Sheriff Expense..
While I have not seen the figures, I have been told that a part time deputy will cost over 100,000.00 This makes no sense to even consider spending this much during this time. The economy is in the tank and only going to get worse.
With so many members only part time, their main concern is the condition of their property when they are not here. What most would appreciate would be someone to check on their property to see if it has been broken into or if there was storm damage. It seems like we could contract a firm to check members property. Perhaps the members could pay a small fee to have this done. We need to do things that will help the members. We are not in a crime wave here.
135 comments:
Couldn’t agree more! I wish there would have been an open dialogue about how the members feel on this issue. To me this is the perfect time to cut this item and try and bring our budget down to a reasonable amount! We already pay for sheriff coverage through our taxes
One thing we desperately need is an open forum for all members to communicate with the board. The weekender offers no such thing, not everyone has Facebook to utilize (and it doesn’t offer feedback). Sure there’s emails, but that’s a one on one, not an open discussion. Myself, I’ve had problems with emails working.
We have Clancy to thank for this crap.
Since I cannot post a screenshot, I will type it all out for everyone
Wages 61,056.00
Social Sec. 3,785.47
Medicare. 885.31
L&I. 1653.09
Unemployment. 864.12
Medical/Dental. 14,688.00
Life Insurance. 240.00
Pension/401K. 1831.68
Total Wages and Benefits: 85,003.68
Recurring Support costs:
Pacic County compter services/Maintence/support
1700.00
depreciation fee 825.00
aircard(39.99x12). 479.88
vehicle maintenance. 2000.00
fuel monthly reimbursed ????
cellphone. 479.88
willapa gun club. 70.00
Total: 5554.76
One time hardware setup:
Laptop 2780.00
docking station 1500.00
sector printer. 500.00
Radar 5000.00
Sector paper 30.00
Sector scanner 100.00
Uniform allowance. 700.00
Total: 10,610.00
I say we ditch this before we even start, if it costs us to break the contract, so be it, we will still be way ahead of the game.
Don't agree.
Amortized over the membership it is an amount I'm okay with paying for the extra service/attention.
It made more sense to have a part-time officer for less money. Assuming the deputy is in Surfside all the time, this seems to be a waste of County resources. We'll have to buy them a Peletron to keep the deputy mobile. A five year contract is a big commitment to a sketchy plan.
Just because we have a sheriff does not stop crime. We were broke into at 4am, 2 years ago. Sevearl things gone, even had the guy on camera, Travis recognized him, confronted him even. Do you know what happened....absolutely nothing!
Why...because there was nothing in his hands. He was on my property. Total crap and total disappointment with our law enforcement.
How many break ins has Surfside had since February??
9:22 that is exactly what the Board wants to hear. So what if you all pay $50 more per year for something that will more than likely do nothing for you or your neighbors (as shown by our previous experiences with having “our own” deputy). The jail doesn’t even accept the criminals they do catch. Your type of thinking allows Board members like Clancy to allocate $300k for the RV/compactor renewal. It allows the Board to initiate unneeded, good old boy contracts without any accountability. You should pay more attention to what the Board does with the members funds, not be an apathetic bystander. You are just what they want to see!
Ronda, had exactly the same thing happen to me. The perp was in my garage, but since the stolen goods weren't in his hands, they did nothing.
Well another water problem today! I think it’s time to watch our budget with extreme concern! One of these days I’m afraid patching up pipes will not be the answer! Then what will we do for water? Sheriff coverage is the least of my concerns for this HOA!
@7:32 - Yes, that is my opinion. I understand you don't agree.
9 members of our community should not be the deciding factor on the sheriff issue!
I agree. This is a half million dollar budget item at this point. George makes a very good point regarding the Bus. Manager not necessarily needed. It seems an invitation to create a burgeoning enforcement brigade and an avenue to more unnecessary restrictions. The Water Dept. is particularly key to this community, and I think a well administered Water Dept. should be a point of pride. So a very knowledgeable Water Manager would be a benefit. The water quality issues we face have to do with the shallow aquifer, and wells wear out - become sludgy, and must be abandoned.
It is accepted as fact that the community will need other access to water by purchasing land for a well field. Land near the Methodist Camp has been suggested, though none is for sale.
We do not need another Clancy study on our water system. We do not need a new well fiel. The problem is what it has always been....Management, pure and simple. Clancy and others have only contributed to the problem and are mot part of the solution. Most of the "breaks" are failure of proper proceedure. In my opinion, the number one priority should be the hire of an honest, competent qualified Water/Field Manager.
I see the advertisement for office manager today. I think the board or members should decide where the priorities are. There should be a good discussion on just what the business manager should be expected to do, should more emphasis be on the water department and honestly discuss this $100,000 plus amount for sheriff patrol.
