How the cowards will vote...
They won't...
They will table a vote on the proposed lighting covenant.
Rather than take a stand and "Just Say No", they won't vote at all. We can then wait for the issue to come up again. They need to vote NO in no uncertain terms. It needs to be made clear that these kinds of issues presented in this way, need to end and not rear it;s ugly head again.
They will let you make all the comments you want, then in the regular meeting where they are supposed to vote, they won't. And you poor members will think you have won. You have not. They will just wait for another opportunity.
Sure hope I am wrong, as I usually am on most things.
79 comments:
They have more important issues now! We need to find a replacement for Travis.
I understand your prediction George.
I give your prediction a 95% chance.
Compliance Officer/Security Guard combined position, see fixed. The person can run run around in a golf cart with lights and sirens, investigate, write binding citations, and collect fees at the same time. Also give him/her a pooper scooper.
Salary $65000/year
Maybe Reber can do it in addition to his other duties.
Let's hope he does it better than his other duties.Whatever they are.
9:34, by all means if you think you can do better, go for it. Travis was a reserve officer, not a full duty officer . You will be missed Travis.
By the way, surfside does not need a code enforcement officer. It's a want, not a need. Get rid of that position and save us money.
Clancy's probably already getting fitted for his Barney Fife uniform.
Reserve officers dont get paid.
1:49, lol, yes they do!!
Surfside pays anyone big bucks
Dont know how he getting paid, my father was a reserve Lt for over twenty years n never got a dime. Was a volunteer position. Never heard of a full time reserve paid officer. But then this is surfside n pacific county🤷♂️
A motion was passed referring the proposal back to the Arch. Comm.,with the directive to keep it as simple as possible, and only a slight departure from the original covenant. It was also recommended by Curt Olds that the finalization of it be reviewed by the members at the Annual Meeting - a very good suggestion.
Many issues were brought up such as the need to comply to the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was pointed out that most HOAs have been handling lighting issues with kid gloves, due to the potential of lawsuits being brought against HOAs with very restrictive lighting provisions. Important issues to be aware of in crafting such a policy.
There was a good turnout, with about 80 to 100 members present. Only about 30 had comments, with it all remaining entirely civil. Only about 4 or 5 folks spoke endorsing the policy, mostly "Dark Sky" advocates. But at least a couple of people mentioned that there are always places to get away from the community lights, such as on the beach. A few others thought that there was little interference with their stargazing.
It appears that everyone on the Board thought the policy needs to address the majority needs of the community, inclusive of the Eastside as well, focusing on limited wattages and safe lighting wherever needed. We will have to wait and see what happens, but it seems that there was a strong response to the proposal, which made a definite impression with the BOT.
Where it had been stated that there had been 50 lighting complaints filed, when put on the spot, Mr. Reber claimed it was 15. Personally, I don't believe either number can be believed, after various stories from the same person involved.
I think Reber knew that 50 suddenly submitted would be provocative to the crowd, so claimed it was fifteen. That is not a large enough number to signal a compliance emergency, and he had denied saying anything about in the Arch. meeting I attended, where he named who filed the complaints, how many, and how they determined the violations.
There were only 3 Comm. members, Mr. Reber, Mrs. McMurphy and myself, so I may have been told a colorful story which could then be denied later. But I heard details that were denied when I called Reber for confirmation. Okay, no meeting minutes or records of votes or who attended and participated - and no admission to what was said there in the meeting I attended. Fishy business.
But the overall outcome seemed very good. We're always looking for a better, more simple and honest approach to our governance, and today looked like a step in the right direction. Gary Williams kind of set the tone with his statements, and other Trustees followed with similar views. Mark Scott also helped set an encouraging tone, so thanks to Mark.
That is an encouraging meeting result - thanks for the recap.
An observation. Even in what appears to be a positive meeting you find issue and are calling Mr. Reber dishonest with no evidence. It doesn't make sense that in a meeting of six people there is nobody who can collaborate what you heard. It isn't a large group and is puzzling that Ms. McMurphy didn't hear what you did...
