This useless committee is all about a view. Nothing more.
And a poor view at that. The view is mostly of roof tops and dead trees with the ocean getting further away every day. Most of the year with the fog and rain, you can'y see anything. The view is over rated and priced at much more than it is worth.
The whole world is in a crisis with the virus, economy tanking out and people with no jobs.
Yet, this bunch has nothing better to do than continue to harass the members. They don't want part time members here, except to kill their trees. Can't we take a break from this? Out members have enough to deal with right now, without this bunch dishing out mote. Right now, the damn trees should be the last priority. We need to worry about members being able to pay their dues and assessments next year.
Clancy is listed as a guest, by phone? He is the number one tree complaint writer. This J Place gang committee needs to be abolished. These people have no shame at all. Our compliance officer is now back and she can handle the complaints. Is the tree over height? Simple question and simple investigation. That does not require a two page report that is nothing more than more BS.
Click on each page of the two page BS, if you want to bother reading it in a larger format.
.
144 comments:
Appreciate the host of this blog, new here and from doing a fair bit of research from every source I could find, there are changes required. I would caution the J rd people/board to wake up and think of Surfside as a whole. Things will change, they always do but you people will not be forgotten when new covenants are created that apply to only you. Perhaps topping of your trees because they do impede my view of the sunrise. Perhaps membership dues would also be structured so that the higher value of your property the higher your dues. RV people pay much less, high value property’ much more.
Karma is coming in rebirth of board , only a matter of time
Hallelujah a common sense point of view! Yes the board needs to take this obsession of slaughtering the trees and think about the membership as a total! I hope and pray we get new BOT members, but it’s going to be hard. We’ve had board members quit and move, other home owners seriously thinking about selling and others that have sold and moved! Shameful!
We know from experience this past year and a half what it’s like to be targeted for a covenant while others are left alone! The BOT needs to come back to what a HOA is supposed to do and that is to assure properties are up kept and attractive, so as to keep property values at their best. This issue is being completely ignored as anyone who takes a drive around can attest to.
I hope enough of us who know things have to change so we don’t feel we’re living in some kind of a prison, can actually get together to make a difference
This title change charge is absurd and needs to be removed. The only thing from a HOA that should affect the escrow on a sale of a home, is the status of the members dues! They are to be prorated and charged accordingly! So we have to pay for a compliance officer or a board member to go out and document any covenants that are being violated? Unhappy seller, unhappy buyer! And for no reason. If there is a violation of a covenant it should have been addressed way earlier!
Change is definitely needed or we’re going to see more people leaving what used to be a quiet, peaceful place to live!
Keep hoping JoAnne.
Dear new to the area, welcome to our community. Surfside is a very pleasant place where you can kick back and enjoy peace and quiet. I would not hold my breath waiting for any change in the makeup of the board or any relaxing of the tree height covenants. The tree height covenants have been on the books since the beginning of Surfside. Members on J place don’t want their views near as much as they want to keep their property values. Any attempt to reduce their property values will be resisted vigorously. Implicit with the structure and tree height covenants is a promise that view property will not be encroached upon and property values will be maintained. Right or wrong, fair or not, that is the way it is. Any board that attempts to eliminate the height restrictions in the covenants will be challenged in court. Research for yourself how Washington state courts have ruled on similar challenges. I am sure you will find the outcome of such a legal challenge is not at all certain. Of course the lawyers will love us. Dues paying members, not so much.
Anonymous 5:05. I doubt seriously that the tree heights were on the books since the beginning, as there were no trees! Trees had to be planted to encourage buyers to settle here!
Larry Raymer or George, can anyone supply some history? I see there was an amendment to the tree covenants July 7, 2007. Were all trees at 16’ previously? All I know is we bought in 2008 and this
tree madness only started to such a degree about three or four years ago
Very interested to know when it started in such earnest!
@JoAnne - the fact that covenants may not have been enforced does not alleviate the requirement for owners to comply. Some who didn't seem to believe that because they ignored the requirement it no longer applies.
Many in Surfside keep their trees maintained and below the limit. These trees are healthy and look nice.
The anti tree covenant folks on this blog who continually complain more than likely didn't maintain their trees and then when forced to comply cut them in spite and left them to die. Real neighborly...
As stated before, the voices of this blog, while vocal, are a minority and the only true "faction" of Surfside. Same topics come up year after year. All whining, but no action once it is realized the opinions aren't representative of majority. Let the naysaying begin about how all the elections are rigged...
The hoa planted all these coastal pines and shore pines. So the hoa can pay for all the height restrictions for tree cutting or tree removing!
Lets get the lawyers on that!
3:41:
Higher priced properties increases property values to others.
I live on the west side of J. I'm under the same covenants as you so my trees are within compliance which include topping. To your sunrise view, not all but many of the trees you see on the east side of the ridge are not on surfside property. The ones on my neighbors aren't. So depending where you live you will have to go after someone else to get your view. And to point out the obvious, if you live down in the valley by the time the sun makes it above the ridge for you to see it is closer to noon than a sunrise.
George, with all due respect. To say it's a poor view and that it is over rated can only come from someone who doesn't live with it. Even if you forget about the sunsets, which is hard to do, there is so much more. Fishing and crabbing boats, whales including breaches, assorted bird life including eagles returning with their catch. The other day there even was a herd of elk going down the dunes. Moonsets. I could go on and on but just one last thing. In the many years I have lived here not one visitor on my property, be it friend or worker, has said I had a poor view. Quite the contrary.