I have tasted the water from North Beach. Very good water. No musty taste and no rusty tint. How do we get that water. They get water from wells. We get water from wells. Why such a difference?
I can not understand why we even have surfside home owners association. What exactly do they do? I know I’ve said this before but they are not a water department. (Especially when they hire within). And still problems with asbestosis. There is zero security. Really all we get without a headache is we are able to drop off our garbage. Is there some way I can opt out of surfside home owners association?
George, I agree the Water Dept.should be a focus for a knowledgeable dept. head. I certainly agree that Clancy has his own agenda, insists on having his hands into everything, and is a spendthrift. But the water sourcing is just a simple fact, wells in an area such as ours tap out. Don't know another thing about it, as to how far apart wells need to be or how it is determined. I think the aquifers can be mapped somehow.
Obviously, wells have had to be abandoned and capped in Surfside. Drilling wells is expensive, so it can be used as political issue. What or who decides when a new well is needed ?
The big question is really, does the Board give a rat's behind what the members think about this? It seems very central to me, to how things work in this community. Is a Bus. manager needed ? The community has gone all-in on the deputy, so this would be a good time to give the Tree Policy obsession a time-out, a 2 year moratorium or so. Without needing to address hundreds of tree-related cases, there will be very few compliance issues, and no need for a compliance Czar. Reber gone, Enforcement can easily be handled without needing to burden the Bus. office.
If the plan is to spend big time on a deputy, we're all-in on preventing serious crimes in Surfside. We don't need to sweat the little stuff. "That tree is 8 inches too tall !!" Think anyone can be so practical, re-thinking policies and enforcement attitudes ? There are so many possibilities that grow from a positive approach instead of the consistent power-trip that alienates the members.
Yes. When you receive your dues and assessments invoice, send the invoice back with a letter stating you opt out of surfside home owners association.
Not hard to find data to AGAIN...the well is not going to "tap out".
There does not appear to have been any long-term decline of the water table of the sand aquifer from 1974-92. Ground-water levels measured at three east-west cross sections in 1974-75 were at about the same altitude as water levels measured in 1992.
Scrap the high dollar deputy, this HUGE expense is not worth it. This HOA is extremely tone deaf to its members and their concerns.
Several times Bill Neal respond to my questions on well water draw down, especially in the Summer. He stated that it was not a problem. The later talk of a "new well field" was an excuse to relocate the well field mess. The bible camp location just happens to be at the end of the North Beach water line.
My question was why is Surfside water so crappy when North Beach water is so good if they both come from wells. Something does not make sense.
5:14....Why "anonymous"? I didn't say that the aquifer is being tapped-out, as I haven't heard anything about overall capacity. I can only go on what I have heard and witnessed, that the wells off of G St. were capped and the pumphouse abandoned (burned down in 2019). Multiple wells have been abandoned and capped in Surfside.
I have heard of concerns regarding the shallow aquifer and the potential for saltwater incursion, as well as contaminants from the heavy concentration of Septic tanks in the community. Just to say, this aspect of our community infrastructure benefits from careful monitoring, and knowledgeable management. Politics surely figure into some Trustee's point of view.
The residents recently added to our Water District do not own property in Surfside, but adjacent to it. My understanding was, that their wells were failing in some way, and were no longer reliable sources of use able water. Given this phenomenon, Surfside supply is bound to border on N. Beach supplied neighborhoods, and in the long run, some degree of coordination is to be expected.
Blah, blah, blah. I have no idea what you're saying.
I think what he saying, though I could be mistaken, is that Surfside and north beach will eventually merge. Steve has a tendency to beat around the bush so you have read between the lines.
I see. I don't what I'm supposed to do with that. Oh well, it's just a blog of ideas and opinions. I need to remember that.
Been saying for a long time we are heading toward merge with nb. Considering where they located their new offices, new equipment, new pipe, until recently common management and employees being trained in shoa then going to work at nb n seeing our water dept working on nb lines.
I own two lots with one house. My assessments were nearly 1200 this year. Now, if I water my lawn in the summer I will be paying extra. North beach water costs about 600 a year. Less money and better water. Sign me up now!
You don't suppose that's what nb had in mind, with poor quality sub-contract management. They would love to have another 2000 sheep to shear. This issue needs some time-distance from nb water to settle out.
Getting back to the sheriff, the crime seems to be outside of Surfside. So it seems logical that the sheriff should be where the crime is, before it oozes into Surfside.
It's too bad the sheriff won't investigate all the Surfside wa rcw violations.
A water company steering sheep, wth.
I wonder if people will attack anonymity again today.
