Give The Money Back...
"As a precaution, an application was submitted to the Small Business Administra-tion for a COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL). A $10,000 forgivable Advance has been received. It will be used as needed to support payroll and obligations that result from the economic slowdown."
I can not conform this, as I have not got around to listening to the Board Meeting recording, but it has been relayed to me that Gary Williams opposed accepting the 10,000 loan. It was also stated that the loan application was made without Board approval, and it was approved after the fact.
Just another indication of a dysfunctional Board with no competent management. We have individual Board members who continually take action on their own. Time and again this has created serious legal consequences. We really need to hire a management firm or dissolve this mess called a homeowners association. It has become a special interest board.
52 comments:
10 paychecks were issued for Feb. at the end of the month. Where were the other 7 as claimed by the Treasurer? When can you apply for this loan as a "precaution"? I am sure that was not stated on the application.
The payroll loan was designed for small business to pay wages for employees impacted by a business slow down. This is not the case here. They do not give loans as a precaution. Once again, Surfside has been placed in a liable situation.
It may prove that what was done is legal by definition of the law, but the image it presents is questionable. This at a time with a low reputation for this HOA.
I wonder how much of it Clancy will get for a special project. Very hard to swallow.
Absolutely return the money! To hear the justification for doing this on the audio tape makes me angry and embarrassed! Just because it’s there! We might as well have it as others! I for one wasn’t brought up this way. We don’t need it, we’re not a small business and it was done before having approval of the board. Listen to the tape if you doubt this! I don’t think we need this money just because it’s there!
TIME TO CLEAN THE SWAMP! Reach out and have this HOA investigated. Corruption needs to cease.
One more topic during the meeting was the postponement of the annual July meeting and the election of board members. So complicated as when delayed it will make the next election a large number of open seats. I’d say it’s fine to leave these three seats and the one already vacant and reduce our board to 5 or 7 members as allowed by the by-laws. I know and have served on boards with budgets 15 million and above and those boards were 7 members and 5. Just a thought to possibly make things a little bit less complicated
Who was the promoter of the fraudulent financial award ? We have heard that the annual meeting has been postponed until November. Do they intend to retain the Trustees whose terms will expire the first week of July ? Did the BOT vote to extend these Trustees terms ?
Why was HOA treasurer Rudd Turner speaking for the BOT on "Facebook" about the Federal award, and how is it that he doesn't have a clue how many folks are employed by the HOA ? And they apparently applied for this when no employees have lost wages or hours due to the Office closing ?
I'm impressed that Gary Williams saw the selfishness of the Federal application and opposed it. I thought he was very sensible and open about his views on the Lighting covenant issue as well. And still no transparency on this, after 4 months. They bought a lumens meter. That's all we know.
Only 12% of the membership vote in the annual election. At least half of those voters elect the BOT's chosen candidates who promise to support the status-quo. So why the mental block that pretends there will be a sudden revolution and uprising to dissolve the HOA ? 5% or less of the membership will never manage to make such a thing happen.
The BOT now meets without member presence, so Trustees cannot be put on the spot to answer the tough questions needing answers, pertaining to these matters. And by the way, questioning my allegiance to the membership is asinine. First, I'm not running for any BOT positions, so I'm not trying to gather supporters nor buddies. I am always open about my criticisms of how the BOT does business, but for me, part of the process is to try to see more than my initial impression/viewpoint.
But give up the ridiculous talk about dissolution. It can't be adequately justified, so can't be accomplished, and it would require appointment of a committee to distribute and dissolve all of our community assets. By abandoning the Water Dept. management and facilities, property worth a couple of million dollars built on member fees would just be gifted to North Beach ? How would this be dealt with and by whom ? What if they don't want it ? And the community would just go to paying for what we have received at a miniscule cost ? Nuts. It will never happen. Forget it.
So Steve just when did the Board come up with " chosen candidates"> Live in SHOA for fifteen years and never experienced this phenomena.
