For the good members of Surfside...
I have said it before, and I will say it again...
The best part of Surfside, are the members.
You will find that the vast majority of members are here by choice. Be they full time or part time, home owners or RV owners, they came here for a relaxing way of life that gets them away from a busy stress filled working life.
They do not want, or did they expect that what they were trying to get away from, be it briefly or longer, that they would find the same stress here. Unfortunately, many are experiencing more stress here than where they came from. There is no crisis in covenant compliance that requires an enforcement officer.
We are seeing more and more just plain harassment. These members deserve to be treated fairly and with respect. They have and are paying their life dues, and the association dues and assessments. Most just want to be left alone so they can enjoy a beach experience. They know there is a cost for everything and they are willing to pay for the needed services.
The recent Lighting covenant change is nothing more than harassment of members. It seems to me that the real issues of this are simply neighbor issues. Most of the members I know, want to get along with their neighbor, and in fact, look after each other. There seems to be a group , and it is small, who are hell bent on dividing neighbors. This small group, who are on a power and ego trip, are a disgrace to our community. The Tree height issue is another example of promoted division.
Thank you to the members who took the time to express here and in communication with the Board, their concerns and opinions on the proposed lighting covenant. You achieved a partial win. A full win would have been a NO vote. Returning it to the Arch. committee that is dominated by J Placers, is not a full win. Beware that this does not come back again. These things come "like a thief in the night" It is time to once again, make the members the top priority. We can do better.
NOTE:
Because of so many recent topics and many related, I am ending comments on all the other topics. When there are so many comments, it becomes difficult to follow them all. Those comments can continue here. The recent interest in the lighting and other topics has generated over a thousand hits one day and over 800 on several other days..
129 comments:
(Blog Host: I re-posted this from the Tree page)
Blogger
Unknown said...
I was at the meeting on Jan 18th, 2020. During a break I witnessed owners giving a board member a hard time about not being in compliance with his trees. He laughed and said he had trimmed a couple of them. He received a complaint that required him to trim but said the wording was not correct so he was not. I would think a person on the board would go above and beyond to do what is in the covenant. If a board member refuses to abide by the rules then why should anyone else? My first meeting was not encouraging.
Who keeps telling me to move?
What gives you the right to tell me to move?
Trees. Last year I sent a tree complaint withdrawal letter to the board and General Manager. I was told I couldn't withdraw a complaint and the homeowners association investigates all submitted complaints.
We now have confirmation that Trustees are not made to conform to the CC&Rs. We now have confirmation that CC&R complaints pertaining to properties of Trustees are not investigated.
Please advise what confirmation you have other than an anonymous blog posting...
Touche Geo, well said!
I sincerely hope now that the lighting covenant has been sent back to the architectural committee they will record in minutes what their actions are. We certainly did not see any documentation in this last effort to obtain “a dark sky”. It clearly states that all committees will record their actions in accepted minute format.
You sound worried 10:39 AM.
" There seems to be a group, and it is small, who are hell bent on dividing neighbors ". You just described the blog.
Relating to the 12:27 post, who are you referring to Mr. Miller?
@10:39 says
@12:12 - On what do you base your comment and how can you read emotion into my one sentence email?
To address your comment, I'm not worried.
To 12:27
The people dividing the neighborhoods are not the ones on this blog ( Unless you are speaking of yourself ) The ones dividing the neighborhoods are Committee and BOT members driving around looking for reasons to write complaints. They should get a life.
I'm 12:27 and my comment stands verbatim. Go back to the infancy of the blog and go forward. The downturn gained momentum and has spiraled out of control. Allowing anyone (including myself) to post anonymously was and is the cause. Newspapers don't allow it . why should we?
@12:27 and yet, here YOU are, right in the middle creating dissension! haha, what a piece of work. Go have another drink and yell at raccoons or something.
Why should we allow it? Who are you to allow anything. Last time I looked, the blog belongs to George. He is nothing more than one of the messengers. You don't like the truth so you blame him? Out of control? If you mean that you and the Board can't control the blog. You are right. It's that awful thing called "free speech". There is a momentum. and it is exposing people like you to the members.
@2:24...
Your comment may also be construed by some as an example of divisiveness.
The blog can be successful if people can discuss issues while acknowledging there will be differences of opinion.
I agree with 12:27 that if you do look at the blog history you can see how the tone of posts and comments have changed.
@2:35
What ever happened to "you cannot change others, you can only change how you react" Stop trying to take over a blog which does not belong to you. You can make your own blog if you want so much control over something you find to be an assault on your sensibilities. Another option is to just stay away from this blog. Ignorance is bliss right? Isn't that what the "Dark Sky" proponents want? Just stop reading it and you won't be so discouraged.
@2:46
How is expressing my opinion or agreeing with another poster "taking over" the blog? Is it because you don't agree?
I do not feel my sensibilities have been assaulted and wonder how you could interpret that from my posting?