I also don't understand this thing you and your buddy have with the ocean moving away. So what, is it going to disappear? Will the sun set over dry land? Even if that was possible, still a nice view. You complain about people mowing down the dunes. You have said in the past that the oysterville approach should be closed off to prevent flooding from the rising ocean. Which is it? Is the ocean rising or leaving?
I have never came on here and made derogatory remarks about where you live and your surroundings or anyone else's, but you have no problem continually making them about mine. You got a problem with the covenants you bought into? Fine. But to degrade my home is a different story.
End the J place faction controlled board
10:36 makes the point that the association should pay for all of the tree maintenance. Should that be enough to satisfy the tree huggers? How about a little straw poll. How many would be OK with tree height maintenance if the association paid for it? How many think trees should not me maintained at all?
Yes we probably should make some concessions, perhaps I would be willing to pay for work myself. I do feel a sense of guilt because of a few of my J place neighbors are pushing this beyond what most of us expect. It’s making us look rather unfriendly
Many members who own trees subject to restrictions do a very good job maintaining their trees. We should ask them why they are so willing to comply with the covenants without complaint. It does cost money and requires effort to prune and trim trees. Currently that cost is not shared by the community. Of course where would it end. Should we share the cost of lawn maintenance, building maintenance, or pest control. Where does personal responsibility end and public responsibility start?
Trees are private property. It has nothing to do with "hugging" trees, and everything to do with private property rights. The State does not sanction or approve of intrusive community rules such as this, and no one can name any other HOAs on the peninsula who have similar rules.
It is not insignificant that the HOA demands compliance of their micro-management, but have never been willing to offer to pay for the cost that is a constant expense for nearly all properties west of the ridge.
In general, trees are not supposed to be snipped and clipped constantly. In a residential setting, there is bound to be the need to remove a branch or two to facilitate mowing, or ease of passage. It is true that some owners have been successful in stunting their trees growth by frequent trimming, but most residents are part-timers, and come to Surfside to relax and play.
Tree maintenance services are expensive, and most owners have more important demands to address with limited funds to do so. As has been pointed out here, all owners have taken a hit financially due to the pandemic, some have surely lost their income entirely. It is certain that if the height limit had been changed to 30 feet in the entire community, few would reach that height in the next 5 years, after being topped repeatedly.
Surely half of the trees in the community have already died and been cut down, or will soon be. At least half of those remaining will die in the next 5 years. This practice has been taken so far, that removing the limits altogether wouldn't interfere with anyone's views, and the 3/4 of the members who must pay to comply with this medieval policy would be able to relax and enjoy their property, without the worry of tree maintenance.
The National Arborists Society recommends that trees be allowed to grow without trimming or pruning, unless absolutely necessary. Only tree health issues should be monitored and addressed, and damaged branches removed. Tree maintenance is not expected to be a constant activity, but limited to the owner's needs, or addressing tree health issues.
Yes, end the J Place Faction controlled board continued by rigged proxy elections. Begin Vote By Mail ballots!
Lawns don't block your view. What building maintenance, hoa buildings or member/owner lot buildings? The answers are obvious aren't they. Additionally, building maintenance doesn't block your view.
Pest control, yah right sure. Your question means nothing and has nothing to do with the specific issue were talking about. It's a good attempt at diversion though. You must be a board member.
A miserable old coot who hides behind his age calls a group of volunteers "old bags".
Yes, misogyny is alive and well here.
@10:44AM I would say that Misandry is alive and well here with that comment. I tried to look for a case where the host here has exhibited misogyny in his comments and failed.
Personal threats of physical violence against the Blog Host will be removed.
As it should be! Easy to be a tough guy behind anonymous
So it is okay to use derogatory names/remarks like "old bags" as long as it is against people who don't share your opinion? Just want to be clear.
Please do your research. Washington State case law upholds covenants limiting tree heights. I will provide one reference, you can find many more if you look. Nelson vs Fife in King County. The case was first heard in King County Superior Court and latter upheld on appeal. The covenants were upheld even though the offending trees predated the convents. HOA covenants are always upheld in Washington Courts unless they are found to be unconstitutional or abandoned. Courts uphold covenants because they are a legal contract that each property owner agrees to when they purchase their property. Like it or not, you agreed to maintain your property to a written standard when you purchased your property and Surfside is obligated to require you do. We live under the rule of law, not the rule of feelings.
The legal opinion above, by a non lawyer, who is anonymous. Doesn't count for much
And covenants can be changed! Now only by the board, but that could change with a by-laws amendment!
As I said, do your own research. Don’t take the word of an anonymous commenter. Check it out for yourself.
6:08 is either Clancy or one of the DeLeest's. Guess they're finding all this commentary hard to swallow.
I do find all of your commentary hard to swallow but not for the reason you imply. If you think you have the moral high ground you should do more than post commentary on a blog. This years seedling pines will be mature trees before you do anything. BTW, I am not who you think I am.
Well Congratulations George!
You make an inflammatory comment filled with B.S. on a topic you know will get the same back and forth. You get the same comments from the usual suspects along with some well intention ones from people who still think this is all about honest conversations. This is all about promoting discord and getting a high comment count to bring meaning to your life, nothing more. Unfortunately people fall for it.
