TREE, BRUSH, VEGETATION AND NOXIOUS WEEDS COMMITTEE August 7, 2020 Call to Order: Conference call; Meeting called to order at 1:00 pm. Present: Peggy Olds (Chair), Pam Harris, Diane Mangels, Betsey Nelson, Georgia Olson (Compliance Investigator), Tom Reber (General manager), Kathleen Mason (guest).
Introduction and Welcome: Peggy welcomed all members and guest. Old Business: --July, 2020 Minutes: The draft July 2020 minutes were circulated by email for committee input. The final July minutes were submitted to the Board for action at the July 18, 2020 Board meeting. The Board approved the minutes. --Information/Education for the Weekender: Betsey and Peggy prepared and forwarded final Riparian Area and Blue Green Algae documents to Steve Flickinger, the member requesting this information. He will work with Surfside’s Waterways Committee to take further action to share this information with members. See final documents attached. --Procedure for Addressing Member-to-member complaints: Procedure will be sent to Tom Reber for follow through action and inclusion in appropriate Surfside manuals. See final document attached. New Business: --Member Concern: Fire Hazard: Kathleen Mason, Surfside member, shared her concern about neighboring property on Oysterville Road, which is overgrown with grass. She views this as a fire hazard. Neighbor does not regularly mow grass. No noxious weeds are present. A few very short shore pines are visible. Members discussed options she might have as mowing of grasses is not covered by covenant enforcement. She will seek to contact the owner and fire department for further action. --Tree Report/Discussion: Georgia submitted the July 2020 tree report. There are 112 tree/weed cases currently open. There were 13 cases closed, 6 cases sent to Tom for further action, and 4 cases were in appeal status. Several Committee members commended Georgia’s format and content in monthly report. See attached report. • Case # 5317: The homeowner filed an appeal and has claimed the tree is a heritage tree. The Eucalyptus tree is not native and is over 30ft high in a 16 ft zone. Online research indicates it responds well to annual topping and maintenance, is best if trimmed in the summer, can constitute a fire hazard due to excessive litter drop. The County has no Heritage Tree designations or designation programs. Homeowner has noted that the tree is diseased. It was a unanimous decision that the tree needs trimmed per covenants within 30 days. Peggy will work with Annette and Georgia to prepare that recommendation for the Board. • Case #5394: The homeowner has requested a height appeal/variance to avoid cutting shore pines. No variance documentation was prepared just a letter appealing the determination to comply with Surfside covenants. The owner submitted a tree plan last fall and failed to comply with the plan by May, 2020. After reviewing the facts in the case, the committee unanimously denied the appeal. Peggy will work with Annette and Georgia to prepare that recommendation for the Board.
• Case #5445: Georgia has reached out to the condo’s manager to get a tree plan as it’s been two months since the Board approved a 30-foot variance and they have taken no action to comply. He stated they are having a hard time getting bids and finding reputable workers. Tom Reber recommended a 90-day plan to complete work. He directed Georgia to contact the Condos and request a tree plan by September 15, 2020 and action per the plan within 90 days or fines will start. The committee supported this recommendation. --Budget 2021: See attached Budget submission. Committee members unanimously approved the proposed budget for the Tree, Brush, Noxious Weed and Vegetation Committee. --Member Contacts: Peggy received a request from a member to measure tree heights, and has had several contacts with potential new committee members. Meeting adjourned at 3:00PM Next Meeting will be Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:00PM by Conference Call.re are 112 open tree/weed cases currently. This does not include any proactive cases that have been measured. None of these have been opened as of 8/3/2020.
• Case #5445: Georgia has reached out to the condo’s manager to get a tree plan as it’s been two months since the Board approved a 30-foot variance and they have taken no action to comply. He stated they are having a hard time getting bids and finding reputable workers. Tom Reber recommended a 90-day plan to complete work. He directed Georgia to contact the Condos and request a tree plan by September 15, 2020 and action per the plan within 90 days or fines will start. The committee supported this recommendation. --Budget 2021: See attached Budget submission. Committee members unanimously approved the proposed budget for the Tree, Brush, Noxious Weed and Vegetation Committee. --Member Contacts: Peggy received a request from a member to measure tree heights, and has had several contacts with potential new committee members. Meeting adjourned at 3:00PM Next Meeting will be Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:00PM by Conference Call.
