San Elijo Hills Fire Safety Compliance Campaign Issue

Here is a campaign flyer from current San Elijo Hills Association Board President/candidate Jeff Tuller and email from San Elijo Hills Community Association.

Campaign Flyer from Jeff Tuller click here to view PDF

or view in Google Documents here

Here is email from San Elijo Hills Community Association:

Subject Line: Clarification About Fire Safety Compliance

Dear San Elijo Hills Homeowner:

I understand homeowners received campaign material that touched on fire safety in San Elijo Hills and suggested the Association is not in compliance with fire safety standards.  This has also been a topic of discussion amongst current Board members and other candidates running in the current election.  This sparked a number of questions regarding the actions the HOA has taken in the past regarding fire safety concerns, and I am hoping the following summary helps clear up any concerns and assures residents that the HOA is in compliance with fire safety standards as directed by the San Marcos Fire Department.

In addition to what is included below, please rest assured the Association is in regular communication with the San Marcos Fire Department and is immediately responsive to requests and suggestions from this governing authority.

Since concerns were first presented to the Board in 2006, the San Elijo Hills Board of Directors has worked attentively toward addressing resident concerns regarding fire safety within the community.  Their efforts included holding special community meetings, appointing a homeowner committee, retaining consultants, consulting with legal counsel, and working with local agencies, most notably the San Marcos Fire Department and City of San Marcos Planning Department.  Throughout this process, the Board tried to keep homeowners informed, responded to questions raised at meetings, and distributed information to the community.  Some of this information is still available on the San Elijo Hills Community Network, and requests to review additional documentation can be made to Walters Management.

The Board of Directors takes concerns regarding fire safety seriously and, in the past, relied on the governing authority≈the  San Marcos Fire Department≈to provide direction on necessary maintenance and fire suppression efforts in order to protect community assets, including common areas, private residences, and community members, from threatening fires.  In September 2008, a designated Board member, along with management and the landscape maintenance contractor, met with Officer Mark Baldwin of the San Marcos Fire Department.  Officer Baldwin works directly for the Fire Marshal and is primarily responsible for inspecting the communities of San Marcos for compliance with fire safety regulations.  The group inspected the entire community, including areas identified as “high issues” by residents. The group took diligent notes based upon the feedback and direction of Officer Baldwin.  These notes are available at Walters Management; however, highlights are as follows:

Overall, Officer Baldwin noted that the common areas in San Elijo Hills were in good shape and well-maintained in accordance with the department’s fire suppression standards.  Officer Baldwin provided suggestions for brush management for both irrigated and non-irrigated areas.  In addition, he noted that the fire department is not concerned with the pine trees in San Elijo Hills as they are planted and maintained on irrigated slopes.  Typically, pine trees are a concern in wooded areas where they are not maintained, they have little water, and they are susceptible to beetle infestations and other diseases.  That being said, he noted that mature pine trees should be lifted six feet off the ground (as indicated in the San Elijo Hills Brush Management Plan).  He acknowledged that the pine trees in San Elijo Hills are not yet mature, and he would like to see the lowest limbs of the trees touching the ground removed at this time.

Following this meeting with Officer Baldwin, the Board of Directors approved the expense of adding three extra full-time landscape crew members to the job for several weeks in order to respond to the direction of the San Marcos Fire Department as quickly as possible.  The landscapers were directed to lift the pine trees 2-3 feet off the ground and complete all other fire suppression work. The work cost approximately $80,000 and was completed in October 2008.

In 2009, the Board of Directors retained the services of an arborist and conducted an additional review of all of the trees planted in San Elijo Hills.  While the Board and the San Marcos Fire Department agreed that concerns regarding fire safety were addressed, it was also important to the Board that the trees throughout San Elijo Hills are properly maintained and did not pose other risks to the community.  In response to this review, the Association spent an additional $100,000 to complete a tree maintenance program, which included the removal of a number of trees along parkways and on slopes.

