Property owner support, tell us how we can help!
All posts posted to this site show up here. For posts just about a particular HOA, go the the HOA directory, choose the HOA, and click on the blog hyperlink. That will show you just the blog posts about that HOA.
For Vendors near a particular HOA, go the the HOA directory, choose the HOA, and click on the Vendor blog hyperlink.
As with everything on this site, please make suggestions as to how we can make it better for you. [email protected]
I emailed this last year to Shawn Humphreys [email protected]; <[email protected]>; Kelly Rupp [email protected]; Lisa Olsen <[email protected]>; Mike Runyon <[email protected]>; Frank Wolfe <[email protected]>; Jim Walsh <[email protected]>; ‘Joel McEntire’ [email protected]; ‘Senator Jeff Wilson’ <[email protected]>; Rian Sallee; [email protected]
I received NO responses indicating that these Pacific County Policies were not in violation of the State of Washington Constitution so I assume they all agree that they are in violation of the State Constitution however it does not appear that any action has been taken to rectify the situation. I feel that the people of Pacific County should all be concerned about this.
Pacific County is giving special treatment to a small Faction of the members of Surfside HOA that I will hereafter refer to as “The Faction”. I believe this practice is illegal.
Pacific County is allowing The Faction, to force others to violate SMP, CARL, The Washington State Firewise program, and the apparent intent of the State Shoreline Management Program, and CARL to top, kill and/or remove their trees and damage their property, property values and safety by topping their trees for the views of about 350 or the 2800 properties in Surfside. They would not be able to do this if not for the exceptions and special treatment that Pacific County has The Faction of Surfside. Homeowners must also suffer higher winds and wind damage, increased amounts of blowing sand, and higher probability of water damage.
Pacific County has allowed this to happen by giving The Faction in Surfside HOA special treatment that then effects the ordinances of the entire rest of Pacific County. This also costs Pacific County as they must then also suffer the cost of topping and/or removing trees on County Property, and this cost is paid by entire County. It also forces Pacific County to violate the Washington State Firewise Program, for the sake of the views of the Surfide Faction. This has gone on for years and had damaged many people’s properties, property values, property ecology, and lives, and increased risk from natural weather events. I understand none of this is your fault personally but you are in a position to rectify or help rectify the situation. I am hoping the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners will correct the SMP and the CARL ordinance 180 to be in compliance with both the Washington State Constitution, RCW 36.70A.172 and the Washington State Firewise Program of which Surfside HOA claims to be following.
The Washington State Constitutions states:
Article I Section 12 SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROHIBITED. No law shall be passedgranting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
State Shoreline Management Act states:
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires all counties and most towns and cities with shorelines to develop and implement Shoreline Master Programs. The law also defines our role in reviewing and approving local programs. The SMA was passed by the Washington Legislature in 1971 and adopted by voters in 1972. Its overarching goal is “to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines.”
The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources including the land, vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic habitats against adverse environmental effects. All allowed uses are required to offset adverse environmental impacts as much as possible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline.
I admit that I have not read every word of the State Shoreline Management Act, https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58.030 but I can find nothing that permits ore encourages exemptions for HOAs or any other person or corporation, in fact as it states above, it appears not to encourage this type of exemptions.
And the Washington RCWs state:
RCW 36.70A.172
Critical areas—Designation and protection—Best available science to be used.
(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.
(2) If it determines that advice from scientific or other experts is necessary or will be of substantial assistance in reaching its decision, the growth management hearings board may retain scientific or other expert advice to assist in reviewing a petition under RCW 36.70A.290 that involves critical areas.
Yet SMP and CARL gives special privileges to HOAs in allowing their covenants to override the SMP, CARL and the Washington State Firewise program. So if a person or corporation owned property right next to Surfside HOA and their property bordered the Ocean, or in relationship to CARL bordered a lake or critical area, that person or corporation would not be allowed to top the trees, but Surfside could per the current exemptions in SMP and CARL. This clearly violates the State Constitution Article I Section 12 .
Also, the “best available science” recommends NOT topping or removing all the trees along the Ocean or the perimeter of a lake or critical area. In fact CARL itself does not allow topping of trees for all but HOAs which clearly indicates special treatment. The Washington State Firewatch program also states to NOT TOP Trees as this causes a fire hazard and can kill the tree. Thus the Pacific County SMP and CARL ordinance also appears to violate RCW 36.70A.290 by giving permission to Surfside HOAs to top trees in the critical areas around lakes and ignores the science presented in the State Firewise Program.
Please see the relevant parts of SMP shown below. Allowing topping or removal of trees or “special treatment” of HOAs violates the intent of the entire rest of the SMP, RCW 36.70A.290 and the Washington State Firewise Program and the Washington State Constitution.