78 comments:
Thank you very much Steve Flickinger. You're a good neighbor.
The HOA had a brief moratorium on enforcement action, yet in just a couple of months they have over 125 "complaints" on trees. This emphasizes the obsession a few people on the BOT and Tree Comm. have about their compulsion to harass community members constantly about this stupid policy. This is a sickness !!
Many members will have had lost wages, maybe even lost businesses or jobs, and along with that, lost healthcare, due to work related policies or lack of wages. The cost of tree topping is a waste of money. This asinine policy driven primarily by Mr. Clancy, Peg Olds and Annette deLeest, serves no practical purpose, as these are not real "complaints" but addresses blanket mailed compliance notices. A 15 ft. tree in a 14 ft. zone does not constitute an emergency, nor does the Tree Comm. have an accurate means of measuring tree heights.
There is no rational explanation for this policy, as it has nothing specific to do with blocked views of the Ocean, views are not protected by our covenants, and trees are private property easily damaged by constant topping. State law does not support views as a legitimate criteria for mandatory enforcement in State communities, and requires financial compensation for damaging other owner's trees, or demanding removal.
NONE of these established factors that come to bear on the tree issue in Surfside are heeded in Surfside or given credence. Rather, the social strata that has been established by putting the J Place homeowners and HOA in indisputable control of about 3/4 of Surfside properties trees is the driving force behind the impetus of J Place owners and the BOT to prevent any Trustees being seated who do not promise to support the Tree Policy. It helps cow the members, and bolster the sense of authority and prowess of ridgetop owners and the Board of Trustees.
It's a ruse that demands members respond to constant demands for compliance, and makes them fearful of participating in elections, or expressing dissatisfaction with the HOA. They must belittle the Blog because it creates an open venue for all member's pleas for fairness, and dissatisfaction with the HOA. Permanent damage has been done to the landscape in Surfside, and owners need to organize and end this policy.
Good luck with that Cox.
I can't wait to see it happen.
What we have here is a group of nasty women with nothing better to do in their nothing lives, then to harass their neighbors to make them feel important in their nothing lives. They are bad people with no real friends. Evil does exist and unfortunately it is promoted here in Surfside.
Patrick, the other day you said everything Cox says is reasonable and well thought out. Do you still think that way? Cox wants to end the tree policy. It seems to me that you favor a different approach and solution. Don't you?
751 - he's entitled to his opinion. You're entitled to yours. J Placer?
The other way the tree policy could be addressed is through simply disbanding the entire Association. They sell themselves as providing garbage, water, and security. Two they don't do well, and the third is non-existent.
Wow, that sentence in the second paragraph will really light up Cox. Cox scolds people who talk that way on this blog. Cox says it's not simple. I don't think it's simple either.
I like your second paragraph.
Does anyone want to test Patrick's approach and solution this weekend or Labor Day weekend?
11:38....You must be Mike Riley ! Got no idea what you are talking about. 7:51 - First, Patrick is NOT a resident or owner in Surfside. He has taken on the HOA who harassed him, and proved that they can be beaten in court. For that, we should be grateful to Patrick. He cared about Surfside, and may miss it somewhat. But he can have no direct effect on policy in the community.
I've written thousands of words on the Tree Policy on the Blog in the last 3 years. I have considered various approaches to the policy, meanwhile the HOA's pressure on members has increased to an absurd level, the community showing the obsession with constantly badgering owners west of the ridge, most with trees on their lots.
I definitely favor completely eliminating the policy as it is now implemented. HOAs have an obligation to address member household concerns, and the intended function of member written complaints is to ask for HOA mediation. With this policy, a few members/Trustees have chosen to manufacture their own "complaints" in order to systematically issue automatic non-compliance notices to lots with trees.
Initially, the policy protected views of the Ocean, but removed that criteria on recommendation of attorneys. By using only height restrictions as the guide, owners are forced to top trees that do not in any way interfere with Ocean views.