Sheep are anonymous too.
The residents recently added to our Water District do not own property in Surfside, but adjacent to it. My understanding was, that their wells were failing in some way, and were no longer reliable sources of use able water.
Your understanding? Gimme a break...stop spewing innuendo and stick to facts. I posted facts and you just cannot accept that the wells are not going to "tap out".
You continue to advocate tree management kills trees, that views are not protected, and now our well field is tapped out. I have posted verifiable claims but you dismiss them out-of-hand. So tell me Mr Cox, besides court decisions, expert data on managing trees, and documented well testing results, what would it take to change your "understanding"?
Good luck with that 2:45. I don't know how long you have been on here but you know what's coming, right?
@3:38 - could it be a 7 paragraph response from Mr. Cox detailing how he is right and everyone else is wrong. And, if you are wrong, you must be a Trump supporter. There may possibly be a few insults and name calling involved... Prepare yourself to learn about tree trimming, views, how the board has wronged him. Am I close?
353 - talking to yourself?
Maybe if this organization should follow their own rules, and put Steve on the board, we wouldn't have so much loose talk out here.
Your typical bullying is seen for what it is, and adding gaslighting to it doesn't make it any prettier. Kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.
@546
Glad to see your bromance is flourishing.
You and Steve should be happy together as you have so much in common, including accusing others of the very things you practice.
Keep shucking.
The Faction
What a trip. I just explained that I have no reason to claim the aquifer is tapped out, but see evidence of individual wells needing to be abandoned. How about your wise ass explains why the well field across from the playground was shut down and capped ? Why were the folks in the nearby neighborhood desperate to get hooked-up to Surfside water, and their wells no longer reliable ?
I don't think you know diddly about this. Only an idiot would claim that topping trees doesn't damage/kill them. Yes, it is possible to train these trees to remain short, if trimmed constantly, though the plots limited to the shortest maximum height essentially all die.
And yes, 3:53, I was shafted by the BOT because they are AFRAID of differing opinions, and you apparently think that's fine. So do I. I'm not complaining, as my time is my own, and I'm not wasting my time in HOA meetings, representing thankless mugs like you. Who the hell are you to be criticizing ? Oh yeah, afraid to identify yourself.
I guess my paragraph count was off, but everything else was accurate..
And... I'm not afraid to identify myself. I just choose not to. I also don't think the board is afraid of you or differing opinions. You have shown that you don't play well with others who disagree with your positions so it is not surprising the board, or any committee wouldn't want you. It takes teamwork and sometimes compromise. Neither are qualities you have shown. I'll wait for a multi paragraph response inclusive of your successful tenure on your Lacey HOA...
605 - its fools like you that will keep us coming back...until you're gone.
639 - you weren't anywhere near here when anonymous posts went away. Your kind can't stand the light of day.
No where does this organization show any type of teamwork or compromise, unless you count conspiracy as cooperation. You support foolishness and incompetence, and apparently enjoy it.
605 and 639
The only fool is you. Apparently you also can't stand the light.
I've been around longer than you.
Enjoy your bromance.
Keep shucking.
The Faction
Pretty much. He added a few Williams all caps too.
6:39....You have a real obsession with talking trash and pretending to psychoanalyze me.
It's funny that you judge my fitness as a potential Board member by the fact I don't put up with your anonymous bullshit on the Blog. Also very odd that you are aware that I have had some success as a board member in my Lacey HOA, and you feel the need to belittle that experience. You are very insecure for taking on the a psychoanalyst role.
Without identifying yourself you're just a nobody, and your opinion has no significance.
Ahh, you are so predictable.
For my being a nobody you seem to always feel compelled to respond.
There is no psychoanalysis, just observations based on your multiple postings here proving my point.
I wonder if Cox will get blogger of the year this year.
Who's insecure?
Tell us the Newsweek headline again Cox.
What can we do about Clancy submitting false tree complaints? I've heard about that and it makes me very angry.
The wetland mitigation didn't cost anywhere near $100,000 to $300,000. It cost approximately $25,000.
1214 - the only thing you prove is your ignorance and self interest.
906 - the bromance continues. Did you enjoy date night?
Keep shucking ignorant one.
Thank you ever-present nutjob. You're a real credit to the community.
I haven't made any reference to a Newsweek headline, and have not suggested anything about Clancy, but have stated that he admits to filing hundreds of tree complaints himself. That is clearly an abuse of a system intended to allow for mediation of resident grievances based on established disputes. The HOA is obligated to accept and address member "complaints" or concerns. They are NOT obligated to act on all complaints.
