’s help. The board and the manager felt putting what little they did on their web page and sending out the notice of the hearing was enough. I still feel that a printed copy of the proposed new covenant should have gone out with the dues and assessments letter. Also the notice of hearing in the Surfside office should have had a copy of new covenant attached. It’s the boards duty to let the membership know about such a big change, not the members duty to try and dig it out
I am going to propose something for the July meeting, but still trying to make sure I do it correctly as the by-laws are lacking in this area. I would think at the annual membership meeting a member from the floor would be able to make a motion, but I don’t think that’s the practice. Trust me I know far more about the by-laws and covenants than I ever wanted to!
Why are people so concerned about being called names? And why do some continue to foster the hysteria of physical harm for rocking the boat? It is simply ridiculous to assume that might happen to anyone.
Couple posts on the topic above this one proves u wrong, along with alot of deleted posts. We have a few real sickos on here.
In times of senseless violence based on differences of opinion, what do you base your statement on ? I don't concern myself with name calling which frequently is aimed at me, but George tells me there's quite a few folks have a hatred of me, all based on my expressing my opinions, based on factual information I have access to. None are willing to identify themselves, though I know the identity of 2 for certain.
I've had the same motion lights on my house and garage for over 10 years now. The only one I had to replace was due to it being cracked by a contractor doing some unrelated work. Didn't notice it so water, no surprise, got in. When we decided to put them in I spent a bit more than just going for the basic Home Depot ones. I prefer the motion option instead of the on all the time route. Nothing gets on my property without me being warned be it person or animal.
In the end the best and only protection is watchful neighbors. Maybe some of the vocal part timers should appreciate us full timers who watch your property while you are at your #1 residence. People like to overlook that fact.
July 2020 Annual Meeting
I plan to as well JoAnne. We should do both. I'll send you what I'm thinking. We should submit and make a motion separately. Even if we don't agree on the details, I'll second your motion or support you fully at the meeting.
One thought, related to the page topic, renegotiate our law enforcement services contract.
Please others do the same thing.
You must have purchased better motion lights than us! Ours only lasted barely a year. We also had problems when the wind and rain were pounding with the lights being turned off and on. Never knew for sure if we should be alarmed or just ignore. I’ve heard others say the same, but we do live very close to the beach
Thank you looking forward to your input
Nothing will be accomplished without organizing. Most of you saw what happened in 18.
Tree branches waving in the breeze can trigger motion-detectors, as can small animals. I noticed 2 on J place that shine right in a passing driver's eyes if driving slow. That is poor use of such a device. Maybe just a machine gun instead. (kidding) That's not going to make these owners more safe, and the lights also blast the housesaccross the street.
What makes any of you think you can show up at the annual meeting and make a motion that if adopted would significantly change things in Surfside without informing the membership of the change. You have less regard for the membership than the board. When they suggest a change they give the membership notice of the proposed change and an opportunity to comment. You just want to surprise everyone and pull some kind of trick fast move on everyone. Do you really think this is what the majority of the members want? Some sort of end around razzle dazzle fast move? What arrogance.
Hey 12/31 11:03 PM.
Shed overhang amendment in 2018. Lighting amendment coming in 2020.
At the hearing, the board gives members an opportunity to comment and the board votes.
Who's pulling the razzle dazzle fast move?
Who is arrogant? Not those who refuse to require membership voting for governing documents amendments?
11:03....Had you read the comments more carefully, you'd realize that the intention is to put a motion or 2 on the ballot, by starting well ahead of the meeting and securing BOT approval. The Annual meeting is the only "member" meeting scheduled each year, and is a perfectly appropriate time for a member submitted policy change to be voted on.
It is true that whatever is to be on the docket is to be submitted a given period of time before the meeting, and the proposal published for member consideration well before the meeting.
Last year a member attempted to put several motions on the docket, but was dodged by the BOT and conditions set that the member did not follow through with. The year prior, Deb Blagg had started early, and attempted to secure approval, but complications managed to interfere.
It is clear that the BOT could do the right thing, and change the covenant most members would like changed - requiring member approval of covenant changes. But it also seems apparent that the BOT does not want to give members a serious voice in community policy, and prefers the undue authority they have, continues in perpetuity.
Regardless of what may have happened in 2018, Deb Blagg's intentions were to secure more member participation in the process of covenant change, and the Annual Meeting is the best opportunity to do so. Technically, the BOT cannot prevent member proposals from going to a vote, if handled with care, starting early in the process.
To be realistic about this, our HOA is an oddball among HOAs, not requiring a member vote to approve of covenant changes, so focusing on this one proposal would be best. This is the most important step owners can take to temper the runaway authority of the HOA. It may require a vote on a change of a Bylaw as well.