Are the employees working and if not - then why. Their duties are needed by us. On to another topic - who is the gal racing around the neighborhood in an old military type Jeep (cover table) doing OVER twice the speed limit? Wearing a scarf ov fac- going to cause an accident! I know w/stick shift have to keep RPMs up - just shift to like wee gear. We have Ali folks who run stop signs in our neck of woods - going down o have a collision if she persists driving that fast. Old army green Jeep w/shovel on side
According to the boards audio minutes, they want to appoint someone to the vacant seat that has computer skills to help with the problems they are having setting up live meetings!
I don't call them "the faction". J Place owners are very determined to keep the majority of the owners west of the ridge beholden to the Tree Policy, and J Pl. interests. They have become very organized in their annual election-time efforts, gathering proxies and assurances that their chosen candidates will be voted for in large numbers.
Last year for instance, Mr. Clancy who has created a lot of problems for the community by making Board decisions on his own (including the improper permitting for the Water Plant which resulted in about $12,000 in fines, and mitigation at about $25,000 including attorney fees), was re-elected by a healthy total of about 147 votes. He ran as a trio with Mr. Minich who received around 165 votes, and Mr. Olds who few members know, who received over 180 votes. Only 270 member households voted. There were 4 more able candidates. Sound like pure chance ?
A former Trustee has verified that he was assured election when asked to run, made no effort to canvas, and won by a healthy margin.
Many who vote are terrified of any prospect of change in the community, many have a great dislike of RV presence, and many are convinced they will lose views if there is no Tree Policy. Hence the suspicion of new members and progressive ideas. This process gets results.
Notice that with 6 of the remaining 8 Trustees being J Place owners, when Mr. Chandler resigned prior to the Oct. meeting just 2 months into the year, they didn't announce it at that meeting. They also refused to follow past practice and appoint the candidate who received the next most votes - Steve Cox. With something over 90 votes, Mr. Cox had received the support of 90 households who deserved to have their votes respected. Mr. Cox has been an outspoken opponent of the Tree Policy, but has served on an HOA Board and is more than capable to fill the vacancy.
Instead, nothing was ever said in public meeting about their decision to leave the seat vacant, a violation of our Bylaws which require an appointment.
The community is a horrid landscape of flat-topped and dieing trees, but they have to keep the other members beholden to them, and maintain this ridiculous policy at all costs. I'm just glad my place faces the Ocean or I doubt I could stand staying in Surfside. The community has been destroyed by this policy and serving The Trustees special interests. Occasionally there is a glimmer of hope - like Mr. Williams opposing the fraudulent claim filed with the Fed. But without BOT approval, this application was awarded $10,000 to a non-profit community with no losses and 2.9 million dollars in Reserves.
Yeah, screw the small businesses of the peninsula, we're gettin' ours !
JoAnn, it does not take a MIT grad to set up a Zoom meeting, and it"s free.
I set one up myself. The BOT is using that as a excuse to fill the spot with one of their own.
Michael - Proxy votes CANNOT be rigged unless the member submitting the proxy don't fill it out correctly. I could have filled it out correctly while still in grade school. Vote for whom you want and don't leave any blanks. Send it to someone you trust who you know will be at the meeting. Huge companies rely on proxies to conduct business. I served on the Board for most of a term until moving. I was handed a few proxy ballots that were filled out. I signed off on them. Done deal. The constant harping on this system continues to baffle and amaze me.
The point is, proxies CAN be given to seated Board members to fill out as they choose, and it is pretty certain that this accounts for the election outcomes, so consistently skewed in favor of Board preferred candidates. So the "Save Surfside" trio received - from Clancy at about 55% of the vote to Olds with 66% of the vote. In other words, 2/3 of all voters voted for Mr. Olds who few members have reason to know, but perhaps knowing Peggy Olds is the chair of the Tree Comm..
Mr. Amundson, your explanation doesn't in any way provide any evidence that proxies are not misused or that they are necessary. You've stated this before, and the argument is weak at best.
Doesnt help much when the BOT gets proxies at the dumpster, or knock on your door with one. Most of the older residents just sign off, dont want to be bothered any further.
