This is a forum to share and discuss information and issues about our homeowners association.
The blog host is not responsible for the content of comments.
As with all blogs, you have to use your own judgement as to the accuracy of the postings and comments.
With the science we have today, how can anyone not know the value of trees, especially in our community. Are these same people who favor killing trees, the same people who deny global warming or climate change?
It is difficult to understand why the members would allow such a destructive covenant to exist today. Those who do not speak up and out against such a policy, are just as guilty as those who support it. Most of us live here because of our appreciation of nature. Where is that appreciation and protection of trees?
"EnjoyTheCoast" consistently states things in such dark terms - resentment and dire predictions - yeah, that's going to inform and inspire positive action. I think I enjoy the Coast better without your input.
You can let these images dominate your thoughts, but there's better things to focus on, and only action will create change. There's only so much can be done with so few members willing to pay attention to what the community has become, or wanting to help set a more positive course considerate of all owners.
Talkin' radical just won't get traction around Surfside, practical solutions, maybe.
OK George and Jo Anne, let's talk about trees. How many trees total are on both of your properties, one maybe if that? How about we add those on your friend Steve's place. Oh wait, he has none. So that means I have more trees on my property than all three of you combined, all at the required covenant height BTW.
You know who else has more trees on their property than you three? The Chairwomen of the Tree Committee. You know, the one that somebody here is spreading a rumor that she wants all trees gone. Let THAT sink in. In fact I'm pretty sure most if not all members of the Tree Committee have more trees on their properties than you three.
So how interesting it is that the self proclaimed tree huggers have to go to a neighbors property to actually hug a tree while those they rant about can just walk outside their door to do so. Don't even get me started on your "environmental awareness".
What is more interesting is that your moniker here is "reality check", yet you don't really have a rational point to make. Opposition to the Policy is based on the fact that it exists for the sake of ridgetop owners, and is enforced as the responsibility of those who own trees on their property. It mandates the destruction of private property on treed lots at these owner's expense.
It is a hypocritical standard that is based on guaranteed views for the J Pl. owners, though the covenants have no such guarantees. Enforcement is not based on verification that anyone's views are obstructed, nor is it even considered a criteria for compliance. So the policy is based on the lie that unspecified views are guaranteed, even in the absence of any documentation that is so.
None of the 3 of us has cut trees down on our property, and each of us have trees nearby. It's not a matter of being a tree hugger, just being smart enough to understand that humans rely on our environment continuing to function in our favor, and trees play a critical role in that, particularly as global deforestation continues at great speed.
Forest fires in Australia this year may have destroyed as much as half of the forested area of that continent, while massive fires intentionally set have burned out of control in the Amazon basin this year. Forest fires destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres in California the last 2 years, and fires of over 100,000 acres have been an annual phenomenon throughout the N.W. over the last 20 years.
How many times do you have to be told that one tree alone provides a huge benefit to the environment? I don't have the numbers, but the data is impressive. One tree puts out an enormous amount of Oxygen, sequesters a huge amount of pollutants, absorbs a massive amount of water, helps provide drainage with its' roots, creates habitat for birds and mammals, and more.
The primary argument against the Policy is that trees are private property of great value, and no one but the property owner has any business demanding the destruction of other's private property. Routine topping kills trees, and Surfside is proof of what Arborists tell us.
Here's a "reality check": The developers of Surfside were unable to sell properties after the area was re-landscaped, as it was a barren landscape of sand. Not until trees were planted throughout the community, did properties begin to sell. So how ironic that 50 years later, nearly all of those trees have been killed by topping, and the policy still dogs owners to trim their trees at great expense, most of them dieing or mutant bushes, not trees.
Fact check... I have 2 apple trees, 2 maple trees, 4 black pine , 4 native pine, 2 flowering cherry and 1 golden chain. I do prune them, not because I am required by the covenants or for someone else view, but because in order to have all those trees, I do it so they will fit. Yes, I am a tree huger.