Homeowners are encouraged to continue to report concerns regarding landscape maintenance to the Association through its management company so that these individual concerns may be appropriately addressed.  Should you have any questions or wish to report a concern, please contact Jean Salvia, Community Association Manager, at or (760) 930-7823.  You are also welcomed to contact the San Marcos Fire Department with questions regarding fire safety.


For the San Elijo Hills Community Association
Jean-Marie Salvia, CMCA╝, CCAM╝
Community Association Manager


  • Thank you Hills Local and Jean Salvia for clarifying and diminishing the LIES of this false campaign of Jeff Tuller.

    We are in COMPLIANCE for Fire Safety.

    I wonder how much Jeff is paying Tom Byrnes to sit on this blog 24/7 and spew rhetoric and nonsense….

    • Jeff isn’t paying me anything. If I was an astroturfer, I wouldn’t use my own name. Instead, I’d do what others, mostly on the pro-recall side have been doing, and post under multiple assumed names.

      I’ve met Jeff exactly twice: at the candidates forum, and at the last HOA meeting. I just happen to agree with him about the issues and think he’s a good HOA president. He and I disagree on the recall. Remember, he has advocated voting yes.

      re the fire risk: There’s a long way between “in compliance” and “best practices”. One of the things that bugs me about Walters is that they always say “we are doing what is required by law”, as opposed to going the extra mile.

      My experience with the maintenance behind Woodley’s, which is interestingly now getting more attention (squeaky wheel gets the grease I guess) tracks with what Jeff has said in his mailers.

      Instead of throwing ad-hominem insults, and making libelous allegations (that I am employed to post here by Jeff is character assassination, and since it’s written, and false, Libel), under cover of anonymity, why don’t you actually make some constructive suggestions for the community, and get involved on a committee?

  • If you want to read what Jeff has to say about fire risks without dealing with rotating a scanned PDF, you can see the exact same text, with links to the supporting docs, on his website:

  • Am I the only one who thinks it’s inappropriate for Walters, in the middle of a campaign for the board, to issue a statement like this?

    Aren’t they supposed to work FOR the board, not try to influence the outcome of the election?

    • No Tom, it is not inappropriate. They have the right to correct the comments made by Jeff. Consider them the “” of SEH. They ARE NOT endorsing any candidates or trying to influence an election. .

  • They work for the community, and I’d think reporting facts from a reputable agency (the Fire Department) to mitigage concern generated from a flyer designed to panic residents about a specific fire risk that simply isn’t there would be a GOOD thing, no?

    Anyway, now that you bring it up, let’s look at Tuller’s flyer. It says ”I will assure we get the right experts to arrive at the correct answer to bring us into compliance with fire safety standards.”

    “The right experts?” “The correct answer?” That’s like going from doctor to doctor until you find a diagnosis you agree with.

    Anyway, the San Marcos Fire Department says we ARE in compliance, and the Association has spent $180,000 just to make SURE it is.

    If we’re going to trust the Fire Department to save us in case of a fire, shouldn’t we trust their assessment of what’s at RISK of fire? How much more is Jeff Tuller going to force the Association to spend on this one issue? This is exactly what folks meant when they said that that the $8000 we’re spending on the re-election is a drop in the bucket compared to what this Board is likely to do when they’re in charge of the Association’s pocketbook.

    • It’s the timing, and the use of a resource that they have access to, but the candidates do not: our community mailing list, that I have a problem with.

      They shouldn’t be interfering in the election, and that’s exactly what this is.

      At this stage, the only reasonable remedy for their interference is to allow Jeff, and frankly all the candidates, to post to the list.

      You didn’t advance anything regarding “likely waste of funds” as a reason for the recall. In fact, this is the first time I’ve seen you actually post about what you think is at stake.

      To me: “In Compliance” is the bare minimum necessary. I’d prefer to see us get to a standard of “best practices”. If that saves even ONE house from a fire, it’s a pretty good ROI against a couple of hundred thousand, especially if the HOA winds up being sued over any losses, as there seems to be ample evidence a lawyer could use to mount a case for negligence if that happens. That doesn’t even take into account the risk of loss of life, as we have many very young children, and some elderly and infirm, living here.