The proxies are turned into an independent firm and are counted by an independent firm. All this conspiracy sh*t is just that. Fill out your proxy completely or even partially and xxx out the rest. I have a 4th grade grandson who would find this simple. If a member does give his proxy to the Board to vote as they choose they are clueless. There, I've had it yet again. About 15% vote and then they disenfranchise themselves by giving it away. Still unbelievable.
Mr. Cox,
Your explanation also does not provide any evidence that proxies are misused.
It is your opinion, as most of your posts are.
First of all, I did not say proxies are "being misused". There is an annual canvasing by some J place owners/Trustees, and Trustees have long had access to member files. Along with the canvasing (nothing wrong with that) and a very organized effort (nothing wrong with that), and armed with lists of fulltime owners and died-in-the-wool supporters of the status-quo, J place candidates so promoted always win.
Other candidates do not have a pre-established election committee, do not have lists of supporters, or know who is fulltime (likely to be home), so are at a distinct disadvantage. In fact, member contact information was available on request at the office, until Patrick Johansen was elected. At that point some members of the BOT forced the Surfside Office to stop allowing the contact lists to be given to candidates (and anyone else), and put a price of $100 on the list.
So it makes no real sense for a candidate to try and knock on 1500 doors (or whatever the stick-built total is), and RV owners and part-time resident's contact info costs $100, a mailing effort, well over $1000. It is in this light that we see that this HOA sanctioned effort, while not illegal, is a concentrated effort to maintain control of the HOA, assuring J Place interests will be first and foremost in the BOT's decisions.
So anyone who doubts that elections are skewed to J Pl. candidate's favor, aren't paying attention, or are satisfied with the results annually. But there is little doubt that this predictability of who will sit on the BOT has a lot to do with the lack of voter turn-out, and the lack of motivation for other candidates to run for Trustee seats. It is also a motive to prevent on-line voting being put in place by the BOT.
Since we are sharing opinions...
Or maybe the low voter turnout is because the majority of members are happy with the board and policies.
Just a plausible as all the other conspiracy theories proposed here...
I can only speak for us but before we moved here permanently I never bothered to return a proxy or vote. I felt an ignorant vote was worse than no vote at all. When you don’t live here full time and you’re busy with your life, you truly don’t know anyone. As the biggest percentage of members don’t live here all the time, i think it’s safe to say others have also done the same. Until we ever get the BOT available to everyone, most wont know what’s going on.
The canvasing can be witnessed every year. YOU are satisfied. This is not a "conspiracy theory". I haven't made a claim that it's a conspiracy. I stated that a former Trustee has stated that when he was asked to run for the BOT, he was told that "he could leave it to them that he would be elected". Once this system was put together, all that needs to be done is to contact the same owners annually. Will they vote themselves for the favored candidates, or will they give their proxies to a sanctioned Trustee ? Pick one.
You are happy to make excuses for letting this happen year after year. Our community is a horrid spectacle of special interest taken to the extreme. The Tree policy has destroyed the landscape for the sake of restrictions that DO NOT have a rational basis. Nowhere in the covenants are "views" protected in writing, let alone that the surfline has traveled west a couple hundred yards, and dunes over 20 feet high block views.
2 story homes 8 feet apart along G St. also block any views of the surf. The HOA enforces a lie, that a couple of hundred ridgetop homes have the right to demand tree topping by all properties west at their expense. It is not supported by our covenants. That's why the J Placers mobilized - to maintain this cast system.
Anonymous, even when George has insisted that Bloggers identify themselves. The last "anonymous" was Mike Riley. You are gutless AND gullible.
Opinion: You are happy to make excuses for letting this happen year after year.
Opinion: Our community is a horrid spectacle of special interest taken to the extreme.
Opinion: The Tree policy has destroyed the landscape
Opinion: that a couple of hundred ridgetop homes have the right to demand tree topping by all properties west at their expense. It is not Opinion: That's why the J Placers mobilized - to maintain this cast system.
Opinion: You are gutless AND gullible.