I have suggested that tree heights be eliminated from the policy as regards views, because no determination is ever made to determine if the complaints are valid in this respect. Tree complaints would then be addressed just like any other complaint - compliance would visit the home filing the complaint, and verify that the tree or trees they are complaining about DO in fact interfere significantly with the view.
That's too bad if that makes you very angry, requiring the complaint be validated just like every other enforcement issue. but it isn't a radical suggestion. As for the wetland mitigation, I had said we had the potential of facing a huge expense, as the County/State had to decide what category our transgression put us in. The community was lucky, and the fines were about 25,000. The community also paid fines initially for improper permitting, and had to pay large amounts for legal representation over the 2 years it took to resolve the issue.
I didn't misrepresent anything on this issue, and stated exactly what I knew when I knew it. I stated on the blog exactly what the final verdict/resolution was when it was finally settled. You've got a screw loose, and can't leave sensible commentary alone.
Nut job, crack pot, can't organize his sock drawer, screw loose, fool, hehehehehe lol!
Good job Cox. You're making positive changes to our HOA ever day. You're really bringing members together. There's a little sarcasm for your Sunday morning.
I bet you'll get blogger of the year again.
I thought your fake national news article headlines were creative. There were three if I remember correctly. They were really bizarre, strange, egotistical, and self indulgent, but creative.
1037 & 1152, same fool - your insult game is as weak as your moral fiber. Isn't it time for you to move to assisted living?
12:14 - What the hell are you talking about ? There has been nothing on this blog that fits your description. So, 11;52 is Riley. Such a nuisance. Guess he's working for community unity right ?
Actually, it looks like Riley has his totally undeveloped lot for sale, on H Pl. Interesting.
All tree complaints are validated. Tree height limits are clearly stated. Given your idea of what constitutes a view placing an actual number is the best and only way to address the covenant.
You are also overlooking the new policy that is doing away with the neighbor complaint system.
New policy. What new policy? There is no new policy.
See folks, another unilateral action by our board with no regard for what the members think. Or maybe they're implementing a "new policy" at will depending on who the members are.
This new policy went into effect last year. The board changed the complaint system to a “compliance “ system. The compliance officer has the authority to file the non-compliance problem with the said member!
So she can start filing tree height compliances with those on J place who according to Exhibit A in the covenents, they do have a 35 foot tree height. That was put in place in 2007
Please advise any documentation that calls out either a complaint or compliance driven method for enforcement. The requirement has always been there. The fact that folks didn't comply doesn't remove the requirement nor give the right to complain when eventually being held accountable to comply.
JoAnne, where is this "new policy" documented? Do you know? Does anybody know? Are we supposed to be mind readers, lol?
There isn't a tree height of 35' there is only the 35' building height. Same goes for all divisions in surfside that has a building height of 35'
The compliance inspector has been out going lot to lot, so they are pro-active now but also taking complaints from members
And seeing her with transdominatrix deLeese or foghorn leghorn clancy kinda skews the data that the compliance nazi makes the judgement call.
@3:38 anonymous. Yes I can. August 17, 2019 regular board meeting minutes. The motion was to direct staff to follow the covenants and be proactive in enforcement of covenants to reverse complaint driven compliance. Motion passed yes-8. No-0.
Thanks @JoAnne
Is the method of enforcement documented in the convenants or any other governing documents? Or does the requirement stand alone without detailing any particular method of enforcement? Perhaps the method of enforcement changed because folks were taking advantage of the complaint driven process and not complying? I don't believe the covenants require a complaint to be applicable (let me know if I'm wrong).
That needs to be documented in governing documents. Not willie nillie buried in some board meeting minutes.
What incompetent, disrespectful, belligerent autocrats!
As far as I’m aware the covenants concerning complaints want changed, but I may be incorrect. I just know from attending those meetings during this time period, the intent was to get away from members complaint about neighbors and be just compliance driven.
@JoAnne - thanks.
Wow, a civil/respectful exchange with likely differing viewpoints just occurred on the blog. Mark your calendar. :)
@5:04 #2, thanks for the return to reality. I'm sure many members are also embarrassed being your neighbor.
I don't understand why it wouldn't be documented in writing.
Those actions directly impact a member's property. Those actions involve money. Those actions could have legal implications or legal disputes.
@7:50 anonymous. I’d say that’s a question for the BOT. You can submit before this Saturday’s meeting via Kimber as in the newsletter. All I know is what was voted on during that August 2019 meeting. Would be good to know this information
We don't have to put it writing how we enforce the CC&Rs. We can enforce them any way we want. We can change the rules at any board meeting we want with just those meeting minutes.
Curious why in the July meeting minutes, Clancy made the motion to approve the purchase of the tree removal at 34205 J place from KJ Tree service, at a cost of $3,243. Why is Surfside paying for this?
