Pickleball Controversy

I've been trying to gather more information about the pickleball court brouhaha.  No... I am not an agitator poking into every possible controversial issue to roil peace and harmony in Cape George. 

But, there is unquestionably a history of the
Board opting to make decisions in ways, that are secretive, heavy-handed, overreach covenants, tilt toward favoritism, and encourage favor-seeking.

For instance, the President used the August 2015 newsletter to openly champion a resident and former Board member who wanted a neighbor to clear-cut old growth trees targeted as a "hedge violation". Sadly, propelled by the current Board's absurd interpretation, the resident was compelled to cut all but two of the targeted trees to the ground. The Board's actions were in complete violation of our covenants and completely ignored the windowing and thinning suggested in the Building Rules.

Had the resident targeted by the Board's overreach lived in state, she would have taken the Board to court. Multiple atty's, including those of a prestigious law firm in Seattle, have examined our covenants and written strongly adverse opinions about the legality of the Board's actions. For more about the issue: see post here and another here.

But, back to the Pickleball controversy. If you linger around the mailboxes, you will notice that pickleballing can be loud. Very loud. Imagine you live in an adjacent home, say one on Cape George Rd. or those just above the court on Quinault Loop. You'd be mad as hell and demand a few answers.

As I understand it, there was no engagement of the community as a whole in the decision. No announcement with a clear plan of action. No statement of alternatives. Just one fine day, a crew breaks ground for a new pickleboard court.

Was there perhaps some lobbying behind the scenes by a few "select members" who enjoy the sport...say an ex-Board member or prominent volunteers for instance who feel a sense of entitlement. Totally baseless speculation you may argue... Besides who wants to play the "Grinch" on the issue of a wonderful, fun-filled pickleboard court...  

But the issue is not project worthiness but rather a lack of  community involvement. What other sites were studied? Impacts? Costs? Amenties? Would badminton or tennis have been favored over pickleball?

Noise travels well uphill so did anyone poll
neighbors, research decibel levels, solicit community suggestions, call for a vote, or
even briefly consider adequate bathroom access?

As it turned out, I understand there was a constant parade of pickleballers dancing into the Cape George office for bathroom breaks. Did the office administrator suddenly decide enough was enough. Whatever unfolded, several pickleball players were spotted taking leaks behind the barn until a resident's threat forced a port-a-potty rental.

Reasonably, I think, a few questions should be asked.  What other sites were considered? If not, why not?  Why wasn't the community permitted input... why not a vote?

Was the large open field adjacent to the clubhouse in the running?  After all, it would have been only a few yards to the clubhouse bathroom. There's even a bathroom accessible outside the clubhouse. Definitely more access to parking. And, arguably fewer would have been impacted by noise since the clubhouse site is more isolated from homes. 

Was there an "executive" decision made by our corporate-wannabe Board about the relative benefits to certain residents - both decision to build and choice of site. Another baseless speculation... well, maybe but when Boards go "dark" about decisions and imagine they have some kind of pseudo-corporate purview to do whatever they choose, then there will be dissension.

The pickleball court is an unfortunate example of what can happen when planning is poor or non-existent. Or, even if carefullly planned, nothing is made public. It's also what tends to happen when decisions are made by a Board which doesn't choose to engage the community; is especially opaque about even routine issues; holds numerous closed door meetings; and has no compunctions about dubious interpretations of the covenants and rules.

Coyotes vs. Cape George

A wildlife specialist spoke about coyotes at the latest Board meeting. It was a fascinating talk with some common sense suggestions for keeping pets safe, reducing attractants, and confronting coyote aggression.  A question and answer session followed.

I vaguely remember someone wondering if a "trap and relocate" effort would rid Cape George of this "dire" menace. The answer was "no". Other coyote families would move right in.

What struck me though was another resident who suggested shooting them. I thought at first she was probably joking. She wasn't. Not that I could detect anyway...

Her solution: shoot these opportunists who make an occasional meal of pet food left outdoors and are prime suspects in pet disappearances.

Yep, get out the shotgun and have at 'em. Except the use of firearms is prohibited in Cape George... Whew! The image of geriatrics shooting off shotguns at random hours still leaves me uneasy.
 
Coyotes can pose a danger admittedly...even to humans in rare cases. However, the level of anxiety here surprised me. Potentially, I suspect local cougars could be much more of a threat. Particularly to pets or small children. And on wooded trails even to a lame geriatric or two...