Mission Accomplished!
So JoAnne, would you be ok with being called the old bag who lit up her house like a Las Vegas casino?
Anonymous 6:08 is very telling on what the problem is here currently in Surfside. “We live under the rule of the law, not feelings”. Such an atmosphere is why many are questioning living here. The reason we moved here wasn’t for the rule of tree heights! This wasn’t being enforced with such vigor and effort until recently. Has the BOT ever thought about asking the total membership how they feel about this covenant? NO! And it’s very difficult to try and communicate any views to them.
Perhaps people it’s time to seriously have a conversation with the members about the covenants, not just left in the hands of committees! It isn’t working!
Another statement by 6:08, “ you agreed to maintain your property to a written standard when you bought property here”. So tell me why properties are allowed to sit in complete disrepair and in some instances fire hazards and nothing is done? Why is the tree covenant pursued with such tenacity and effort? These properties do much more to reduce our homes values than tree heights!
I think there has to be some way to re-look at the covenants by all the membership, not just a few!
Anonymous 9:21. I don’t mind that at all!, We followed all the steps required by the covenants to bring our lights into compliance and were jerked around by the BOT from last July until March with so many other members much more in non-compliance than us! We were singled out and our case was very much unfair! I may be an old bag, but I also know about fair treatment
JoAnne,
All HOA have covenants that require members to meet standards. The governing documents provide the methods for covenants to be modified or eliminated. All of those documents are available to buyers willing to read them. I understand buyers remorse. In 1970 I purchased a Fiat just because Fiat had purchased Ferrari. Big mistake. If you want to change the covenants, read the governing documents so you know the process. If the process is to hard. Sell that Fiat.
My husband and I worked hard all our lives and we deserve the privileges of what the covenants do for us. We all cherish our view and we’re entitled to it. Boo hoo, go make a campfire sit around drinking beer and swat mosquitoes on the bog! We’re in control not you.
10:55am. What a pompous statement. This is the personification of the J Place HOA board. Social privilege should not dictate how HOA serves it membership. I hope you understand J PLACE “KAREN”. You are all that name implies
I read the deleted comment and there was no threat, just George being a drama queen. Funny how he can insult women on an almost weekly basis but cries like a baby when it comes at him. Man up!
There may be evidence of an HOA in King County winning a "view-impaired" case based on their covenants. You offer ONE case, which I believe was a decade or more ago ?
Our covenants do not guarantee views, and views are what the J place owners always site as their guaranteed privilege. Views are NEVER part of the conversation when complaints are automatically passed on to enforcement. This is all a fabrication, and any insistence that "case law has proven" this covenant is valid, legal and guaranteed has NEVER been proven in Surfside.
That's why J place owners are obsessed with dominating the Board of Trustees in holding the majority of seats and dictating the Agenda. Anonymous at 9:15 sounds very much like Peg Olds, with the off the hook anger and stupid accusations of "simply wanting promote dischord". You have no conscience when it comes to demanding that more than 3/4 of the community properties spend their dollars to top their trees to placate the ridgetop owners who are no more than 10 to 15% of the membership.
Trees are private property and are not a matter to be managed by an elitist few. The Board can, and should, end this policy immediately. But it would mean abandoning the social strata so valued by the ridgetop owners who promote it. It has nothing to do with views, and everything to do with needing to be SPECIAL.
Surf pines tend to just sprout through no fault of a human. I personally prefer more exotic evergreens but since these pines just come about how about taking some of that sheriff money and get a contract with a reputable tree company. I have seen some cute cuts on pines and some horrible cuts. If a decent contract is written and a decent company awarded there could be a uniform decency to those trees property owners wish to save. (instead of complete removal) The contract would need explicit details of course to possibly include discount of cost.
This is just an idea. Please don't beat me up over this. I've had about enough of the mean spirited crap on the internet these days!
Steve, I did not mean to trigger you. The appeal was decided in 2005. The reason for height restrictions is to protect views. It is implied in the regulation. There is no other reason for height restrictions. I understand that you and others are vehemently opposed to height restrictions but there are members who purchased view property based on the promise of height restrictions. They are not bad people. They are not greedy or privileged. They are your neighbors. They are advocating for themselves and their best interests. Case law is on their side. If anyone were to challenge Surfside restrictive covenants in court, the judge will use case law, or precedent setting decisions in his deliberation. I wish you would consider consulting with an attorney specializing in HOA law regarding you opinion on this issue.
Really, it’s about views? Not in my by-law copy! Covenants aren’t written in stone either!!
We are a member HOA. It's simple. Put it to a member vote. Let the members decide if they want to keep or abolish the tree height covenant. This is the democratic way to resolve the issue. All members would have to accept the results of the vote.
And allow it to be a mail in ballot vote.
No proxy
The BOT currently has the total power of changing or adopting covenants! They are to have a member hearing as they did with the proposed lighting covenant, which was highly disapproved by the members
The only way for the members to change this is through the articles of incorporation Article 9. If a motion is made to change the by-laws and all steps are followed, we the members would be in charge of the covenants
@ 4:12 is correct. HOA is very aware of the distress this is causing and should address it immediately. I am not convinced BOT is working for majority, more for themselves. HOA should represent all of us and recognize change (regarding the tree covenant) is being cried out for... by the majority.
