"Welcome to Surfside" That's what the sign says. It does not say...Unless your a tree.
Over and over again we hear the same old, same old...You knew the covenants when you bought here. The trees did not get the message that they are only allowed to grow to a certain height. That's like telling the deer that they must be on a leash.
No matter what justification or covenant, the topping of trees for a view is just plain wrong. There can be no compromise. Yes, if the tree is diseased or a safety hazard, it should be removed. That is just plain common sense. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources with their Fire Wise program, which we are a participant, say..."Do not top trees" A bare lot with dead grass is more of a fire hazard than a lot covered in trees, or a few trees, or only one.
The list of benefits for having trees has been stated many times on this blog. There are still those who will deny those benefits, and even go to the extreme of citing "crown fires". Our collective values should be reflected in our community. A part of those values is the appreciation of trees along with the other natural beauty all around us. Is that not the reason we moved here?
These pictures are all on I Street on the South end. This is the street that thousands of clam diggers travel through in our community on the way to the beach. What kind of image do we present?
The next two pictures show a before cutting of trees and an after cutting picture. Yes, you can ask why they left those ugly stumps? It looks like a protest against a tree complaint. These trees were "topped", not "trimmed", numerous times. The owners and the trees can only tolerate so much abuse. These out of town owners are now compliant.
 |
| Attractive beach cottage with natural trees. No fire hazard here. |
 |
| They are compliant now. They lost, we lost and for sure the trees did. |
Just a few blocks away on the same I Street is another example of being compliant with the covenants. Thes are what visitors to our community see, not to mention how the owners feel.
 |
| I don't have a before picture of this, but not hard to imagine how nice it was before. |
Will we ever "speak up"? "speak out"? I will again and again until this awful outrage is ended. If you are one who says nothing, one who writes complaints, do enforcement, or support this carnage of trees,....Your the problem. I am not asking you to do this for me. I am asking you to do it for the trees.
Click on each picture for a larger ugly view.
32 comments:
I'm sorry, George, but I have mixed feelings about this. Our house is on I street, and we keep our trees, which are all beach pines, nicely trimmed and pruned. They look great and are healthy. We make it a point to keep them that way, not only to be compliant, but for the health of the trees. Those beach pines left to grow out of control, in my opinion, look awful. I feel that the ones that get butchered are done out of spite. I say, show some pride in your property. I don't support the butchering of the trees, but I do think it could've been avoided in the first place. And if you do have to trim them down, do it in a reasonable fashion, not the way some are doing it.
Nice Sign, what lies behind north of it not so much lately
Years back, Johansen suggest what I thought was a very good plan. He didn't feel it was right to force everyone to top their trees to random heights, but also didn't feel that the views should be taken away from the people on J Place that bought their properties for the views. He suggested that there be an imaginary line drawn from four feet above J Place to 24 feet above G St and F St. All trees could grow freely until they past that point. Any J Place property owner could file a complaint if the trees past that line, 30 degrees north and 30 degrees south from the center of the west side of their property, and then it would be required that the tree be topped to clear the line.
Most of the shore pines would never grow tall enough to pass that line except maybe on the west side of G and F Streets. This would protect the J Place views, decrease the tree costs for everyone, improve the overall appearance of Surfside, increase property values, decrease the cost of the shredder site, and make it easier for us to all live with each other.
I think it was an excellent idea. He was very good at coming up with win-win situations. He had a lot of good ideas.
Brenda DenAdel, what would be wrong with this idea?
Brenda DenAdel,
Not everyone has the same taste. I understand that you like your trees with the controlled look. I think the shore pines are beautiful, some grow staight and full, others are all twisted and artistic. I like them all, and all growing naturally look better the the chopped dying look we see all over Surfside. If you look at the plan above, everyone wins. You seem like a logical thinking person, what would be a reason to not work it this way?
At this point the community has been chopped-up so badly, there isn't much that can be salvaged of the remaining trees. The best course to take is to end the current policy altogether. Allowing a period of maybe 2 years for trees to stabilize after the onslaught, a new attitude should replace the mad cutting spree. Trees are a necessary part of an attractive landscape, and they serve many practical purposes for human existence.