Cougars seem to be rarer, far more elusive, and less vocal though. They're also essential in controlling deer populations. So they are unlikely to rate a Cape George Board discussion item any time soon.

Then there are raccoons which are also known to devour pet food, drown dogs, hiss and snarl aggressively, transmit various diseases, and can cause nasty bites. But, they seem to get a pass too. I guess it pays to be a little less noisy at night!

The speaker covered the basics but here's a far more interesting take on coyotes. The bottom line is coyotes are resourceful creatures and an essential part of the ecosystem in keeping rodent and rabbit populations in check.

They're amazingly resilient too. If they can carve out a niche in big cities like L.A., the alarmists at Cape George don't have a prayer of stopping 'em.

Here's an excerpt of the actual article:

 I've studied coyotes for more than 35 years,
 and along with research and performed by my
 colleagues, we've discovered that talking
 about "the" coyote is misleading. The moment 
 one begins making rampant generalizations 
 they're proven wrong. For example, in some 
 areas coyotes live alone, in other locations
 they live with their mate, while in others
 they live in groups that resemble wolf packs 
 -- extended families of different 
 generations. In these packs there are 
 "aunts" and "uncles" who help to raise 
 youngsters. Coyotes are sometimes 
 territorial and sometimes not. In a 
 nutshell, coyotes are quintessential 
 opportunists who defy profiling as 
 individuals who predictably behave this way 
 or that. And, this is one reason why they 
 are so difficult to control. 

 Killing does not and never has worked. When 
 a space opens where a coyote had lived
 another individual simply moves in. Usually 
 the offending coyote is not identified. And 
 it is ethically indefensible to wantonly 
 go out and kill coyotes because they try to
 live among us, arrogant big-brained 
 invasive mammals who have redecorated the
 homes of coyotes and other animals and then
 conveniently decide that they have become
 "pests" when we don't want them around any
 longer. The Texas governor's utterly
 unacceptable actions come as more cities in
 the Denver and other metropolitan areas are
 realizing that the best way to address
 conflicts with coyotes is to examine our own
 behavior. Confrontations with coyotes can
 almost always be traced to irresponsible
 human actions including allowing dogs to run
 free off leash and feeding the coyotes,
 either intentionally or unintentionally. And,
 it's pretty easy to clean up all of these
 problems and coexist peacefully with coyotes.

Letters to Cape George Board

Thanks to the Board, several letters supportive of the Covenants and preserving trees have been published.  They appeared under the August 11, 2015 "Events and Notices" information packet link on Cape George's website.

See the letters on pages 3-14 of the document by clicking here.


That member letters appeared - even buried deeply - is enough to hearten those concerned about the extreme definition of a "hedge" and the even more extreme remedies being applied for "hedge violations". For more about the issue, see earlier post by clicking here.

In his response to one of these letters, the Board President cites "Lakes at Mercer Island Homeowners Assn. v. Witrak". Briefly, that case involved a homeowner, who although denied a permit, went ahead and planted 12 huge Douglas Fir trees, each between 25 and 30 feet high.  She must have hired a forklift and worked in the dead of night to pull it off!


It was part of an ongoing dispute between the homeowner and the HOA. There was, however, a clear restriction written into the Mercer Island CCR's so her action was impermissible. The court naturally ruled in favor of the Mercer Island HOA. 

This case, however, doesn't remotely resemble what's happening in Cape George. The trees being targeted here are mature trees planted years ago - not ones illicitly planted to circumvent a clear restriction. Our covenants encourage planting vegetation; their language is protective of trees; and building rule 3.2 prescribes windowing and thinning to enhance views.


The Board's extreme actions are based on their interpretations -not of the Covenants- but of subsequent Rules and Regulations. An atty. here points out that "the Board cannot enforce by Rules and Regulations, what the Covenants protect". This is the legal equivalent of going the wrong way on a one-way street.

Moreover, the existing hedge remedies are absurd in specifying the same penalty for shrubs and trees. A shrub cut to 8 ft gets a "haircut"; a mature tree cut to 8 ft gets the "death penalty". The permitted alternative to strip "any two adjacent mature trees of commingling foliage" just equates to a "slower death". This is a clear violation of the language and intent of our Covenants and Rules.

Citing the Witrak case is once more an attempt to justify an extreme interpretation. However, the Witrak case is not on point nor are the facts similar to what's happened in Cape George. Multiple attorneys have pointed this out to the Board over the years. Their opinions are available to anyone interested.  