Oh I heard. And at that meeting mr Reber did say 50 and repeated saying five o. I just didn’t want to get into a shouting match at this meeting. It would serve no purpose! Before this meeting I sent an email to Scott Winegar asking once again for a report on the complaints. I felt without this knowledge no one would have a clear honest background as to the complaints. I received no response. Earlier this year I had requested such a report from Scott Marple before he left, and again no response. Those figures should be readily available and knowledge to the BOT in advance of meetings. I know the BOT felt their meetings were getting too many complaints to deal with lately, but again that information should have been presented in their board packet each month. They could have seen if there was a pattern. I had suggested to Scott Winegar that someone on the board could have access to those complaints to protect confidentiality and prepare such a report to confirm if there truly was a problem or if there wasn’t then the rumors could be put to bed or addressed. We need to have accurate reports not just verbal questions in my opinion
FWIW, the Sheriff deputy is/was an Surfside employee and is a patrol officer with PCSO. Surfside paid his salary and the county provided the vehicle, training, fuel, and other equipment and services normally provided by the Sheriff's Office to deputy sheriffs. The patrol officer also serves as a backup for other deputy sheriffs in and around Surfside. The Sheriff substation is on Sandridge Rd., the jail is in S. Bend, and the deputy did not live in Surfside, so it's NOT unusual to "see" the deputy outside SHOA.
We (SHOA members) will miss Travis and the protection and services he provided. For all members of SHOA I hope the county and SHOA continue this valuable service by finding a replacement for Travis.
@JoAnne - you are correct, you did previously confirm the # was 50. What you couldn't confirm was Mr. Cox's statement that Reber said it was Clancy and/or other trustees that drove around and submitted the complaints.
And I still can’t confirm for sure as more than one person was talking at that time, sorry. I’ve talked to Steve about this
6:21 - I had asked my neighbor about her thoughts on the finished proposal, as she is on the Arch Comm. I told her that I knew that the previous 2 years there had been very few complaints other than Tree complaints, and that lighting complaints were not more than a few to several. Laura Frasier kept records of this. So I questioned why the rewrite of this covenant. She said there had been a lot of complaints, but would not specify how many. "more than you'd think" she said.
As I have said, what Mr. Reber said in answer to my question may have been false, as he named Clancy and 2 other individuals, kind of trailing off in volume, as if thinking he had said too much, or knowing he was making it up. I wasn't looking at anyone else to get a read on what he was saying, as they undoubtedly knew whether it was b.s., or too much info.
I had come to give moral support to JoAnne, and we had waited patiently until they were ready to adjourn. Mr. Mott said they weren't interested in talking about the proposal, but I could ask a couple of questions. The Comm. members basically proceeded in trying to shut the meeting down and leave, before I had finished.
What would be the point in making this up ? Your skepticism seeks to ignore common sense. I know what I heard, and Reber denied he said it, then offered yet another story, claiming he had "heard" such and such.
Where did 50 complaints come from all of a sudden ? 15 complaints does not a compliance emergency make. Sounds like "Yoda-speak". doesn't it.
Thanks for the explanation.
Don't take it wrong, I only go based on what I read here. I'm not saying you would make it up. Sometimes we hear what we want and when we expect the worst, that is how we interpret things. You are active and vocal in your positions and, from my perspective, can state opinion as fact. All I'm trying to do is separate wheat from chaff.
I'd also add, that subject titles like this don't help issues. What value is added by calling people cowards? It appears the meeting was civil and opinions were heard.
They were cowards as predicted because they would flat out not say NO. It has gone back to the same people who started it. The members lost again. Take off your rose colored glasses and wait for the next round when you are not looking. They had the hearing, and now they will do whatever they want whenever they want.
No rose colored glasses says:
My understanding is it went back with direction for simplicity and little modification from current requirements along with a recommendation that changes be reviewed at the annual meeting.
We'll see which scenario happens. I don't see any cowardice in the actions even though perhaps you didn't get what you wanted.
"A motion was passed referring the proposal back to the Arch. Comm.,with the directive to keep it as simple as possible, and only a slight departure from the original covenant. It was also recommended by Curt Olds that the finalization of it be reviewed by the members at the Annual Meeting - a very good suggestion."
