Are you going to vote?
Just what are we voting for anyway? 4 Board positions with 4 candidates? A budget that takes a majority of all members to reject? The only member win might be that the current Board President might get the least votes and only be there less than a year. Some who will bother to get a stamp and vote, suggest writing in Board candidates. The election and ratification results will be just more of the same. Over spending with no benifit to the members. I expect that there will be a very low vote. The members are not stupid and want to waste their time voting. .
47 comments:
Tossed my ballot, worth more as recycled paper at this point. Wasn't willing to vote for anyone. Williams' statement was pathetic, he knows he'll be re-elected no matter what.
They guarantee each other positions. They will make sure the status quo continues. In Surfside, it's worse than our national politics. Maybe as far as hoas go, they're all corrupt with no hope of not being corrupt.
If Williams gets the 1 year position, I will run against him next year. Our SBOT NEEDS TERM LIMITS
Mariann will not be one of the good old gang, but she will need our support to help her not be destroyed!
Why didn't you run THIS year then 9:29? Why didn't anyone esle?
Same complaints year after year.
There's nothing to indicate that any of the candidates will have any interest in seeking new approaches to community issues.
I think we should reserve judgment on the new Board members for a couple of months. While they may not have the votes to swing issues their way, being new, they may have some influence on the tone of the rest of the Board. They could bring up better discussion and question actions that could bring needed changes. After a few meetings and votes, we will have a better idea. I have seen many newly elected Board members who ran and were elected with good intentions, to only see them change within a year to become just like the status quo. There have been exceptions, but few and with little success. A lack of Board leadership has fostered the same old . With responsibility comes accountability. For many, this is the hard part. We will know in a short time. Maybe we will get lucky and have some new members who will consider all the members in all their decisions and votes. The paying members deserve no less. Being a volunteer, does not entitle you to poor performance. I wish them well.
Until Clancy, deLeest, and a couple others become mentally or medically incapacitated, I don't see any changes. Even then is iffy without fresh blood and ideas. Like Star Wars, there's always a sith and an apprentice. It's too bad we can't have fair representation on the board, either percentage fulltimers/rv'ers, or if we keep 9, have 9 distinct areas of Surfside with rep from each. And now that we can see our election as well as the national works just fine by mail in, make that the standard. I'm sure there would be a group of would be candidates willing to shell out the money for the owners mailing list. Easier would just run a free one from online if all properties in the zip code and weed out the ones you know aren't Surfside. Yeah, you might get a few wrong ones, but a free way to get a good list.
I did vote no on the budget and for the two new folks, but I wonder if it would have been better to not vote, in order not to contribute to a quorum.
The association has the list of the members. They manage to mail out the member dues and assessments ok. The name and address is supposed to be available to the members...Free.. I agree that 5 members could represent the differant areas of surfside. If no one rans in an area, then that seat remains vacant until the next election. This would be a more fair way.
Good Morning Stumpside!
Good luck with the election.
I can't wait until proactive enforcement, attempt two, begins in earnest. The last attempt failed, but the leader was no good. Go cut your trees to protect my view. It's perfectly legal. We will sue you and put a lien against your property if you don't comply with the covenants.
The board members, especially Clancy, don't have to comply.
My question is how did they change the covenants to proactive without calling for a hearing? This should have been discussed in detail about the process
Tom Reber told me they don't have to have a hearing. They don't have to explain the process.
What are you going to do about it?
All HOAs are required to have a process to address member "complaints" or concerns. This pro-active junk is a fancy-sounding term for actively searching for violations to community covenants. This typically becomes intrusive and contentious, most covenants of real significance such as observing building codes and abiding by County ordinances automatically complied to by owners. Non-compliance usually is stuff of no real consequence. Tree restrictions are 95% of the Non-compliance, as it is obvious to most owners that this is a baseless and troublesome set of restrictions. Winegar came up with this b.s., being a former law enforcement figure, and we have heard the "new" candidates echo this as a priority. What does that tell us ? Don't expect any real change in the key area most in need of practical revision. Water Deot. issues are 2nd in priority. Compliance is NOT the problem, but the attitude of the BOT.
Perhaps there are other members who agree with proactive enforcement although I know that would be against the view expressed here.
Many members that I know are for active enforcement. Who wants to make a complaint against their neighbor? Not me. I want the covenants enforced just as the governing documents promised when I bought property in Surfside. I strictly follow the rules and I want all of us to do just that. It is cooperative and friendly to follow the rules. It is unfriendly and troublesome to not follow the rules. I want a responsible, honorable and attractive community with cooperative and friendly neighbors.