My opinion: You are a tool
According to the minutes from the last board meeting, they plan on filling the empty seat on the board with someone who they will handpick! No urgency until now. It seems to be very imperative that we have a 9 member board when according to the by-laws “the number of trustees who shall manage the affairs of the corporation shall be six. At any meeting or special meeting called therefor the members may increase or decrease the number of trustees to any number not more than nine or less than three”
I think it’s time to get these numbers more in-line with our actual needs!
I have lived here longer than Mr. Cox, a lot longer. When it came to elections you use to get your info about the candidates from their statements that were printed, at board meetings and finally at the annual meeting. The first time I had someone come at my door it was not someone from J place. In fact the opposite, it was a sitting board member who was quite vocal against J place people. He showed up with his mock ballot on who he recommended you vote for, all the non J place people. He also tried to coerce me into signing over my proxy even though I repeatedly told him I would be attending the meeting. So to make it sound like the canvassing idea was from J place people and are the only ones doing so is wrong.
It should also be noted that the same J place people and their "died-in-the-wool supporters" NEVER showed up to an annual meeting to get trustees removed.
It is also a wrong assumption made by Mr. Cox that the guys who got elected were unknown. They all served the community by volunteering their time on committees or other functions. Using Mr. Cox's example with Mr. Olds. He served on the Tech committee and from what I heard at meetings spent a bunch of his time on it and helped out a bunch. This came from the chair person, not my opinion. He also worked the gate for the chipper site so he had met many members. Mr. Cox did none of this. He didn't bother to show up for the candidate Q & A, nor did he bother to show up at the picnic after the annual meeting, something even Mr. Flood did after his loss. Maybe if Mr. Cox would have stepped away from the keyboard and got out to meet the members like the others he would have gotten elected outright.
Cox and his like will never entertain what 2:33 has pointed out, that the majority of the members are happy here. It's always easier to whine and complain than to accept what is more likely the real reason.
And again, it isn't about seeing the surf. It's about seeing the ocean and the horizon. And what's this about dunes being over 20 ft? While I see trees higher than a house I haven't seen any dunes above rooftops. Maybe Cox should go borrow the Tree Committees laser.
To Doug Malley - Bored out of my mind and have always found the Blog to be a source of entertainment.
To Unknown - You seem to have serious anger management issues and not much of a grip on reality and are too cowardly to post a name. Have you ever submitted a proxy? Have you ever attended the annual meeting and watched the votes being tallied? I doubt it. Would you insult me with your rant face to face? I doubt that as well.
That's great that Mr. Olds served on a committee, and worked the gate at the chipper site. The Tech Comm. was only in existence for a few months, and was dissolved by the urging of the Board president. It would be rare that guests would attend Tech meetings, and why would members know who Olds was, working the Chipper site for a few weeks ? I'm sure his wife canvased rigorously, and she ADORES the Tree Policy.
The point I was making was not that I was better qualified or deserving. It is not logical that 2 out of 3 voters voted for Olds, Minich, or Clancy without canvasing and soliciting of votes and proxies.
Patrick Johansen apparently canvased in favor of Deb Blagg, and he was well aware that J place interests are promoted every election time. It's just politics, but the point is, these folks are organized and single-minded. You have to be an idiot to not recognize the damage done to the landscape by the Tree Policy, but that's your cross to bear. You're clearly not concerned.
I ran for the BOT to offer members a choice. I attended the meet & greet, was unable to attend the Q&A, and made a statement at the Annual Meeting. It is unlikely many members are not already decided by the time the meeting is held, but I was there. I hadn't spoken publicly in a long time, so was a bit mumbly.
I was not elected, but gave it a go. No biggy. But predictably, the chosen 3 candidates won. If you've lived in Surfside a long time, you are likely all in for the seated BOT and their agenda. That is in keeping with all I have stated. Yes, I have opinions supported by facts, like the comment about the few on the ridge calling the shots on the tree policy. Neither J Pl. owners nor the HOA pays a dime to support this ridiculous policy.