      Apparently SOME homeowners fire insurance policies were canceled because of landscaping issues (source the NCTIMES), so clearly there is room for disagreement about just how good our fire defense is.

      • You’re correct, “likely waste of funds” was not an original reason for the recall; the petition clearly outlines the three reasons.

        But although the petition focused on issues surrounding the previous election as reason for the recall — and are valid reasons in and of themselves, in my opinion — I think it’s completely valid to also use events SINCE the petition (the board’s secret meeting and violation of community by-laws, for example) and campaign material such as Jeff’s flyer, as additional information on which to make an informed voting decision.

        Anyway, to your point, during this recall process, some folks — including you — have questioned why we’re “wasting” $8000 on the recall. I’m only saying — as others have said — that it’s truly a small amount compared to some of the other things the board spends money on . . . and WOULD spend money on, should Jeff Tuller remain on the board.

      • It’s pretty easy, in Morgan’s corner, where every other home in the area would have to burn up before yours was in danger (and fires tend to burn uphill, not down it anyway) to think that keeping spending to the bare minimum required by regulators to mitigate fire risk is acceptable.

        When, as I did, you could see the flames from the fires from your back yard, and you were roused and evacuated at 3 AM, and then when you were let back, evacuated again, it focuses the mind.

        I know you moved here from NJ in 2005 and don’t remember it, but this whole area burned to the ground in the Harmony Grove fire in 1996. It was mostly dirt-bike trails and quarries then, now it has our homes.

        In my experience, it takes constant prodding to get brush clearing and sprinkler maintenance done. If it takes a review and a change of vendor to get proactive, best practices; as opposed to reactive, “in compliance” to be the standard, then I’m all for it, even if it costs more $. That’s money well spent, for improving the community.

        The $8000 is a money wasted on pitting neighbor against neighbor, and the timing of the recall completely premature.

        As I’ve said: if your suspicions about the SEH4 were right, you should have just waited for something actually worthy of a recall to happen, and then mounted the petition. I’d have been right there with you, if they engaged in Nepotism or made material decisions in secret.

      • The insurance companies set up guidelines for the polices. Alot of companies will not insure if you live within 100 feet of any thing they consider a “hazard zone” no matter what the fire departments or any experts say. That has nothing to do with SEH or their compliance. Not a valid argument Tom. I am one of the lucky few whose insurance companies does not have that requirement, however my last insurance had implemented it after the wild fires a few years ago, hence, why I am no longer insured with the company..

      • Sorry – I meant to say 100 yards – not 100 feet

      • I was evacuated early in the morning in October a couple of years ago, just like everyone else. I feared for my safety and the safety of my home, just like everyone else. Not every fire is going to come at us via Elfin Forest or over Twin Oaks, you know.

        If you think that just because I live in Morgan’s Corner I care one bit LESS about the fire risk in San Elijo Hills, you’re crazier than I already think you are. I haven’t see YOU volunteer for the Safety Services Committee or help coordinate multiple Emergency Preparedness Forums and Neighborhood Watch meetings over the years. Hell, until last week, I haven’t even seen you at a single HOA meeting since I moved here.

        And I don’t know where you’ve been digging for your information about me, but I moved here in 2004, not 2005.

      • Haven’t been digging for information on you, I got the understanding from prior conversations that you moved here in 2005. Sorry about the mistake.

        I didn’t insult you, so I’m not sure why the ad-hominem response.

      • As far as volunteering: I’ve been an informal “Neighbohood Watch” and “Disaster Prep” guy in my neighborhood for years, since I work out of my house and can watch what goes on, and have lots of DR/Camping stuff because of my Baja race work.

        As the founder of a startup and the father of two young children, my time for formal involvement has been limited. Each time I try to schedule CERT involvement, there is some conflict between other scheduled events and at least one of the training days.