I have looked back at all other minutes and do not see anything related to this property.
Just asking a serious question, no need for smart ass comments.
Good question. I tried to look at the meeting online on Facebook and couldn’t find it. Are the live recordings of the meetings available to the members? Maybe I just didn’t know where to look?
10:59....Good question. I recall seeing that notation. As a guess, I know that the HOA had several trees cut down that turned out to be on private property, and the owner was not pleased. Presumably they thought they were on HOA property.
I confronted the BOT in a meeting regarding this silly business of "changing from a complaint-driven system because people didn't like it". Actually, they were receiving a lot of flack over the hundreds of tree complaints that began to materialize a couple of years ago. THEY didn't like being criticized for honoring Clancy's complaint machine.
I pointed out that all HOAs are obligated to enable all members to file grievances, complaints, express concerns, whatever you want to call it. I said that the real intent of the system is to facilitate owner input, and in particular, to offer mediation where owners have disputes with one another. What is wrong with the "complaint system" is the obvious abuse of the system and filing of fraudulent complaints.
What should also be obvious is that a neighboring tree that is 6 inches over the limit but not in the line of sight, is not a valid reason to file a complaint. How the hell would anyone know how high anyone's tree is, such that they would file a complaint ? Which begs the question, how is it that someone, say, Mr. Clancy for instance, has any valid reason for filing dozens of tree complaints ? They obviously are not interfering with his views, and he doesn't have a clue how tall they are.
I pointed out that whatever they claimed they were "changing to", they are still obligated to review owner "complaints" or concerns. That does not mean action is assured, just that they will be checked for validity. No tree complaints are checked to verify that anyone's views are interfered with. And no, measuring doesn't suffice. And dozens and dozens of bogus tree complaints filed by a couple of trustees or owners is fraudulent and wasteful of Surfside resources and time.
The Board members had nothing to say in response - zilch. I said it was an excuse to hire more compliance officers and claim that the community has an explosion of compliance violations, and only one thing'll fix it - LAW & ORDER. This is a ruse. They tried to pull the same thing with the lighting situation in the community, and were stopped by public pressure.
In addition, complaints are not appeals. Someone here is confused.
I sent the KJ tree removal question to Kimber for the board meeting Saturday. I just need an answer, it has never been explained and we members deserve to know why we paid for this.
This is 7:50. I won't submit my question. They ignore all my questions. I hope someone else submits the question.
34205 J PL
KELLY, MICHAEL JOHN
DOR Code: 91 - Undeveloped - Land Address1:
Situs: 34205 J PL Address2: 10118 NE CAMPAIGN STREET
Map Number: S S EST DV-17 07 19 City, State: MAYWOOD PARK OR
Status: Zip: 97220
Why the special treatment for Mr. Kelly? I bet if the hoa had to pay for everybody's tree maintenance, the tree CC&R woukd be much different.
Aaaaaand another mainbreak. Idiots.
Joanne, I took a look at the minutes you referenced of Aug 2019- there is no mention of any compliance of any sort in that meeting. Perhaps it was a different meeting? It just says the motion about your complaint not compliance
If I could send a screen shot I would! August 17,
2019. Under new business. Item #D. I’m looking at my printed copy signed by president, secretary and recording secretary! Look on the official website. It’s right there! You’re welcome
I see it in there Joanne. Motion made by Mark Scott, 2nd by Williams to direct staff to follow the covenents and be proactive in enforcement of covenents to reverse complaint driven compliance.
I sent my question to Kimber this morning. She will look into it. Hopefully she gets back to me as to why this was aporoved
There is no documented evidence that the complaint driven compliance has been reversed.
Fact Check:
In fact the Complaint Form 09-13-17 is still documented and published on the SHOA website. How can that have been reversed after a year, when the complaint form is still documented and published on the SHOA website a year after this sham motion passed?
Sorry for being angry. I'm clearly not a good sheep.
Good question for the BOT! It’s all in the details🤣
In reference to the tree removal at 34205 J Pl...I received an email response back.
This said property was not coming into compliance and Surfside was not getting any response from the owner to comply. Surfside did a judgement and yes we paid to have trees removed, but the owner will be reimbursing Surfside.
They have now set a precedence of the hoa paying for tree pruning. All owners can demand the hoa pay for their tree pruning.
This would seem to be a good case to take to Court. Of course the funds at risk is what the HOA banks on, with their might of the community bank account used against an owner. We all know that this crap is improper, has nothing to do with infringing on anyone on the ridge's rights, or their view. So weird that it is everyone else's duty to placate the J Place owners and this outdated policy.
