The environmental shame of Surfside is known far and wide. Those outside this area can not understand how the disregard for the environment continues year after year and only continues to get worse.
The killing of trees and the dune destruction continues when most everyone knows it is wrong. This destruction continues for one reason, a view for a select few. Those few have taken over the association and are willing to do anything for their selfish view. They use threats and intimidation to keep this destructive practice in place. And for them, it is working.
This practice will continue until the members finally say, "enough is enough". Until the members reach that point, the shame will continue. Compared to other communities, Surfside is more "neat and attractive" looking The carnage of the trees and the dunes, distracts from the otherwise neat appearance.
The members share in this shame by not demanding an end to this shameful practice.
31 comments:
I agree George. Well said.
OK, since you are now going to milk this dune thing for awhile a question. The dune destruction was on condo land right? It is not part of the HOA correct? So exactly what are we suppose to do about it?
George, I think you and I basically have the same viewpoint on the Tree Policy, and I agree that the recent dune destruction is the same kind of entitled self-righteous attitude.
But I totally disagree that there is anything neat and tidy about it, but does come from a sort of militaristic view of orderliness, that is really about demanding compliance to a standard no matter how ridiculous it may be. As trees in the community began to reach the established limits, only concentrations of trees had any possibility of interfering with views, so removing a few in dense areas would have been adequate.
Topping made all of the trees more dense in foliage. But this was an ill-conceived concept from the start, the creation of people who knew nothing about trees, nor cared about esthetic beauty or tree health. This was an entitlement program to artificially create a mystique about living on the ridge, inflate property values, encourage building of expensive homes, and create a false sense of an "upper class", while putting the RV set under the thumb of the HOA.
The ridgetop runs from about 25 feet high to a little over 50 feet in elevation, and dunes were building to heights of twenty feet and beyond. Meanwhile the surfline was moving 100s of yards beyond, yet hidden behind the ever increasing numbers of 24ft. high G St. homes 8 ft. apart, and the dunes 75 yards or more distant. Trees only interfered with views of the homes lower on the ridge, and some lower who had views got grumpy about taller trees.
Most homes on J Place are high enough, that trees 24 ft. high cannot block views, and trees 24 ft. high on G St. are only about an inch high from 3 blocks away. This whole business is a big fat lie, that anyone who bought a home 30 or more feet in elevation can possibly have a tree 24 ft. high and a block or more away, has their view interfered with. It is physically impossible. Most of the ridgetop falls away steeply, so that a block away, the top of a 24 ft. tree has only about 10 ft. visible, and being distant, less than that really. View windows in a home on a plot 30 ft. or higher, can easily see over the top of a Shorepine 24 ft. high, and that's about as high as this species grows.
As stupid as this policy is, it has been even more intensely enforced in the last 2 years, with Peg Olds at the helm. She hates trees. They are just useless clutter to her, their home in part of the community particularly far from the water's edge.
This is all about maintaining this phony class structure, and stroking the egos of ridgetop owners. It's a complete joke, and a disaster for the community's property values. We will never know what they could have been, as a natural landscape will never exist in Surfside. A rational person has no trouble understanding why such a policy is not seen anywhere else on the peninsula.
My statement about "neat and attractive" was about the homes in Surfside and how the destruction of the trees and dunes, takes away for that feeling. I give less than a damn about the height of the dunes or elevation of the homes on J Place. The issue is the destruction of the dunes and trees. There can be no justification for doing that. It is about the environment and the look of Surfside. I see no reason for any sort of compromise on this issue. It is flat out wrong, plain and simple.
Anonymous 4:52. According to the county that is state land! Non the less , you cannot just do anything you want just because you “own”;the land! Permits are required for all most any work as we well know here in Surfside. The dunes are protected by state and county law and must be granted a permit to do any work on it. This was once again by a group of selfish people who wanted a better view of the ocean.