8:13 - I don't plan to worry about what some joker named anonymous thinks. Good luck with your problem.
Bend over olds. thats where it should go back. If the change is to be so simple and slight, it only needs to go in the trash can.
Bend over? First it's the "behind" then it's the trash. Make up your mind. Which is it?
behind
So as of Feb 1, if we dont have Travis replaced, our dues should be prorated.
The lighting needs to included ALL of surfside, including the east side
go point on the proration, but that will probably be eaten up by the land mediation costs
@Steve Cox
Why the continued need for name calling?
8:13 didn't insult you, only civilly conveyed a position.
I believe you also have commented anonymously.
Apparently you do "worry" what anonymous posters think as you continue to respond instead of ignoring, albeit in an uncivil manner.
It is good you are passionate in your positions but, in my opinion, your manner of communication for anyone who may disagree with you is poor.
8:58....You are only interested in dismissing my comments, not thinking about them. Same with some of the other comments here. Why are there no Arch. Comm. minutes documenting the Lighting Covenant rewrite ? Why didn't the comm. member I talked to admit to the number of complaints ? ( because I had already stated that there had only been a few in past years). So it's not surprising that there are denials that a pile of complaints may have been filed all at once. It has happened routinely with Tree Complaints.
Why the resistance to offer a number of complaints in the Hearing ? Why the long delay, then the claim that there were only !5 complaints ? Notice that at that point Reber began this shell-game mumbling about there being 8 that were submitted somehow (unintelligible) and 7 were blah blah blah - "or was it the other way around ? " He stated. Obviously b.s.
My statement in the Hearing was documenting what I was told in an Arch. meeting. I didn't say it was true, but thought it likely. The question you should be asking is, why was this being represented so many different ways by the people who wrote this Proposal ? Without verification of a large number of lighting complaints, such a radical rewrite cannot be justified.
Trustees Olds and deLeest had no basis to deny that I was told what I related in the Hearing, as they were not present at the Dec. Arch. meeting I attended. And given the practices of Mr. Clancy, we have no reason to doubt that dozens of lighting complaints were filed at once, to justify the covenant rewrite.
That is in keeping with the total absence of meeting minutes documenting the process, and WHY the rewrite was initiated. I don't really care who believes me or not. There are plenty who want to make excuses for efforts made by the BOT to obscure what goes on, even deny what is going on. The board has indicated they want to keep the covenant simple, and we hope their actions reflect their words in the hearing. I'm encouraged - we'll see.
I have asked the BOT president twice, Scott Marple and mentioned to Reber that there should be a report concerning the lighting complaints in 2019, how many were filed, how many appealed and status of the remainder. To date this information has not been compiled. I don’t see how any intelligent decision can be made until this is completed. Just asking mr Reber about it verbally is not the answer. I also asked that one board member to protect confidentiality look into how many people were filing complaints. That information would either stop the rumors or confirm them. I still do not understand why there was such urgency to get this done or even why it was started without complete information in the form of monthly reports to the board They should have been fully aware of how many complaints were filed in 2019 before this process even started. I still firmly believe when they went from complaint driven to compliance driven on reporting that’s when this started
Fact check...
For Mr. Olds, Board Members and other uninformed members.
The Annual Meeting is a members meeting, not a Board Meeting. A hearing on a covenant change is a Board function. This hearing can be a special meeting called by the Board, or it can be done the same way it was just done. I repeat, it can not be done at the Annual meeting. These dumb dumb's need to learn and follow the rules.
It is strange that they can tell us how many tree complaints have been accepted, buy not on lighting. Is FOIA applicable here? Meeting went well with one exception. Mr. Neal was an invited guest at the meeting to accept a certificate and more than likely a departing bonus. His years in the water department, regardless of what some might think, have been a valuable resource in maintaining our water department. Thus his comments had value. Instead Mr. "I don't attend when I might get caught" Clancy blasted Mr. Neal's presence. Perhaps this is because any project Mr. Clancy has been associated with has turned to s**t and caused delays, fines, and disruption among the membership. So now guess who is the Trustee heading up the Water Committee. Yup, you guessed it, so no wonder he didn't like his past fumbles to be aired.