I think it's a shame, but the community will continue on this same track indefinitely. I have opinions about it, but the trees are nearly all toast. I don't have any interest in running for the BOT nor serving on committees. I have family obligations to look after at our main residence, and can't offer a lot of my time to this silly HOA.
And by the way,the highest point in the dunes is about 24ft. Get your own lazer dumbass. My place faces these dunes, and our place is about 18ft. high. at the peak.
JoAnne - I think it's a done deal, and all that can be done is protest it on the Blog or in an e-mail to the BOT. They will note your opinion was shared.
We don't know who made the decision on the award of funds. The Gov. body that they applied to may designate banks to make the decisions. We don't know who a complaint would be sent to, or if any time would be spent to re-examine the application, that wasn't spent to make the award. Unless we could see the application, we couldn't say if the circumstances were mischaracterized or not.
Most likely the system is over-burdened and disorganized. Surfside didn't deserve it, but it's a small amount of money in this mess of appropriations. That's my take on it. It's typical Surfside HOA stuff and I get why you're bothered by it. With no opportunity to ask the Trustees in person, such things will go without any member oversight.
Small amount of money, does not in any way make it OK. Those small amounts add up. Your buddy Turner needs to be held accountable. He took this action on his own without board approval. He should do the honorable thing and RESIGN. He has brought more bad attention to Surfside. We have seen from the comments here, that his actions in no way represent the views of the good members of surfside. I think the application is public record. Mr. Cox needs to go after a copy of the application and then we can know the truth and not just refer to it as a small amount of money. The facts please.
"He should do the honorable thing and RESIGN. He has brought more bad attention to Surfside. We have seen from the comments here, that his actions in no way represent the views of the good members of surfside."
It is debatable that the comments on this blog represent the views of all good members of Surfside...
I made the comment That I think Mr. Turner is a good honest guy, but I don't know him personally. I've spoken with him a couple of times, but because I made a positive comment about him, now he is suddenly my "buddy". I haven't listened to the recorded meeting yet so I don't know any specifics. Mr. Clancy frequently takes independent actions that backfire, so such an action would not be unique, though it IS very concerning.
I've heard that the BOT approved of the action after the fact. A lot of Board actions don't sit well with me, so this is just another one. Mr. Cox doesn't take directions from unidentified know-it-alls, so head's up, I won't be pursuing this matter for the reasons I stated. You are a little slow on the uptake.
We don't know who finalized the award, do not have evidence of the HOA's misrepresenting the facts, and we have no reason to think time would be taken to re-examine the grounds of this award. I agree that $10,000 would be a big deal to a small business, and many will never receive a dime from the Fed.. But it isn't apparent who in particular has appropriated the money, and the Trustees aren't available to quiz about this.
Why don't YOU send the BOT a letter of protest and see how concerned they are.
Ric and Gary voted nay on the motion to approve the application for the $10,000. This was after the money was already in the bank as I understood the discussion.
Thanks Joanne for the info. So it would seem that the other 5 Trustees approved. I thank Ric and Gary for their better judgement.
Anyone who wanted to contest this would need to procure a copy of the application, determine that it was fraudulent, and be prepared for a possible large-scale legal battle. Over $10,000 ? Not me folks.
The "not me folks" is the reason surfside is a failed HOA. Talk, talk, and nothing but talk. An authority on every thing, and action on nothing. You have no idea or proof that a complaint on a fraudulent application would result in a "large scale legal battle". This is just something you have dreamed up. Truth is, you don't know.
If Ric and Garry voted against approving the application, that left 6 who approved, not 5 Ask your buddy for a copy of the application. Then you can say something based on fact, not your perception of fact. Do something.