How has the majority of members cried out for a change in the covenants? Has there been a petition circulated that I missed? Has there been a mountain of letters sent to the board from outraged members? Or has there been a few upset members grousing on George’s blog? If you think you represent a majority of the members then why not use that clout. Organize your majority of members into action. You call it Plants Matter Society (PMS). Protest at a board meeting. Maybe you could create an autonomous zone on G Street. No chains saws allowed. We could call it our summer of leaves and needles. You could chant “What do we want” - “Tall Trees” - “ When do we want them” - “5 or 10 years”. The only majority you have is in your dreams.
And why wouldn’t just simply asking the members their opinion just make a little more sense? Oh, that’s right, too easy to just ignore any objections and keep in control!
I have a better question. Why bother the membership with a complaint from a few malcontent members?
Yep, perfect solution! Why listen to anyone’s concerns?
2:56....The community is not obligated to set policy according to what ridgetop owner's realtors promised them, nor would their sale documents indicate that they have been guaranteed "a view". There is no such guarantee in the covenants, nor is there any definition of what a guaranteed view would be of. Given that, if your home is on a hill overlooking Surfside, then you by definition, have a view - of something in the distance, and most assuredly the distant sea and horizon.
Court cases are not based on imaginary implied conditions, which in fact, are guaranteed to NOT be guaranteed. The covenants can be changed by the HOA at any time. As has been stated, views which once were mentioned in the covenants, were struck from the document long ago. It is to be expected that the community would have building height restrictions, where most communities do not have tree height restrictions. So suggesting that there is a clear presumptive relationship is a baseless assumption.
Without a clear statement guaranteeing views, and of what, and a process of visiting these homes, and looking out the windows to assess the "view", you have no defense of this policy. I'm not a lawyer, but there is obviously no written defense of this policy. Each case in your case law has different circumstances, and the subject matter alone does not make the result the same.
And........queue up our local armchair lawyer. And people wonder why we didn't place you on the Board.
Yes, god forbid you’d appoint anyone to the vacancy that has different view points!
"We"? I guess we know who the we are. The despicable selfish J Place faction that rule the board.
12:04....Legal issues need to be reviewed by experts before making Board commitments to pursue legal action. One individual doesn't decide anything on this or any other HOA Board. But you demonstrate the fear of dissenting voices that motivates J Place owners come election time.
In the same sense that less than 15% of the membership votes, we have to assume that many J Place owners may not fully support the Tree Policy, or at the least, see negative effects from it. Any effort to make a big change in this policy would surely need to begin with an organized opposition to demand a community-wide vote by mail or on-line. The BOT has consistently opposed this and dissolved the Tech Committee that was in the process of making online voting a reality.
I don't assume that living on J Place means you are a bad person. We have looked at a few homes for sale on J. We like where we are on G St., and don't intend to live in Surfside fulltime so long as our sons are living in the Olympia area. We don't see Surfside as worthy of a larger investment.
As a RV member if voting Is in Nov, not fair to us as we will be gone. Need vote by mail or online please.
Steve, you are becoming incoherent in your legal babble. First, the board is not obligated eliminate a covenant just because it is disliked by the offenders. If that was the case, covenants would become irrelevant. Second, a member or group of members are free to sue the association to have a covenant declared invalid. Based on case law, good luck with that. Third, you can use your majority clout to petition the board for a change in the covenants or have your preferred members elected to the board. What you all fail to understand is that grousing on a local blog spot about your issues, although hilarious for the rest of us and somehow emotionally stimulating to you and your base, is never going to change anything. It must be personally satisfying be the wise and understanding voice for this ragtag group. I am happy for you. You probably haven’t had this much ego stroking since you were appointed hall monitor in grade school.
Cox 8 paragraph response complete with insults and claims above was written by J place elitist faction in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
8:27....This is a venue for conversation, and it seems only you construe that I and others imagine it to be anything more. Still, conversation is how people decide to organize and take action beyond talk. The rest of this crap you are rambling on about has nothing to do with what I have said. I don't claim to be allied with any group, and moron, I've stated repeatedly that I don't call anyone a "Faction". I speak only for myself opinion-wise.
I stated that the people victimized by the Tree Policy are about 3/4 of the membership, and receive no benefit or compensation for constant demands that they top trees on THEIR OWN property. I made no claim that I represent the majority opinion.
You have a vivid imagination, and are off into your own fantasyland so far that you didn't understand a word I said about the lack of view guarantees in the covenants, or anything written in black and white validating the legality of forced tree limits.
You must be so proud, so righteous and SOOOOO anonymous. Who cares what anonymous thinks ? I don't.
If you really don't care, don't respond! But we all know that your ego won't let you.
Some time back the tree covenant removal was brought to the board, similar to what happen with the recent lighting issue. It was advertised in advance. I was at that meeting. There was a large turnout. The size was like what you only see at the budget meeting. The overwhelming consensus both from those in attendance and letters sent to the board was to keep them in place.
To say that those not on the ridge receive no benefit is false. One of the reasons I bought here was because of the tree covenants. Given the high wind storms we get here I didn't want to have neighbors with high trees and risk damage, something I had to deal with first hand in Seattle. When I first moved here the lot was not developed next to me and I had a tree come down that missed my truck by a small distance.