They stabilize the surrounding land, and create habitats for other plants to grow and contribute to making more nutritious soil. They sequester pollutants and create huge amounts of oxygen. That's a mini-list - it's not a matter of trees liking or needing hugs.
Once the Tree lopping has stopped, planning could begin for a new approach that offers owners some options for replanting trees that have been damaged or removed by the HOA's policy. The view from J place will always be nice, but the Ocean is moving further away by a number of feet each year. Trees are not blocking the views. In addition, views are not legally defensible, nor are they provided for in our covenants.
Tree experts could be consulted for advice as to how best to grow Shorepines to limit their height, if it is practical, for owners who want to do so. Otherwise, the species doesn't grow much over 25 feet, and the closer to the beach the shorter they remain. But there are few trees grow well in sand, other than these pines. They are native to the western U.S., and grow in many regions where the soil is poor.
As appealing as the plan Patrick put together is, and theoretically sound, I think it would be very difficult to implement. We can't really sight an invisible line from 24 feet above G St., to 4 ft. above the crown of J Place. And the ground in between varies in height, where a measurement may be needed. J place varies greatly in elevation as well.
With computerized topo maps this could probably be done for each property, but that seems pretty elaborate and expensive, and really a serious tech question as to its' feasibility. No one formula would fit all properties with a simple equation, I don't believe, because all of the topography varies property to property.
I like the simple and direct logic of it, but I think it's more complicated to actually implement. Mark Scott ? How about it ? He may be able to say if this is doable/ practical.
I agree we have to stop the destruction and start repairing the damage. A view has never been promised, so a new plan has to be implemented. Many good minds to solve this challenge!
When we bought our property 10 years ago, we knew what the covenant was, so we keep our trees trimmed to comply. Has nothing to do with taste, it has to do with compliance. What Johansen suggested isn't what we have. So, we do what we are supposed to do, now. Like I said, I don't agree with the butchering of trees, I think it should be taken care of in a reasonable way. I don't know the reasons others have for butchering their trees, but that's their business. All I'm saying is we comply and our trees are healthy and they look nice. At least to us, they look nice. I guess it is a matter of taste.😉
Sorry Brenda, I didn't mean to imply anything negative about your trees, just that different people like different things. I have never seen your trees, or don't know if I have because I am not sure where you live.
To have treed lot, and keep the trees under 16 feet requires a lot of work and or cost and also makes the trees look weird, in my opinion and obviously many others. That doesn't make sense for many of us. We just want regular trees that grow normally that will make our properties more attractive and increase their value. As long as it is not blocking views from J Place we should have the freedom of choice. Johansen had stated many times that he did not feel it was fair to interfere with the views of the J Place people because many had bought their properties because they wanted that view. I agree as do many. Lets be fair to everyone.
Steve. I just talked about the plan Johansen suggested, not how to achieve the measurements, my error.
His plan seemed easy. Take a four foot stick, put a pipe on the top with a swivel type hinge so it could rotate vertically. Stand in the middle of J Place and look through the pipe just over the top of the existing 24' houses. If the "invisible line" crosses any trees, they need to be topped. If you cant see around the house from the street well enough to satisfy the J Place owner, have someone stand at the west side of the property with a stick and mark the stick where that "invisible line" from J Place to the top of the roof on the Ocean front homes intersects the stick. Do this on both sides of the home. From the marks on the sticks, look through the pipe to the top of the 24' homes on G or F Street, 30 degrees south from the southern stick and 30 degrees north from the from the northern stick. If that line crosses any trees those trees need to be topped. Easy 15 minute process. I wont be exact to the millimeter, but probably within a few inches.
After identifying the tree, one person would need to go to the tree and with help of cell phones or family radio, communicate with the person looking through the pipe, mark on the tree the allowable height, maybe with chalk on a stick, or just about any other means, or measure the height from the ground, record it at the HOA, and give a copy to the owner. Pretty easy, should take 15 to 30 minutes per complaint. I don't see where there would be a high cost.
As most of the trees then could be over 24' and rarely to shore pines grow that tall, there would be few complaints, so again, not very much cost involved.
Johansen had some other rules that went with this to solve a variety of issues that he realized could arise, I would have to go find what he had written or contact him and ask him to add the other conditions to this conversation.