Please see the sections of CARL below and pay special attention to the highlighted parts. I believe this part of Exemption 13 violates that constitution, RCW 36.70A.172 and the Washington State Firewise Program; Topping of trees is not permitted unless specified in an existing covenant effective prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. The part in Red writing clearly violates the intent of the entire rest of the SMP, CARL, The Washington State Firewise Program and the Washington State Constitution. HOA covenants to not overpower state law, HOAs must comply with state law.
I understand that at the Pacific County Planning Commission meeting a few days ago, Annette DeLeest indicated that she felt that because their properties were more expensive than many other properties in Pacific County, thus they pay higher taxes, they (those that live on J Place in Surfside HOA) should get special consideration in the SMP and CARL ordinances and that their interests should outweigh the other members of Surfside as well as the others in Pacific County.
In the recent Shoreline Management meeting Peggy Olds stated that they (the J Place members of Surfside HOA) had a “special deal” with the County. I hope you don’t agree with them that richer people should have more rights and consideration than mid and low income homeowners, when it comes to writing the laws designed to protect the environment and reduce fire danger. I hope you agree that the small percentage of J Pl property owners in Surfside should not be getting the special treatment from Pacific County that they have been receiving in the past. Peggy Olds also indicated that she was elected to be on the Pacific County Planning Commission to represent Surfside. I don’t believe she was elected to do that by the majority of Surfside members as about 1400 properties are forced to top their trees and all 2800 are force to pay extra dues to enforce the covenant, while only about 350 benefit. She certainly does not seem to represent the majority of the members of Surfside, but does seem to represent to be representing her own personal interests as a person who lives on J Pl. and wants to preserver her personal views. She should not be on a government committee with that clearly stated attitude, she should be doing what is best for the entire community, and that is clearly not the case. It surprises me that the County would select someone with that type of attitude, prejudice and blatantly stated self-interest, so clearly stated, to be on government committees. Peggy Olds’ stated opinions are not only elitist, but as many others have pointed out recently, these types of opinions are also racist.
All the laws should be written to benefit the majority of the community while protecting the rights of the minorities. Views are not a right in the State of Washington. All laws should be equally enforced. And all County Ordinances should be in compliance with the State and Federal laws.
We are asking that the Pacific County Planning Commission change the SMP and CARL ordinances to stop the topping of trees in the Shoreline and Critical Areas of Surfside, stop the special treatment of Surfside HOA, and bring SMP and CARL into compliance with the State Constitution and RCW 36.70A.172
There seems to be some discussion about tying the Master Shoreline Program to CARL, I understand this again proposed by The Faction. After learning more about these ordinances, I believe they should be total separate as they don’t seem to cover any of the same issues. If you feel they should be related could you briefly explain the reasons for this?
The attached flyer was given to select people in Surfside HOA. I believe it includes a variety of false claims about the “view” rights of the J PL people of Surfside.
SMP relevant parts.
SMP 1.5 Goals
A. The County’s goal in adopting this Master Program is to recognize and protect the functions
and values of the shoreline environment of statewide and local significance.
B. For shorelines of the state, protection and management priorities are to:
1. Sustain, protect, and restore the native ecology;
3. Anticipate and plan to minimize hazards created by erosion and natural disasters;
8. Encourage shoreline development that complements, and does not damage, natural
shoreline ecological functions.
3.2 Shoreline Environment Designations
A. Natural.
1. Purpose. The purpose of the “natural” environment is to protect those shoreline areas
that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded
shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low
intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-
wide processes.
2. Designation criteria. A “natural” environment designation shall be assigned to shoreline
areas if any of the following characteristics apply:
a. The shoreline is ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important,
irreplaceable function or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human
activity;
b. The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of
particular scientific and educational interest;
c. The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant
adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety;
d. The shoreline includes largely undisturbed portions of shoreline areas such as
wetlands, estuaries, unstable bluffs, coastal dunes, spits, and ecologically intact
shoreline habitats; or
e. The shoreline is designated as a Natural Area Preserve or Natural Resources
Conservation Area and managed by the Washington Department of Natural
Resources.
3. Management policies.
a. Restrict or prohibit uses or developments that would significantly degrade the
ecological functions or alter the natural character of the shoreline area.
b. New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the
capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be
allowed. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve
its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline
modification that adversely impacts ecological functions.
c. Permit access for scientific, historical, educational, and low-intensity recreational
purposes, provided that no significant adverse impact on the area will result.
d. Ensure that uses and activities permitted in locations adjacent to shorelines
designated Natural are compatible and will not compromise the integrity of the
natural environment.
e. Ensure that developments within the Natural environment are compatible with uses
and activities in adjacent (including aquatic) environments.
f. The following uses should not be allowed in the Natural environment:
i. Commercial uses;
ii. Industrial uses;
iii. Nonwater-oriented recreation; and
iv. Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of
Natural designated shorelines.
g. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever
feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
h. Prioritize preservation of resources over public access, recreation and development
whenever a conflict exists.
i. Plan for the restoration of degraded Natural environment shorelines.