I also didn't want to live in a forest. If so there are many places here on the peninsula to choose from. That is something you and your like don't seem to understand. If there were limits to how many trees are allowed to a lot I could possibly get behind the removal. But that is unlikely. I like it how it is now and want it to stay that way.
Also, I have recently measured several sheds that are in violation if the height limit. Why should I have to obey when others don't?
When I submit my shed I'll state all this in my submittal with existing property examples that are out of compliance.
May I enjoy your view with you at your property this Fourth of July?
The board refuses to ever do that. They say we only get to vote on Trustees, that's it. Their stance and many others on this blog, particularly J Placers and Trustees, is, like it or move!
You responded. As we say, hook, line, and sinker.
You say you don’t care what anonymous says. You sure got emotional for someone who doesn’t care. You may not know this but you have a lot of opinions and based on your numerous and very lengthy comments, want others to embrace them as well. The promise of unobstructed views is implied in the height restrictions. Why else would there be restrictions of roofs and trees? Height restrictions are always about views.
New to blog, enlightening and my suggestion would be to promote this site. I have only one question: Why HOA doesn’t simply conduct a survey of membership?
Why take it out of the governing documents then?
Or
Why not document the reason in the governing documents?
It's because this hoa leadership, the Faction, wants to hide the reason and keep it a secrete.
I think there's a legal argument that because the reason for the height restrictions are not documented in the governing documents, they aren't enforceable.
I shouldn't have topped my trees.
They don't care about what the entire membership thinks.
They are bought and sold to the J Placers. They are the Faction.
If main concern is Tree’s / view explore a method that reduces cost to individual. In these hard times perhaps the host is right that a pause would be appropriate. People are struggling economically and for some - food & shelter is our priority right now. Please be thoughtful of others. Thank you.
7:24 needs to read past posts. Question will answer itself.
It's the owners responsibility to maintain their trees. If you are out of compliance that means you are not maintaining them. You would never have to top or cut a tree down if properly maintained. Trees that have been butchered are because the owner is too lazy to do the proper pruning on them, this results is a devastated landscape.
If you all don't like the covenants so much why on earth would you buy property here??
I know I like them and no I don't live on J; many members feel this way whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
Even if the heights were raised to 24 feet, there would still be people on here saying they were forced to butcher their trees because of that tree height limit. People don't want the bother of maintaining their trees, that's why they just lop the tops off or cut them down. No matter what the restriction is there will always be people that complain and stay out of compliance.
Thanks for your common-sense comments 11:39 ! Then there is this ridiculous comment by 11:46. There are numerous and very obvious reasons why owners object to the current restrictions which have some mandatory limits that are so restrictive that none of the Shore Pines survive. There aren't any varieties of trees that grow no taller than 12 or 14 ft. high.
There is a basic truth, that "you can make some of the people happy some of the time, but you can't make everyone happy all of the time." There are at least 5 different height zones, which if eliminated, and one height say, 24 ft. or 30 ft., made the new threshold, most if not all tree owners would be very very happy about it.
It would be enough just to make it mandatory to prove that your "view" is restricted, but few ridgetop homes can see the surf anyway. What would the criteria be ? A view of what ? I suspect that part of the reason the "view" part was removed from the covenants was that they knew that with 24 ft height limits on homes along G St., it was obvious that the homes would block views as all of the lots were developed.
If you live on a ridgetop 20 to 40 ft. higher than the surrounding land, you are going to have a view far into the distance. It makes no sense to think anyone can guarantee a specific view, when both man and nature will have their way. Things change, huge dunes have risen up, and the ocean is moving west of the peninsula. Rules won't change that.
Here's that old nasty tired question again. The hoa is supposed to be everyone, not just the special interest Faction!
Ya'll need to learn some new words, the only faction is on this blog. If there was a majority of the members who were unhappy I'm sure the BOT would be inundated with requests. But alas, they are not because the majority is just here to vacation and not get involved with local politics.
Cox, again why don't you let someone have a turn, we all know your opinion since you're constantly on here
11:39 asked me to remove the comment. They said they used the wrong identity. It was a good sense comment, and I hope they re-post it again.
Thank you George. Don’t know Mr. Cox but I thank you as well for advocating change to HOA.
The 11:39 comment was mine. I accidentally put it under an unidentifiable email address but intended for it to be put under my name. I asked George to delete it so I could reenter it correctly. The comment is below.
So again let me point out that by law it is the DUTY of the Board of TRUSTEES, is to benefit the entire community, not just a small elite group. In regards to the tree heights, if Surfside changed the covenants to allow trees to grow until they passed a line where they actually did block J Place views, this would solve a major amount of the problems. Many trees could grow to 30 feet or more, but shore pines rarely grow to that height. For the most part, unless in a forest, they don't grow over about 25 feet tall. This according to multiple arborist sites on the internet. This would allow trees to grow healthy, improving everyone's views, and increasing the value of all the properties, without blocking J Place views of the ocean.
How are is the Board fulfilling their legal responsibilities if they refuse to make this very logical change.
Just as a side note, the tree covenants were not on the books originally. They were added later, and modified at least once after that.
If the tree covenants were for anything other than views, why would they not cover the east side also. Any arguement in the direction that this covenant is for anything other than views is bull.
I challenge anyone to explain a logical reason why the Board would block the above change.
We are not attorney’s. All communications are opinions and beliefs.
Nothing in our communications should be considered to be legal advice.