Olds and deLeest denied the false rumor being spread by you know who that they were driving around filing complaints. So yes, they do have a basis to deny.
I don't get the reason for the Olds hate for this meeting. At the beginning he made a point to say that the people in attendance should be heard before going forward. Isn't that contrary to what some here have been ranting about, that the board doesn't want to listen to members? Then as 11:14 pointed out he also suggested that when the proposal does get finalized it should be reviewed by all members. Again, isn't that what those same people want?
All during the lead up to this meeting the usual suspects were on here ranting away about how the board doesn't listen to members and that this covenant change was a done deal because the board had made up its mind on how they would vote, blah blah blah. Well what say you now?
Mr. Neal was an invited guest? You got to be kidding. Will he be welcome after we get hit with fines that could go into the millions, for his asbestos mess he created. Unbelievable.
The board members were on this blog. Some likely posted anonymously.
They still haven't listened completely.
They haven't said they will put the amendment to a vote of the membership at the Annual Membership Meeting.
Let's get 200 to 300 attendance at the Annual Membership Meeting July 2020.
I can tell you for a fact that at least one board members mind was made up way before this meeting. In a phone conversation this person told me and I quote “I don’t see any problem with this covenant “. Was there any requests for input during the architectural committee meetings? No I can tell you that for a fact also. They thought this was a done deal.
What Neal needs is a get out of jail free card, not a certificate. All he got from north beach was the boot. I guess they didn't appreciate his million dollar minor error.
The bot listening in public and giving lip service, has nothing to do with what goes on behind closed doors. That has been proven over n over.
Well Annette , (or whoever), I have repeated exactly what Mr. Reber stated at the Arch. Meeting I attended in Dec.. I didn't hire the guy, you did. If what he says can't be assumed true, then why is he running the HOA Office, and playing such a big part in writing this mess of a policy ? He isn't an owner, so isn't directly affected by the restrictions, except trying to avoid broken bones walking to his car at night.
You aren't too sharp. I said you had no basis to say that I was not TOLD what I related at the meeting, which I assure you, I was ! And 50 complaints were the number he stated about 3 times. We asked that he repeat it. You are also lumping ALL of the comments in the strand together. I don't read any Curt Olds hate here, and I complimented his suggestion. Personally, I have NOT claimed that the BOT would not listen and have argued the point with several bloggers.
If meetings such as this could go this well, we would become a more cohesive community. But results will tell the tale. I complimented Gary Williams as well, and Mark Scott.
Scott Winegar began a sequence of brief lessons on the workings of our Water System, which was a great idea, and a compact presentation with slides. Your comments indicate you expect Board members to serve on the BOT without any need to listen to anyone's criticism. That doesn't happen anywhere.
Everyone in the Boardroom wanted to know how many complaints spurred the complete and complicated rewrite of our lighting covenant. We still don't know the truth.
So very true about the complaints. Mr Reber did say 50 that day. My question and has been since this summer, where is the official report documenting the complaints, appeals and status of the remainder. I have sent Scott Winegar emails twice now asking for this report. I don’t see how the BOT can make a knowledgeable and fair decision without this information. I don’t understand why Scott Marple didn’t provide this information monthly and at the least have a spreadsheet together data. Until we see documented proof and the minutes of the architectural meetings from this summer, we will still be in the dark. No board should have to turn to the general manager with a question they should already have been aware of!
Let's get off the lighting subject! It wasn't voted on, and let's start discussing our NEED TO REPLACE TRAVIS!! MY dues includes security!!
We do not NEED A COMPLIANCE OFFICER FOR 2800 LOTS!
As long as we have a compliance.based procedure and not complaint, we will have a compliance officer! This lighting issue is far from completed. I do agree the situation with Travis is alarming. We were told at the meeting to call the county sheriff and voice your concerns to help make sure this arrangement can continue
The compliance officer is a new thing. Again,costing us more money. We should not be pro active and now they want 2 part timers?! What's next, measuring how tall my grass is? That office staff gets paid plenty. They can do enforcement!