There are currently only eight members on the BOT. The president does not vote, so 5 yes 2 nay
I’m not saying it was fraudulent. In my opinion we don’t need that money no matter what happens. Our dues are what should run our organization, not grants or loans. If the time would come that our finances were getting worrisome, budget cuts could be done, just like in any other not-for profit entities
Riley - You haven't been identifying your comments, but it became apparent that some if not all of the "anonymous" comments were from you. My comment on the 8th does not "accuse" you of anything. You just changed your moniker to unknown, and continued to attack me with obscure and ridiculous comments. Of course it is likely I will respond in defense, but I have no indication these unidentified posts are you initially. These comments by you are the definition of UNHINGED, and are likely to be deleted because you are making an ugly scene, and blaming all of your misery on me.
I'd better let you get back to dissolving the HOA. Your comments show a real instinct for leadership. Thanks Mike.
I appreciate civil discussion, and basically agree with JoAnne's comments. But in my experience there are always a large contingent of nay-sayers, who have nothing more to say than tell a commenter they are full of crap - some quite hostile in tone, others claiming they always take the high BUT.....
There are certainly always questionable actions by the BOT to address it seems, like the Federal award of $10,000, but any discussion these days has little chance of leading to any form of action. Members in large part don't seem to care what happens politically and policy-wise in Surfside, and the elections tend to be a mechanical process with predictable results.
There doesn't seem to be enough baseline interest among members to continue to pretend that a new wave of influence could make this a community that treats everyone fairly, and serves the full spectrum of interests in Surfside. A social hierarcy has been established and is maintained in large part through the Tree topping policy. Many refuse to acknowledge it, and it has been perpetuated through the elections.
The quarantines accentuate the overall effect of the system in place. Without greatly increased participation by owners, the same political system will prevail, trees will be topped until dead, and J Place interests will ride herd on all properties west. It may be that there was greater diversity of opinions here 10 years ago, and more potential in the community for change, but there seems to be no real interest or energy to create an alternative approach.
If I thought there really was hope on this front, I might want to try and build on it. We're screwed, and all we can do is talk about it. The HOA has a law and order attitude, and exits to maintain the status-quo. I mean they can't stop topping trees that are barely alive and look like umbrellas. Looks like something out of Dr. Seuss. All trees from I street west could be left to grow as high as they will with few creating any obstacle to views. Instead, the HOA will dog probably close to 1500 properties to top their trees continually, at great expense. Thus preserving the Cast System.
9:42....Think about it. You or another member or members could issue your protest about the Federal request and reward. At most, they would thank you for your input. It is not likely that they would back-peddle on this, and send the money back to (?) whomever sent it.
Members do not have access to the application sent, and have no basis to claim there was any misrepresentation without knowing exactly what the HOA said on the application. If by some miracle the BOT made the application available, it would be necessary to claim that the HOA made the claim fraudulently (which does APPEAR to be the case). That's wading into some deep water over $10,000.
This could put the entire community in financial jeopardy, and the HOA in legal jeopardy as well. When I said this could become a serious legal situation, I was referring to this specifically. The HOA might be let off the hook, and decide to sue the whistleblowers. They might end up suing and getting sued simultaneously - all over $10,000.
It is also very possible that the award was made without the application being thoroughly reviewed, then passed on to a bank or different entity to issue the check. Would it be clear who was responsible, and would a grievance be reviewed ?
The HOA has 2 million in Reserves. How much in your account ? They are very aware of having the might to do real damage to members who may try to put them in jeopardy. That helps drive the Tree Policy and other matters that ignore proper protocol or member preferences.
You ridicule myself and others for not taking action, while being unwilling to even identify yourself, let alone DO anything rationally conceived.
The reality is that the “Faction” has control of everything. These are hardly fair elections.
Clearly the people who would benefit from changes to the tree covenants would far outnumber those who want to keep the tree covenants the way they are. About 300 of the 2500 properties benefit from the tree covenants. The covenants could easily be changed to allow trees to grow taller without interfering with J Place views. The Faction simply will not allow that to happen.
Why don’t the majority of people vote out the faction members? First, the Faction through the Board controls the email list, the weekly newsletter, the website and the Facebook page. As about 80% of the property owners in Surfside don’t live in Surfside, it makes communication between members difficult and expensive. The Board blocks any opposing viewpoints from being posted in any of the Surfside communications and refuses to share the email list. When I moved to Surfside, one could purchase the email list for $10. After I wrote one email to the mass of members asking them to vote for me and outlining my platform, Laura refused to give me an updated list, and the board quickly changed the rules so that email addresses were no longer included in the available list.