E. Coastal Conservancy.
1. Purpose. The purpose of the “coastal conservancy” environment is to protect to the
highest degree possible and, where feasible, restore coastal ocean shorelands within
Pacific County; conserve wildlife; and manage the unique characteristics and resources
of the shoreland areas, landward of the ordinary high water mark on the Pacific Ocean
shorelines of Pacific County.
2. Designation criteria. A “coastal conservancy” environment designation shall be assigned
to those shoreline areas landward of the ordinary high water mark and inclusive of
dunes and adjacent wetlands. These shorelines have one or more of the following
characteristics, which provide a high-recreational value and present environmental
limitations to development:
a. Beaches;
b. Dunes;
c. Wetlands;
d. Sediment sources; and/or
e. Cliffs.
4.5 Vegetation Management
A. Policies
3. Design clearing activities with the objective of maintaining natural diversity in
vegetation species, age, and cover density.
4. New developments and uses should be designed to preserve native vegetation and to
minimize tree removal and vegetation clearing to the minimum necessary to
accommodate shoreline development. Existing trees and shrub cover should be
preserved, and where feasible, restored, to provide wildlife habitat, maintain water
quality, and ensure soil and slope stability.
B. Regulations
1. Vegetation clearing shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate
approved shoreline development that is consistent with all other provisions of this
Master Program and Pacific County Code. Mitigation sequencing per Section 4.2.B.4,
must be applied unless specifically excluded by this SMP or Section 4.2.B.3, Mitigation
Requirement, so that the design and location of the structure or development, including
septic drainfields, minimizes short- and long-term vegetation removal. The County may
approve modifications or require minor site plan alterations to achieve maximum tree
retention.
2. Vegetation within shoreline buffers, other stream buffers, wetlands or wetland buffers,
or other critical areas shall be managed consistent with Section 4.2 of this Master
Program.
3. Where vegetation removal conducted consistent with this Section results in adverse
impacts to shoreline ecological function per Section 4.2.B.5, Adverse Impacts, new
developments or site alterations are required to develop and implement a mitigation
plan per Section 4.2.B.7, Mitigation Plan.
4. Mitigation measures must be maintained over the life of the use or development.
5. Native tree removal in shoreline jurisdiction must be mitigated by installation of a
similar native tree at a 2:1 impact to mitigation ratio, unless otherwise stated in a
County-approved habitat enhancement plan or with the approval of the Administrator.
Non-native tree removal in shoreline buffers must be mitigated by installation of a
native or suitable non-native tree at a 1:1 impact to mitigation ratio. All mitigation trees
shall be preferentially placed in the shoreline buffer, unless the trees provide
connectivity to upland habitats or other critical areas, and shall be held to a 75% survival
standard at the end of three years.
6. Where a tree poses a safety hazard, it may be removed or converted to a wildlife snag if
the hazard cannot be eliminated by pruning, crown thinning, or other technique that
maintains some habitat function. If a safety hazard cannot be easily determined by the
County, a written report by a certified arborist or other qualified professional is required
to evaluate potential safety hazards. Removal of a hazard tree is subject to the
replacement requirements of Section 4.5.B.5. Mitigation trees shall be placed in a
location within shoreline jurisdiction such that a future hazard is not created.
7. Selective pruning of trees and mowing of vegetation for purposes of maintenance,
invasive species management, or fire protection is allowed, provided that no vegetation
shall be removed from critical areas, dunes, or their respective buffers without approval
from the Administrator. Topping of trees for views is not allowed. In addition, treeTree
limbing is allowed for view preservation, not view creation. The removal of tree limbs
shall not reduce overall canopy cover.
8. With the exception of hand-removal or spot-spraying of invasive or noxious weeds on
shorelands outside of steep or unstable slope areas, the determination of whether non-
native vegetation removal may be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction shall be evaluated in
conformance with this section, Section 4.2 Environmental Protection and Critical Areas and Section 5 Shoreline Uses and Modifications. Such removal of noxious weeds and
invasive species must be incorporated into mitigation plans, as necessary, to prevent
erosion and facilitate establishment of a stable community of native plants.
9. Aquatic weed control shall only be permitted where the presence of aquatic weeds will
adversely affect native plant communities, fish and wildlife habitats, or an existing
water-dependent use. Aquatic weed control efforts shall comply with all applicable laws
and standards.
5.10 Dune Modification
A. Policies
1. Recognize the value of dunes in protecting inland areas from damaging inundation
caused by a combination of high tides and storms, tsunamis, the harmful effects of
windblown sand, and flooding losses.
2. Recognize the importance of dunes in providing open space that has economic,
aesthetic and ecological value.
3. Limit modification of the dunes and vegetation to comply with state and federal law,
and to the minimum extent necessary to protect views and property values.
4. Recognize the importance of protecting the primary dune.
5. Recognize that accretions have increased the value and amount of open space, and that
upland development in these areas is not encouraged.
6. Acknowledge that all information is not available to determine the future of dunal
accretion and/or erosion activity, and commit to amending land use policies that
respond to refinements in technical research.