George, we need more info on Travis's position and possible replacement. I agree with 8:21pm
1/19 @3pm. You were lied to. Whomever you spoke to that denied Ms Olds was not driving around both G and I and noting addresses on a sheet of paper (writing using her steering wheel for support) perjured themselves ( that means lied). Never said DeLeest was with her. I will bet you still believe in the Tooth Fairy as well. Way to fact check. Want a picture? Cell phones are so handy.
8:21 and/or anyone else interested in the Travis position, here is the contact information. Let us know what you find out.
Scott Winegar...Trustee assigned to Patrol
503-982-0623
swinegar@surfsideonline.org
8:04 - The Hearing that you did not attend was a very productive and civil meeting. The proposal will be redone at the Board's request, with specific recommendations to keep it simple.
The BOT has the final say on covenant changes, while this is something members vote on in most communities with HOAs. The part-time residency of about 3/4 of our members makes it difficult to gather approval signatures, generally done door to door in live-in communities, or by electronic voting.
So it was never intended there would be a vote on it. It was suggested by Trustee Kurt Olds that the next presentation of the proposal be at the Annual Meeting, which indicates a good faith effort by the BOT to be more inclusive of member input.
The following Board Meeting began with recognition of Travis's contributions to Surfside, and Travis recommended that Surfside owners contact the Sheriff's office to ask that Travis bee replaced. Budgets are tight in most gov., and certainly in Pacific County.
Surfside's large membership and financial base, puts us in a very good position to pay for an experienced officer on the peninsula. Apparently a retired officer wants the position, so positive input with The Sheriff's office is likely to help make it happen.
Last count, I believe that the community has about 2050 members.
George.... I do not agree with your statement about the Olds suggestion that the hearing be scheduled for the Annual Meeting. Nor do I think anyone is a "dumb dumb" for suggesting it. Personally, I don't see a problem doing this, the objective being, to present it to the largest gathering in Surfside.
I made the same request of the Arch Comm. in Dec., but they weren't willing to discuss ANYTHING about the Lighting Proposal. I had concerns that attendance at a mid January meeting would be weak. Fortunately, the word got out, and the issue definitely inspired a robust response by about 80 to 100 members.
While covenant change IS Board business as our CC&Rs outline, that is not the case in communities with all fulltime residents. It was my thought that if the BOT would agree to ONLY review covenant changes at the Annual, there would be a predictability that would have many benefits.
It would take away the appearance that the BOT is trying to get away with something, and would be an incentive for owners to attend the meeting. Special announcements would not need to be mailed. And if the Board approved, a vote of those present could be taken to establish a guideline of community opinion. The vote would only be advisory, but difficult to ignore. It could lead to such a vote being more decisive as well.
I think that the only problem is really just limiting the amount of time spent on it. This is not really just Board business, so I think Kurt showed a willingness to make the process more inclusive of member opinions. The "hearing" could be held separately just before the usual Annual.
Maybe much that is spoken in the meeting could be outlined in a handout, such as budgetary stuff is, in order to condense the meeting timewise. The format can change to adopt the covenant review, which would not likely be an annual matter.
Simple solution. Members vote on a covenant change. You can have all the printed hand outs you want, but the final decision should be the members, not the Board. In a perfect world, we could expect the Board to act in an impartial way after all the information was presented and members spoke for and against any change. We know that doesn't work here. Yes, there could be a separate meeting for a covenant change, but it can not be part of the Annual meeting. As Board Secretary, Mr. Olds should be aware of the proper procedure and rules. It appears to me, that all that happened at the Board meeting on the lighting covenant, was to kick the can down the road. I do not share your optimism on being more open and inclusive.
Has anyone ever considered instead of mail/internet voting, just do away with proxy? Want to vote, you have to be in attendance. That way, the will of the active members, no matter how few, but willing to attend, will be carried out.
To think about it, proxy voting is very much the same as mail in voting.
The attitude of Mr. Cox seems to be shifting to that of the bot. He can mollify their actions all he wants. But if the past is any indication, he is delusional, or just pandering for a position.