A "hedge" of 100 ft. trees on the Marquess of Landsdowne's Scottish estate doesn't justify an extreme definition either. Huge trees are not what is commonly intended by the word hedge.  And you certainly can't shoehorn this extreme definition into a Building Rule in an effort to get around the Covenants. Again in the opinion of atty's, the Board's action exceeds their authority.


Imagine the nasty fight that would ensue if Scottish villagers decided in 2015 that the Marquess must rid his "damned hedge of commingling foliage" or cut them to 8 ft. The Marquess would rightly protest. "Well," the villagers might shriek, "our new King can bloody well interpret the law any way he sees fit and, oh by the way, he's siding with us". In that case, the incident would be remarkably similar to what's happening here.    

A more satisfactory solution that would uphold the intent of our covenants would compel a  reasonable attempt at "windowing and trimming" per Building Rule 3.2. The parties themselves could try to resolve disputes with the help of Cape George mediators. 

If no compromise solution arose, an arborist would be hired to specify the extent of limbing that would not endanger the tree's health. All costs would be defrayed evenly between tree owner and complainants. The Cape George Manager would make the final determination of a remedy based on the arborist's report. 

P.S. Here's an example of how effective windowing and thinning can be. This tree used to block half the view of the Dungeness Spit until it was limbed.

  

Trees and Views - A Strange Phone Call

A few days ago, I received a call from the party who lodged the most recent Sunset Blvd tree complaint. She launched into a spiel about supporting neighborliness and quickly pointed out she was all for windowing and trimming trees. Finally, she confided many folks didn't seem to have a good opinion of her and hoped we wouldn't "be adversarial". I agreed and the conversation ended.

Her actions however were in stark contrast to her words. She had offered to help the owner pay for remedying the violation but only if ALL THE TREES listed in the "hedge indictment" were cut to the ground. However, she rejected out of hand the owner's compromise offers to fell some trees and window and trim the rest.

Later it occurred to me that she really may support windowing and thinning in theory. But, of course, she needn't be so supportive if an extreme hedge interpretation by a friendly Board could be used to advance her own agenda. And she wasn't.

All that remained to be done was lodge a complaint to coincide with the sale of the property. The owner living in another state would be more likely to cave in and, in any event, would be compelled to remove any such "violation" to finalize a sale. 


The scheme appeared to work perfectly except no one won. Certainly not the residents of Cape George. Instead of resolution, more skirmishes over these issues loom:

 * The out-of-state owner paid a $2000 bill
   for felling trees + fines on her own.   
   This occurred twelve years after the 
   Board voted unanimously in 2003 to dismiss 
   that party's identical complaint against 
   the same trees. Changing a ruling and then 
   applying it retroactively is capricious, 
   heavy-handed, and almost certainly won't 
   survive a court challenge.

 * The Board's extreme prescription for 
   remedying a hedge violation -- "haircut" 
   for shrubs; "death penalty" for trees -- 
   is absurd and  ignores the governing  
   documents' clear language favoring 
   "windowing and thinning" rather than 
   "topping and other forms of tree 
   mutilation".

 * A divisive issue remains and will almost
   certainly be problematic in the future. 
   The Board has disregarded letters from
   multiple attorneys and likely will embroil 
   Cape George in a lawsuit. Several petition 
   signers who opposed the Board have pledged 
   financial assistance should that happen.

 * Views were not improved at all.


The last is particularly significant yet sadly ironic. I stood on streets "impacted" by the trees on the Sunset property before and after the trees were cut. Other trees on the property, not subject to violation, now back-fill the visual gaps left by felled trees. There's no measurable "view" improvement by anyone's standards.

In addition to this needless destruction of property and expense to the owner, the Board acted to champion a "cut-em-all-down" stance in the newsletter while ignoring a compromise to window and thin; they now interpret a hedge to be as little as "two trees with commingling foliage"; and they assert members "voted" affirmatively for this extreme interpretation. In the opinion of many, including the atty's mentioned earlier, the Board's bizarre interpretations and actions are indefensible and overreach their authority.
 
We would like to be saluting the Board for their volunteerism and efforts on behalf of all residents. Instead their actions have been divisive, their statements disingenuous, and their methods arrogant and bullying. To quote our attorney's letter to the Board:   

"However, when the Board attempts to enforce a rule beyond that found in the Covenants in the favor of one member against another, cooperation is not encouraged but rather favor seeking is, and capricious and arbitrary rulings result".