2:46 PM. That is not what the "Dark Sky" proponents want. There are very nice and considerate members who want to implement this community as an IDA compatible community.
Who knows, the SHOA Architectural Committee probably sabotaged the concept by purposefully incorporating decisive and problematic language.
We all know these amendments are done in secret and per backroom deals.
Additionally, implementing a night-time Dark Sky community does not mean no night-time lights.
Honestly, this should be put forth as vote, just like rate increases. To me, it's a radical change in the covenants that I agreed to when I purchased here. I chose Surfside because of the neighborhood feel and all this is really just a whim for some of the residents. It's plenty dark outside with zero street lights. If you live near the store plaza and the Hotel I can see where there might be some glaring lights. Otherwise, this is not necessary. Now, I challenge anyone to convince me otherwise. How would MY purchase of YOUR preferred lighting enhance my world? How does this increase my property value? Is the HOA willing to subsidize purchasing new outdoor lighting for those who cannot afford it? Seriously, no changes should be made without a VOTE!
I 100% agree with @4:07
WE STILL LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! I consider the lighting issues an increase in my costs to live here since replacement is imminent, therefore, WE MUST VOTE!
Here are the problems.
The Olds
The DeLeasts
Winegar
Clancy
Williams
Minich
Reber
Get rid of them and the problems go away.
Let’s just take the current lighting covenant and modify it by stating wattage. Really I think this would do the trick. Keep it simple and common sense
Me, me, me, my, my, my. You bought into an HOA! It's not just about you!
127 - nice try Board Boy, but you dont make the rules here.
We use 'anonymous' because of a Board consumed by self interests, that retaliates against anyone with an original idea, especially one that might limit their power.
One of two things need to happen. The entire Board needs to go, or this organization needs to be dissolved. I do not want to be associated with Association it operates unethically and the illegally. We did not sign up for that.
407 - still trying to figure out whose brother-in-law is selling the approved lighting!
How many board positions will be open in July 2020?
Our only chance is to get better Trustees, correct?
Good question. One for sure that is vacant now and I believe Scott Winegar said his was last Saturday
@5:27
Touche - >^..^<
@5:25
Please provide one valid example of board retaliation that can be substantiated.
To quote The Kinks - "paranoia, they destroy ya'"
@6:45
You'll find this is a common refrain. Every year folks get behind the new people running for the board. Usually, once they are in place for about a month the clamoring starts to get rid of them...
712 - names like Johansen and Deb Blagg familiar to you, Board Boy? You may want to conveniently forget - I do not.
I remember both 11:18.
One didn't follow the rules when it came to getting plans approved by the Arch Comm. Then he tried to change other things to benefit HIMSELF. The other who didn't get what SHE wanted attempted a coup to circumvent the voting process and have Trustees removed that failed. Both have sold and moved on to places I assume they enjoy better.
You can continue to remember and memorialize them if you like, I'm content to not think of them again.
1142 - sounds like the same drivel that came out at the time. You don't fool anyone with your revisionist history. Didnt buy it then, won't buy it now.
I agree with George, not Cox. Things aren't getting better and I have no optimism that they will yet. The members have not won anything.
This board continues to refuse to change, to resist change, and to stop change. They refuse to opt into the new WA RCW. They hate laws that take power away from the few of the board and the tree special interests.
Not 7:12. The very fact that two people choose to move from this community is alarming to me. Surely nothing in our covenants should be so overwhelming as to have this outcome. True I don’t know all the details, but just this even happening is frightening to me. These very thoughts about selling and moving have been in our conversations since our unresolved issue with our lighting complaint in July. It has been such a strange and unexpected issue to be caught up in. Not what we envisioned our permanent move to our beloved beachouse would turn out to be. Now anonymous, bring on the attacks! But these are my husband and my feelings and I’m not afraid to state my name
No 12:56, it is you who needs to get a life. You haven't one shred of evidence that BOT or Committee members are driving around looking for reasons to write complaints so quit repeating a lie. A lie that people constantly repeat as if it's true where it has been disproved. But even if they were, don't give them a reason to write one, problem solved.
To the compliance officer complaints. People have been complaining on here for years about the complaint system that is in effect. They say that it creates turmoil and friction between neighbors. So the board decided to move away from it and instead put in a compliance officer. Now people are complaining about that. Basically they are in a lose, lose situation. It's real easy to not get a complaint, don't give anyone a reason to give you one.
Look at this recent meeting. Board critics were on here spouting off how the "J placers conspiracy" had this all planed out, it was a done deal, blah, blah, blah. Well that's not how it turned out did it? Yet still complaints. The same people who made harsh statements that the board doesn't listen were wrong. Now they're upset because they didn't get a flat no. What they wanted was the board to NOT listen to the members that did want the policy, which were more than someone on here said there was, and only listen to them. Basically they are being hypocrites.
To 8:43:
I assume the board member you speak of is Scott. He has said before that he doesn't comply until he gets a notice to be fined. They haven't been sending out those notices so there you go.