Best to focus on this one issue, and not clutter the meeting with multiple issues, dividing the membership, when this matter should be seen as an appropriate designation of owner rights to help determine what rules are needed, and which are not. This process shouldn't be looked at as a routine way to set policy. These are my views on it.
6:54 The hearing notice sent out with the upcoming meeting states, and I quote: 'The Covenants require that a hearing be held prior to the BoT making changes to the covenants. The BOT is interested to hear/read comments regarding the proposed changes to the lighting portion of the covenants". I presume this requirement was also in effect when the infamous "shed overhang" covenant was initiated/changed? I was at all the meetings, there was no discussion or attempt to hold a hearing concerning that change. So you have violated the rules in the past and I assume it will be done again with this maneuver. BTW the offending overhang is still on the shed Patrick built, just the porch was removed and shoved into the brush. So much for your need for immediate changes.
BOT just going through the motions. Once the meeting is done the BOT will approve the light change anyway. Really a waste of time.
You obviously don’t remember Deb Blagg and her little group trying to pull a fast one at the annual meeting a couple of years ago. I can read just fine. You, on the other hand, think you can just make up your own rules. The annual meeting is the only member meeting by design. Our corporation is structured so that a few malcontents cannot hijack a meeting and force their will on the rest of the members. We elect trustees to do that. The have the legitimacy of being elected by a majority at the annual meeting. Unelected members are pretty much powerless according to our founding documents. That is how it works. Your best move would be to get your faction elected as trustees.
Just remember 3:34, when the lawsuit happens, emails can be used as evidence, and there really isnt such a thing as anonymous. But go ahead n keep spewing.
3:34....You are a moron. The Trustees are elected by a biased process of owners who coordinate with motivated Board members to elect Board selected candidates who won't rock the boat. Why was a replacement Trustee not appointed after Chandler resigned ? Because Steve Cox will not tow the established line of secrecy and J place priorities. This has become the entrenched process annually, and members are being shut entirely out of the process.
On-line voting capability was Blagg's primary objective, again, to better enable more members to participate in elections. Most members have long ago given up on fair elections, and ignore the process. Williams shut it down no sooner than the Committee put it in place. It would have taken a year or two to catch on, but had a great possibility of increasing owner participation in voting. It could have also been used to take surveys, something the HOA needs to do, but ignores.
No one in the community knows what most owners think about current policies, or what kind of community owners want. How can it be made better ? We have a new lighting proposal that has totally ignored what kind of lighting is currently used in Surfside, and has ignored the most basic purpose of lighting at night - SAFETY.
I'm not making up my own rules fool, virtually ALL HOAs require owner approval in order to change covenants, and by the same means I have described. It is NOT decided by a few people in a room with no interest in what these communities want. Trustees are not experts, taken from a large pool of highly qualified experts. They are members who volunteer to help serve the coalition of owners called an HOA. It is incorporated by law, but it is not the same as Mobil Oil, Shell Oil, Trump Enterprises. The HOA is supposed to serve the membership, not the CEO and company heads.
In most communities the Board members gather owner signatures at their doorstep, and continue until everyone has had an opportunity to vote by signature. The same thing could be achieved by an on-line voting system. Many HOAs use such a system. There is no rebel faction, but most owners understand that our community is going down the tube from the FACTION as you call it, that have been dominating elections annually by gathering proxies and promised votes from a list of agreeable owners.
Of the Board's chosen 3 candidates Olds, Minich, and Clancy, all 3 received nearly 3/4 of the entire number of votes cast. That is not an accident, that is not chance. Cox receive the next most votes at 92. Olds received 187, the other 2 somewhat less.
Providing a means for all members to vote on covenants is how HOAs are supposed to work. That doesn't mean that everything will change for the better or worse. It is necessary to preserve this community. The direction it is going is not going to be able to draw members and sustain property values. People expect a great degree of autonomy on their own property, and this community is being ruled in secrecy by a self-ordained elite, and has measures in place to keep information and the truth of their failures and waste of member funds from the members. Now we are moving toward a Police State.
Oops, meant to sign my name on that reply.
With the board hiring one or more compliance officers, it tells me we are too restrictive.
Last year during the late Spring or early Summer, I withdrew a complaint. Surfside told me I can't withdraw my complaint. They ignored my withdrawal letter and aggressively took action against the property owner.
go to the meeting on Jan 18 and show express your opinion, else write a letter or email, we need to show that we care, else...?
Until the members get angry, fight fire with fire, and are willing to stand up be counted and stand together, I won't attend any of these phony and sham meetings.
Good luck on the 18th being polite and respectful to this board.
Post a Comment