I favor only addressing tree heights as a matter of owner to owner complaint, written by the aggrieved, and the resulting enforcement based on a compliance inspection that verifies that a neighboring tree does in fact create a nuisance or legitimately block the owner's view of the Ocean.
I favor eliminating the current policy, but I didn't say that an alternative policy is not needed. In fact, all owners have the right to express a gievance, and have the HOA mediate a resolution. At the same time, just because you file a complaint, doesn't mean you have a legitimate complaint, or deserve any enforcement action.
I am not actively organizing opposition to the policy as it is not my cross to bear. I have only one tree on my property, and it is well under the limit. So few members care enough about the community to even vote, and the J place-heavy Board refuse to let anyone who opposes the tree policy, be seated on the BOT. Unless tree owners organize and resist, or the voting base expanded by a few hundred, this policy will haunt the community forever.
It looks more and more ghostly and chopped every day. My place faces the beach, so I can ignore the ugliness, though I consider it an embarrassment.
When the members start getting all those proactive tree complaints, maybe they will wake up and start to fight back. Take them to small claims court for the damage to your trees. They can not make you damage your property. Akso, file an appeal with the County for a property tax reduction because of the killed trees that you were forced to kill. This will help you win your case in court. An HOA is suopposed to protect and preserve property values.
Steve, we need you and Joanna to run for the board. Please.....
Im curious how this will work out in regards to the tree complaints. 112 active cases and only 2 weeks left of the chipper being open. Looks like a lot of trees will not be cut or be left on the ground, creating a fire hazard.
Its interesting Surfside is allowed to run the chipper site on a residential piece of property. This is a business, and businesses are not allowed to operate on a residential piece of property.
Cox doesn't have time for our little hoa. Also the tree policy isn't his cross to bear. Trustees need to bear all the crossses for the membership. I can't figure out Joanne's reason for not running.
I agree. Take them to court. When we take them to court, we always win. You can not be forced to devalue your property
I hope they take them to court.
Larry A should run for the board. He is current on HOA dues. It doesn't say explicitly that one has to be current on Surfside hoa dues. Nothing else is required.
3:51....You are either a Trustee OR Mike Riley. You know that you are taking these statements (that I HAVE said) out of context. Why is it SO important to you to discredit me ? You are afraid of me, because I am persuasive and speak the truth. That makes you an adherant to the twisted BOT dialogue, and their methods.
These politics defend the special privileges of a few to Lord over the rest of the membership. You are no doubt well aware that I ran for the BOT last election, and received the most votes of the candidates who were not elected to a seat. For many years the BOT has appointed candidates such as myself to any vacancies on the Board after the election.
The BOT refused to appoint me to the Chandler vacancy, and didn't discuss the vacancy with me, or even acknowledge the vacancy publicly at the Oct. 2019 BOT meeting, only days after Mr. Chandler resigned. The covenants require that ANY vacancies on the Board be filled by appointment, but the Board ignored and violated the intent of this requirement.
I openly oppose the Tree Policy, and this is the primary tenant of the J Place agenda - to maintain a social cast system by maintaining the Tree Policy at all cost. This establishes the ridgetop owners as the elite who call the shots, and creates a justification for intensive enforcement/harassment of about 3/4 of the membership who live west of the ridge.
Enforcement of this kind is a form of intimidation, and intimidation is a means to power over those victimized. THAT is what this is all about. The nature of our community is such that most members are part-time residents, and less than 15% of the membership even vote. The ruling "elite" have taken full advantage of this dynamic, and try to assure that only their hand-picked candidates win in the elections.
So here you are, belittling me when I am open about my views, and true to my convictions. You are so pitiful, you are afraid to identify yourself, let alone stand for anything.
We have the next election in the bag. We will have plenty of proxy votes to keep power.
The Faction
You people are so screwed if you let it happen. It reminds of a third rate nation that has been taken over by a few radicals and the people, fearing retaliation followed meekly while the few destroyed the country. Why are you letting a few disgusting people run your lives? No backbone? Fear? I no longer live there so the battle is no longer mine, it is up to you, the meek, to stand up for yourselves or accept the consequences. I wish you the strength to succeed.
It's not my cross to bear. I'm fine.