One of the board members is always in charge of the elections. Several of the members complained in the last few years about getting the ballots late. The mail in votes and proxies were collected by the office staff, thus the documents were in control of the Board/Faction. I suspect that is still the case. I believe the board members and Faction volunteers also help count the votes, at least that appeared to be the case. Twice while I was on the board, I found that the proxy forms given to me were mismarked taking away that person wish to assign their proxy vote to me. I complained and they fixed them, but I had to know for sure that the person gave that to me. Some other people told me their ballots never arrived and others that they gave me their proxy but I never got it.
By keeping people in the dark and making it expensive and difficult for members to communicate in mass to the other members the Faction can keep control of the elections. As property owners don’t get to vote on changes to covenants and frequently decisions that should be in front of the board are made in secret, the majority of property owners have little idea of what is happening, and don’t know who to vote for.
One of the ways to change things would be for a group of people who want to make changes to organize and start collecting email addresses of all the neighbors. It would take some work but I think most people would like to be informed and would want to hear opposing viewpoints. I feel it would be pretty easy to collect enough votes to vote in 5 new board members and vote out the old. It could be done in one annual meeting.
I am not an attorney, comments in all my communications are my opinions or beliefs.
Patrick Johansen, HOA-Review.com
Patrick@PK80.com
Mr. Johansen is presenting opinion as fact.
There are those that may agree with him (likely many on this blog) and those that may not. Comments using such words as "faction", "elite", "coalition" are merely opinion and should be stated as such.
The only opinion I see is yours. Patrick has made judgement's of "faction, elite and coalition", based on his hands on experience and knowledge, having served on the board and a committee. Those are facts. His several wins in a court of law, are also facts. Most will take his opinion over yours, any day. I am grateful that he is willing to take the time and share the real facts with the rest of us. Your attack on this honorable man, does not change or lessen the facts.
Dumbass, eh Cox? As always quick with the name calling. So you expect us to believe there are dunes 6 ft higher than your condo? Right. It's also interesting that you talk about not having time to serve the community given the amount you put in commenting about this "silly HOA" daily. If that's the way you feel than you had no business running for the board in the first place. Good thing you weren't elected.
To the "honorable" Mr. Johansen. Some questions never answered.
Why did you change your approved plans?
Why did you not get those changes approved?These are requirements that other members followed, why did you feel you could ignore them?
Why did you try and get the septic set back requirements changed?
Why did you hand pick members for your committee?
Why did you close your committee to other members and voted against other members from serving on it, something your so called "faction" never did.
And why did the so powerful faction never pulled the stunt that your faction did and tried to have YOU or any other non faction Trustees voted out at an annual meeting?
Everything Mr. Johansen championed he personally benefited from, which makes him no different than what he accuses the "faction" from doing. As 2:49 has said, he gives opinions nothing more.
The faction has spoken. aka 2:49
8:22
I'm 2:49
I don't see any place in my post where I attacked Mr. Johansen.
I merely pointed out that he was providing his opinion about certain things and that it wasn't necessarily fact.
Mr. Johansen points this out in his last sentence that I had overlooked when I made my post.
So again, where is the attack and why so sensitive?
6:31.... You're just a big bundle of grudges aren't you ? And ask a lot of stupid questions. I own property with 20 ft. dunes on it. You don't deserve an explanation, but for anyone else who is interested, I ran for Trustee, willing to fulfill the requirements of the position. I would have had to do a lot of driving back and forth to Surfside for meetings, and I know I wouldn't be satisfied with phoning in, unless absolutely necessary.
Given that I was refused the appointment I should have had when Chandler resigned, my priorities do not include participating in HOA politics. My 2 sons both live in our metro area, one 4 blocks away. I get to see my granddaughter weekly, and she is a joy at 3 years old. I have spent a lot of time at our beach house, usually a week at a time, or a couple of weeks. But I won't be wasting my time trying to benefit this community, when 2/3 of the people voting, vote for the special interest candidates.