I agree with you that it isn't right and sets a bad example. But then again Trustees are members too and since other members do the same I guess it is what it is.
Clancy openly brags about writing tree complaints. What more proof do you need? As for the other board members, they all are not compliant with the covenants. I agree with the poster that they should set a good example. This board is one big bad example.
It;s not a coup when you attend the Annual Meeting and attempt to remove Board members. It's the right of each and every one of us. We have no other recourse to correct things.
FACT CHECK:
Who were people who the board retaliated against?
Johansen. He built a legal shed roof that did not violate any covenants. The HOA sent him a complaint. He follow the rules and appealed to the board. In spite of the fact that no one could identify a covenant that he violated, 5 of the 9 board members voted to force him to remove his roof anyway. After receiving a letter from his attorney, the board dropped the complaint. Johansen requested the HOA reimburse him for his attorney's fees. The board ignored the request. Johansen filed in small claims court and won. The HOA reimbursed Johansen for his attorney's fees. Four members of the board, Winegar, Flood, Clancy and Williams then, with no meeting, no quorum, no vote, filed a an appeal, and also a separate lawsuit against Johansen attempting to force him to follow the non-existing covenants. After receiving a letter from Johansen's attorney shortly before the court date, the board dropped the lawsuits. Johansen again requested that the HOA refund his attorney's fees. The board refused, Johansen took them to court and won. The HOA paid Johansen his attorney's fees. Johansen stated that he did not want to live in an Oligarchy, sold his Surfside property and moved to another property in Ocean Park.
Durdel. Similar legal shed roof to Johansen. He removed his roof per order of the HOA then realized his roof had been legal. Shared the attorney with Johansen. Took the HOA to small claims court and won. Surfside was ordered to pay Durdel for the removal of the roof, the replacement of the roof and the court costs. They paid.
Ottersen. Chris Hanson wanted to buy some wood from Ottersen. Chris Hanson was on the board and also chairman of the Architectural Committee. Ottersen refused to sell him the wood. Hanson filed four false complaints against Ottersen. Ottersen came to Johansen who was a board member at the time. Ottersen is legally blind and also very hard of hearing. Johansen and Ottersen hired the same attorney together for part of Johansen's case and Ottersen's case. The attorney helped Ottersen write an appeal to the board. The board dropped the complaints against Ottersen. Ottersen requested that the board pay for his attorney's fees. The board refused. Ottersen took his case to small claims court and won. The board paid Ottersen for he attorney's fees and the court costs.
FACT CHECK 2
It has been said on the blog that the four board members spent over $75000 of your money, not theirs, to get Johansen to remove the legal shed roof. Massive amounts of time and money were spent for nothing.
The board took similar actions, forcing multiple other property owners to remove their legal shed roofs and also to force others to remove fixed tiny roofs they had placed over their firewood. Janet Angelier and her husband were among of them. They could no longer stand living in a corrupt oligarchy, sold their property and left. May others have sold their properties and left.
Surfside has the highest turnover of properties that I have ever seen. Look at Realty.com or Lighthouse Realty. Look at the properties for sale. Any time you look you will see that there are MANY more properties for sale per square mile in Surfside than just about any other community, HOA or not, that you can find. This is what holds down the value of properties in Surfside. Why are the prices of properties lower here than similar properties just outside Surfside?
The Olds
The DeLeasts
Winegar
Clancy
Williams
Flood
and now maybe Minich and Reber?
How do you get out of this mess? You need to get at least 5 Surfside Property owners, better 9 Surfside Property owners that are of the same mind, that are interested in making things better for the majority of Surfside Property owners, willing to put in the work serve on the board to fix this. They need to start pulling the people together and getting all the email addresses of all the members so they can communicate with each other. Once in power, start eliminating the unnecessary and vague covenants and change the Bylaws so that no future board can add any restrictive covenants. You can’t just complain, you have to organize and take action. Which 9 of you are willing to serve on the board. It isn’t very hard. You hire an external bookkeeper and external services, then you just make policy decisions. Just about anyone can do this. Which 9 of you are willing to put in the effort?
Factual and well stated, 9:13
It's all perfectly clear now why this board went from complaint-driven to compliance officer. With a complaint-driven system board members are open to have action taken against them. With a compliance system board members won't take action against themselves or they can find any reason they wish not to.
Surfdide is nothing but a rule breaking oligarchy.
Don't worry bullies, I'M NOT MOVING!
I mostly agree. Although it's not about being of the same mind.
The same mind to me means primarily putting more power on the members by majority rule and thinking outside the box to come up with solutions.
To FACT CHECK, who was their attorney, we should all know this, might come in handy.
Yes I would love to know the attorneys name and contact information
Attorneys name would be awesome! I'm going to want it to get everyone's NEW LIGHTS paid for by the HOA. Hell ya!