Cora....I've talked with Patrick about this, so didn't expect you to explain this in detail. You did a fine job of explaining, but I think there are unseen obstacles.
I believe that the sighting pole is to be positioned on the road crown lined-up with the center of the lot on the westside of J Place. There is certain to be a house several feet taller than the sighting "tube".
1) All of the lots between J Pl. and G St. would need to be assessed for tree height.
2) Heights of houses on the westside of G St. vary, though many MAY be right at 24 ft..
3) While a transom could probably sight this accurately, it can't see through houses or objects. Crosshairs are needed for accuracy.
4) We are talking about an invisible line, so sighting would only determine where trees are in the line of sight, or objects. It could not be determined how much more trees could grow and still be in compliance.
5)It would be challenging to mark the tree in the distance where it needs to be cut.
6) Slight inaccuracies would be greatly magnified by distance from the sighting point.
7) J Place varies in height by at least 15 feet.
If this could be modeled in 3-D, it could probably work. Otherwise it is a lot of guesswork, in my opinion. Better to get rid of the policy. The community no longer owes anything to J place owner's views. It really ended when the word "views" was removed from the covenants years ago.
Patrick did work for a reasonable compromise on tree height and other covenant issues. His committee was shot down. The J Place coalition see's no need to compromise. The present policy is working just fine in their favor. The Board and committees are controlled by J Placers. With the present power structure, there will be no change.
The Tree Committee once worked with members to comply with out undo pressure or harassment. Now we see them being more proactive with enforcement for violations that are only inches over height. From the discussions we have seen on here, many of the violations would have to be many feet over height to block any view.
The members who really suffer over the increased enforcement, are not those with a "view", but rather those who don't. It is an increasing hardship for the members to "trim" or top their trees. There is the cost factor as well as a safety issue for senior members to climb ladders. Property values and enjoyment are also decreased. The environment and flood control are also compromised.
I like the look of the pines that have been pruned from a young age to have that coastal wind swept look. You can not get that same look from the mostly taller trees we have. They can not survive a severe pruning at that stage. For them, it is best to leave them alone.
The home and lot that Brenda and her husband own is directly across I Street for Veterans Park. They have a beautiful "beach" place that I featured in a blog posting. This lot had been mostly cleared of trees with only several smaller pines remaining. It is not representative of most of the tree covered lots in Surfside. It would be nice to see many of the bare lots in Surfside, improved with trees, such as theirs is.
I agree with Steve. The best solution is for the tree height covenant to end. That would be the most fair outcome. Just one members opinion.
I agree George. Unless a tree is a danger it should be left alone. If a property owner wants to keep them trimmed, that’s good, but not the slaughter like we’ve seen the past two years. No one is guaranteed a view as I read the covenants and rules
Ooooohhhhh my gosh. An actual discussion. A friend told me this was happening! I just had to come and see. Awesome guys!
Steve, I put answers to your objections/questions below.
Steve said... I believe that the sighting pole is to be positioned on the road crown lined-up with the center of the lot on the westside of J Place. There is certain to be a house several feet taller than the sighting "tube".
Patrick responded...The complaining party would have identified a tree. The idea would be to shoot as close as possible down either side of the house to 24' above G Place. If there is a 24' house on G, great, if not, another person would need to be on G Place with a 24" pole with the tip painted with red and white stripes to make it easy to see.
Steve said... 1) All of the lots between J Pl. and G St. would need to be assessed for tree height.
Patrick responded... No, not necessary, just one tree at a time due to a complaint from a J Place property owner.
Steve said... 2) Heights of houses on the westside of G St. vary, though many MAY be right at 24 ft..
Patrick responded...well, per CCRs they can't be more than 24 ft, but can easily verified by use of the 24' pole.
Steve said... 3) While a transom could probably sight this accurately, it can't see through houses or objects. Crosshairs are needed for accuracy.
Patrick responded... Easy enough to put crosshairs on the pipe. You are not looking through the house you are looking next to the house. There is always a way to come up with a solution, if you want to. This is a pretty simple task.
Steve said... 4) We are talking about an invisible line, so sighting would only determine where trees are in the line of sight, or objects. It could not be determined how much more trees could grow and still be in compliance.