When 85% of the member households won't even vote, why should I spend a big chunk of my retirement days on such a dysfunctional mess ? For thankless jerks like you who bitch about every effort to make the community more inclusive and fair. Nope. But you are in deed a dumbass, apparent with every statement you make.
Just for reference, the Wymark parking lot on the ridge is only about 35 feet above sea level. Our 4 Plex is about 3 feet above street level, the structure about 18 ft. tall. The ridge is somewhat taller where the trail crests the ridge of dunes. The surf that was once about 50 yards west and very visible, is now about 200 yards west, and the dunes have grown to over 20 feet above sea level. They have grown in height at least a foot since we bought the place 4 years ago.
Most of J Place is no higher than 30 ft., much of it 20 ft. or less. So just being a J place owner does not mean you should be considered to have a "view lot". Yet even with trees allowed to be 24 ft. high from I St. west, any real "view" property should be able to see the Ocean beyond the 2 story homes on G St.and the dunes over 20 feet.
Except where they’re being plowed down just south of the approach😢
Per this link much of J place is upper 40's and low 50's...
https://elevation.maplogs.com/poi/long_beach_wa_usa.263323.html
In response to Thomas, May 13, 2020 at 6:31 AM
Thanks for asking.
Thomas’ question - Why did you change your approved plans?
As there are were no covenants at that time restricting the size of the roof, that part of the shed did not need approval. The covenants stated that the “enclosed” part of the shed could not be over 120 sq. ft. This is not a building inspection, it is an inspection to show that one is meeting the covenants. I showed that the enclosed part of the shed met the covenants. I didn’t realize there would be any problem with the roof overhangs, there should not have been. There are no covenants or laws restricting this, in the law it says that roofs with two walls or less are not counted in the size of a building. I also checked with the County before building it and they agreed, it was just the enclosed floor space.
Thomas’ question - Why did you not get those changes approved?These are requirements that other members followed, why did you feel you could ignore them?
Same as above.
Thomas’ question - Why did you try and get the septic set back requirements changed?
I didn’t try to get the septic set back requirements changed. The County allows certain waivers for homes in Surfside. Most of the County you must be 100 feet away from the water, but in Surfside the County will allow 75 ft because of the way the homes were built. I stated that this should be documented in the covenants so that EVERYONE knows this, not just a select few.
Thomas’ question - Why did you hand pick members for your committee?
I wanted to get representation from each group throughout the community. I wanted to get one member from JPlace, one RVer, one from G Street, one from the “valley” one from the east side. The person I chose from J Place was an attorney, he contacted me a told me that if I tried to take his views away he would sue me. I explained my proposals to him and asked if he would like to be on the committee. After we spoke he realized that I was trying to make things better for everyone, and not to take away the views of the people on J Place. I all the proposals we submitted were approved by everyone in the committee.
Thomas’ question - Why did you close your committee to other members and voted against other members from serving on it, something your so called "faction" never did.
By charter we were only allowed a certain number of members. It wasn’t until we submitted the proposals and the Board did not want the membership to hear them at the annual meeting that they decided to flood the committee with Faction members.
Thomas’ question - And why did the so powerful faction never pulled the stunt that your faction did and tried to have YOU or any other non faction Trustees voted out at an annual meeting?
No need to, we were already outvoted because the Board is already flooded with Faction members. The faction likes to keep a Façade that makes things look like everything is running fairly.
In response to Thomas. Have you asked the BOT why now is it so very important for them to handpick a member to fill the vacant board position?
Jo Anne - They see that this is their best opportunity to appoint whomever they want without any member comments or protest. Putting someone in the seat gives them a better chance of having that person win in the election. That's how pres. Winegar got his position. He was appointed to a vacant seat at the May meeting 3 years ago, and didn't attend a full BOT meeting until August, having been elected to the position which expired in June.
Post a Comment