There will be at least 3 open Board seats. They haven't filled the vacated seat as the covenants require, so maybe 4. Whoever runs for the Board, the members will differ some in their views. Electing Trustees who are dedicated to acting in the best interest of all of the members and not just the J Place agenda, is the challenge. That alliance is well organized, come election time, and they won all three seats last year.
With only about 275 voters participating in 2019, less than 1 out of 7 members voted. Those who vote tend to elect the people who perpetuate the same secretive business model, that tows the conservative line, opposed to more owner rights and full transparency, embracing restrictive enforcement-heavy governance by intimidation.
This is what we're seeing happening now, and the lack of owner participation feeds this tendency in people when in control of a community with so much apathy. I think it brings out the worst in people, who might otherwise be willing to compromise with sensible policy proposals.
We have a large and complicated community that requires a steady base of operations in its' Office, Water Dept., staff and services. Some who suggest dissolution don't seem to grasp that there has to be a transistional team even if the Board is recalled. The same people would be voting on dissolution that re-elect the same people every year, so this voting base is NOT going to vote in favor of dissolving the HOA.
Fixing what we've got is the only option, so how do you go about that with a pessimistic insistence that it can never be changed ? It IS discouraging and challenging, with no simple answers. There is still a need for new and sensible candidates.
I'd like to see the Lighting review occur just prior to the Annual Meeting, hopefully with a much better simpler proposal. The suggestion by Trustee Kurt Olds is a good idea, with the Annual Meeting having the largest turnout. It would help to have covenant reviews take place at this time, whenever it is in progress, and might serve as an initiative for more participation in the vote.
Fact check:
It is clearly written in our4 governing documents that a Board member may not vote to dissolve the association. I would have to look to find the exact spot, but it is there. To dissolve is a member decision, not the Board. The place to start the dissolution process would be the Member Meeting (Annual Meeting) A motion could be made to issue a vote to the members on dissolving. Before I did anything, I would consult an attorney first.
The attorney that Patrick had is Penoyar Law in South Bend, Washington. He was hired by Surfside for the recent wet land mitigation. He stated it was not a conflict because it is a different issue. Ironic huh?
Contact infor:
504 W, Robert Bush Drive
P>O> Box 425
South Bend, Wa. 98586
360-875-5548
Thank you George.
This idea of what type of outdoor lighting can be used because some people can't live in peace with others is a clear violation of assumed power. An HOA is to "enhance" the lives of members not "harass".
Where were you people when they implemented overhang limits? There were very few actively resisting that "harrassment".
I see, you pick and choose what is "harrassment" and only care about yourself. Yet you joined a HOA and preach about "all members".
@1:50
There's many new residents here due to the turnover of property. I have no idea what you speak of when you say "overhang limits" and probably many others are stumped as well. Many people really just want water, garbage, security, friendly cooperative neighbors, peace and quiet, and lovely property. Why does all this money need to spent on admin costs and board members? The covenants should be revised to just a water/garbage department and staff, police presence, a couple experienced solid office managers and staff and let the rest of the costs be used for wages, bonuses, beautification of the HOA boundaries. Excess monies should be reserved for legal. And by legal, that does not mean fining and harassing "us people" or as you like to say "you people" Do you even live in Surfside? You sound like a troll.......just sayin
Okay 2:43 PM. Especially with your last two sentences, I can tell you really want to be a friendly cooperative neighbor.
I don't live in Surfside. I come on here to troll you. LOL
The sky is falling...
Now we have a property turnover issue (like all the other issues with no data to confirm...)...
Yes, both Cox and JoAnne should run for the board and hopefully win. Will only be matter of weeks before they lose favor with the blog audience...
I can tell you exactly where we people were when the overhang issue was going on! Minding our own business, dealing with health issues and enjoying the beach. How could anyone be aware of the situation? I have always read the weekender and was not aware of this issue. Thank goodness for this blog, as now things are openly discussed. No I didn’t attend regular meetings, but did attend the annual member meeting. I’ve only recently started attending meetings after receiving our lighting complaint in July. We were shocked into reality as to the change in the administration of our HOA. Seemed to us a sudden change, but guess it’s been working up to this total control issue
Very true 3:06 PM. Been there done that. Got the T-shirt.
@3:06. Cox did run for the BOT last July and received the most total votes after the elected members. When a vacant seat came up in October the board did not seat him as has been the practice. Of course, they have that option to leave the seat vacant until the next July meeting, but I can’t find a motion to do this.
I started attending meetings right after I joined without any personal property agendas.
Since then I've been ridiculed, lied to, disrespected, had correspondence rules violated, ignored, and told to call special meetings by Trustees, to name a few.
@JoAnne
Touche- I'm still trying to find meeting minutes for this last meeting. I can't find anything about how the proposed lighting came about either. No one wants to convince us this is a great idea which enhances our lives as a member they just want to ram it on us as gospel. I remain confused on the purpose and origin of this dark sky movement. The trolls on this blog just want to ridicule everyone and not provide legitimate information as to WHY! Where is the proof this is a great idea for all? WHERE IS IT HOA? I have called the office and get the standard answer-"everything is on the website" ummmmmmmm, no it isn't!