Patrick Johansen
Patrick@PK80.com
Admin@HOA-Review.com
HOA Reviews and Reports LLC
503-781-4492
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
In response to July 2, 2020 at 2:36 PM
The argument that if people complained the Board would have listened is not a very logical argument. Hundreds of tree topping threats of fines were send to forcing people to top their trees. Those people in general are not aware of all the others that were also threatened and don't know how to communicate with them. If all those people WANTED to top their tree then the threatening letters would not have had to go out.
Patrick Johansen
Patrick@PK80.com
Admin@HOA-Review.com
HOA Reviews and Reports LLC
503-781-4492
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Your quote @ end & content appreciated,
If Patrick says it’s logical then it must be logical. Why even have a board, let’s let logical, not a lawyer, Patrick just decide what is best and logical for us.
In response to July 2, 2020 at 11:03 PM
So what you are telling us is that you can't come up with a logical argument against any of my points.
What I am saying is the rule is in place and has been for a very long time. Very few people are advocating for a change. The board is not obligated to consider fringe gripes just because they claim their gripe is logical. If you don’t like the rules you live under then do your best to change the rules or move to a place that has no rules. Of course you understand that better than anyone. Please keep calling the board the faction if you want. They call you the fringe. They have the law on their side. You have righteous indignation on your side. You made a good choice in selling out. I hear the folks that bought your property are very reasonable people who understand the rules and are happy to live with them. A win for Surfside.
I think that 11:49 is living in the wrong HOA. This is a beach community HOA, not a gated metro area HOA. The tree height topping will end. If not by the members, it will be state mandated. I would suggest that the J Place owners sell their property and move, while they can still get a good price. Their value will decrease once the tree topping for a view is eliminated. Surfasude will be a more enjoyable place after you move away.
@2:04
It is my opinion that you are in the wrong HOA. None of what you predict will happen. Same fringe complaints for years. To bad Patrick had to spread his miscontent to the Nextdoor site. The majority of the members are likely happy and silent as they are fine with the current covenants. If you aren't happy, change them with action instead of coming here whining about the J place faction and how you all are helpless to do anything. Or you can be like Patrick and move and still come on here to complain because you didn't get your way...
Question, if tree covenant not about the view, why is it only in the area below j place? I have been hearing people with the view arguing it is "all" about the view and their home value.
How many properties are for sale right now 11:49? What's the annual property turnover here 11:49? What percentage of the membership vote 11:49?
Right, the membership isn't as happy as you think and claim by one single property!!!
Very good points 2:04! Right on!
2:04. Bravo!
The biggest percentage of property owners own 2 homes. I don't know about the rest of you all, but I know I can't afford 2 homes. Money is NOT the issue. If they can afford a second home at the beach they can afford to have someone trim their trees professionally.
I have 0 homes at the beach. Oh you must have forgotten about me again. Hi I'm an RV lot.
Save Thw Trees!
End the Faction!
5:28, sounds like j place money. Look around "all" parts of surfside. See alot of statements from up there that sound kind classist and ageist.
2:19:
Just to be accurate the covenant isn't only for those below J. I live on the west side of J and it pertains to me as well. I have never received a complaint because as others have said on here I have maintained my trees ever since I bought my house. That is why I don't have the butchered trees you see around here.
The other reason, besides that is a covenant, with the winds I don't want a tall tree on my property. I'm from hurricane country and anyone there who has a tall tree other than a palm is considered foolish.
Thank you, Gary W
While I care less one way or the other about the tree height covenants, I just want to point out it is selective enforcement. Let me give you the perfect example, there is a vacant lot, full of trees on 357th, almost every tree is well above 16 feet and has been for years. The owner of this lot has not been seen at her property in at least 10 years. Gorst and scotchbroom grow on this lot too. Never has anyone complained about the tree heights or the noxious weeds.
The lot to the east of this vacant lot just sold. The previous owners were made to top the trees, which they did. But, they did not top the trees at the back of the lot, again well over 16 feet, and obviously not caught by whoever signs off before property sells. Along comes the code enforcement lady, Georgianna, trying to determine if those trees at the back of the lot belong to the new owner, or are they at the shoreline and belong to Surfside. Either way, these trees were missed before the sale. If in fact they are on the shoreline, whose responsible, new owner or Surfside?
By the way, Seabreeze Lake is just a drainage ditch but looks like and is called a lake.
Fyi 7:58, as with the rv policy, and tree covenant, west of j place, as well as ocean woods are exempt from those policies.
Owners of real estate in Washington have never been afforded any blanket or automatic view right. This can be frustrating to many homeowners in this area, as we have some of the best views to offer. However, the only view rights that are available to homeowners are those that are provided in covenants, plats, or appropriate agreements recorded against the property or properties in question. We often see such covenants in homeowners associations that protect views within the community by limiting the height of homes, certain ancillary structures, foliage, and/or trees.
[Ref: https://brandtlawgroup.com/tree-removal-tree-topping-disputes-washington/]
STOP telling us views are not protected! View ordinances are used in the state of Washington...both horizontal and vertical.
Personally I'd prefer to have ALL trees removed west of J place. They weren't here before SHOA and should never have been seeded by the HOA.