Patrick responded...True, but it is either over the line or not. I suppose one could estimate or from the person's property use a third pole to measure.
Steve said... 5)It would be challenging to mark the tree in the distance where it needs to be cut.
Patrick responded... third pole with chalk or measure the pole hight.
Steve said... 6) Slight inaccuracies would be greatly magnified by distance from the sighting point.
Patrick responded... Actually, it would be pretty accurate. What could be inaccurate, the height of a four foot pole, or the height of the 24' pole? Thing of the geometry. If the 4' pole is off by one inch and the height of the 24' pole is correct, the measurement of the tree in the middle will be less than an inch.
Steve said... 7) J Place varies in height by at least 15 feet.
Patrick responded... Yes, but we are just looking at the view from the complaining property. Thus, no problem.
Steve said... If this could be modeled in 3-D, it could probably work. Otherwise it is a lot of guesswork, in my opinion.
Patrick responded... You are misunderstanding something. I am not sure what. This is very simple, very inexpensive and very easy. Cost of broom stick $5, cost of one foot piece of plastic pipe, I can donate a 1 ft piece, metal parts for swivel hinge, under $5. 2, twenty four foot extendable poles, $70 each. Elimination of tree problem, PRICELESS!
Steve said... Better to get rid of the policy. The community no longer owes anything to J place owner's views. It really ended when the word "views" was removed from the covenants years ago.
Patrick responded... Lets not be like them. Let's make things good for everyone. That is the job of a TRUSTee.
Cora, I didn't take any offence. No worries. Our house is on I street and 306th. My husband does an excellent job taking care of the trees. He loves doing it.😁
Thank you, George. I think what I was trying to say is if you take care of them when they are young, they shouldn't become a problem later on. But everyone's circumstances are different. That's just what works for us.
First of all why was " Unknown " allowed to post? Is the new policy already done and gone?
Secondly there is no view guarantee policy so why would the Board care about appeasing them?
If the concern is truly about safety in regards to tree heights, then why is the East side of Surfside under no regulations about height?
How you manage a tree on YOUR property, should be your choice, not someone else's. The tree kill committee promotes their agenda of a view for J Place. Some of the members of that committee encourage and assist in complaints being written. The policy right or wrong, is not being enforced fairly. They should be working with the members for compliance, not harassment.
The dune build up is moving West by several feet each year, and will continue to do so. When Surfside was first formed, most on G and J had a surf view. That has been gone for several years. You can expect to see new pines growing in those areas. G and J will always have nice sunsets, but the horizon views can be expected to decrease. It's just natures way.
Looking down from J Place, I see mostly roofs. Their views would actually be improved with taller trees below. The taller trees would also block the lights.
The tree committee is also responsible for the illegal removal of the trees around Seabreeze Lake. The new County CARL ordinance does not allow the removal as they have done. The CARL ordinance is about critical shore line protection. I have been told of one member who is complaining about increased wind due to the tree removal.
Bottom line...pun intended...It all depends on your view.
Patrick....You have never demonstrated that your idea for "measuring" trees works. In addition, the BOT is not planning to change the current "scorched-earth" program. As for your unsolicited advice to me as to how to be an ideal Trustee, I have served as a Trustee in my Lacey HOA for 3 years, and recognize that making group decisions often requires some members make compromises.
I've written thousands of words on the Tree Policy on the Blog over 3 years, and talked about compromise solutions that would be less destructive. But the BOT is well aware that Mr. Clancy and others are filing 50 or more complaints at a time. This is a blatant misuse of the "Complaint" system, and has caused a much more aggressive approach by those enforcing this policy. The attorney at the Annual Meeting last year said that there had been a big uptick in Tree related legal action.
So yeah, better to end the current policy altogether, and take plenty of time to consider how this issue can be addressed in the best interest of the entire community, and second, do we need ANY restrictions at all. What you are apparently unaware of is, I have stated numerous times that the HOA would still need to respond to owner complaints about their view.
Concerns about views would return to a common-sense approach. A neighboring tree that is no more than 50 feet away MAY actually threaten to block much of a viewing window. That would need to be verified by the compliance officer. But trees blocks away to the west aren't a valid complaint. Prove that there is a definite issue, and compliance will respond. That makes sense - not what we have currently. There is no covenant that protects views of J Place owners, no definition of what the "view" would be of, and the State of Washington does not consider views a valid legal protection, unless guaranteed in writing. It is not.