So in your anonymous view rules and laws aren’t important to the members of Surfside? How about the speed limit? Just turn a bind eye with the 25 mph and 35 mph speed zones? None of our business? But on the other hand you must follow these horrible rules destroying our trees and environment, funny if not so sad!
The point of analyzing the affects of these elevations is that if anyone was motivated enough, it can be easily proven that trees do not affect views of properties sold as "view" properties.
That's why enforcement has abandoned any consideration of whether or not trees that are cited as violations, interfere with ridgetop views. Since you live on the eastside, it is easy to "give less than a damn" about this in general, but you keep the criticism up.
If owners organized opposition it could be stopped. Instead, they give up. The phony elitism of this ridiculous micro-managed height enforcement is so obvious, most communities that want to appear upscale, avoid this system of enforced social casts. Those in control get to demand all members to the west pay homage to them.
I would oppose the killing of trees just as much on the East side as the West side for any reason. Don't try and twist my words about not giving a damn. The trees should not be killed for any reason other than a safety issue.
Tell him George. Tell him what conviction really is. I believe you give a damn. I don't pay homage to anyone!
It's been said in days gone by that you could drive from Ilwaco to Ocean Park and have a treeless view of the ocean the entire way.
I enjoy paying homage to them.
"..but you keep the criticism up."
"View" The governing documents don't say anything about views.
"Elitism"
"Homage"
"If owners organized opposition it could be stopped." Sure thing Cox.
I see that I misconstrued your statement about Surfside appearing more neat and tidy. Many of the defenders of the Tree Policy claim that it helps make the community more neat and tidy. Pine trees DO drop a lot of pine needles which drives neat and tidy folks nuts. On the other hand, continuous topping causes trees to die off, usually in sections, and that looks terrible - like unhealthy trees.
Maybe you DO have a screw loose. You are far too quick to take offense. To suggest that views are still a real criteria involved here is to ignore how much the landscape has changed in the last 50 years. No one ever verifies that tree complaints are based on the complainer's view being interfered with, the HOA just measures the tree.
The HOA is pressuring the owners of the storage facility on G St. to top their grove of trees - one of the last unspoiled spots on the westside. Those owners are weighing whether to cut them down to the ground or top them. This is what this policy does to owner's private property - their trees. Do you want to spend thousands of dollars topping your trees every other year or so - or just eliminate them altogether ? Pick one ! These trees have remained uncut as the only ridgetop properties in-line with these trees is the hotel, and probably only the bottom floor sees them in their view.
Sometimes the truth hurts, but the truth is the truth. Here are several truths that will probably surprise you that I said them.
Number 1 is that the trees if left to grow, will at least partially block views on J Place. The views that will be lost are the beach, while the ocean horizon will remain mostly viable. The view of the breakers will be lost to most.
Number 2. Nature is constantly changing and everything has to adapt. The dunes grow, and the trees grow. Those who once had a close view of the surf, no longer have that view, and it will continue to lessen every year. We have to accept this change.
Those on J P;ace will always have a view, but not as it was. Spectacular sunsets will always be there and the property value will remain. Actually a partial view with trees will prove to be more attractive than not.
We need to let nature do it's thing and not waste energy, time and money fighting it. Topping trees is not a good thing. Forcing members to top trees is not a good thing. Living in harmony with nature, is a good thing. .
If I was the G ST storage people I would cut the trees down to the ground and keep it that way, no need for maintenance from here on. Let the dune grass grow. BTW: the non-native dune grass that we all love is one of the main reasons why the dunes build up so quickly, it provides an anchor for the sand to hold in place. I think we should get rid of the dune grass also.
Anonymous 1:54 I sincerely hope this is your attempt at humor!
In reply to 7:14 and "tell him".
Steve has a very analytical mind and he is stating his opinion based on elevations and heights. My response is more emotional based on right and wrong. We agree that topping and killing trees is wrong for a number of reasons. Steve is my friend, but we are just looking at the situation from different angles and perspectives.