See also:
https://beresfordlaw.com/protect-your-view-with-a-view-easement-view-covenant/
So why did Surfside plant all the trees. My understanding is that they could not sell the properties so they planted the trees to block some of the wind and the sand blast that occured from the wind. Now Surfside is destroying the very reason the trees were planted, and for no reason. The trees could be allowed to grow up to the point where they would block the view and many could grow to over 30 feet and still not block views.
Guess 8:53 should move if not happy. Nowhere is it recorded that j place are guaranteed a view.
8:53....Surfside was a marshland before bulldozers created what we have today. You have a very warped sense of nature, and what being a community means. In the beginning of the community, most of the lots sold were used for RV use, so in a sense, RV owners first gave the community some legitimacy.
Larry Raymer has said he came here as a kid to Duck hunt. Patrick makes a good point that is understood by most members, but some create their own reality, and expect the community to conform to their wishes - such as many of the current J Pl. committee members of the Tree Committee. Chairperson Peg Olds has said exactly what you are saying. Hmmmm.
Covenants are not written in stone. They can be added, abolished, modified or new ones added. Over time, most laws change according to the times and knowledge and experience. Over the past 40 years, from the time the first tree covenants were enacted, we as a society, have learned the value of trees and the benefits they provide.
We seem to have members that are stuck in a time warp. Killing trees for a view is just plain wrong, if even if you have the right to do so. Let's make our community "clean and green".
Hello, I’m outsider who is visiting over 4th holiday with folks that own property here. Got bored last night and ran into this blog. I’ll have to say I would caution those who are too aggressive in administering tree policy. Yes WA state courts do tend to support HOA covenants when evenly applied. That said, if someone were to make a serious legal challenge ( not local but state) the fact that trees were originally planted by Surfside could come back to haunt you as far as previous actions. Meaning if you lost, it will hurt entire Surfside community financially. Meaning - court costs, return of fine $ and possibly paying damages.
Besides trees, another possible reason for adding height restrictions to the covenants could have been _if_ developers wanted to put a building similar or taller than WorldMark on G or H or I street.
Whatever the reason, I'm glad those restrictions are in the covenants so future generations can enjoy the wonderful view we have today.
Our family has been here 40+ years.
Just like covenants aren't written in stone neither does the fact that just because trees may have been seeded aerially over 50 years ago means they were meant to grow freely and as tall as desired. Nor do I agree with the statement that the intent of Surfside originally being an RV community. Please provide your reference for that statement.
Happy 4th of July everyone! I want highly encourage all to take a tour of J place in your vehicle, bicycle or on foot. No other street or area in all of Surfside is as unwelcoming in my opinion. While out exercising and wanting to enjoy the “public view” on a public street I get looked at with what I felt was unwarranted scorn.
Please do not take my word for it. GO experience it for yourself. Wealthy POOR ambassadors of this community.
Just saw Clancy taking notes as we drove by. Guess they need the license plates of those entering their domain.
Give me a break 3:07.
I walk the streets below and J place. There are friendly folks on all them.
Seriously, the malcontents on this blog. How many years has it been? Always whining, blustering about million dollar lawsuits, fines, and prison time and nothing happens. Quite the knitting circle.
When u live in yellow house on I street & on BOT I am certain you are well received by the J place people you primarily serve. 3:07 just new to the experience of the EVIL EYE
Btw, sure glad no fireworks allowed in surfside n so well enforced,lol. Special thanks to all the boomers between aunt vivs n 304th.
5:22 yes lots of booms & bangs from that area, bracing for tonight as my little dogs don’t do well with that kind of noise. Don’t bother calling HOA, they pass buck and don’t seem to give a..... “dang”. Live near Ocean Woods and we have voiced different concerns occasionally and HOA tells us call sherriff, call code enforcement or we will look into it and clearly our concerns DONT matter because rarely is action taken. SIGH. Happy 4th
@5:22 - you mean neighbor to neighbor conversations didn't work? Isn't that what the majority on this blog want instead of strict covenant enforcement? You should be able to politely go talk to your neighbor and remind them that fireworks aren't allowed. Let us know how that works out for you.
In parallel the rest of us can work on the other things the HOA should be doing but have no authority such as traffic enforcement and managing property outside HOA boundaries (like dune clearing)...
Well isnt Mr. 6:50 helpful. Sounds like "troll speak".
OK 6:42, you give the impression that the HOA can't do anything right in your eyes but please, tell me what you expect them to do with your fireworks complaint and protect your little doggies? If cities can't control people who ignore the rules how can a little HOA?
3:07:
It's called neighborhood watch. If you are not known to an area you're going to be checked on, especially in the summer months with the influx of tourists and family members not known. When people walk in my area we say hi and get into conversations. We wave to each other through the windows.
And what's with the wealthy insult. This is the only home I own and I'm retired on a fixed income. That holds true for many on J. You just want to start some B.S. status crap. Maybe it would be best to go exercise on the beach and try not to offend the gulls.
Only reason I go on J is to determine which home I will utilize in event of tsunami (: Not only are homes at higher elevation but your houses are allowed to be taller which I’ll appreciate when time comes! Thx J placer’s
It's a J Placer all frustrated.
Yes, thanks J Placer's!
The tree height restrictions are unlawful and bringing down my property value.
End the tree height restrictions!
End the Faction!
Covenants can be changed/modified/deleted but not by the members. While the members can make requests for changes, the BOT will ALWAYS have the final say in these matters. Remember what happened at the member meeting when Deb made a valid motion and was denied her rights as a valid member? The BOT retains ALL the power to govern SHOA and they will NEVER share with the members.
