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.