7. Maintain existing beach access roads, parking areas, drainage, and sanitary facilities.
Recognize that the ocean beach is a state corridor in transportation planning activities
and studies and it is a part of the Seashore Conservation Area.
8. Manage beaches and dunes to conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and
where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beaches.
9. Manage beaches and dunes to reduce the hazard to human life and property from
natural or human-induced actions.
10. Recognize that many dune grasses are non-native. These non-native species negatively
affect native dune-associated species, yet they also provide dune stability, which
provides protection from coastal erosion and flooding. Acknowledge the need to
balance the management of non-native dune grasses and in recognition of their
potential ecological impacts and protective functions.
B. Regulations
1. Where allowed.
a. Dune modification shall be allowed only where it will not result in decreased
protection of inland development from damage caused by storm surge, tsunamis,
windblown sand, or flooding.
b. Dune modification to protect views of the water shall be allowed landward of the
primary dune buffer identified in Subsection B.2 and only on properties subdivided
and developed prior to the adoption of this Master Program. Such dune
modifications shall only be allowed where the view is completely obstructed for
residences or water-enjoyment uses and where it can be demonstrated that the
dunes did not obstruct views at the time of original occupancy, and then only in
conformance with this section.
2. Primary Dune Buffer. The following regulations shall apply to a protective strip of dune
land, or buffer, along all ocean beaches in the Coastal Conservancy designation.
a. The width of the buffer shall be measured from the winter grass line, inland two
hundred (200) feet, but not to extend beyond the landward (eastern) boundary of
shoreline jurisdiction. Determinations of the grass line shall be conducted in winter.
b. Dune modification within one hundred (100) feet of the winter grass line is
prohibited except:
i. For ecological restoration, where it is demonstrated that the proposed
action will not decrease protection of inland development from damage
caused by storm surge, tsunamis, windblown sand, or flooding; or
ii. To provide access across the buffer:
(1) For public, community, or joint use of more than four (4) parcels. In
such cases, impacts to ecological functions shall be avoided,
minimized, and mitigated.
(2) For individual or private means, where it can be shown that a
community or joint means of access is not possible and that no
public means of improved access exists within 5,000 feet of the
proposed facility. In such cases, access paths shall be limited to
pervious trails at grade a maximum of six (6) feet in width.
c. The following dune modification activities may be permitted within the buffer but
outside of the waterward one hundred (100) feet of the buffer, provided that such
activities do not result in adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions:
i. Those activities allowed in subsection (b), above;
ii. Public recreational trails; and
iii. Vegetation removal for the purpose of maintenance, fire protection, or
invasive species management, in accordance with Section 4.5 of this Master
Program.
3. Where allowed, dune modification shall comply with the following regulations:
a. Dune modification activities shall be consistent with state and federal flood
protection standards.
b. Dune modification operations shall not in any manner affect or alter the waterward
buffer, as established in subsection (B)(2) above.
c. Dune modification operations shall not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
functions or significant adverse impacts to other shoreline resources and values.
d. If vegetation is removed or disturbed, consistent with the provisions of this Master
Program, within one growing season of the action, disturbed areas shall be
replanted with native dune vegetation.
e. Written notification shall be submitted by the land owner to the Administrator on a
form to be provided by him prior to beginning of dune modification operations.
Such notification shall include the approximate date on which the operation will
begin, the location and size of the area to be modified, a description of the
operation and any other necessary information required by the Administrator.
4. Any structure, including the expansion or alteration of existing structures, shall be
prohibited waterward of the setback line, as defined in the Pacific County Land Use
Ordinance No. 178.
5. The use restrictions defined under other sections of this Master Program shall apply to
the dune land easterly of the building setback line and coming under the jurisdiction of
the Act
C.A.R.L. relevant parts.
C. Authority
1. The Director of the Department of Community Development or his or her
designee(s) shall be the Administrator of this Ordinance and is given the
authority to interpret and apply, and the responsibility to administer and enforce,
this Ordinance to accomplish the stated purposes.
Exemptions 12 e. Any removed tree or vegetation shall be replaced with an appropriate
native species in appropriate size within one calendar year.
Exemptions 13. Minor pruning of vegetation for maintenance purposes, or thinning of limbs of
individual trees to maintain an existing view corridor, when performed in a
manner that ensures continual survival of the vegetation, is exempt. Mowing of
dune grasses within a critical area or its buffer is not permitted, except for the
purpose of fire protection within fifty (50) feet of an existing structure, and except
that mowing of dune grasses within a critical aquifer recharge area is exempt
when no other critical areas or critical area buffers are present. Topping of trees
is not permitted unless specified in an existing covenant effective prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance.
G. Penalties and Enforcement
4. Any disposition of a violation pursuant to this Ordinance and Ordinance No. 165,
or any amendment thereto, shall not absolve a person from correcting or abating
a violation and shall not prevent the prosecuting authority from pursuing criminal
prosecution, other civil action including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, license
revocation, and abatement, or all of the above. If Pacific County prevails in a
separate civil action, the Court may award the County reasonable costs
including, but not limited to, the costs of the responsible officials’ time, witness
fees, attorney fees, court costs, and the costs to the County of abatement or of
enforcement of an injunction, or both.