I'm an old person and I'm scared of them. Because I'm old I shouldn't have to get involved in making changes.
We need a saviour.
A "savior", a single individual, cannot change this policy. Had I been appointed to the Board, I would have only served the remainder of the term Chris Chandler was serving. I doubt that I would have even brought this policy up as a Trustee. As the lone individual who opposes the policy, 6 of the other 8 Trustees live on J Place.
There are probably about 1500 households who have been dogged by this enforcement, so I would think it would be sensible for these victims of the policy to organize and put an end to this. Obviously, most of these households refuse to even vote in the elections.
I honestly expected a bump in support in the election, once my statement was published in the Surf-In-Sider. I figured it would be well known that I am a very vocal critic of the Tree Policy, and the many victims would see a glimmer of hope, that their situation might be changed for the better. In fact, there was a lower turnout in votes than the previous year, at barely over 300.
Until more of the community cares enough to vote, and follow what goes on in Board Meetings, the members have little power to change what the J Place establishment have dominated, and mandated. That's why I say, "this is not my cross to bear". I'm not receiving compliance notices to trim trees, and when I have run for the BOT, I have not garnered much support.
I'll continue to bang the drum against the Tree Policy on the Blog, and would help an effort organized by others in an effort to build VOCAL opposition to the policy. But the "silly little HOA" I referred to, chose to violate the Bylaws of the community, rather than appoint a member who openly opposes the Tree Policy, me.
7:41 states the case well. If you as a member won't even vote, you don't care about Surfside policy, and are satisfied being steamrolled by the elitist establishment. So be it. I'm retired, so will focus on that.
Did you see the pictures of the golf fools with no masks or social distance?
It would be great if they all got tested before and after the event. Sorry, I forgot. That's what reasonable, respectful, and responsible leaders would do.
The J Place klan is better suited to a hood than a mask. They could go out and burn a tree in members yards.
In response to:
Patrick, the other day you said everything Cox says is reasonable and well thought out. Do you still think that way? Cox wants to end the tree policy. It seems to me that you favor a different approach and solution. Don't you?
August 26, 2020 at 7:51 AM
I do, but I still think everything he says is well thought out. He is by far not the only one who feels we should just end the tree policy. However, I feel that although there are some pretty greedy nasty people that live on J Place, I know some of them are very nice, and most probably know as little about what is happening in Surfside as many of the others that live in Surfside. I dont feel that the people of J Place should lose their views, I just feel we should eliminate the unnecessary tree topping.
My plan was to limit the tree height only when the tree grew large enough to actually block someone's view.
Unfortunately, the Faction is not concerned about anyone but themselves and they may end up creating a situation where there is no more tree covenant.
Patrick, your approach is too subjective to be practical. At what point is a tree actually blocking the view? To be enforceable, there must be a measurable limit of growth. Your method would lead to more arguments, not less.
Any change to the covenants needs to be deliberated by the group over an extended period of time. Hastily enacted changes or changes schemed up by just a few voices never lead to positive outcomes. Look at the outdoor lighting debacle. Take a lesson from state and federal legislators. How long does it take and how much debate and study goes into the passing of a bill? There is a reason they go slow and are methodically in instituting change. All stakeholders must afforded the opportunity to participate in the process. You only need to get one trustee to present a motion to begin reviewing the tree height covenants. Form a committee that includes all stakeholders and get to work. Be willing to listen as well as talk. Try to understand the issue from all sides. In time, and with good will, solutions will become apparent.
Our leadership did none of that with the roof eave overhang limit CC&R.
I was never afforded the opportunity to participate in the process.
At the August 2018 Regular Board Meeting, one of my first meetings, when the board decided to hastily bring it up to vote on it, I asked why regulate overhangs. The entire board was stunned that I would ask such a thing. Gary Williams said he didn't want to see my shovels leaning against my shed.
Again, I, and the rest of the membership, was never afforded the opportunity to participate in the process.