Everyone should have the opportunity to vote in our HOA. I know that before we moved down here permanently, we never did the proxy vote. Reason was we didn’t know anyone down here and we weren’t going to send in a blank proxy or vote for someone we’ve never met or heard speak on their views. To deny people that can’t attend the July meeting a vote or other votes is truly unfair. I know when we were working our jobs and schedules took first place. One thing for sure in any board driven organization, you have to have trust in them to act in everyone’s best interest. Electronic voting I think is essential. It can’t be that difficult and if you look online information concerning Washington HOAs, that is what is talked about
The proposed Lighting Covenant change needs to be addressed at the Annual Meeting. Maybe an issue on the ballot? or an agenda item? I guarantee if it is not shown as a specific/separate item, it will not be brought up. As George stated, this is a MEMBERSHIP MEETING NOT A BOARD MEETING. Therefore the Board does NOT control the agenda, even the process of elections to the Board. Whoever does control the agenda must call for input from the MEMBERS. The membership should also demand the amount, reason for, and disposition of all fines that have been paid in the last year and those that the HOA is still liable for. This would include funds spent to correct the actions that created the violation. That information should not be withheld from the Membership and if, as it should be, the membership determines the agenda, it needs to be addressed regardless of what the lawyer says. We all know what his advice looked like at the annual meeting in '17.
The HOA I belong to for my primary residence has around 250 members. We recently updated our covenants. The board posted info on the website, sent all the members letters and emails, and a link to a document that highlighted the anticipated changes. They encouraged the membership to fill-out a survey that gave you the ability to give input. Then we ALL voted via a paper ballad that was mailed to us, no confusing proxies. We voted FOR the change.
I guess that's a little too progressive for SHOA.
@9:30, surfside already budgets for Travis so no need to add more money to our already over the top budget to run this HOA. Let the retired officer take over, maybe he wont want the 75,000 salary due to his retirement income.
Still think we NEED to get rid of compliance job. 2800 lots does not NEED ONE, WHEN ALL OF PACIFIC COUNTY HAS/HAD JUST ONE.
11:22 - That's a stupid thing to say. I have complimented statements made by Board members, their pre-emption of this Lighting proposal going into effect, and fully support a member review of the rewrite, at the Annual Meeting. This is a work in progress, and we'll see what materializes.
This was a positive meeting and could be a step in a different direction. I should already be seated on the Board, so your theory is pretty sad. There has been great resistance to my appointment by a few b members.
I don't support any radical remake of Surfside, and certainly not dissolution. Best to work with what we have and make improvements.
Hmmmm, stupid n sad? Point made i guess.
01/20 1:33 PM Thank you very much! That's what I want.
Also everyone check out WA RCW 64.90.455.
I agree with you JoAnne.
Propose electronic voting. Honestly, I don't how to propose something here.
I tried last year and was ignored. They could have at least put one of my proposals on the Annual Meeting agenda.
I heard what happened to Debb at the July 2018 Annual Meeting, so I wasn't even going to think about proposing something at the meeting in 2019.
Honestly, this sounds utterly ridiculous. Unless your neighbors lights are shining into your house or windows, I don't understand why a person living a mile down the road, who doesn't like lights, should impact a whole society. If you want total darkness in your life, there's some acreage for sale on Stackpole road. Surely this will satisfy anyone's need for total dark sky. I would never impose my nit picky wants on an HOA or an elderly neighbor.
Isn't there more important problems in everyone's lives?
Totally agree! But the BOT would have to move to go back to complaint driven covenants. Then no need for a compliance officer, it could go back to neighbors working it out, if a resolution couldn’t be reached, then have a three member committee to mediate the problem. One board member and two volunteers or two board members and one volunteer. I think we could all live in peace this way. I sure do not like the way it is now when anyone can turn in a complaint even when it doesn’t affect you! I know in our case we have absolutely no full time neighbors so it had to be someone driving around that turned in the complaint against us
I disagree @JoAnne.
The proposed lighting change is a different subject.
For the existing covenants, all should comply - period.
Keep your property compliant and you don't have to worry about anyone writing complaints. You don't get to not comply because nobody complained.
WOW. I am new here and this was my first meeting. I don't understand all hubbub about the 15 complaints on lighting. Yes I'm new but that is what I heard at the meeting. Why are we putting so much time and anguish over 15 complaints?? Apparently this is not the beautiful, friendly place I thought I was moving into.