State Shoreline Management Act
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires all counties and most towns and cities with shorelines to develop and implement Shoreline Master Programs. The law also defines our role in reviewing and approving local programs. The SMA was passed by the Washington Legislature in 1971 and adopted by voters in 1972. Its overarching goal is “to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines.”
The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources including the land, vegetation, wildlife, and aquatic habitats against adverse environmental effects. All allowed uses are required to offset adverse environmental impacts as much as possible and preserve the natural character and aesthetics of the shoreline.
Findings. I admit that I have not read every word of the State Shoreline Management Act, https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58.030 but I can find nothing that permits or encourages exemptions for HOAs, in fact as it states above, it appears not to encourage this type of exemptions.
Patrick Johansen
Chairman of Housing Justice Committee
RiseUpWA LLC
We are not attorney’s. All communications are opinions and beliefs.
Nothing in our communications should be considered to be legal advice.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
It has been some time since I posted here. That because we started a Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/surfside.open
Please join our group. I can also use some help, things you can do over the internet from wherever you are, so if you are willing to help, please contact me at [email protected].
This year please vote for:
Sarah (Sally) Brown
Rick Dunbar
Steven (Steve) Wallace
If you have already filled out your proxy, you can get another from Surfside and send it in. The proxy with the newest date will be used. Do not put you proxies in the Surfside box, mail them in to the election company. I you put them in the box you are handing them to the Faction. The Faction has tried to rename itself as “Surfside Preservation”, but it is still the people as the Faction. The Faction wants to keep power, keep forcing the properties between J PL and the beach to kill their trees. They actually made a proposal to force everyone to allow Surfside to rip out all their trees, and force then entire community to pay for it, all for the benefit of the 350 properties on J PL. I have asked the honest J Placers to come forward and help eliminate the corrupt government. Not a single J Placer has stepped to the plate. I know there are J Placers that disagree with the tree topping, and the corrupt government, but they will not step forward to say so. I am anxious to meet the first one with the courage to do so.
HOA-Review.com LLC
503-781-4492
We are not attorney’s. All communications are opinions and beliefs.
Nothing in our communications should be considered to be legal advice.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke
Thanks for coming to HOA-Review. Please tell us about your HOA! Is it a good place to live or are there multiple horror stories lurking in the files? Does the board fairly represent the property owners? Are all the financials, decisions, and actions of the HOA open and public to all property owners? Is there a way for all property owners to easily communicate directly with the other property owners? Are the covenants too restrictive or not enough? Are the covenants enforced equally or do special people get favored treatment? What are the most wonderful things about the HOA? What are the worst things? What are your suggestions to fix the most annoying problems in the HOA? Tell us anything you would like to share, your comments may improve your HOA for you and your neighbors.
This is the story of Joanne McMurphy
This is the story of Raelene and Steve Schifano, written by Raelene.
My HOA horror story started in August of 2014. My husband Steve and I had just returned from a 3-month trip to Europe, where we had walked a 500-mile trek across Spain (The Camino De Santiago) and visited 9 different countries. We were high on life and wanted an easy place to live, so we could travel the world. Neither of us had any condo experience, so the thought of having low maintenance and a board to monitor our home while we were gone, seemed like a good fit. It was the biggest mistake of our lives.
Right after we moved in, we were fined $250 for our plumbing hoses not being changed inside our condo. How did the board know what was in our condo and when it had been changed? I explained to the property manager that we had an inspection done of the home, prior to purchase and the hoses were fine. The PM decided it was ok and removed the fine. A week later, I received a warning of not breaking down our boxes when we put them in the trash. I knew this wasn’t true but explained to the property manager that if there was a box unbroken, we were sorry, and it would not happen again.
Steve and I decided to spend the spring building a deck, so we could make our patio into an Italian garden. Before we dug up the dirt, I asked the Board President if we could lay the dirt in the flower beds, since they were bare. We would strain it, so only the dirt, with no rocks or debris would be in it. She approved it and we started digging and laying the dirt. Two days later, the president showed up in our backyard, yelling at Steve for laying dirt. Steve was in shock! He explained to her that she needed to speak to me, since we had asked for her approval. When I came home, the president came at me screaming and yelling. I calmly explained to her to go check her email and check what she had written to approve the dirt laying. She called about 10 minutes later, stating not to lay any more dirt. We threw away a 1000lbs. of dirt.
After that, I was targeted. Every month I would receive a fine, so I decided to read the CC&Rs and start asking questions. My plan was to attend the next board meeting to meet them and understand what was happening in our community. The resale certificate I had, stated we could attend board meetings, but I was told the board does not offer open meetings and I was not to attend. This was the first big battle I had with the Board President. She was furious that I would even question her or the board. It took me a couple months to fight to get into the meetings.
