Letter: Surfside United centers on tree-height dispute

Published 12:01 pm Monday, April 11, 2022

Opinions published on March 23 and 30 focused on Surfside Homeowners Association. I am discouraged by the misconceptions portrayed and ridiculous claims made in these two letters.

I take exception to what was said regarding five of the nine trustees on the HOA board, people I know and respect. Statements made — particularly in the Rose Ehret piece — attribute a long list of goals of ill-intent to all of these board trustees, when in fact none of these claims is true.

For at least the last two decades a small but organized group of owners has sought to dominate Surfside politics, and the community agenda, and done so quite successfully. Their primary objective has been to maintain strict enforcement of tree-height restrictions, keyed to building heights, with the pretense of protecting ridge-top views.

But in fact, the ocean has deposited enormous amounts of sand on our beaches over 50 years. The surf line has moved hundreds of yards west, and two 20-foot ridges of sand now stand between the J Place ridge and the beach. Many new homes have been built on “to mean-high-tide” lots as well, allowed to be 24 feet tall and built close together. So the valid question becomes — how can we justify tree height restrictions ongoing, when it has become impossible to define what “view” is being protected? Our documents do not specify views as being protected.

Meanwhile, the HOA enforcement of height restrictions has greatly intensified, with over 300 anonymous complaints filed annually the last two years. It became known that one trustee alone was filing dozens at a time, simply making random lists of addresses. Yet the J Place-dominant boards have not stopped this practice.

It has become apparent that the tree covenants have created a social hierarchy, with the ridge-top owners at the top. All properties west of the ridge and their owners are subject to constant anonymous demands that they top their trees at their own expense. All member appeals that the policy be changed have met fierce resistance by the J Place-dominant boards, the board refusing to discuss the issue.

Anger and frustration have been building for many years in Surfside, and that finally led to efforts last year to organize resistance focusing on the need for change on a couple of issues. A small group of owners organized an election committee and called themselves “Surfside United.” Four candidates agreed to run as a block, in support of one another, focused on changing the tree covenants, and less oppressive governance. The word got out and the four Surfside United candidates won all four vacant seats.

A former trustee, who ran and lost, formed an opposition group and called it “Surfside Preservation.” She has been sending out “newsletters” to about 300 members, with myriad fabrications and nonsensical claims attributed to Surfside United, as well as the four good people elected last year.

There is no question that the two letters published in recent weeks are regurgitating the nonsense being fed to them by the Surfside Preservation newsletters.

Surfside United is intent on facilitating another successful election effort this July, with only the same basic goals as last year, and not the extensive agenda Rose Ehret and others claim. No one aligned with Surfside United endorses any of the extreme objectives claimed in these letters intent on demeaning good people who see the urgent need for fair and sensible governance, and the end to the J Place-dominant social hierarchy.

The Surfside HOA has been moving steadily toward more rules and restrictions that will justify becoming increasingly compliance and enforcement driven, in a community of largely elderly owners who are already compliant enough. We’re all here to enjoy the coastal beauty and peace and quiet, not to create a “police state.”

STEVE COX

Surfside homeowner