The HOA, the board, can enforce the covenants anytime they choose. Nothing has to change for that to be the case. They want a scapegoat or to deflect the blame. Enforce all the covenants on everyone, Surfside. Board, start with setting an example and bring your own properties into compliance.
@ 11:43..I am not retired and do not live here full time just yet. If I want to give 100 %, I should be here more than 50 %. I am not a Jim Flood, who I wish was still on the board actually. At least he made more sense than Clancy and Williams and weineger.
I am not from some high profile company, I do not have big decrees in anything, but what I do have is a heart to try and make things better for the whole community. I do not think it is right to spend thousands of our dollars every board meeting without any long term discussions. Now, its just an idea thrown out there and hey, lets vote...right now. That is complete bullshit.
Oh and I am not for tree height compliance either, let them grow.
4:01PM You want a attractive community, look around at the ugly tree landscape, that’s what you get with
Unreasonable proactive enforcement, and unreasonable covenants.
Put the tree height tree covenany to a member vote. Let all the members decide. The rules and regulations belong to all the members. It is supposed to be the will of the members, not eight or nine board members. They have shown that they can not be trusted. Will we get at least one board member who will call for a member vote on tree height covenant? Probably not, but they will spout ?enforcment. I have NO trust in any of these so called trustees. I propose that they all be removed at the next July annual meeting. Like the country, the people have had enough.
1:02 am sums it up well. The tree restrictions & talk of proactive enforcement is NOT the will, care or concern of majority of members. We generally want to live in harmony and relax in our paradise and not thinking of strife. The board fans the flames of discontent ...
You will comply! We will proactively enforce you! Deal with it!
The Faction
It clearly says in our covenants 9.0. “ that these covenants shall not be amended without prior notice and a hearing for the membership”
So just clarify how the proactive covenant was implemented?
As I said, you will comply!
Many of us on the board and at Surfside are big. We are not little people. Look at us. We don't have to have a hearing. We can enforce the covenants how we want at any time.
People talk about the covenants needing to be enforced, but aside from the Tree restrictions, there are very few instances of non-compliance. Most are issues that could easily be negotiated between owners. There are only a few matters that ever come up, and many cannot be easily resolved by HOA enforcement.
Owners who want to complain to the HOA about "too much" of anything - too bright a light, too much dog barking, parties going too late, too much smoke - are dealing with matters that are best negotiated if possible between owners. These are NOT matters easily resolved by the HOA, and are grey areas that are difficult to judge quantitatively, and in the abstract.
All of the trees in the community are permanently damaged and stunted, and the enforcement of heights is an annual exercise in futility. Get rid of these restrictions and eliminate 90% of the conflict in the community. Get rid of this policy and eliminate the need for a designated compliance officer at $60,000 or more a year.
There aren't more than about 500 people in Surfside for half of the year, and there are no specific guidelines or covenants effecting landscaping, other than covenants forbidding accumulating trash or building materials longterm. Enforcement is not a serious issue in Surfside beyond the pure misery maintained by the Tree restrictions.
I agree that the members should be given the chance to vote on the trees. If the members decide by vote to keep the restrictions, then we can move on to a way for it to be more easy for them to comply. We could also work on plans and suggestions for replacing the pines with shorter growing trees. With a vote, the members would feel that there was fairness. This vote would settle the issue and either way, we could get back to making this a better place. Let the will of the members prevail. It is the democratic thing to do.
658 & 1115 - bigger they are, harder they fall, fool. Had that mental competency meeting yet?
6:58, You really think your cute, just a silly troll.
Why don't we simply plow this Association into the ground, and be done with it?
It serves no useful purpose, cannot control the resources it has, it is simply a cesspool for nepotism and self-interest. It should just go.
Perfect idea! We don’t need all this control! But of course there are those who love telling people what to do and living under a country running every aspect of their lives
A 50-60k a year manager with a business background would be able to do all the requirements and if you based bonuses on savings, would still come out cheaper then what 9 self-proclaimed mini dictators can. Its really going to be sad for all the BOTs family members once they pass on and will continue to be vilified for years after.
As already stated, eliminating the intensive tree restrictions is central to simplifying the primary functions of the HOA. The office manager was also the compliance manager 3 years ago. But how can the current mentality be changed ? The new candidates are focused on this "pro-active enforcement" stuff. The philosophy that more rules,enforcement and penalties makes for a nice neatly tucked in community is a fallacy, and a waste of money and human resources. Intimidation establishes power and a hierarchy, where there is no such need. As others have stated, people want to come and relax at their beach getaway and just get along. That doesn't mean ignoring ALL enforcement, just a very basic set of expectations, which is, less the tree enf.mess, mostly what the covenants establish.