Thinking that I must not be the only one that was having issues, I decided to send out an invitation to the homeowners to be on an owner’s email communication list. I went to each home and left a note with my information. Just minutes later, I received an email to cease and desist with harassing homeowners. The Board President sent out an email to everyone to ignore me and that I was a disgruntled homeowner. I was so upset. How dare she!! I owned two businesses in Kent, WA and her calling me a disgruntled homeowner made me sound crazy. Some of my clients lived in the community. I contacted my attorney. I had had enough of the harassment.
To my surprise, many of my notes did make it to homeowners and I had so many replied that they wanted to be on my email list. Over 30 owners signed up and we held our first get together. Even some of the board members participated. What we found out, was that the President controlled the community, and she was not to be questioned. This did not sit well with me, so I asked the Property Manager for all access to the records of the Association. Now the real war started.
Things were getting intense. I was being followed by board members and their minions. One day my daughter and I were walking to my car and the president swerved around us, almost hitting us. Of course, my 21-year-old daughter was in shock and called her a name. I have always stood up for what I believe, but at this moment, I decided to walk away. I told my daughter to ignore her and walk to the car. We sat there for about 5 or so minutes, trying to calm down. As I drove around the corner, the president was in the middle of the road, waiting for us. She was screaming and calling us names. I drove around her and immediately alerted the Property Manager of what happened. I asked to meet with the Board to discuss and try to settle things down. A few days later, I received a fine for $100 for my daughter calling the President a name. I asked what she would receive and was told, they don’t fine board members. I had no idea what the laws were, nor what due process was. The meeting with the board was a joke. The president resigned, then two weeks later, jumped back on the board.
This was the time I decided I would learn everything I could about our HOA, the laws, the CC&Rs and I also started researching court cases that involved HOA. I went on the county web page for all public records. I also, tried to put a no contact order on the President, since she had shown up on our security cameras in our backyard, looking through the window. Our home was constantly being targeted. I had my daughter move in with her boyfriend to keep her out of the drama and safe from the Association Board.
I was denied all access to the records for months. During this time, I asked neighbors for any board meeting minutes they had. I collected all the minutes from 2007-the current date. I read every meeting minute for all those months/years. What I learned was the Board had been violating the CC&Rs all along. They were in violation of the laws. The Property manager and Attorney had taught them how to fine, lien and foreclose. They were fining homeowners for things that were not even in our rules. The board had rules for things that we owned and could not make rules for. The Board was buying and selling homes in Sheriff Sales. They were using the monies of the Association and not putting it in the budget, so homeowners had no idea where or what the money was being spent on. At this point I demanded access to the records. I contacted the Attorney General to help me and found that his office takes in thousands of complaints a year, but refuses to help, since we signed a Private Contract when we purchased our home. Really!? According to Section 12 of the Washington State Constitution, Washington State citizens cannot sign away their rights in a private contract.
I fought and fought to see the “boxes” of the Association. According to the law, I had the right to see them at any time and I would pay for them if needed. The Property Manager couldn’t fight me anymore, so they allowed me in to see the “Financials”. This was only February and March of 2016, plus they gave me some owner’s social security numbers, checking/routing numbers and other personal things. The PM gave me enough information to cause them to be fired in the short future. How does a PM company have the right to violate the laws without repercussions? I even received copies of the PM routing money from our Association to other non-profits. I contacted and sent all information directly to my attorney for safe keeping and initiated a “Recall of the Board” for violating the CC&Rs. Here’s where I learned how much power a board and attorney really have.
My corporate attorney was helping me deal with the board. I couldn’t find an HOA attorney that would even look at our case, because we didn’t have any “damages”. These people were violating our rights and the rights of all homeowners in the property, but no one would do anything about it. There is no governance over HOA and the laws that are written. Civil court is the only answer and if you have no “damages”, you don’t have a case and the Board can continue to bully, harass, and deny all rights. The board is Jury, Judge and Executioner. No one can overstep them. They call all the shots and make all the rules.
The Recall was crazy. I had to get 25 signatures to call it, which wasn’t a problem. The bylaws state the owners must be present to vote. No proxies. Owners only in the meeting. The board hired a police officer to manage me and my attorney. We had never caused any violent actions, yet they needed the police. Then the attorney translated the bylaws to mean that the board could use proxies. Of course, we would lose, due to the proxies did not need to be verified by anyone but the board. At this time, knowing I would lose, I decided to alert all owners to the fact that the PM had given me all their private information. The owners were so angry. The recall was my first loss, but my first victory getting the PM fired. At the end of the meeting, I asked the board to let this go now, so we all could live our lives. The Board decided to fine me maliciously…
Two weeks later, I received a fine for $50 for my husband smoking in our backyard at 4:30am on April 23, 2016. Wow…We were in driving to Utah on April 22nd, so they would be no way to make it back to our house to smoke at that time in the morning. I asked the PM what evidence the board had. They had the neighbor’s text message he sent them at 4:30 accusing Steve of smoking. That’s it!? Anyone can send a text at 4:30am, so where was the evidence? None. This is when I started to make the board follow the CC&Rs. They had a process for Due Process in the bylaws, but never offered it to anyone. I called for my attorney to be present and all evidence to be presented. I want a court reporter and all records shared with the owners. The Board and their attorney refused. Not only one attorney refused, but 3 refused to drop it for six months, costing the Association $28,000 in attorney fees. The day of the hearing, the attorney who showed up to represent the Association was mortified that the board had no evidence and the owner that accused us, stated it was Steve! No one else. The board found us to be not guilty, but our attorney wasn’t paid for, so we had about $15,000 of debt that isn’t considered damages at the time.
