The following is a question that has been submitted to the candidates. It is a good one and deserves an honest answer. This may be the only question asked. There should be an answer from alll the Board members on this, not just the candidates Unfortunately, I think most members have given up on the association to perform in a fair and honest way.
1-Do you believe that it is fair to the SHOA members during these difficult times, to continue pushing this Tree Committee agenda?
2- What is your opinion on a moratorium of all tree compliance complaints for a one to two year hold until our country gets a handle on the Financial affects of the virus?
Update" My submitted questions:
Do you have concerns about administration of Surfside HOA? If so, what are those areas of concern? Do you think that all members are faily represented on the Board and on committees?
30 comments:
Good question, worded much better than mine about the trees!
Keep whining about the trees. Good luck with that!
It is not in our best interest to respond to this inquiry.
I understand 1:38.
It's a HOA covenant, not a tree committee agenda. If you're going to complain about it at least get it right.
Cox, please explain how we have a tree policy again. Like 5:02 states, it's definitely not an agenda.
I hope you have a bunch of spare time 10:02 because you are going to be getting a loooong comment to read.
If you ask j Place owners, they will tell you they are entitled to their "views", yet nowhere in the covenants are VIEWS protected for anyone. There is no rational explanation for having tree heights the same as houses, and the absurdly detailed micro-districting in the regulations. That would seem to make this a restriction that has no demonstrated merit, and so, cannot be defended legally.
The HOA relies on intimidation and its' bottomless budget to prevent any legal contesting of these restrictions. It's a primary focus in recruiting candidates for the BOT each election, and consistently many J Place owners line up for duty. Tree owners should band together to contest this once and for all. It's a fraudulent contention that trees block J Place views, that views are "protected by the covenants", or that there is any definition of what the view is.
Too much reading required ? Golly, sorry to strain yer brain.
I challenge any of you Board apologists to refute, with actual facts, what Steve has posted.
Someone will eventually challenge this in court, at our expense. They will win. Also at our expense.
I need to have something clarified. How long have the tree heights been in the covenants? I think if I’m reading correctly it’s been a long time. So the fact that is being done with such a fury now, speaks of selective enforcement. My view, not a lawyer but would be interesting to see what one would say
I don't feel sorry for all those cry baby wimps who have to kill their trees. They would rather whine about it than do anything. They are to lazy to go to court, where they would easily win. Steve is right about the law on this. One court case and this tree mess would be over. The tree killers are counting on the members doing nothing. So far, it has worked for them. Seems the members get what they deserve. I just can't feel sorry for a bunch of do nothing losers. So. shut up and sit down. Cut down those trees and you will also have a view, day and night....Those ugly houses on the J Place elite ridge.
Interesting comments. So this topic is settled. It's time to move on to less controversial topics.
The funny thing here is no one makes anyone cut a tree down. If owners don't maintain their trees regularly like they should then of course once its 15' over height it will die when cut. So who's responsibility is it to maintain the trees, the property owner. I never understood why regular maintenance isn't done annually.
I found out how to get into the meeting tomorrow bypassing their mute of all of us on Facebook.
No. I tried, but I'm not going to be able to get into the meeting.
WA RCW 64.38
This is a board meeting not a members meeting so you would've only been allowed to talk during the floor comments section. They posted in the weekender to send in the floor comments prior to the meeting. Also the board is on webex not Facebook, its just streamed to FB for the members, so the board couldn't see the comments if the wanted to.
Topping and continual pruning is not recommended by the Arborist Society. Pruning even of shrubs is not wise to do all times of the year. Trees do not require "maintenance" beyond monitoring of their health, as indicated by the appearance of the foliage, or obvious damage by weather or insects. Very few species do not exceed 15 to 20 feet, and none are programmable. Most tree species will not grow in Surfside "soil" or tolerate the climate.