Another concern I have is the hardship the tree covenant makes on the members who have to comply. For the elderly, it is not safe for them to be on a ladder and expensive to hire the topping done. For the part time members, it can be difficult to arrange the time to be here and do the work or find someone to do it. It can also be expensive for them to hire the work done.
The enforcement is discriminatory with an attitude of "us against them". The complaint process and enforcement process has done more to divide Surfside, than any other issue. The best thing that could happen for Surfside, would be for this covenant to be abolished.
Yes it is a very dividing procedure for sure. That’s why at the annual meeting the method to change covenants needs to be changed to member control, not the BOT
Well good. You both give a damn.
It's just in order to help the community end something the reason for why and how to persuade must be agreed upon.
Do we agree?
Agree on what? Loose Screw and Cox?
I think George needs to find a new friend.
Can't we all just get along!
I disagree a little on what George said about if left to grow trees will partially block views specifically that the horizon will remain. I will ask the same question I have asked before to Cox that he always ignores and just repeats his bias opinion.
Go to the north part of J place. Look to the north past the HOA's border to the area where there are no tree restrictions and look how they block out the horizon completely, even if you were on one of the top floors of houses there. I've been in one of those homes in the past year because it was for sale. I can confirm that is the case, you cannot see the horizon.
So again, tell me how if the covenants are lifted the trees in the HOA wouldn't do the same?
Many here on the west side bought property to live in a coastal setting, not a forest one. There is the east side here and other areas on the peninsula to choose from if that is what you want.
Good point 7:50. It would probably take a few years for the trees to get that tall, but you would still have nice sun sets. That would still be a lot better than most. I enjoy the sus sets from my place and that is looking up the back side of the ridge.
How interesting, looks like George finally got Cox'ed. Welcome to the club. Hopefully going forward when the Cox does his little troll like name calling to people you'll be sympathetic and post the return comments of those affected.
Kind of ruins the argument by j placers it's not about the view, huh!. Which is not allowed by law.
Will those who support the environment help by asking the BOTs, as I will, why do we have height limitations? There is no reason stated in the governing documents.
I can't wait for another 7 paragrapher from Cox. I have a feeling he really needs some therapy today.
to add to 750. The north end where the gate to the billionaire lives is a good example of really how tall these trees can get, tall but not too tall. Yes they will block most views of the ocean for most J pl owners. I don't really care either way, I have not view and no tress on my lot to worry about.
7:50 and 8:16....It is not our concern whether or not trees might block our views if we lived farther north. Those forests were not planted on bare sand as surfside trees were, and are undoubtedly a forest of mixed tree varieties.
Shorepines don't tend to grow taller than about 25 ft, and topping stunts vertical growth. It also makes trees much bushier, and dense in foliage, the exact opposite result sought to enhance views. It also damages the health and esthetic beauty of naturally growing trees. There is no real rationale for the stupid policy that the HOA clings to with all its' might.
By the way Mike Riley, I am not the first, the last nor the only blogger who has become exasperated with people like you, and called them an idiot. Many came before me in your case, but you just keep your juvenile nagging and incoherent b.s. Atta boy !
11:53 -- You aren't able to determine that by using the term "tall, but not too tall". That is a really flaky statement. If we had a detailed topo map of Surfside, we could easily determine how tall a tree can be at any given site. Notice that with a mapmaker on the BOT, we do not have such a map.
The Board does not want members to be able to see proof, one way or the other, as to how high trees must be on their property to interfere with the view of a GIVEN ridgetop property. The BOT does not want to have to verify that it's policy forces tree cutting at a cost of 10s of thousands of dollars a year, is unjustified !
All complaints are to be identified as to their source, otherwise, people in Portland Maine could be filing them. But the protection of their identity, which in some ways makes sense, is used as a shield to excuse a steady stream of "complaints" from just a few individuals. Well, over 200 last year, after 2or 3years of about a hundred, and just a few dozen in most years prior.
Post a Comment