I find it interesting that Patrick wants to give advice on how to be the best Trustee, having been locked in a compliance dispute over his property all 3 years of his tenure on the BOT. He is no longer a Surfside resident.
Sorry George, I had to create a Google address to access this now, and didn't realize there was a different place for name, I just thought it would show my email address.
So instructions for other UNKNOWNs to put a name on your comments. On your post, click on the UNKNOWN where your name should be. This will take you to your profile page. Then click in the top right hand corner on EDIT PROFILE. Scroll down to IDENTITY, and under that you will se a box for DISPLAY NAME. That is the name that will show on your comments.
Steve, I am so sorry if my comment came across rude in any way. That is not what I intended. I have many times over the years stated that the job of the trustees is to maximize the benefit each member gets from their property ownership. That was not intended as a negative remark. Well maybe to the Faction board members, but not to you.
I am surprised at your comment about my dispute with the BOT. As you know, that was about my shed roof. At my appeal to the Board, no one could produce a covenant that my roof violated. They voted 5 to 4 to order me to remove the roof anyway. After receiving a letter from my attorney, they dropped the complaint. Later as Durdel had taken his similar roof down, the court ordered that the HOA reimburse Durdel for the cost of taking his roof down, the cost of putting it up, the cost of his attorneys fees and the court costs. The HOA paid Durdel.
I took my case to court and was awarded my attorney’s fees also. Bottom line, the HOA was in the wrong. The HOA appealed the lower court’s decision but dropped the case before it went to court. I sued for my attorney’s fees for the appeal, won, and the HOA paid me. I’m sorry, I thought you knew all that.
I have never been given the opportunity to demonstrate the tree program I suggested. I would be happy to show you what I am saying next time we are both in Ocean Park. You would see that it is a very easy and inexpensive program. Once you understood completely what I am saying, I don’t think you could disagree on how easily it would work.
You may still disagree philosophically on whether we need a covenant for this at all, but based on your paragraph starting with “Concerns about views would return to a common-sense approach”, it seems like you do agree that we should be fair to the people on J Place and assure that we have some program in place to secure their views. I have experienced that it is much better to have specific written rules rather than hoping that the people in charge at any point in time have “common sense”, or a sense of fairness.
Nice to see the same old trolls on here.
7:53.... Actually, the Chair of the Tree Comm. has been driving the push to cut trees and shrubs from the Lake. The Olds home is on J Pl. far to the east, but she has been insistent on doing this in spite of owner resistance and blatant violations ignored in the process.
One owner's vacant lot was mistakenly clear-cut in the process. A formal complaint has been filed with the County over the perceived violations of the CARL restrictions. One aspect of the CARL standards requires some shrubs remain along streams and Lakes, a Riparian Zone, which helps cool water in the shallows and helps the survival of fish in the Lakes and streams. Some of the properties being cleared are HOA owned, so no real need to clear them.
Patrick....You are well aware that I defended your position in the dispute with the BOT, and know what transpired in detail. You ventured to tell me what the ideal Trustee does/thinks, and that is ridiculous. As I have already said, I had more patience 3 1/2 years ago when we bought our place in Surfside, and have suggested compromise solutions, but all just talk on the Blog.
There has not been any indication that the BOT would consider revising this policy to be fair, even though the Policy began when the covenants protected the "views" of J Pl. owners. It was never determined which properties merited this exclusive protection, it was never established WHAT specifically the "view" was, and owners with trees to the west of J Pl. were never offered any monetary compensation to show interest in fairness.
That is the very definition of an inappropriate elitist policy. It hasn't changed, but has been allowed to run amok far beyond reason, with hundreds of complaints being filed by owners unaffected by the trees they are complaining about. When one Trustee files well over a hundred himself, something is very wrong, but the BOT just makes excuses for these fake complaints. This is a fraudulent practice that preys upon any owners with trees on their lots.
As a result, the community looks scalped and bizaare. It does not look well-kept, carefully landscaped, or even okay.