That is why so many HOA’s are a hot bed of controversy. Surfside is not unique. Most people are not very good at legislating their own affairs let allow a community’s. Well run HOA’s have well written policies that are strictly followed. The policy on covenant review should include procedures that does not marginalize any members in the process. You can criticize and even demonize the trustees if it makes you feel better, but the truth is they are bumbling about without a decent set of policies to work with. The current GM is not the problem nor can he be the solution. I question his competency but he really has no authority to do anything. It does not matter who is on the board. Without a decent set of policies and procedures to conduct business, the board will always be unproductive and promoting controversy.
I and others as members have been deamonized many times by childish terrible people. That's beside the point. On the contrary and in fact it is the leadership's fault. Our leadership refuses to update the governing documents or opt in to the latest WA RCW 64.90. They can do it anytime they want. It even says so in our governing documents. Go read them for yourself. I've written them and emailed them asking them to do it. They refuse. Our leadership runs the show. They are the problem. In every organization there is leadership. They are responsible for the organization. They hold responsibility and culpability for everything.
Thank you to all others who questioned that move when it happened. It was good to see and hear members involved. We tried. They didn't listen.
11:56....Your condescending attitude fails to compensate for the weakness of your argument. This policy has been a burden to most of the members since enforcement began forcing members to top their trees, so there has been plenty of time pass for everyone to know how they would vote on a proposal to END the policy.
Some very good points are made here, such as the fact that the HOA Board has never favored allowing members the opportunity to vote on policies or covenants. As I maintain, this policy established a social structure and with it mandatory enforcement measures that intimidate the membership, and discourage resistance and dissent in Surfside.
The notion that Patrick or anyone who opposes this policy just doesn't understand how government works is ridiculous and pretentious. This policy serves the interests of the ruling J Place Trustees and they have no intention of affording the community the opportunity to vote to end the policy, or continue it. That is precisely why they opposed my appointment on the BOT, and Clancy wanted to tighten the grip by augmenting the candidate's agreement to require a vow not to oppose established policies.
There are now a lot of homes along G St. that are in the $400,000 on up range. Some of the homes on J Pl are particularly expensive, but most are in the $400,000 range. All homes above 30 ft. elevation have a view, and that can't really be taken away, even without the current Tree Policy. Property values aren't directly affected by the Policy, because it isn't needed. These owners have had the power to demand tree topping for more than 25 years, time to put it to rest.
This policy is discriminatory, that is clear, and that is expressly forbidden in the State HOA laws and standards.
Steve, your random thoughts are a little hard to follow but please explain how the value of a persons home is relevant. Most people understand how government works. The problem is most people are unwilling to do the work. They are good at complaining. They are good at pontificating their opinions. Most people want others to hand them what they want on a platter. Workers, on the other hand, dig in, roll up there sleeves and get to work. If the board is the obstacle to your desire, go around, go through, push past it. Whining and pontificating may fell good but gets nothing done. Devise a plan, gather your allies, pile up your resources, then executive. Any other response is just blow hard useless waste of words.
I just received notice that Reber's out. Please let it be true.
Reber was worthless and extremely overpaid. I wonder if he lied on his resume and during the interviews.
It was Williams and the daleast that lied about his qualifications. He was their hand picked boy.
Okay I understand. Then that's mostly why it took so long to get rid of him.
I commented when he was first hired, they never vetted him, simple internet search shows he had been forced to resign by other HOAs, but the BOT decided a yes man was more important than capabilities. Prediction:Clancy will be hired/contracted to run things, or a BOT family member.
It hurts. Make it stop.
RE: August 30, 2020 at 11:56 PM Patrick, your approach is too subjective to be practical.
Have you heard or read my complete proposal? I am not sure how you could say it was subjective. I'd be happy to talk with you and explain. Maybe you can help solve the issue. Email me, we can set up a time to meet.
Patrick Johansen, Patrick@PK80.com
RE: August 30, 2020 at 11:56 PM Just so you know, we did form a committee with one person from each of the different stakeholder groups. We all agreed on solutions for many of the problems including the tree topping. As soon as we started to present the solutions the board shut down the committee and refused to consider the solutions.
To continue to say a view cannot be taken away without the tree policy is a bunch of B.S. You can walk down J now and see areas where the tree tops reach the horizon. You can go up and look past our northern boarder and see trees that reach beyond it. So what are you calling a view then, trees and sky? Yeah, see what that will do to property values. Why pay more for a house when you have to look trough a forest to see a small amount of water.