Patrick Johansen said...
Thanks for the support from many of you that still live in Surfside. I note that many times many of you have reminded those on the blog about the truth of what happened. Thanks.
The main attorney that I used was Bruce Galloway, (425) 334-4400. He has a home and office in Lake Stevens, WA but also a home in Surfside and he comes to Surfside about one week per month and works from his home here. He is a constitutional attorney, and a real estate attorney. Very nice guy, reasonable hourly rate and very efficient. I felt like he really had my best interests at heart and really knew what he was doing. He has done some work for the HOA, they of course hired him after I did in an attempt to bribe his loyalties (just my opinion). He has also had some of his own personal challenges with Surfside's enforcement, and of course he also won. I highly recommend him.
Just a note, I cant seem to login so my name shows, thus the double ID.
Hey, anyone know when we get the new lights? I heard the HOA was going to buy us new house lights so we are all uniform? Just checking, I might even paint now too!
Thank you 3:40. I have asked repeatedly for a report on the complaints received on lighting this past year, how many appealed, how many outstanding and how many people were involved in writing them. To date not even a response to my emails. And to my knowledge there are no minutes concerning how the architectural committee arrived at the proposed covenant. No the website is very behind and lacking important documentation
This is the email I sent the Trustees today.
I request Surfside Homeowners Association (SHOA) opt in to WA RCW 64.90.
They will likely completely ignore this email.
I say that another new covenant needs to be written that while driving in surfside at night in our vehicles that you cant have your headlights on. Black out drive is the term we used in the Army. This new light covenant is the same level of ridiculous as driving at night without your headlights on.
With that kind of attitude and mentality 6:03 PM, I sure glad I'm not paying for you to be in our United States Army anymore.
The U.S.A was built on the principles of individualism, dialogue and compromise solutions. You don't have to be richer, smarter, or perfect to have a right to express your opinion. That's what JoAnne and I are doing here on the blog.
Far too many people are afraid to speak up, but are still motivated to bitch about other people exercising their free speech. Go figure. Only participating in the process at some level, even talking on a blog, has any potential to effect change. Movements start with small ideas and folks with similar goals. It all has to start somewhere.
i hope that honest questions and concerns that I expressed at least gets people to ask their own questions
One more comment on compliance instead of complaint reporting. When I think back to our lighting complaint in July and think about the photos taken at night without our permission and shown as evidence in the officers complaint against us and then more photos after our appeal, it makes my skin crawl! Talk about invasion of privacy and a false narrative as photos of lights aren’t the same as a visual view
If only that person would have just knocked on our door or called us, we would have made modifications as we did so without all this needless stress we’ve been going through
Then run for the board in July 2020 Cox and JoAnne.
JoAnne: What's your stance on knowing the identity of your accuser (complainant)?
People who have objections to a compliance officer basically don't want to comply, it's as simple as that. They want to live on their property and do what they want. I can understand that. I drive down 101 at night where I can go for miles without seeing another car so I would like to speed some since I would only be potentially hurting myself. But law officers will not let me do so.
What I don't understand is this. In my case until someone invents a transporter I haven't a choice but to comply or pay a fine if caught. Meanwhile all of you could have easily bought your property elsewhere and could be living in the middle of tall trees and have your house lit up like Vegas if you like. Why should I and others who did our due diligence in choosing where we wanted to live be force to change for those that made the mistake of buying in a place with covenants they don't want to comply with?
All the complaints, including the names of the complainer, should be public knowledge.
@6:50
Wow, you embrace a police state, great. You sound like so much fun! Glad I don't know ya!
Just because you like to "kiss the ring" 650AM, doesn't mean everyone does. Russia called, they want all their puppets and oppressed back. Wrong blog dude
6:50 fails to state that the covenants in question either were not enforced or didnt exist until very recently. Obviously all the problems started by some that recently moved here. By recently, i mean starting with smith as president going forward. The bad attitude on the board started with him.
@6:50 wow! You’re saying we don’t want to comply? What a nonsense opinion! The point is we followed the rules, did comply and still cannot get verification in the form of a letter as required by our rules as to what exactly is wrong! So you’d like to live under the atmosphere of someone making sure you are compliant and observing others and I mean many others violating the covenants? Don’t be throwing stones until you’ve lived through this experience!
And no we don’t know who our accursed is because that’s confidential. All we know is that we had no full time neighbors and I asked our neighbors after it happened, because we actually get along with them, and they said they said “of course not”
6:50 Don't forget to ban RV'S then You will have Your perfect World
6:50 to add to my above response, what we do know is that nighttime photos were taken by the compliance officer of our home. Our home that we bought in 2008 knowing full well it was a HOA and there were covenants to follow. Doesn’t it seem rather strange that all has been fine until these past couple of years? To accuse us of not wanting to follow the rules is really a low jab! In the covenants there are specific steps we are all to follow. We did exactly that and it is still unresolved.