A couple months went by and I still demanded to see the boxes of the association. It took 8 months of demands to finally be allowed to see all the financial and records of the Association. 18 boxes…It was a nightmare. Emails of abuse by the Board President to other homeowners, fines for “being black” and so many liens and foreclosures. One of the long-time neighbors had gone along with me and she was in shock. We also found evidence of the board charging special assessments to cover a road project in the City of Kent “LID” for $96,000, but the board doubled the assessment and pocketed the change. There was no evidence of the money being put into the association’s account. I took pictures and kept all evidence.
At this time in September of 2016, we had some water intrusion into the home. We had no idea where it was coming from, so I called my insurance company, and they came out to investigate. This is the first time I had to deal with HOA insurance and found that we as homeowners have no rights to Fair and Equal Insurance. The insurance company couldn’t determine where the water was coming from, so they were willing to pay for the flooring that was ruined. My next email went to the new property manager (This was the third one in 6 months), alerting them to the fact that the water intrusion was coming from the outside of the home. We proceeded with ordering and replacing the floors. The day the floors were being laid, the contractor pulled up half and tested the concrete underneath. The concrete tested high for moisture, so he could not lay the floors. Now we had concrete floors that had moisture and no other flooring. I called the PM and pleaded for his help. He said he would send someone out right away. This person was not certified, it was just a maintenance person from the PM company and without testing anything, stated the water was not coming from outside. Really?!
No one would help us. The board would not repair or send anyone out to stop the water. I contacted the Insurance Commissioner of WA State, but since the Board is the insurance adjustor, they would not help us. WA state has Fair and Equal insurance laws, but they do not apply to HOA and Condo Owners. That is discrimination and not fair. I contacted the Attorney General’s office and the legislators. No one cared. Water was pouring into our home and no one would help.
Finding an attorney was our next issue. HOA attorneys that practice regularly are all members of CAI and would not take our case. When I finally found an attorney, he took our money, said he was going to file a lawsuit for 5 months, but never did. Then he just disappeared. When I received a bill from him after 2 months of no contact, I refused to pay for it. Then he finally answered me, stating he had kidney problems. He didn’t care about us. My search for a new attorney started. The next attorney was young and didn’t have any HOA experience at the level we were at. He did his best, but after 6 months, had to turn the case over to an experienced litigator. Now we had to start over. Our new attorney was a constitutional attorney and between the two of us, we would fight this unfair fight. Thank goodness she allowed me to pay what I could when I could. This was the beginning of 2018…The fight would continue.
During 2017, no homeowners were allowed into board meetings. I found out later, the board and property manager were fighting. Instead of alerting the homeowners, the board allowed this PM to steal funds and deny all fixes on the property. No meetings were held from September 2017-January 2018. Then the board finally hired a PM with ethics.
In January of 2018, I requested a copy of the contract for the PM and the entire insurance policy. The new PM was out of town, so the agent representing her at the time, denied all documents. I had cc’d the PM of his answers not to disclose contracts. The PM sent a message to the agent stating, “Be careful with this homeowner, she sued the Association before.” Unfortunately for her, she replied all, and I received this message. I had never sued the association, so this was a lie. Why would she say this unless the board told her I did. I was furious. I immediately received an email with an apology, but it didn’t make it better. She pleaded with me to meet with her, so we could deal with the situation. I did. She promised to take care of our home and make things right. This was the first time I saw a resolution to our home.
The PM initiated a new inspection with another contractor. They determined all water was coming from the outside and were in the process of suing the previous insurance companies for wind driven rain damage. The PM decided she would start fixing our home. A month later, the Attorney suing for wind driven rain damage, decided that they would not repair the home until the wind driven rain lawsuit was over, which could take years. We were devastated. The board had used our home as their evidence for wind driven rain damage and then refused to repair. We found that insurance laws are not fair or equal when it comes to condo associations. The board is the adjustor and even if we did get money for our damaged home, it would go to the board and they could spend it any way they deemed fit.