Fact check:
Patrick's committee was composed of HIS hand picked members. One left in disgust. He also refused to allow any other members to join, something no other committees had done.
What does that tell you?
9:31, that's exactly how our leadership runs our committees. I know someone who has waited over a year to get on a committee. They still aren't on the committee even after making contributions. Our leadership hand picks everyone, trustees included. Our leadership is trying to hand pick mee trustees right now.
What does that tell you?
I forgot to say, "fact check". Sorry about that.
9:26....You are dreaming. What you claim cannot be verified. And like I said, homes on the ridge will remain at their current values, unaffected by the demise of the current Tree Policy. The HOA still must respond to a complaint filed by an actual resident on the ridge, if in fact a neighboring tree interferes with your view. But it isn't a lock that you will get your wishes. Such a claim, like any other member complaint, must be verified by a visit to the residence filing the complaint.
This has always been a right of community members. But most of the complaints filed these days are generated as a block by one member, enabled by the so-called anonymity of the complainer. If you file a complaint you should OWN it, and enforcement be based on a compliance officer's visit to the residence to SEE that there is interference. Enforcement action is never assured with any other issue, and it shouldn't be on tree complaints either. There need not be height restrictions.
This bull.... about looking north and seeing trees is ridiculous. You live on a ridgetop, you have views. Why would a 360 degree unobstructed view be even a possibility, let alone an expectation ? why do you suppose the State opposes regulations such as the Surfside Tree Policy ? It is discriminatory and relies on the violation of the rights of tree owners. If you don't like your house, move. Stop the bitching and hand wringing over tree heights 3 or more blocks away.
In response to:
Fact check:
Patrick's committee was composed of HIS hand picked members. One left in disgust. He also refused to allow any other members to join, something no other committees had done.
What does that tell you?
August 31, 2020 at 9:31 PM
By the charter provided by the Board, we were only allowed a certain amount of members. I found one member from each area, such as one from the East Side, one RVer, one homeowner from the valley, one from G Place, one from J ST, etc. By the way the one from J Place was was an attorney who had commented on one of my comments. He told me that if we tried to take away his views he would sue me. He had apparently been lied to and told I was trying to take away the views of the J Placers. After hearing my actual proposal, he agreed it made sense. All the proposals we offered to the Board were agreed on by all the members of the committee before submitted. The Board then changed the charter allowing anyone who attended the meeting to vote in an attempt to flood the committee with Faction Members. We already had equal representation from all areas and had the limit of member allowed by the original charter. The charter gave me the right to approve members and I resisted the change. The board then eliminated the committee.
The job of the committee was to present options that would be presented to the membership to vote on at the next annual meeting. The board did not want the membership to vote on, or even hear the proposals.
In Resonse to Anonymous Anonymous said...
Fact check:
Patrick's committee was composed of HIS hand picked members. One left in disgust. He also refused to allow any other members to join, something no other committees had done.
What does that tell you?
August 31, 2020 at 9:31 PM
Seriously???? A fact check by an anonymous person who is giving his own secret testimony. How reliable is that?
Anything goes on this blog.
I have said it before, I will say it again. Patrick is the only one who's made any sense in this whole debacle
I agree. Nobody makes any sense but Patrick.
I was at the board meeting Patrick where YOU voted AGAINST having some volunteers to be on your committee. That sir is a fact.
Also btw, it was the Board president who eliminated the committee. The rest of the board did not vote on it so you are once again misrepresenting the facts. I was at that meeting too.
And another thing to remind the new comers here when it comes to your faction B.S. YOU were the first person to start with the canvasing before the election in an attempt to get YOUR little faction elected. You littered our community with with YOUR sample ballots on who to vote for and was reprimanded by Travis for doing such a stupid thing. During your canvasing you tried to create disharmony among members by bad mouthing ALL of J placers.
Everything you proposed you personally would benefit from. People forget that you also wanted to get the setbacks for septic from the canals changed, again for YOUR benefit.
What do you mean my claim cannot be verified? Unlike your B.S. eyes don't lie. How about this, let's meet up and take a stroll down J and I will point the trees I mentioned out to you. But to do so you will have to give me $100.00 for everyone we find. Consider it an education tax and a penalty for me having to put up with your company.