If everybody should comply then why are there so many out of compliance? There are way more out of compliance than in compliance, just drive around at night sometime! We sure as heck don’t live in this perfect HOA where everyone is perfect. Maybe the current covenants are incorrect. Sure seems funny we’ve been here since 2008 and just this year we are this huge problem that can’t seem to come to a conclusion!
As we’ve asked since our appeal was turned down in September, what more do we have to do other than completely turn our lights off? It shouldn’t be this complicated or such an interruption in our life! We are truly sorry at this point we made the decision to sell our other house that was in a HOA and move here
I might not have been clear.
I'm not in concurrence with the proposed lighting changes and any issues where the BOT is stating you are out of compliance with current covenants should be clearly documented along with necessary steps to remedy.
In my opinion, so many are out of compliance due lack of prior enforcement. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced now and enforced equally amongst all.
Separately, I do agree that covenants should be able to be reviewed/changed should the majority of owners deem.
Again, just one posters opinion.
@anonymous 5:06. So handy to hide behind anonymous! I’ll tell you one thing if we aren’t in compliance with the current covenant, then no one is! And yet after asking the board what more we had to do or are we in compliance, we’re still waiting for the written answer from the board as states in our covenants! We have to follow the convents, but the BOT doesn’t? It goes both ways. I sincerely hope you anonymous never get broadsided and caught up in such a mess!
Hmmm... What difference does my opinion make whether or not it has a name tied to it? I clarified my response to you at my 5:33 post. You and I are talking two different things and I already said I agreed with you on the lighting. Would your response have been different if I'd applied a name?
@anonymous 5:33. Our point exactly! After having our corrections completed and then our appeal turned down, we still here in January have not been told what is wrong. Very frustrating to not know what the non-compliance problem or how to correct it! Of course everything was put on hold because I guess the thought was the new proposed covenant was going to pass and we do have outdoor decorative lights on our deck! But who knows. Certainly not us for sure. We will go before the board again for clarification as we did in November and I would hope someone will give us an answer!
Every member should get to vote on this ridiculous "Dark Sky" whim. And, I would vote yes for it IF: Any "Dark Sky" desired voter is imposed with a "Dark Sky" fee to fund anyone they feel is in non compliance. If you want a Dark Sky, you must pay for it! Why burden the rest of the world with your ridiculous wants and desires? It's just lights people, get some common sense!
You've never read what it's about 6:23 PM. Look it up.
623 - you are clueless, or part of the junta. Which?
It's about power, nothing else. J Placers drive it.
No. The J Placers need to escrow a fund to pay for the costs of the lowlanders providing their view by tree height management. It must be nice J Placers.
I know EXACTLY what this is about 643 and 654. Why don't the whiners get a life and stop bothering an entire village with your nonsense. If you can't offer solutions, go back to your lounger and watch Jeopardy. The rest of us have other problems.
If you don't want to pay for "Dark Sky" now that it's become stuck in your craw, MOVE OUT. The rest of us know how to play nicely in the sandbox. You got the wrong guy to mess with.
I don't know why, but something is prompting me to use up those 100w bulbs I have from way back when, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I'm confused. When I bought here a year ago, it was obvious I was not moving to the country where no other people lived. I was not promised darkness or lights and have never heard of such a complaint unless it was just a problem with one particular neighbor with a rogue light. What am I missing? Is there a star gazer who wants complete darkness? You can get pretty good views with decent equipment so it can't be that. Is it a bored resident with nothing else to do? Is it a new resident who didn't notice they live in a neighborhood when they bought? I looked outside, yep, it's pretty dark out there. I think the problem with outdoor lighting exists only in ones own mind. We all have to make concessions for the other people in the world. It's just life. Don't like other's outdoor lighting? Don't look at it. Close the blinds, do what you can to ease your own mind.
I don't particularly like all the smoke from the campfires in the summer but try not to let it ruin all the good stuff. If light covenant can be changed, how about those fires? Those are actually worse than any lighting. Oh well, it's not my world. Maybe everyone just needs to check their ego?
Post a Comment