There is no rational argument for the current Surfside policy. No determination is ever made as to views being blocked, and the notion that trees 3 blocks away from J Place interfere with views is preposterous. At this point, nearly all of the community trees west of the ridge have died, are dieing, or have been cut down. The benefits of trees makes a long list. The benefits of this policy cannot be demonstrated.
Defoliation of the planet is a major cause of Global Warming, and a bizarre denial of scientific facts. Trees sequester (absorb) pollutants, and produce oxygen - pick one to embrace as policy, more pollutants or more oxygen.
Saying that nearly all of the trees west of the ridge have died or have been cut down doesn't pass the eye test. And to try to equate the tree covenants here to global warming is just a bunch of mularky. The penisula is far from being devoid of trees. And the statement about there not being trees that interfere with views is itself a preposterous statement. One again a statement that doesn't pass the eye test.
I want more oxygen!
Breath
1:16pm, Please show me proof that J place view's have been blocked by trees.
I need clarification as I have not seen or heard of such cases.
The right to air, light, or an unobstructed view may also be obtained through the adoption of conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Thus, if you are an owner of a condominium, or more likely, a home in a subdivision, the CC&Rs may provide that neighboring homeowners may not build anything to obstruct another’s view. This can be as far reaching as requiring fences or foliage to be a certain height and not made or planted in such a way to prevent others from seeing through them.
You are either not honest or are blind. A tree 24ft.tall appears about 3/8 of an inch tall from 3 blocks away. Get real ! It is truely stupid to deny the effects of Global Warming, and pretend that severe deforestation world-wide doesn't effect existence world-wide. You do not have facts to support your sad denials. You must live on J Place, to be making such lame excuses.
While Surfside is somewhat remote, the prevailing winds channel pollution to the N.W. Coast from the most polluted places on the planet. The failed Japanese nuclear power plants, North Korean Nuclear Tests, and the most polluted country on the planet, China, are ALL upwind. We may not see it, but we breathe and eat it. Healthy trees in Surfside, absorb unbelievable quantities of pollutants, while creating shocking quantities of oxygen. That means cleaner air that's oxygen-rich, in Surfside.
A drive down I street heading north is a "showcase" of Surfside policy, where 12 ft. tall Umbrella trees struggle to muster ANY foliage - acres and acres of dead and dying trees, particularly on the westside, creating a very grim landscape.
The current tree covenant was adopted in 2007. I truly think it’s time for the BOT and the members to revisit this covenant. We need to discuss why this tree height limitation even exists, it can’t be for view. The members who received complaints and have had their lots completely stripped of trees (Im sure they felt no other option) have given us a neighborhood looking nothing like a beach community!
I sincerely trust when the new board they will respond to the members concerns.
I've been watching this for a while. It is clear to me that nothing will happen until there is an attorney with a serious letter and then some legal action. The Board does not need to listen to us because we have demonstrated that we are actually powerless. This is part of a broader problem in administrations all over. It goes: I'm taking this. You can't stop me. So sue me. Shorelines, property rights, waterways, hOA's. No lawyer, no action.
The first person who engages in legal action against the association on this topic will make a lot of money. Our money.
So that's the double bind there. Just make up your mind, because the status quo will not be changing otherwise. My opinion.
You're the one that needs to get real Cox. No where in 1:16's comment did they deny the effects of Global Warming or that they don't believe in it. They just pointed out that in the grand scheme of things having trees cut here isn't going to amount too much and you continually saying so doesn't change that fact. I also would like to point out they made the comment without calling you stupid or lame, but that is just how you like to conduct yourself with people who disagree with you. So mature.
Back to the Global thing. I guess in your little mind you believe that big tree you have on your Lacey property is helping to save the world. Problem is though what little effect it may have is erased bu the CO2 expelled by your neighbors when they have to clean up all your leaves.
There is no big tree with leaves on my Lacey property. And I didn't call the blogger stupid. I said it's stupid to dismiss actions that contribute to climate change. "If the shoe fits, wear it" as the saying goes. Denial is a common "lame excuse", one without validation, just attitude.
Post a Comment