Reality check, again hiding behind an anonymous post! Not having very many trees on our property has nothing to do with our concern about the trees. It concerns slaughtering of trees and leaving lots and areas stripped of trees that. We all need for the environment. I’ve never attacked anyone on J place or any chairperson. I just have the opinion that this tree distraction has gotten out of hand and is going to have bad results especially on those lots on the canal
We had about 14 large trees on our Lacey lot when we bought it. After 15 years, we have only 3 large trees and a Magnolia. We also have 2 8 ft Arborvitae, but they are probably actually shrubs. A severe ice storm damaged all of our large Russian Birch. I personally took out 3 of the Birch trees, about 10 inches in dia., and had the rest removed over a few years. A 20 inch Yellow Pine had the top blown out of it, in another ice storm, and had to be removed a couple of years later. Our Flowering Plum became too large, (about 30 feet tall), for the spot it was in, and overhung the neighbor's yard. Our neighbor took out a 20 inch Pine by our lot-line last year, when we took out the Plum.
We miss the trees, especially the Birch trees. Their shiny leaves make a nice rustling sound in the breeze, and the bark is beautiful. We've always had lots of bird activity, and had lots of Goldfinches when we had feeders up. They fly phenomenally fast, like a yellow bullet, so exciting to see. The feeders make real mess out of the lawn, so we got rid of them. They require routine cleaning to prevent disease in the birds. We have 3 Hummingbird feeders these days.
The leaf clean-up was exhausting, and it was a big effort getting rid of all of the leaves, even with yard waste pick-up. It was well worth the work, but at my age, I couldn't manage it myself. We've put in a lawn irrigation system and plan to concentrate on having a nice lawn, which is difficult with lots of trees.
An alternative is to have a forested lot which self-manages for the most part. The leaf matter keeps the ground moist and lots of native plants can serve as ground cover. Rhodies, ferns, wild gooseberries and currants, wild violets, and trillium readily grow in these conditions without needing much maintenance.
10 comments:
Now that’s science at its best! Hopefully the tree slaughter will end soon!
With the science we have today, how can anyone not know the value of trees, especially in our community. Are these same people who favor killing trees, the same people who deny global warming or climate change?
It is difficult to understand why the members would allow such a destructive covenant to exist today. Those who do not speak up and out against such a policy, are just as guilty as those who support it. Most of us live here because of our appreciation of nature. Where is that appreciation and protection of trees?
"EnjoyTheCoast" consistently states things in such dark terms - resentment and dire predictions - yeah, that's going to inform and inspire positive action. I think I enjoy the Coast better without your input.
You can let these images dominate your thoughts, but there's better things to focus on, and only action will create change. There's only so much can be done with so few members willing to pay attention to what the community has become, or wanting to help set a more positive course considerate of all owners.
Talkin' radical just won't get traction around Surfside, practical solutions, maybe.
OK George and Jo Anne, let's talk about trees. How many trees total are on both of your properties, one maybe if that? How about we add those on your friend Steve's place. Oh wait, he has none. So that means I have more trees on my property than all three of you combined, all at the required covenant height BTW.
You know who else has more trees on their property than you three? The Chairwomen of the Tree Committee. You know, the one that somebody here is spreading a rumor that she wants all trees gone. Let THAT sink in. In fact I'm pretty sure most if not all members of the Tree Committee have more trees on their properties than you three.
So how interesting it is that the self proclaimed tree huggers have to go to a neighbors property to actually hug a tree while those they rant about can just walk outside their door to do so. Don't even get me started on your "environmental awareness".
What is more interesting is that your moniker here is "reality check", yet you don't really have a rational point to make. Opposition to the Policy is based on the fact that it exists for the sake of ridgetop owners, and is enforced as the responsibility of those who own trees on their property. It mandates the destruction of private property on treed lots at these owner's expense.