So we are far from a point of rational discussion of a reasonable solution. But it should be obvious that were the current policy ended, all owners would still have the right to object to neighboring trees or structures blocking views out of the west facing windows of their ridgetop properties. But this would be clearly defined in terms of distance and a requirement to have a compliance officer enter their home and determine if there is a valid complaint.
All other complaints must be verified, yet tree complaints do not, and that is not acceptable, but a sham, and an HOA license for elite rights to unspecified properties for unspecified reasons.
I have served my Lacey community HOA for 3 years as vice-president of our 7 member Board, and understand full well that decisions made by committee often require compromise by some in the committee. I don't need to be advised to be fair, as the whole objective here is to correct a poorly conceived policy that is entirely biased and improper. It continues, and without more member involvement in the governance of this community, will continue to chew up the rest of the community's trees.
The wind isn't my concern regarding tree heights. I was just commenting on those winds. That 5th wheel would get to be rocking and rolling. Scary but kinda cool at the same time. LOL. 😅
Larry Raymer suggested the survey and he is a member of both the Building and Lands and the Tree comm. Larry has been on the Tree Comm. for about 14 years and was the chair for much of that time. The approach to enforcement has changed radically since Larry was removed as chairman, becoming much more aggressive.
The survey would have been expensive, but would have prevented mistakes being made in the tree and brush cutting efforts. An entire lot was clear-cut mistakenly, that was privately owned by the neighboring property. Fortunately, the owner didn't want to make a big deal out of it. I think he had sold his properties or something of that nature.
I didn't make any false statements. Anyone who submits dozens of tree complaints is submitting fake complaints, and abusing the system which allows the "complainer" to remain anonymous. I said the BOT and Tree Comm. know that this practice has become common, yet do nothing to stop it. That sir is a fact.
I read the Tree Comm. minutes, and I know that each year Mr. Clancy submits dozens of complaints. This year there were suddenly nearly a hundred almost overnight, and at this point this year has seen over 200 tree complaints. This is complete b.s. These are not owners who are negatively effected by the properties they are citing, but just addresses written on complaint forms and submitted.
These people are not designated compliance officers, and they may be looking at records of who has cut recently and who has not. But it is a completely bogus and meddlesome practice that pesters members with trees relentlessly. This is a ridiculous policy that is being used as a weapon against hundreds of owners west of the ridge.
Michael S the reason I responded to your comments was because many members everyone should follow the same rules and the east side is left out of the tree management and we know for sure they were being left out if the proposed lighting covenant. Just wanted to voice support of those who think the covenants are being abused. It’s not because we don’t want to follow the rules but because we know first hand what happens when you are singled out and nothing can be resolved no matter what a member try’s to do. Not being critical of your remarks, only of an over zealous BOT in our opinion
Above. Many members feel. Hate when I post and evidently didn’t proof read!!
It is common to have any comment that is critical of someone's statement construed to be hateful on the Blog. It's a strange phenomenon. I corrected someone in this strand, as to the height of native Willow trees, but thanked the commenter for the info that they have extensive root systems, and can damage septic tanks and foundations. The commenter had a fit, claiming that because of my hatefulness, she would no longer comment on the Blog.
People make all kinds of exaggerated claims that have no basis in print. All you can do is try to express yourself as clearly as possible, and know your subject, trying to avoid making personal remarks. But you can't refute someone's comments without essentially saying "I think you are mistaken" in some way. That's part of a dialogue/discussion and you have to be able to criticize without trying to be mean, and put up with whatever is dished out.
I think some folks are wary of Blogs for that reason, which is valid, but too quick to take offense. Some criticism is just mean and pointless, and a no win situation whether you respond or don't. Requiring names is a better way to go. Frequent commenters just need to be able to deal with both valid differences of opinion, and idiotic intentionally hurtful remarks with no substance.
Is anything accomplished, telling such a person "your comment is idiotic and of no substance."? NO. But it may make YOU feel better.
Speaking of foil hat territory, your capacity to ignore and deny the obvious is a reminder of why this HOA is so far off the rails. The Tree Comm. is a critical part of the enforcement apparatus, and the working dynamics of the comm. have changed in the extreme.