6:50, awww but, a BIG BUT- Now someone wants to change/amend/update or whatever you want to call it, the covenants to appease their own personal wants and desires. The same can be said for those who want to change covenants. And I quote "Meanwhile all of (you) could have easily bought your property elsewhere". You should do the same instead of trying to cram your silly agenda on the rest of the universe. Go buy an island, take your crazy ideas with you. The rest of us want to change a few covenants too. One in particular of great interest is All Members should be offered a vote on any change/amend/update to ALL COVENANTS. We all did our Due Diligence as you suggest we did not and when changes occur it nullifies the original agreement we signed up for. Get with the program. What's wrong with you?
Yes, implement membership vote of governing documents amendments.
These votes must be votes without a meeting by ballot sent to all members.
There can a single hearing at a regular or special meeting then put it to a membership vote.
1/22 6:48. Did you bother to ask the head of the Tree Committee if she was driving around and recording information? If you did and she replied “NO” then you both get 5 Pinocchio’s. There is no mistaking the black Mazda crossover SUV with her behind the wheel, particularly when stationary. Didn’t say the other person was DeLees, your comment. They state they never write violations for trees, so she wasn’t doing that, she is not a compliance officer, so she wasn't’ checking to see if a complaint was settled. So what was she writing on the list that she held up against the steering wheel? Maybe lighting fixture complaints? With a 100% increase in complaints this year, (over 300) it didn’t change through normal selection. Well into my second decade here, as others have stated, there has been a significant change in the attitude of the populace. This all began when certain families moved full time into the neighborhood that we were used to living in a friendly neighborhood, these new transplants were allowed to take over our community. Shame on us. They need to be removed from their positions. For those jerks who say that those who disagree should move,, well we looked at this community before we moved here and found it friendly. You have changed all that and for the worse.
Folks with the tired olde line, "you knew the rules when you bought property in Surfside", will have to put this baloney to rest. Anytime the covenants are changed, this silly "argument" becomes more irrelevant.
The covenants had not been changed significantly in years, then the Eaves restriction on sheds was adopted. Now the Lighting covenant is in the process of change. Since the majority of Surfside owners owned here prior to 2018 - "No we didn't know the rules when we bought here." -and the means to make changes are a written part of our governing documents.
While we're putting away worn out phrases, we can shelve the one that states : "People want to change the covenants to serve their own agenda." No proposals for change would ever emerge without someone, or a group of people, believing the change would be an improvement. So it is obvious that such proposals are ALWAYS part of someone's "agenda". So the question is always, "will it benefit the community as a whole ?", or does it only serve a special interest ?
The fact that the HOA board listened to the membership's responses to the proposed Lighting changes, is evidence that participating in the governance of Surfside as an individual can have an impact, and benefit the whole community. We will see how the rewrite progresses - but this outcome was, as Trustee Mark Scott stated at the beginning of the Hearing, "this is great ! This is what it's all about ! Members meeting to share in civil discourse to work on compromise solutions." (Not verbatim, but close).
And I agree, another useless phrase is, "if you don't Like the rules here, MOVE !" How do you distinguish the good guys from the bad guys with such a ridiculous attitude ? The fact remains, nothing can improve without criticism, analysis, and change. Democracy or attempts at it, require that this process be ongoing. Not all changes are for the better, but when unsuccessful, changes can be changed or undone.
It is true, that the more diverse the BOT the better for the community. It would benefit the community to try to encourage more member participation, putting more useful information out in mailers and on the website may help, asking members to complete short surveys of opinion, would also be worthwhile. It won't happen overnight.
Some have told me to go away.
I will not go away. I will mostly use anonymous because most of my self-identified posts are now deleted.
Some have told me to shut up.
I will not shut up.
Some have told me to move.
I will not move.
Just came back from a little drive to the compactor. About every second or third house on J in this section would be in violation of the new lighting proposal. There's some serious violations with flood lights from the east side multiple story houses. The flood lights point into the street and would light up the street onto the one story properties west side of J. Open flood bulbs and LED flood lights pointing West. This is very interesting. I wonder if they will get notices?
To my knowledge no one has received a lighting complaint since ours in July. Certainly not since our appeal in September! And yet we’re the ones who refuse to follow the rules? Lol
If covenants are and were so important to this HOA, then you have to ask, Why were they written in such a general and non precise way? Here is what I think is the why.
Our founders and those who followed, did not want a community that was so strict, that it would become a place of division and harassment. They wanted a friendly place where only the most obvious violations were a problem. Neighbors did work with each other to settle the small differences.
In later years a pro-active compliance officer was hired. In fact, several. It did not work for several reasons. One, being lack of Board support and the other was a great increase in violations. The Board failed to act on the most serious violations.