It's everyone's duty to follow the covenants they agreed to when they signed the paperwork when they bought here. You may not like them but until they are changed you are obligated to follow them or move.
158 - the covenants are currently locked up by a small group of self-interested individuals who care not one whit for the rest of the association.
At some point, Surfside will have the hell sued out of it. We will end up paying for the fools that are currently occupying the board positions.
Ok so tell me this about everyone’s duty to follow the covenants! Our lights are in compliance per the board March 2020, but yet you can drive anywhere in Surfside and see lights out of compliance. Most of those lights have been out if compliance way before we received our non- compliance letter July 2019. There is definitely a pattern as to what covenants are being targeted!
Who will sue us?
I support the IDA. Why won't the SURFSIDE CHAT blog members support it?
352 - the first member that has a grievance, driven by an illegitimate complaint, and the legal means to pursue it.
You were targeted! I see those same party lights throughout surfside.
As I’ve indicated previously, this is identified as “selective enforcement”. Highly illegal !
I actually agree with most of what you said JoAnne. The HOA for years has had what you call selective enforcement due to the fact that we were a complaint driven HOA. Yes, there are lights like yours around but not all bother their neighbors like yours did. We have someone in our area that as filed lighting complaints and I'm sure she would have filed one against you also. It's no different with the trees. There are some places where it is obvious that the trees are above height but haven't received a complaint.
So given your statement you must be in favor of what's going on with having ALL properties being reviewed and making sure they are compliant to the convents. That way everyone will be treated equal.
Selective enforcement was the result of the preference of the Compliance Officer and/or the input of certain Trustees. Allowing a complaint's author to remain anonymous to the subject of the complaint has its' practicality, but there is no excuse for allowing multiple complaints filed by a single member/Trustee, and pretending enforcement doesn't know who filed them. That is b.s..
The only failing of the "complaint system" is that it was allowed to be used for fraudulent claims. It also was not honest to say that the HOA did not initiate violation letters without a written complaint. This was never a written requirement in our covenants. The HOA can issue a non-compliance notice whenever they feel it's appropriate, and have.
Surfside is a community of about 2050 memberships, but functionally speaking, has only a few hundred residents present in the community more than half of the year. So all of this proactive covenant enforcement, a fulltime Compliance Officer, and a fulltime Deputy Sheriff, is an absurd waste of money and resources. This is f*ing ridiculous !
Functionality speaking? A few hundred?
My word. Unbelievable.
Steve, the board policy on complaints is in the operations manual and it does say only written complaints are accepted, so maybe you should do a little mote research before you make false statements
3:21, I can't wait to read Cox's response. He'll likely criticize your reading comprehension and say you misinterpreted what he rambled on about. We'll see.
@3:21 anonymous. I don’t care what it says in the procedure Manuel, the vote was taken at last years August meeting stating the covenants were to be dealt with compliance wise not complaint. If they haven’t updated the Manuel, that’s on them or someone.
I was at most of those meetings during that time period and that was the conscience of the board. They wanted to go to compliance and not complaint
As far as our complaint/compliance issue, I would have loved to have known which neighbor turned in a complaint! Oh wait at that time we had no full time neighbors and we’re friends with our neighbors, so I highly doubt it was anyone but the compliance officer or board member who made the complaint
Selective enforcement has nothing to do with member complaints. You can’t possibly think all these tree complaints come from neighbors!
Joanne, read what Cox said that is what I was responding to.
Since you can't prove who made the complaint against you, you are grasping at straws with your accusations on who did. We all know there are members who do go around and file complaints so until you know for sure who did please stop blindly accusing people
And we will never know who did because it’s confidential. Except for the times the board packet is published and then you can read it!
421 - trying to control the message for your buddies....again. You people have no shame, and way too much arrogance, which will lead to your undoing.
530 - keep shucking and living in your fantasy world. Your bold predictions of undoing are much like chicken little. Posts on this blog for years have talked of jail time etc. and NOTHING has happened. Just this minority group that keeps talking to themselves and accomplishing nothing.
The Faction
So its okay to list who turned in tree complaints on Steve and Margi,(that complainant was a J placer who no longer lives here) or a fence complaint on the Grays, (turned in by another J placer), yet Joanne is kept in the dark. Seems fishy. Yet these same string lights are seen throughout Surfside. Selective enforcement indeed.
Can I file a complaint against Clancy for not having his building materials match his house? Isn't that also in the covenants to use the same type of roofing and or siding?
Yes, please do.
3:21....I'll check out the Op. Manual for wording on this. Clancy has bragged about his filing dozens of Tree complaints, and no one on the BOT has discouraged this, acknowledged this, or admitted this is an improper and potentially fraudulent practice.