We need to work on things that will once again bring our community back together. The selfish few with their obsession with trees, has divided our community and brought out the worst in some. Most members want a clean and neat community. For the most part, that is what we have. Those who want to bring needless stress to the members, need to be removed from their power positions. The parting of deLeest and Winegar, is a step in the right direction. Williams and Clancy offer nothing but more needless member stress. Some just can't get it thru their thick heads, thaqt we are a "recreational community". It is that recreation that supports the association and makes it affordable. We need to fight to keep it that way. We will never be a gated HOA, nor do we ever want to be.
George, Annette did exactly what she said she was going to when she ran 3 years ago and was elected. You don’t like her because you resigned due to humiliating comments you made about the woman on the tree committee, who were doing what they were elected to do and following the covenants. You have no clue. Annette never missed one board meeting in three years and sometimes attended multiple committee meetings weekly. No other trustee can say the same. Shame on you for continuing the slander on good people who take a lot of grief from those of you and other members that don’t agree. However it is your blog so I guess you can say what you want even though some of it is B.S.
The tree policy is illegal!
@5:04 What exactly did Annette say she was going to do when she ran 3 years ago?
She said she was going to wear the pants for the HOA. The problem is, they don't fit. Hahahahahaha!
That's a lot of whining, considering the very little George said. He has a perfect right, as do all members, to object to the senseless destruction of the tree restrictions. The Tree comm. implements the policy, and has voted to increase the enforcement pressure on owners by threats and fines.
This nonsense of how entirely innocent the Committee members are in all of this is denial, and a flat refusal to see the failed policy for what it is - a power trip that makes J Place owners feel better about their purchase. It affirms that they are the "top of the heap".
It is likely that Annette has done some good things for the community, and reliability and commitment are admirable qualities. But she has been a part of a very control obsessed period in Surfside history, and shares blame for the strange enforcement oriented direction the HOA is set on going. Whatever decisions a member makes as a Trustee is theirs to own, so only guilty consciences need defending.
We have an uncontested election in part because the decision was made by this Board to violate the Bylaws and refuse to appoint a replacement for Chris Chandler. Annette was key in that decision. Appointments have always been made in the past, offering the position to the so-called runner-up in the election. There is no need for an election because the BOT did not follow the covenants !
And the pied piper repeats himself again!
The officers and functions of this HOA remind me of the Trump Administration.
Yeah, the truth has a way of doing that.
Same old B.S. from Cox who STILL hasn't gotten over the fact that Annette stood up to him. How pitiful.
The tree policy had been going on for years. It predates deLeest and others on the current board. To try and "blame" one person or a committee is pure B.S. and those who continue to do so do it for pure selfish reasons only.
The last time the policy came into question there was a large turnout at the board meeting for the discussion along with letters written in, in both cases requesting that they remain. Since then people have continued to purchase property here with these covenants in place. The majority of members continue to follow the covenants. So while complaining about the policy may be popular on a blog, it's not with the majority of the members.
Oh give me a break.
The only reason why the election is uncontested is due to the fact that not enough people ran for for the positions. The reason stated above is nothing more then some ramblings from an obvious egomaniac who like to make it all about him.
I must say, for someone who likes to coitize Trump all the time you sure share some of his personality traits.
Sorry, meant to type criticize.
Like I said, those who defend the continual whittling on the already tortured trees, are in denial. There has never been a community-wide vote on the continuation of this policy. The surf's edge has moved at least a couple hundred yards to the west,as sand has built two ridges of dunes over 29 feet tall. Views of the Ocean are not impacted by trees. That is complete bull pucky. Yeah, it's all about me. You've got a million feeble excuses and must make it personal. This stupid policy preys on over half of the memmber households, and in the face of member lost wages and investments, DEMAND at least biannual tree topping, a cost of hundreds of dollars - to satisfy the ridgetop owner's need to be special. Trees 3 blocks away appear as 3/8 inch high, and do not interfere with views. It's a big lie. The community looks ridiculous and is an embrassment.
Meant to say 20 feet tall. FACT.
Bye Bye Surfside (Stumpside)!!! Like my doctor, I got out of Surfside.
Have fun whining on George's blog, fighting with each other, ridiculing each other, making fun of each other, personally attacking each other, and doing nothing. I know you will.
Post a Comment