You also have no basis to say values would remain. Why would someone want to pay extra for a house where you can't see the ocean or horizon?
Speaking of which, let me further explain about the trees north since you didn't comprehend my statement. You continually say that if the tree policy went away views would still remain. Well look north where there isn't one and you can see exactly what the future would be.
But I guess you wouldn't since in your world it appears seeing isn't believing.
Meeting with you sounds fun 1:42. Are you the attorney who threatened to sue Patrick?
I'm not paying you anything to meet with you anonymous 1:42 lol.
It's fun battling over trees on this blog. We make so much progress.
Good work everyone.
Mark my words, somebody is going to make excellent money counter suing this organization. That will be our money that they are spending.
Response to September 2, 2020 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said... I was at the board meeting Patrick where YOU voted AGAINST having some volunteers to be on your committee. That sir is a fact.
Yes that is true, I said that was true. We were allowed a certain number of members per our charter. I filled those spots with one person from each area. After we started to present proposals, the board changed the charter to flood the committee with Faction members. I voted to not allow that as we already had a balanced committee with one rep from each area. It is the committee chairman's right to choose the members of the committee.
Anonymous said... Also btw, it was the Board president who eliminated the committee. The rest of the board did not vote on it so you are once again misrepresenting the facts. I was at that meeting too.
I think you are wrong on that one, there was a vote.
Anonymous said... And another thing to remind the new comers here when it comes to your faction B.S. YOU were the first person to start with the canvasing before the election in an attempt to get YOUR little faction elected. You littered our community with with YOUR sample ballots on who to vote for and was reprimanded by Travis for doing such a stupid thing. During your canvasing you tried to create disharmony among members by bad mouthing ALL of J placers.
Yes I did canvas to get elected, and to ask as many members as possible what they wanted. I didnt litter at all, I put rubber-banded small flyers on peoples doors which is totally legal and common when running for a local office. Many politicians for local and state offices do this. Surfside HOA put flyers on people's doors to warn then about the chemicals they put in the waterways.
Anonymous said... Everything you proposed you personally would benefit from.
Everything I proposed would benefit just about everyone in the HOA.
Anonymous said... People forget that you also wanted to get the setbacks for septic from the canals changed, again for YOUR benefit.
False. I believe you have brought this up before on this blog. There are existing exceptions for septic systems that I learned about from the County for properties in Surfside. I learned about these from the septic engineer and they were verified by the County, but could not find them written anywhere. I feel everyone should play by the same rules, so proposed that the existing exceptions should be documented in the covenants and also in the County ordinances.
It's only The Faction rules here.
If you don't like it move. Many have moved so you can too. We don't need subversives here.
The Faction
1:42.... I have driven along the ridge many times looking at the so-called views and so-called obstructions. The proposal you offer shows that rather than want to convince me, you have to state it as a threat, by suggesting you deserve money just to further your argument. That tells me you've got nuthin'.
I'll gladly meet you at your residence, and you can show me what you consider proof that I am not stating the situation accurately. You are afraid to identify yourself, but you have plenty of attitude. I won't pay you a dime to hear your rebuttal out, and SEE proof. If you can make good on this, I'll acknowledge it on the Blog. If I feel I've been proven entirely wrong, I'll admit to it and apologize to you.
But you have no apparent conscience about the blatant inequity of this policy as currently enforced. Views are NOT protected in our covenants, and they play no part in enforcement of this policy. What is obvious is, this policy as enforced is full of contradictions, and contradictions invalidate any such argument in favor of the policy.
So we will also test Patrick's approach and solution? Who's in and when?
I will just cut all my trees down, and have taken 3 of 7 out so far. They are ugly and grow unlike any pine tree I have ever seen from being topped multiple times. Only when all the trees west of the Ridge are gone will the Faction be HAPPY. Have a GREAT Labor Day weekend!