The BOT is charged with enforcing the covenants, and the covenants also state that ALL members are responsible for reporting ANY perceived violation of these rules. I think it is a stretch to actually believe that no enforcement ever proceeds without a written complaint. How would an owner verify that is so ?
Really the issue is a Trustee filing large numbers of Tree complaints which cannot have any bearing on his property, nor can he state with any certainty that these properties are in non-compliance. The number of "complaints" on trees has increased by about 300% in the last 3 years, and I think there's no doubt the anonymous nature has facilitated more than one Trustee or Comm. member's filing dozens of bogus 'complaints".
The BOT follows the covenants and Bylaws when it is convenient, but do not consider it a necessity. That has been proven ! So what the manual may or may not say is not an impediment to the BOT doing whatever they want.
Unfortunately, there is nothing stating how many complaints a single member can submit. It also states that even guests and non-members can file a complaint. Maybe suggest they change the wording and add a limit to the umber of complaints that can be filed by each member. In the motion Joanne referred to it states that they will move away from complaint driven, but did not clarify how or when that would be done.
Anonymous 2:06. Unfortunately this is true! When we received our complaint last July and I started really going through the covenants and by-laws this really shocked me. Why should anyone who is not a member be allowed to lodge a complaint? Made no sense to me then or now!
The members being able to file unlimited complaints should be addressed also. We were told last year that an enormous amount of the complaints were filed by BOT members riding with the compliance officer. I don’t know if this is true but it was stated by the general manager. He also told us we were a “test” case for the lighting covenant. Again all I can state is what was said to my husband and myself
Evidently it has never made completely clear when this change from complaints to compliance would take place. All I know is what it states in last August meeting minutes
A complaint is just one method to highlight a non-compliance. It is not, nor has ever been documented in any governing document that compliance would be done solely by complaint.
The members need to know how compliance is enforced! I am part owner of this shithole. I am not a servant or subordinate to anybody.
Anonymous 6:12 I guess you’ll have to show me where it says any other method rather than complaint is used to bring a covenant into compliance. 6.0 restrictive covenant enforcement. States under 6.3a how alleged violations are to be reported. Please let me know where you’ve found any other documentation. How else would it be done? Even when found by the compliance officer, it’s done in the form of a complaint.
@JoAnne - thanks - I'll take a closer look. My recollection is that the wording was such that it wasn't exclusive to having to make a complaint (meaning that members are obligated to comply whether or not there is a complaint) but perhaps I need to refresh my understanding.
@JoAnne - I read 6.1 as the method of enforcement only being constrained to what is limited by law or equity. The fact that the complaint method is detailed doesn't mean it is the sole method. Further, 6.2 clearly states that compliance is required regardless of whether complaints are filed or not.
6.1 General. This Section 6 establishes the general mechanism for enforcing these covenants. The Board may adopt procedures, policies and methods to implement these enforcement provisions. The Association may enforce the covenants through any one or more of the methods authorized by this Section 6 or in any other manner available in law or in equity.
6.2 Compliance Required. All members shall comply with these covenants.
Yes we are obliged under the covenants to comply with said covenants but to bring a non-compliance issue to notice takes a complaint. The motion by the board last year was their desire to end neighbors complaining about neighbors and having the compliance officer be there first. I know that seems more proactive but it seems just a justification for another employee.
It clearly states in information about selective enforcement that if a HOA has ignored said non-compliance’s in the past, the new ones should be null and void.
@JoAnne - it is interesting the different interpretations. I'm not seeing the same as you. It takes a complaint to address an issue raised by a member. However, the covenants are not constrained to complaints only, but to any method of enforcement available by law. I'm interested in learning more about your reference of selective enforcement. Where are you seeing that? I am familiar that if HOA's do not enforce their covenants consistently then I believe there has legal precedence where the specific unenforced covenant has been overturned, however I'm not aware of instances where that extended to all "new ones". To me that is the reason we need proactive and not complaint driven compliance. However, like Mr. Cox who is not a REAL doctor, I am not a REAL lawyer so interpretations may vary... :)
@9:36. I realize the covenants say we are to comply to the covenants, but I’m sure unaware of these non-compliance’s being addressed here in Surfside by any other means than a formal complaint. Any method of enforcement available by law? Most of our covenants are more restrictive than county ordinances. Please tell me when any other method has been used? I am curious to know. As far as Selective Enforcement goes, found many references to this on the internet. Too lengthy to try and reprint here and no method of putting an attachment on this blog. Sorry.