We now have a small group with nothing better to do than write up complaints that have always been considered minor. They want to make covenants that are more restrictive that result in more complaints. There is no evidence for the need for more restrictions, and when asked to provide information on the sudden increase in complaints, there is no justification provided other than that there are more complaints. They refuse to even disclose information on the complaints, as to kind, how many and if only a few are writing the increased number of complaints. This smells.
The covenants should be the choice of the members. The association belongs to the members and should reflect their wants and needs. From my experience here, I find that most members want a neat and attractive neighborhood and are willing to make the effort to keep their property that way. The newly proposed lighting covenant seems to be a neighbor problem, if it in fact even is a problem. Prove it! These kind of issues only serve to divide our community and make a once friendly place, less friendly.
These few individuals that divide our community, should be removed from the Board and any committee's they may "serve on". If that's the volunteer service they want to provide, the answer should be...No Thank You, your service is not needed or wanted.
Give the addresses and I'll submit the complaints.
This self-serving special-interest crap needs to stop! Either drain the swamp by kicking off the balance of the board, or disband the organization, as it operates illegally anyway.
In my opinion the reason they were written in a general way was because they couldn't foresee that some would abuse it. Who would think that when someone wanted to build a shed they would build a mini cabin and even sheds with utilities hooked up? Or people would have bright lights that stay on all night that light up the neighborhood in such a way that you need blackout curtains to sleep.
I agree, the board back then did fail to act on violations which was wrong. People were upset because members were allowed to not follow the covenants. Now you are having the opposite. The board wants to hold those members accountable and people are complaining about that.
This constant call for people to be removed from the board is wrong. You hear the same year after year. The people serving on the the current and past boards were put there by the majority of members who care enough to vote. No matter who gets elected there are going to be some members who don't agree with them and will be vocal about it, that's just how it is.
I sent an email to the General Manager and board officers. For the 2020 Surfside election cycle, please hold at least one candidate town hall or debate meeting.
Wrong 5:34
It is not the board that want's to hold the members accountable, It is the power hungry self serving group that want things their way. It is harassment. Other than three j place people on the board, the increased and new compliant restrictions are the product of the few. -They have created a false issue of their own making in order to get it their way. The members would care enough to vote is they knew the facts and had an easy way to vote. This elite group knows this and that is why there is no transparency or electronic voting. And, that's "just how it is".
5:34 is blaming the members for this mess. It's not the members fault that a few old bags want to have everything their way. It is not the members fault that they have no information. It's not the members fault that there are proposed new lighting covenants. It is not the members fault that a FEW ARE WRITING ALL THE COMPLAINTS. The members pay their dues and follow the covenants that are reasonable. Members do care, if they know what there is to care about. Those old bags are the ones that need to be held accountable. 5:34 is just more BS. I don't buy it and the members don't buy it. You need to save that garbage for your committee meeting.
I agree wholeheartedly that all members should be informed of the happenings here in our community. We were just happy little campers until last summer, not aware of the changes happening. We had remarked on how horrible some of the lots were looking after being completely cleared of trees, but didn’t really know why it was happening until we received the lighting complaint last July. In doing our modifications, preparing our appeal and having it denied for some reason that to date has never been conveyed to us, we had our eyes opened! We shouldn’t have to be micromanaging the board or the committees but many things have been put into policy and practices without enough research or conversations in my opinion. Hopefully this can change, but we must come into this electronic age and utilize the internet for up to date information and voting procedures. The members who do not live here full time need to be represented also with ease and clarity
@5:34AM
Each problem should be dealt with by itself. If someone submits a shed design and it doesn't match the approved design, that person should be required to remedy. If someone has lights glowing up the neighborhood, creating an impossible sleeping environment, that person should be required to remedy. By not addressing the real problems, you create an even bigger problem to include this divisive situation we have right now. Having worked in Federal Government, making everyone conform because of ONE no longer works for me. I want to be free. Free to do the right thing, free to mess up and correct it if I'm the problem. I don't want others to pay for my mistake, nor do I want to pay for theirs. Deal with each problem as it arises is the only fair way to go.
What are you saying 11:11 AM?
What do you propose then?
What does "I want to be free" mean?
What does "free to mess up and correct it if I'm the problem" mean?
@11:37
Is there something wrong with your comprehension skills? Did you read every sentence?
"Free to do the right thing, free to mess up and correct it if I'm the problem. I don't want others to pay for my mistake, nor do I want to pay for theirs."
Your post sounds dumb. Just because someone asks dumb questions doesn't mean they deserve an answer. I don't even know why I'm acknowledging this now, pffftt, dumb as dumb gets.
Don't bother 11:43. There's a couple trolls who come on this page just to agitate people. They don't even live in Surfside. Don't feed the trolls like 11:37am. Trolls rarely add anything of value to the conversation. They just ask irrelevant questions to try and get a rise out of people.
11:43 AM is one of our friendly neighbors, sarcasm of course.
I'm sure that person would be easy to work something out with, sarcasm again of course.