Currently, it was May of 2018. We had videos of where the water was coming from, professional inspections done by the board’s contractor and the association taking responsibility for all damages, but no one would repair and restore our home. We could not live in these conditions for ever. Mold was growing in the carpets and in the walls. It was time to file the lawsuit against the association. I pleaded with them to fix the home, so we could sell and be done with them. They refused and we filed the lawsuit for fraud in the resale certificate, failure to restore, harassment and malicious intent by 10 board members, plus other things. Now we wait.
During this time, I was attending all board meetings and recording them for my reference. One day as the neighbors and I went to go into the meeting, the PM blocked be from entering. He explained to me that I wasn’t invited or allowed to attend the meeting. I was shocked! It is against the law in WA to keep any owners out of the meetings. He explained that the board did not want me there and since an attorney in the past had denied my entrance, he was following up on that decision. I recorded the conversation. I walked right in and told him to check the laws. I had always been respectful at the meetings, so there was no reason to keep me out. I had been fighting for Legislative action to change the HOA/Condo Laws since 2016. I had made sure the new laws included the right for owners to enter all board meetings and have a time they can speak at these meetings. The law changed in 2018, so I knew there was no legal way they could keep me out.
It took another year just to get to mediation. I had been deposed for two solid eight-hour days. Beat up by insurance attorneys and the HOA attorney. Both tried to make my husband and I look crazy, as if we had asked to be abused, harassed and bullied by the Association Board. The attorneys did not like that I had turned HOA attorneys in for ethics violations. They said I was the bully for fighting for my rights. Attorneys really don’t care if your home is fixed or if you have been fined illegally. All they care about is the profits they can make off an Association. Attorney’s fees for my HOA were $38,000 in 2014, $26,000 in 2015 and in 2016 they were $28,000. That’s $92,000! We never received the final budgets for 2017 or 2018, but I did order a resale certificate and found over $120,000 discrepancy from 2017-2018 when the unethical PM was fired and the ethical one-stepped in. The board tried to justify the error by stating it was QuickBooks and I wouldn’t understand. I OWNED TWO BUSINESSES! I do all my own taxes and take care of the financials, so I understand QuickBooks.
The day of mediation, it was pouring down rain. My husband and I and were in the office for the entire day, being beat up to settle for $10,000-15,000. Our attorney’s fees were over $68,000 and there was no way we could settle for this. We were so nauseated and upset. The board had been so malicious in making us suffer in a home that was full of water and mold. They delayed, denied and deflected all they had done wrong. Finally, I showed the mediator an email I had from the Property Manager, stating the board and previous PM had done this on purpose. At that moment, the board decided to settle. The Association had to purchase our condo for full asking price, pay for mediation and pay for pain and suffering. It wasn’t nor will it ever be enough to erase the damage they had done.
In hindsight, we are so glad we settled when we did. We would have been hostages for so much longer due to the Covid virus. The day we finally left that home, a huge weight had been lifted from us. It hasn’t been easy, but we are getting better every day. We have endured mold treatments and some counseling.
In the end, I will always fight for the rights of homeowners. No one should have to fight this battle alone and feel that no one is there to help and understand the powers a board has. I work for legislation on the stake holders’ group of WA state and have started my own non-profit, HOA Fightclub to help people for free. We must stop the unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional laws that have held us hostage and take the rights of homeowners away. We shouldn’t have to fight for one homeowner at a time. The legislators have written unconstitutional laws. We need change.
Thanks for coming to HOA-Review. Please tell us about your HOA! Is it a good place to live or are there multiple horror stories lurking in the files? Does the board fairly represent the property owners? Are all the financials, decisions, and actions of the HOA open and public to all property owners? Is there a way for all property owners to easily communicate directly with the other property owners? Are the covenants too restrictive or not enough? Are the covenants enforced equally or do special people get favored treatment? What are the most wonderful things about the HOA? What are the worst things? What are your suggestions to fix the most annoying problems in the HOA? Tell us anything you would like to share, your comments may improve your HOA for you and your neighbors.
Thanks for coming to HOA-Review. Please tell us about your HOA! Is it a good place to live or are there multiple horror stories lurking in the files? Does the board fairly represent the property owners? Are all the financials, decisions, and actions of the HOA open and public to all property owners? Is there a way for all property owners to easily communicate directly with the other property owners? Are the covenants too restrictive or not enough? Are the covenants enforced equally or do special people get favored treatment? What are the most wonderful things about the HOA? What are the worst things? What are your suggestions to fix the most annoying problems in the HOA? Tell us anything you would like to share, your comments may improve your HOA for you and your neighbors.
Thanks for coming to HOA-Review. Please tell us about your HOA! Is it a good place to live or are there multiple horror stories lurking in the files? Does the board fairly represent the property owners? Are all the financials, decisions, and actions of the HOA open and public to all property owners? Is there a way for all property owners to easily communicate directly with the other property owners? Are the covenants too restrictive or not enough? Are the covenants enforced equally or do special people get favored treatment? What are the most wonderful things about the HOA? What are the worst things? What are your suggestions to fix the most annoying problems in the HOA? Tell us anything you would like to share, your comments may improve your HOA for you and your neighbors.