        As I said, it wasn’t until this recall that I felt compelled to be formally involved.

  • Ron G.’s right.

  • Was Tom Byrne on the “Vote 4 San Elijo” group with Jeff Tuller who did the negative campaigning in the most recent election (Halloween Website, etc.)?
    And who currently sits on the board that will possibly be recalled?

    • It’s Tom Byrnes (note the S), and no, I had nothing to do with the last election, rather than voting in it, and voting for the SEH4. The recall dragged me out of my apathy.

  • Current board members up for recall are Jeff Tuller, Tom Cappellazzo, Michael Young and Mary Russell(the “Vote 4 San Elijo” group).

    Technically, Hale Richardson, the developer representative on the board, is also being recalled (because in this type of recall, it’s the entire board that gets recalled), but the developer intends to re-appoint Hale to the board. Her seat is not up for re-election.

    Candidates who ran in the last election and who are running again are Tim Minjares, Sarah Vollrath and Torin Snyder.

    New candidates are Matt Guardia, Stephen Kirkland and Adam Riffe.

    Tom Byrnes was not a candidate in the previous election, and is not a candidate in this one.

    Hope that helps.

  • I loved his flyer – just another one of his “mistruths.” Of course everyone else knows more than the fire department! I just received another of Jeff’s flyers stating “Landscape costs reduce by $360,000K. As if he had something to do with it. It was done by the PREVIOUS BOARD, which he loves to attack! This guy is a shmuck. However, I fear he will be reelected, but hopefully will not be appointed as President.

  • Tom – do you have to argue with EVERYTHING!

  • This is an interesting report. It seems that Jeff and Mike were charged by the HOA Board to engage this company. What I find interesting is that 2 of the 3 areas that were given a review by this company were in Jeff’s neighborhood, (with one immediately adjacent to his home) and the 3rd area of review was an area not necessarily covered by our HOA. Did Jeff instruct this contractor to specifically cover areas around his house? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to cover 3 different areas in the community? Is this how Jeff will potentially govern our HOA? This report causes me to ask more questions of Jeff to assess how he will use the power and authority the residents will provide him if he’s elected or not recalled.

    • That’s just another one of the reasons voters need to question the conflict of interest issues surrounding Jeff Tuller. He also engaged legal counsel against the previous board regarding the tree issue. People who can’t see Jeff Tuller’s self-serving agenda a mile away are being naive.

      • Jeff has an agenda. He’s been clear since 2007 about what it is, and again in the SEH4 site, and once again in his recent mailers: removal of trees that block views (including his), and implementation of a more fire resistant plant plan, as opposed to the on the cheap Pine and Pepper trees the developer replaced the Sycamores and Oaks in the original plan with.

        It’s OK that you disagree with it, but accusing him of being dishonest, when he’s been remarkably consistent, and above board (to include suing the former board to get the trees blocking the view he paid over $100K for) about what he is for. Accusing him of dishonesty, and the endless character assassination here, is simply uncalled for.

        You can disagree with what Jeff stands for, but he’s been very above board about what it is, and why. The ad-hominem nastiness needs to stop.

  • San Elijo homeowner

    Views are not guaranteed, as per Section 8.13 of the community bylaws. Tuller never pressed this as a fire safety issue until he realized he couldn’t win on view impairment grounds.

    There is no representation that any view exists from any Lot. Each Owner, by accepting a deed to a Lot, acknowledges that grading of, construction on or installation of improvements, including landscaping, on other Lots within the Covered Property and on surrounding real property may impair whatever view may exist from the Owner’s Lot and each Owner consents to such impairment and waives any claim for view impairment. Each Owner and the Community Association, by accepting a deed to a Lot or any Community Common Area and Common Maintenance Area, acknowledges that any construction or installation by Declarant or a Merchant Builder or by other Owners following Architectural Committee approval as provided in Article 10 hereof may impair the view of such Owner, and each Owner and the Community Association on behalf of the Members hereby consent to such impairment.