Watch the pffftt, you may spit all over your screen and keyboard, lol.
Have a nice day.
Do you agree with 11:43 AM Cox and JoAnne?
I like the spice that trolls add to this site.
Oh no, now our Sheriff coverage is in jeopardy? Ugh, I hope the thieves haven't found out yet! George, do you have any legit info on this? Thank you in advance.
@1:36 Surfside just posted it to their Facebook page!!! Let's just say welcome tweekers!!
No kidding 1:44 PM. Why would these people, or our BM or GM or whoever he is, do that?
What's a little trolling between friendly neighbors, come on.
Now that the cop are gone there's plenty of room for trolls under our bridges
Then they can say they live in Surfside.
Why did this information about Travis get posted on Facebook? Anyone can look at Facebook, our Weekender, which I thought was our official information site, is only available to Surfside members. Travis had stated at the meeting they didn’t want his final day out to the public just so it wouldn’t be a green light for criminal activity!
This BM and this board of Trustees don't care what anyone else says, even if they're an authority.
As Clancy likes to say of others, "they will do as they will do".
8:00:
Old bags, really? You can't make a comment without being insulting? Your mother must be soooo proud of you. Nice to be able to spew your hate and misogyny behind the anonymous cloak where YOU can't be held accountable isn't it? Not to mention your B.S. about only a few writing complaints, something you have no proof of. And just a reminder Einstein, people on the board, committees and yes even those old bags that get you riled up are MEMBERS too.
6:17:
I don't understand why you are bringing J placers up. But your assumption about how the members would care enough to vote has been repeated time and time again over the years and all it is is just that, an assumption. It's also an assumption along with wishful thinking that if they did vote they would automatically vote like you want.
11:11:
I have to admit, I'm as confused as 11:37. But after reading the language again along with the proximity of the time stamps of your other comments it's pretty obvious who's making them, so in a way I guess it does make sense.
Realtors should pay Surfside commissions for the few driving Members out of the HOA
So true! We are seriously thinking of leaving all this mess behind. Sad part is others have already left
I would, but I already spent more developing my lot than I can get for it.
My realtor lied to me.
I envy those that can leave without taking an immediate financial loss.
We need to form a group to change the path our community is going down. I’m sure the majority of us just want to quietly live without worrying about someone spying on us!
I'd like to be a part of that.
How can we do this? Ideas anyone?
What are your thoughts JoAnne?
We could convene a meeting at the Ocean Park Fire Station meeting room that is available to be reserved by public groups.
If we could put this together to give a clear message to the board of our concerns maybe we could return to peace and quiet. We need members involved but more importantly, the trustees to act in our best interest not just a few.
Should we convene a meeting for a discussion or for a planned purpose?
I would be inclined to meet for one of these possible purposes.
1. Select one or two items to pursue.
2. Select one or two items to pursue and plan outreach activities.
3. Select one or two items to pursue and plan for calling a special meeting outreach and signature activities.
4. Select one or two items to pursue for the 2020 Annual Meeting. We could propose the item(s) for the 2020 Annual Meeting. We could make a motion of the item(s) at the 2020 Annual Meeting.
Some great ideas! I think a starting meeting to talk and prioritize the goals. The very first item should be to fine three members who will run for the board at the July meeting. This can all be done in conjunction with each other. The by-laws need to be changed at the July meeting to state the membership has to vote on any covenant changes. That will be a great place to start
Would you like to be a part of this JoAnne?
If so, may I contact you?
I think it best once decided, that those involved set up a separate communication system before a course of action. Real names and contact info could be sent to George. That way certain ears and eyes though knowing something is occurring, they dont know the specifics.
Yes of course contact me! I never ever wanted to get involved in this type of issue or controversy, but after our experience, talking to others and searching into the history I feel an obligation. Not at all how I wanted to spend my peaceful, restful rest of my life
The good part of being in an HOA is being part of a community.
We definitely know the bad part.
I think this could be a positive experience.
At a minimum and initially let's focus on meeting and spending time with fellow members.
If we ultimately decide it's not worth the effort, at least we tried and we may end up with new friends.
RE: 4:52 PM. Would you be agreeable to that George?
Agreed 5:22. The one bonus to getting involved this past summer has been meeting so many nice, neighborly members who I met while handing out the fliers concerning information about the hearing. I agree this could be a positive experience and would know we’re not alone in our frustrations. That has been the common thread I heard this summer and fall
Sure, 5:29
JoAnne: I'll contact George as 4:52 PM suggested and George has responded at 5:55 PM.
George: By the end of next Sunday or the following Monday or so please send us all our names and contact information.
Thanks
6:43. Great, progress already!
I appreciate that some feel they can trust me with their Emails, but before you do that, you need to get organized. I have posted a new topic that covers this conversation here. To continue that conversation go to the new topic posting.
My comment here will be the last comment allowed on this posting. It is now well over a hundred. There have been a lot of good discussion here. Thanks.
Post a Comment