Most people who make an inappropriate or flippant comment that is racially offensive or insensitive just apologize and move on with their lives. That would have been simple and laid the issue to rest without all of this drama. Some people cannot admit a mistake no matter how grave or petty. There are two reasons for not apologizing for a flippant racist comment. Excessive pride or not believing their comment was racist or offensive. Which is it Steve? Are to to good to admit you made an inappropriate racist comment or are you a racist who believes your racist comment is appropriate? The third option would be to just admit a comparison or your petty squabbles with your neighbors does not remind anyone of one of the most horrific race related crimes ever committed. Nothing in your life could ever compare to or remind you of the crimes perpetrated on Emmett Till, his family, my generation, or this nation.
I don't believe the comment was racist. It was an irrational, an illogical, a petty, an insensitive, and a blatantly white privilege comment. Thus I would expect one to go with your third option.
Your last sentence is excellent.
I think the most truthful thing we've heard from Steve Cox is that he won't apologize.
8:10....Wars rage on as they have through history, killing millions of people. Genocide or "racial cleansing" has been the excuse for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. To focus on this terrible incident (E. Till) as if it in particular stands out in this picture, is to ignore the violence that is perpetrated based on "reasons" of racial conflict, very day.
My comment that you take such exception to is being taken too literally. The deLeests insist on verbal character assasination of me for the mere mention of their name. If you read my Till comment, I said I was "reminded of" the Till incident, and that an innocent harmless comment by this poor kid, resulted in this crime of white privilege. As I said to the crazed commenters, any mention of race or politics often gets an over-reaction.
So for those who are/were offended, I apologize for causing you pain. I didn't intend to do that. Yeah, Cox does this, and he does that, he's a terrible person, blah blah blah. I'm certain that many who express offense, just want to jump on the bandwagon to dish on me, for criticizing the HOA. But I have no problem apologizing when I think it's appropriate. It should have been obvious that it was just an exaggeration analogy, and not a statement about race.
All of these anonymous commenters so righteous in their remarks, and unwilling to identify themselves. I was raised to respect all people regardless of color, and it is ingrained in me. I marched in the streets when young, promoting black rights, have had black friends and my lovely Lacey neighbors are black.
Yep, I'm white, and there's no changing that, so I guess anything I say is "white privilege", and most likely all or most of the commenters the same. How many Surfside owners voted for Trump ? How many plan to ? Not me, that's for damn sure. Yes, racism is alive and well in America, AND Surfside is no exception.
819 - another option would be to quit banging on Steve, shut your pie hole, and move on.
339 - please take your Steve bromance elsewhere.
A halfhearted attempt at an apology complete with rationalizations from Mr. Cox.
Keep shucking.
The Faction
Yep, keep shucking.
The Faction
Can I get an explanation, and not a smart ass comment please.
Why in the July meeting was KJ tree service approved to do work on 34205 J place? Since when do homeowners need an approval to have trees trimmed? Isn't this what they want?
I would much rather see this company in the neighborhood than Knotty's who are a bunch of druggies.
We're watching.
The Faction
It's ironic that the number one issue affecting our current hoa is tree height. It's affecting the members on the ridge from having a better view of the mountains.
I would also like to know why that property at 34205 J place needed to have the trees cut down? Was this a non- compliance issue? Just seems odd that a lot up there needed trees cut down
It will be interesting to see what goes on with that lot. It wasn't just tree trimming, it was clearing the whole lot, at members expense $3245.
Hello Larry, some things never change! Even the folks who own your lot have to trim trees. Makes no sense when everything behind you and everyone else on 357th is not in Surfside. Hope all is well. I miss you and Kerry.
It isn't the number one issue Larry. It is for George and Stevie and who knows how many anonymous. For me, the number one issue is voting by mail. That issue is a tie with membership authority for governing documents amendments.
Oh well, keep following this blog for entertainment. It's fun.
Go ahead Cox. Try to end the tree policy. I can't wait to watch you try. It'll be entertainment.
Keep cutting your trees for my view! Losers! We win the elections. You don't. That's a fact.
They tried to pull that shit on Kerry and me many years ago when I calmly allowed them to walk our property. Shut up real quick when I pointed out the county property marker and thy realized that the trunk of the offending tree was on County land. Priceless !!
@Larry,Oh my gosh, that is priceless. Try telling the county to trim their trees
Post a Comment