We will continue to oppose the Board's  interpretation of a "hedge" and their actions to promote felling trees instead of windowing and thinning as the governing rules promote.

"Thinking About Thinking" Talk

I just heard Professor Wes Cecil's "Thinking About Thinking" talk hosted by Cape George University. I know what you're probably thinking... :)

Academic, boring, a few interesting insights, light moments even but not enough to sit for an hour. Not at all. More like entertaining, thought provoking, engaging, memorable. I was eager to hang around at the end for Q&A.
 
The opening scene began about 250 million years ago in the Age of Reptiles when impulses ruled. Then we fast forward millions of years or so later when mankind was in the process of doubling the size of their brains and doing so in short order... a few million years rather than hundreds of millions. 

At some key evolutionary point, man's impulses waned or started to drift toward the societal - a kinder, gentler trend of pausing for a moment to think before acting. Maybe it was a flash of insight that killing someone too hastily might backfire. Express displeasure and give yourself or him/her/it a chance to run first. Two well-regarded books on thinking were mentioned: "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by a Nobel winning economist and "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. However "Blink" was more a popular than a critical success. 

One of the biggest surprises though is, despite all its advantages, we don't really like to think. Even today. It's hard, requires lots of calories, and is very time-consuming. Especially so now with a giga-tonnage of info to fuel (and clog) the machinery of thought.

So we develop strategies to avoid it. We buy into strange myths, join cults with a simpler world view, blindly accept narratives that reinforce our prejudices, then conveniently skip, filter, or otherwise ignore pesky little facts that don't fit. We keep doing it over and over.

That's Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results. A couple of illustrative popular myths were discussed: building more and more highways in the hope that traffic woes will ease or boosting crop production as a panacea for starvation when the problem is mostly one of politics/distribution rather than supply.

Science is much more rigorous and cautious than we usually are. Despite private biases, scientists will abandon theories that aren't supported by evidence. They'll readily admit areas of ignorance, tread lightly, ask tough questions, probe. Unless we're really far gone, we'll usually admit we should do more of that. Science is right most of the time. Our pet theories hardly ever are.

On the other hand, one of science's own refreshing admissions is that the mind is virtually "terra incognita". Most agree that the mind is a wonderful tool but a terrible master. All are victimized by the mind's impulses, quirks, unpredictability, and its relentless assault on peace and equanimity. 

That led to a question about meditation. I couldn't hear distinctly from the back row but I think possibly about meditation's benefits in dealing with random thoughts. A great future topic.

It was a wonderful evening. Many thanks to Wes Cecil and Cape George University.

A Trees and Views Proposal

Just as you settle back and start to enjoy Cape George's beautiful summer views and the peace of a no-fireworks ban, another kind of war erupts. Strictly speaking, the war's been going on for years but has now gotten red hot right along with global warming. It's Cape George's mini-war over trees and views. See earlier posts here and there.

Historically, Cape George has celebrated the need for both beautiful trees and views within the governing language:
 

3.2   PLANT MAINTENANCE

  Members are encouraged to trim all planted
  vegetation so as to promote wildlife
  habitat, prevent landslides and erosion,
  maintain natural beauty, and prevent
  neighboring views from being blocked.  To
  prevent unsightly disfigurement and/or
  weakening of tree structure, trees should
  be pruned by windowing or thinning rather
  than topping or other forms of tree
  mutilation. 

There's also an 8 ft. hedge restriction. Alas, those wanting views at all costs have hijacked this hedge rule for their own ends. The Board has jumped on the bandwagon and is shoehorning trees -not just shrubs- into the category of "hedge".  It's a dark and ugly turn.

If that's not extreme enough, the current Board interprets the hedge rule to include "any two trees with commingling foliage". So any two trees a few feet apart caught in the act of commingling can be deemed a "hedge".

Recently an owner on Sunset was forced to fell 4 of 6 old growth trees as a result. Those who love trees are aghast. Attorneys laugh and urge them to sue. An ugly precedent has been set and there is no peace in the valley. See earlier posts for all the gory details.

I would like to propose another solution that will enhance views without felling trees and align with the language and intent of the covenants. That is cease and desist with the "two commingling trees doth a hedge make" and simply enforce 3.2 as it is written. 

Permit the aggrieved, view-hungry residents of Cape George to file a complaint that view blocking tree foliage is not adequately trimmed and windowed as 3.2 says it should be. The degree of windowing and trimming could be left to the discretion of Cape George's manager. 