It is a hypocritical standard that is based on guaranteed views for the J Pl. owners, though the covenants have no such guarantees. Enforcement is not based on verification that anyone's views are obstructed, nor is it even considered a criteria for compliance. So the policy is based on the lie that unspecified views are guaranteed, even in the absence of any documentation that is so.
None of the 3 of us has cut trees down on our property, and each of us have trees nearby. It's not a matter of being a tree hugger, just being smart enough to understand that humans rely on our environment continuing to function in our favor, and trees play a critical role in that, particularly as global deforestation continues at great speed.
Forest fires in Australia this year may have destroyed as much as half of the forested area of that continent, while massive fires intentionally set have burned out of control in the Amazon basin this year. Forest fires destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres in California the last 2 years, and fires of over 100,000 acres have been an annual phenomenon throughout the N.W. over the last 20 years.
How many times do you have to be told that one tree alone provides a huge benefit to the environment? I don't have the numbers, but the data is impressive. One tree puts out an enormous amount of Oxygen, sequesters a huge amount of pollutants, absorbs a massive amount of water, helps provide drainage with its' roots, creates habitat for birds and mammals, and more.
The primary argument against the Policy is that trees are private property of great value, and no one but the property owner has any business demanding the destruction of other's private property. Routine topping kills trees, and Surfside is proof of what Arborists tell us.
Here's a "reality check": The developers of Surfside were unable to sell properties after the area was re-landscaped, as it was a barren landscape of sand. Not until trees were planted throughout the community, did properties begin to sell. So how ironic that 50 years later, nearly all of those trees have been killed by topping, and the policy still dogs owners to trim their trees at great expense, most of them dieing or mutant bushes, not trees.
Fact check...
I have 2 apple trees, 2 maple trees, 4 black pine , 4 native pine, 2 flowering cherry and 1 golden chain. I do prune them, not because I am required by the covenants or for someone else view, but because in order to have all those trees, I do it so they will fit. Yes, I am a tree huger.
Reality check, again hiding behind an anonymous post! Not having very many trees on our property has nothing to do with our concern about the trees. It concerns slaughtering of trees and leaving lots and areas stripped of trees that. We all need for the environment. I’ve never attacked anyone on J place or any chairperson. I just have the opinion that this tree distraction has gotten out of hand and is going to have bad results especially on those lots on the canal
Tree destruction
We had about 14 large trees on our Lacey lot when we bought it. After 15 years, we have only 3 large trees and a Magnolia. We also have 2 8 ft Arborvitae, but they are probably actually shrubs. A severe ice storm damaged all of our large Russian Birch. I personally took out 3 of the Birch trees, about 10 inches in dia., and had the rest removed over a few years. A 20 inch Yellow Pine had the top blown out of it, in another ice storm, and had to be removed a couple of years later. Our Flowering Plum became too large, (about 30 feet tall), for the spot it was in, and overhung the neighbor's yard. Our neighbor took out a 20 inch Pine by our lot-line last year, when we took out the Plum.
We miss the trees, especially the Birch trees. Their shiny leaves make a nice rustling sound in the breeze, and the bark is beautiful. We've always had lots of bird activity, and had lots of Goldfinches when we had feeders up. They fly phenomenally fast, like a yellow bullet, so exciting to see. The feeders make real mess out of the lawn, so we got rid of them. They require routine cleaning to prevent disease in the birds. We have 3 Hummingbird feeders these days.
The leaf clean-up was exhausting, and it was a big effort getting rid of all of the leaves, even with yard waste pick-up. It was well worth the work, but at my age, I couldn't manage it myself. We've put in a lawn irrigation system and plan to concentrate on having a nice lawn, which is difficult with lots of trees.
An alternative is to have a forested lot which self-manages for the most part. The leaf matter keeps the ground moist and lots of native plants can serve as ground cover. Rhodies, ferns, wild gooseberries and currants, wild violets, and trillium readily grow in these conditions without needing much maintenance.
The whole look of Surfside has changed over the last 5 or so years. Soooo many trees destroyed, the whole HOA has a desolate look. So sad.
Post a Comment