The functional purpose of complaints is for owners to have an alternative to working out issues with neighbors face to face. The complaint is not considered valid until it has been investigated. It is perfectly obvious that anyone who files 50 or more tree complaints, that there are NOT 50 properties whose trees are interfering with their "view". It is not appropriate for each and every member to be a self-designated compliance officer, citing member properties as non-compliant, when those properties have no bearing on their personal circumstance.
So the fact that hundreds of tree complaints have been submitted by one Trustee in particular, and that can be verified, demonstrates a serious flaw in our enforcement. This practice of the submission of dozens of tree complaints at a time, is well known by the Tree Comm. and the BOT, yet no effort has been made to stop it.
It should be pretty obvious that were the entire community to begin submitting hundreds of complaints by looking at a map or list of addresses, or just driving by properties with trees and putting them on the complaint list, would create a volume that could not practically be investigated in real time.
Complaints are to be identified as to their source, so that the HOA can notify the "Complainer" what has transpired in the investigation. The source is not supposed to be anonymous. The complainer's identity is only intended to be anonymous to the public. So, yes it is known that this practice is common, the source is known, and the BOT can stop the practice by limiting and screening the source of these wholesale complaint bundles.
This kind of misuse of what is intended to be a way to resolve disputes between neighbors creates hostility and conflict, and sows a very negative dynamic throughout the community.
You make it more than clear that you have a problem with my opinions, but you also make it very clear that you are fine with being lied to and misled to think that there is a great compliance crisis in the community. You are more concerned with regimenting member's lives with elaborate restrictions and unnecessary inspections than with fair and honest governance, that seeks to make Surfside a happy place to own Beach property.
Your claim that I am rude is really just about trying to discredit my criticism of the HOA. My objective is never to be disrespectful or rude, but to talk about the issues. Some people want to push my buttons, and may get a snarky response. I'm usually patient.
Being "smug" is being dismissive of other viewpoints. Just because LOL is a cute little abbreviation, doesn't change the meaning. So to start a response to a simple statement of fact by using "LOL" is smug. The commenter got mad and out of sorts, just because I said she was mistaken. And no one is going to intentionally plant native willows on their property. I was entirely reasonable in my responses.
It would be nice to think that the office doesn’t react until “someone” turns in a complaint. Trust me this isn’t how it works. We do have a compliance officer and over zealous members who go outside their neighborhood to file complaints. I won’t go into details about our lighting complaint in July, but it is still not completed with a letter from the BOT stating our status. Only a letter saying it was on hold and we were told verbally that we were a test case. We need to go back to only neighbor complaints and trying to settle it easily. If you want a complete history on our issue, please feel free to contact me
While I am not debating the possibility of the Tree Committee turning in a bunch of violations, when I worked in the office years ago there was a Member who would look at the maps in the office and just start filling out complaints that trees were too high; all the way from his house to the ocean AND he lived on I street! Of course most of the complaints were frivolous and NOT in violation. He would continue to complain even though he really had no view and of course thought we were lying.
In my case I too live on I street and when I bought in '07 we did in fact have a peek a boo view of the ocean; not anymore.
There is a vacant lot behind us that was treed with maybe one or two exceeding the height limit. The property owner of course was notified and then clear cut the lot. In my opinion I feel that MY view was effected since now I am looked down at by the McMansions and Im a flat-lander! I also now have to look at their ugly faces!
Mr. Clancy has bragged about filing dozens of tree complaints annually. The BOT has done nothing to stop this fraud, in spite of the fact that he is not on the Tree Comm. and is not a designated compliance officer. If every owner started doing this, maybe it would get the Board's attention. It is likely that he is not the only one doing this at this point.
I hear that these days, even Trustees are not supposed to comb through the files, which is obviously not observed by all Trustees. If Trustees aren't supposed to review files, then WHO is ? This appears to be arbitrary and conditional on who you may be.
But members have no authority to peruse personal files of the membership. I have read member blog comments that defend the Tree Policy saying that they appreciate the view when they drive to the Compactor site. What a pitiful excuse for maintaining such a destructive policy which forces owners to waste money topping and killing their trees repeatedly, so that members have a pleasant trip to the Garbage dump.
That's literally dragging the bottom of the bucket for excuses.
Post a Comment