Did not mean “new ones” but referring to complaints being filed on old covenants that have been ignored or overlooked in the past. That’s how it was written in the sources I looked at
Thanks @JoAnne - I've also seen various sites regarding selective reinforcement. Was just checking to see if it you saw a reference anywhere in the governing documents. Regarding your question about methods used, I'm not aware of any others but that doesn't mean they aren't allowed (IMO :)).
Thanks for the informative conversation! Very refreshing after some of the dialogues on here! I think that’s one very important thing we need to work to improve here, open dialogue! Perhaps if we had a better understanding of some of the actions of the board or could talk to them more easily, our atmosphere wouldn’t feel so hostile! We can only work on this!
Boy, I have been gone for ten years, but yet the same old stuff and opinions based on faulty info about the water system abounds.
You guys are moving backwards and your current leadership just plain suck.
When are you guys going to wake up and realize that management and personnel were removed 10 years ago, purely for self interests and power.
Time to shake things up and get back on track folks.
Boy do you have that right! We bought in 2008 and it wasn’t the atmosphere we have now! Hopefully we will start seeing some changes in the coming years!
The Pied Piper, also known as Tool, refuses to realize that fact. He trashes anyone who realizes that. Thanks a lot Pied Piper!
Hopefully. Yes, keep relying on hope JoAnne. Hope will solve that.
You know anonymous 9:57. I’ll repeat to you what my grandma Hudson used to say “. If you don’t have something good to say, don’t say anything”
My grandma would say, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything."
It is ridiculous to hope that our leadership will change for the entire membership. It is obvious to everyone, without hope, that these are changing.
9:56....You are incoherent, and no one has a clue what you are talking about. You goy your stupid insults out there though, didn't ya ? Mostly, I try to pass on information pertinent to a given comment. There's nothing radical about my views on Surfside governance.
HOAs are supposed to serve all members equally and fairly. They are required to hold public board meetings, and keep members informed of all BOT actions, intensions, and policy related decisions. Our HOA doesn't meet those requirements, and will only abide by these requirements if the members insist on it.
Though I am critical of the HOA and individual Trustees at times, I have made positive comments about every seated Trustee, and acknowledge each has some expertise to share. The utter hatred I get thrown my way rarely is based on any specific policy viewpoint, but is focused on insulting and remaining anonymous.
No one cares if someone chooses to make a civil comment anonymously, but these empty hateful insults just reflect fear of public discourse and dissent - which is central to a functioning democratic governance. The Tree Policy has been a disaster for the community as enforced. The community's landscape looks pitiful, and shouts "this HOA micro-manages owner's private property on behalf of the ridgetop owners" - about 500 of the over 4000 members in the HOA.
Yeah, we KNOW that there are only about 2050 member households. Couples legally jointly own property, and co-owners are legally Surfside members.
I would simply favor Tree complaints requiring validation that the complaint reflects their VIEW being interfered with. It would also make good sense to limit the number of complaints anyone can file at a time, and annually. But the BOT fully defends and supports the Tree Policy as part of their pact with their election-time supporters. They aren't going to pay any attention to the fraudulent Tree complaints filed by the dozens annually by Clancy, and probably others.
Many things are managed pretty well in Surfside, but the pact to prevent any progressive change, and the BOT's intentions to put major emphasis on enforcement is a serious detriment to the community's overall harmony and desirability. For many years the Business Manager also handled compliance. But there were limited numbers of complaints. Trees grew just as much and just as fast. There wasn't anyone cranking out bogus tree complaints, now up to around 300 a year.
Tree enforcement is the primary legal cost for the community, as stated by one of the HOA's attorneys at last years Annual Meeting. She stated that it had grown many times over just a couple of years. Get rid of the current Tree Policy, and nearly eliminate legal costs - and conflict. Eliminate the need for a fulltime Compliance Officer.
Limit the roster of compliance issues to strictly what is needed, and eliminate a lot of grey areas in enforcement that cause conflict w/owners. Less is more. Less conflict, more harmony and community pride.
The Tree Policy maintains a social stratification, by making most of the community beholden to a few hundred owners on the ridge. That maintains an unhealthy environment that is in violation of State requirements for equity among members.
There's nothing radical about my views on Surfside politics. So it is obvious that all of this hate and disdain is out of fear that other members will agree with my views and wish to alter/update the Tree Policy, and the heavy-handed enforcement that goes with it.
.
Wow Stevie. An 11 paragrapher. That's a new record folks!!!
Yet he still manages to divide us and not do anything to pursue actual change.
Good work Stevie, aka Tool, aka Pied Piper!
Like I said, all you have to "contribute" is insults. No counterpoint, just useless hateful nonsense. Own it fool ! You're a hypocrite.
Yes, own it Cox!!! You're on of the biggest hypocrites!!!!
Also, I'm not a REAL doctor!
Post a Comment