1:50 - I said that most of the properties west of the ridge began with RVs. Read more carefully. It is just a fact, that some properties sold on the ridge at first, and few west of the ridge. But the community began with mostly RVs on lots.
Our 4 Plex on G St. was one of the first stick-built structures in our area, built in 1969. The surf was about 50 yards from our back porch. It would be ridiculous for us to demand that 60 years of sand be removed by the HOA to restore the view that existed in '69. How do ridgetop views merit 25 to 30 years of forced tree topping ?
We bought our place 4 years ago, so were happy with the way it is. How about the ridgetop owners do the same ?
Mr. Cox, just because you say it is so doesn't make it fact.
Most of the lots were not RV. Unless you can present evidence to the contrary I'll take our 40+ years over your 4.
The community obviously started much earlier than 40 years ago. Since our place was built 50 years ago and was one of the first, stick-built homes took a while to materialize. As I have mentioned here recently, Larry Raymer came here when he was a kid, so he is the ultimate Surfside historian.
I didn't say the community began as an RV community, but that bare sandy plots seemed better suited to RVs initially. The intent originally was to make Surfside an exclusive gated community with golf courses and fancy homes. The properties did not sell initially, so that plan was canned. But the dream and the attitude still haunt the community via the Tree Policy.
Leave our Tress alone HOA, so tired of the angry beaver lady who resides on J place and is anti- tree. Please go to Arizona and pursue the removal of Cactus. Washington State is the EVERGREEN state. Respect the environment!
You mean Fred deLeest's chattel?
I think her name is Peg or Peggy Olds? It is one lady on board who vigorously supports tree removal & topping. I do not agree with her methods nor mission.
Fred: Why does Annette oppose making amendments subject to a vote of the membership? Why does Annette oppose vote by mail elections and any other voting we hold? Why as a member is the only thing I get to vote on is the Trustee? Why does Annette think each individual property has to pay to protect someone else's view?
Valid questions
Let me add that I don’t know Annette but in regards to those questions I’m very curious if all assertions are correct?
@ 3:07 July 4th, I walk J place twice a day, from 340th to 357th, I have never encountered any rude people up there. Everyone is friendly and pleasant. Perhaps it is you who is the snob.
@8:49 July 6th, why are you asking Fred why his wife does things the way she does? Shouldn't you be asking Annette?
Right Rhonda. She is the boss lady. He just does what he is told. He just plays the gallant husband who defends his lady in distress. Better watch out for him, because he will make a violent threat against you. Under anonymous, of course. Just ask George about the threats.
All they have to do is answer the questions.
I have sent Annette emails. She is very rude and combative. She basically told me to go take a hike. I could share the email exchange if you want to see it.
Bring on the threats Fred.
You too Larry.
Was Larry A part of the Faction? Does anyone know?
Goodbye blog - your value is zero.
7:12....Trustees aren't obligated to respond to every member communique. They offer their contact information as a courtesy, and have a right to respond or not at their discretion. About a year ago the BOT agreed to some kind of pledge of civility in this regard, so to not respond at all is recognized as bad form. But depending on the tone and intent of a member correspondence, they aren't obligated to converse with someone who has an abusive attitude.
I have had minor issues with the deLeests, but I don't like the tone of most of these comments referring to them. It's just mean and does nothing but harm.
I have to agree with Steve. The childish comments about specific board members only creates a larger divide and insures maximum resistance to any reasonable debate. The credibility of this blog is damaged with each immature comment. How many such posts will it take to ruin the blogs credibility beyond repair.
She responded to me so clearly she didn't think to not respond due to an abusive attitude.
You have said repeatedly on this blog that Annette accosted you at the chopping site. Now you say "minor issues".
What is the purpose of this blog?
Stop killing the trees!
My purpose is to have Peggy Olds scrubbing Cabana toilets & writing in sand 100,000 times “ I will stop hurting trees”
If your part of the systematic destruction of our environment in the Surfside community there will be no immunity from the resistance- ever.
Stevey doesn't have to call names as he is offensive enough without doing it. As for the other name calling, they don't deserve any respect from anyone. What they do is far worse than any name calling they get. The Olds and DeLeest's are bad people doing bad things. And, fat a$$ Clancy is no better.
I would like to see Annette emails because it would provide evidence of alleged rudeness. That is one of the problems with select members of HOA. There are some that may be okay for positions but social skills and service needs improvement. The members are worn out with the boards inability to compromise on Tree issue.
Personal vendetta issues such as the lighting spiraled out of control and would of caused more strife. HOA went after a member hard because primarily ONE board member was upset. This is abuse of power and board should not be allowed multiple complaints from single board member. Deal with legitimate member concerns and I think in future board members should be limited in number of complaints that are self generated. In conclusion no board that represents all of Surfside should primarily consist of members from one single dam road.
J PLACE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED
I also say release the emails. Some of us know - most don’t. Steve knows, he is trying to be civil. Don’t mistake his civility as weakness or a change in philosophy. Facts and logic are refreshing from Steve & I appreciate his efforts!
^:21 gets the last word on this tree topic. Thanks for the record number of comments posted. Appreciate the thought out comments as they reflect that the members are becoming more aware of the tree topping issues.
Post a Comment