Attending a recent Surfside HOA board meeting felt less like participating in a community and more like watching a closed circle reinforce its own authority. With little to no meaningful opposition, the board has created an environment where dissent is not just discouraged—it is actively punished.

Residents who speak out have reported being ridiculed, targeted, and, in some cases, intimidated through fines or even threats of legal action. This is not the behavior of a representative body; it is the behavior of a group determined to maintain control at all costs. Residents who previously spoke out had a disclaimer emphasizing it was their opinion. Now they don’t even let people speak unless it’s on the agenda they control.

Over time, the board has begun to resemble something closer to a private country club than a community association. There is a tone of exclusivity, a sense that decisions are made within a small, familiar circle rather than in partnership with the broader community. At one point, members even joked about serving  on the board for twenty years—a comment that may have been meant lightly, but underscored a deeper concern about stagnation and lack of fresh perspectives. But also elections that they have turned into a corination  of Surfside candidates. The board stating how last year election was run. I guess Communist China and north Korea do the same thing. Last year there was one opposition candidate.

Last year’s election process highlighted this imbalance. Candidates were subjected to a new board-led questioning in what amounted to an internal interview, with little audience participation and candidate questions coming in  and minimal transparency. Member meetings themselves often draw only a few dozen attendees—hardly a sign of a thriving, engaged community. Instead, it feels as though the board is presenting to itself, reinforcing its own narratives without meaningful input. And of course telling each other how great they are doing. Even mentioning that a member thought the lake never looked better. I guess they didn’t see the dead fish and algae blooms online.  This meeting had three online participants.

Yesterday’s meeting made that reality even more stark. The online audience consisted of exactly one person: me. Two board members were the other  two.  There is something almost comical about being the sole audience member, listening as the board continues as if nothing is wrong. They give each other compliments on great job. It must be nice to be part of the chosen few.

But it isn’t funny. It’s revealing.

And then there was the tree discussion—memorable not necessarily for its substance, but for what it symbolized. Not a single word was said about the widespread destruction of trees in Surfside—yet now residents are being fined for the very dead trees those policies helped create. Even more alarming, they continue to deny the fundamental role trees play in stormwater management and their direct connection to worsening algae blooms. One board member who gave an update on the treatment of the lake to fix the algae blooms. But trees have no value to these board members. They cling to ignorance, resisting any change to tree height limits—even as the consequences become undeniable.

It is nothing short of environmental neglect.

One board member even suggested that trimming trees in riparian zones would somehow fix the problem—conveniently ignoring that the HOA itself removed trees around the lake years ago and drove other  homeowners to do the same through $5,000 fines. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both law and science: trees in riparian zones are protected, and practices like topping or suppressing their natural growth are not permitted. Yet instead of protecting these critical resources, the HOA pressures residents to cut them back. Across Washington, every credible urban forestry plan recognizes the opposite truth—mature, taller trees are the goal, not the problem. S

But also there new crusade to fine residents thousands of dollars for dead trees. They show zero empathy for people who live near the canals and lakes. The disconnect between leadership and residents is no longer subtle—it is entrenched. They caused the dead trees so they should pay for their removal

Ironically, many Surfside preservation candidates have publicly stated that the community needs greater engagement and broader participation. But engagement cannot exist where voices are dismissed or punished. You cannot ask residents to get involved while simultaneously creating an environment where involvement carries risk. I guess they exceeded expectations with one attendee online.

The reality is that participation has dwindled not because residents don’t care, but because many have stopped believing their voices matter. When board members respond to criticism with “if you don’t like it, leave,” they reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of governance. People don’t always leave—they disengage. They stop attending meetings. They stop voting. They stop trusting.

And when member-supported motions are overwhelmingly passed only to be overturned or ignored by the board, the message becomes unmistakable: input is welcome only when it aligns with those in power. Otherwise, our opinion is the only one that matters.

The president emphasizes this fact at the member meeting that there were members attempting to bring down  the HOA.

This dynamic has created a divide within the community. A small group—often those with greater resources or influence—remains comfortable with the status quo. Meanwhile, many others feel excluded, unheard, and increasingly disconnected.

A healthy HOA depends on transparency, accountability, and genuine dialogue. Without those, governance becomes performance—decisions made behind a veneer of process, while real participation fades away.

If the goal is truly to build a stronger community, then listening cannot be selective. Engagement cannot be conditional. And leadership cannot exist without accountability.

Until those principles are restored, the meetings will continue to feel the same: a board speaking to itself, a room—virtual or otherwise—nearly empty, and a community that has largely stopped listening. There has been no real accountability for those overseeing the water and tree committees. When a lake is marked by dead fish, E. coli contamination, and ongoing water safety failures, leadership should be answering hard questions—not clinging to their positions. The dead trees are a direct result of failed environmental policy and not following covenants. Instead, there are no resignations, no restructuring, and no urgency—only board members joking about serving another twenty years while the problems worsen.