It's not a perfect solution of course. One extreme interpretation of "windowing and thinning" could mean "no commingling foliage" and result in denuding half the tree's foliage. The other extreme would be to under-trim and leave no view enhancement at all.  Not to worry! We pay the manager big bucks to make these tough calls without acting in extreme ways that devastate resident property or lead to lawsuits. 

At the same time, this compromise would uphold the intent of our covenants and we could look forward to another peaceful 4th. No fireworks, beautiful views, wonderful trees, Cape George as it could and should be.    

P.S.  Here's the potential of thinning and windowing. This tree used to block half of the view of Dungeness Spit until it was limbed.

 

HOW_TO_SUBMIT_AN_ARTICLE

Welcome to the Cape George Community Resource.


Any Cape George related input will be gladly accepted*

•  To submit an article, either:
  • email to: CapeGeorgeCommunity@gmail.com
  • US mail to:
      Blog
      141 Sunset Blvd.
      Pt Townsend, WA 98368
•  To comment on articles, see boxes beneath individual article 

* submited articles edited only for non PG-13 language

Trees - Board's Aug 2015 newsletter

July 29, 2015

RE:  Trees - Board's August 2015 newsletter

Dear Cape George Resident,

We are writing in response to the President’s remarks in the latest Cape George newsletter for August.  Again, we want to emphasize that we believe most residents, as we do, support trimming vegetation to enhance views as the governing documents encourage:

3.2   PLANT MAINTENANCE

  Members are encouraged to trim all planted 
  vegetation so as to promote wildlife 
  habitat, prevent  landslides and erosion,  

  maintain natural beauty, and prevent 
  neighboring views from being blocked.  To 
  prevent unsightly disfigurement and/or 

  weakening of tree structure, trees should 
  be pruned by windowing or thinning rather 
  than topping or other forms of tree 
  mutilation.

The President, in the August 2015 newsletter quotes two governing documents but omits any mention of  this clear 3.2 directive. Moreover the Board now asserts any TWO adjacent trees with commingling branches may be deemed a hedge and subject to an 8 ft. height restriction!

This is the Board’s interpretation of the hedge rules he quotes. This interpretation is not found in the governing documents at all nor did members "vote" to approve such an extreme stance. The Board apparently believes their interpretation of the rules must prevail and members should not question the Board's judgment.

In the recent case of the hedge violation on Sunset Blvd, the owner was forced to remove entirely (or cut to 8 ft.) 4 of the 6 trees targeted trees.  As noted, cutting mature trees to 8 ft is a euphemism for killing the trees as any arborist will testify.  So, if shrubs are deemed a hedge, the rule imposes a "haircut"; however, mature trees cut to 8 ft. get the "death penalty". This is NOT the “windowing and thinning” that 3.2 advises. 

We also mentioned in our letter, that multiple attorneys have counseled the Board against taking such extreme stances both in 2003 and now again in 2015. If you’d like to see actual legal opinions, contact: derykus@gmail.com or 360-344-2051.

The President writes  the Board is concerned  our letter is “filled with misstatements of fact”. Yet he does not clarify what facts were misstated. He doesn’t defend the Board’s extreme views other than citing vague rules that contain no mention of “TWO trees commingling to become a hedge”; does not refute strong legal arguments against the Board’s actions; and doesn’t promote compromise or mediation. This is neither transparency nor good governance.

The President concludes by suggesting that dissatisfied members propose an amendment at the monthly Board meeting. The reality is the issue is more than a vague building rule – it’s the Board’s extreme interpretation of an existing rule to effectively compel members to kill trees rather than thinning and windowing them to enhance views.

Further, I believe the monthly Board meetings are an entirely inadequate framework for discussion of these issues with only a 2 min. opportunity to speak; very few members even attending meetings; and an obvious lack of even-handedness in the treatment of opposing views. Viewpoints differing from the Board’s are excluded from the newsletter for instance. 

A special Board meeting to exclusively address the tree issue is a far better alternative. The meeting should be mediated to ensure civility; reasonable time limits set for speakers; and proposals given fair hearings. A summary report, inclusive of all views, should be published in the newsletter and amendments put to a vote. 

These issues deserve an open, ongoing discussion – not a short “soapbox” and certainly not the exclusive opinion of the Board in a monthly newsletter. Cape George members deserve better.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Charles DeRykus   (Colony resident)