    • Go ahead and hide behind legality. It’s exactly this sort of “you vill only get ze minimum the rulers desire” crap from the HOA that has led to the election of the SEH4.

      Seriously, do you think it’s fair, or right, that the developer can change from what was supposed to be “Coronado” style California Oak and Sycamore Deciduous trees to (much cheaper) evergreen Roman Candles on a whim, and get the HOA board that was their rubber stamp to approve it, and in the process rip people like Jeff off for the lot premium they paid, which the developer got a goodly chunk of, by destroying their view, and to add insult to injury make their fire insurance premiums go through the roof, and not have the chickens come home to roost sooner or later?

      Maybe section 8.13 needs to be changed along with the ridiculously low threshold we have for a recall.

    • BTW: While views may not be guaranteed, the whole point of having a HOA board that is responsive to the homeowners is to have the HOA take Homeowner’s perspectives into account, as opposed to merely doing whatever maximizes the developer’s and vendors’ bottom line.

      Seriously: how hard would it be to cut down a few trees that are blocking people’s views, as compared to this whole election, recall and reelection mess?

      I bet we’re into more than 10x the cost of what it would have been to cut down those PITA trees that are blocking Jeff’s view (and which, to him, are costing him something he paid $100K for).

      • San Elijo homeowner

        BTW, would it surprise you to know that the HOA was indeed responsive to Tuller’s request? And that he was offered the opportunity to move the two offending trees for only $250/tree, and refused?

        When we moved into San Elijo Hills, we signed a document confirming receipt and acknowledgement of the CC&Rs and Community Bylaws. Jeff Tuller should have been aware that his view was not guaranteed. Are you saying that he should not have to live by the rules the rest of us live by?

      • I’m saying that we have the right to vote to change the rules, and in supporting the SEH4, that’s exactly what the VOTERS did.

        This recall has exposed a lot of other deficiencies in our CC&Rs, that regardless of how the recall goes, need to also be addressed.

        So, we have to abide by the rules, as long as they are the rules, but we do have the right to get them changed through the democratic process.

        The developer changed the landscaping plan and allowed species repeatedly when they controlled the board, and in the opinion of many of us, not for the better. We voted for a change, and before the first meeting of the board, this recall invalidated our vote.

        As far as Jeff not being willing to pay the $250.00, I’m sure there’s more to the story, but I don’t know.

        Frankly, given that people paid the lot premiums for views, I think their views SHOULD be guaranteed, or the developer/builder should refund them their lot premium.

  • When a candidate or HOA board member sends out propaganda without checking with the board, the property manager or the HOA attny, it is NOT appropriate. It is ethically and maybe criminally wrong, very wrong.

    Jeff Tuller has tried to operate outside the laws of the California Corporation code in the past and I am sure it will happen again. Our HOA is bound to these laws and I need to remind Jeff and Co that if you think the HOA insurance will protect you, you are wrong. The insurance doesn’t protect you if you break the laws. I can’t wait to be the first to file suit against his conduct if it happens again. We are watching you!!!!

    • So you love our community so much that you can’t wait to file suit? Explain how that helps anyone?

      • Same way Jeff threatened legal action regarding the trees and his view. That fact has been verified. I guess it is ok if he threatens but if Jason says it, he doesn’t love this community. Again, Tom, can’t have it both ways.

  • Tom,

    You sure know a lot about Jeff for only meeting him twice. Either you are some sort of crazed fan or another secret of Jeff.

    • I can read, and research. He has a pretty large web footprint, because of his company.

      I am who I say I am, and I’m in the phone book. Call me if you like.

      • I just looked him up. He sells stripper workout videos….oh great!!!

      • He sells home exercise equipment and products of all kinds. Pole dancing is a great exercise that has ancillary benefits for the partner of the one doing the exercise.

        Why do you have to be so incredibly nasty about everything? Jeff is successful selling products that people use to improve themselves and their lives. What have you done for anyone else lately, other than vent spleen here?

      • Tom, you must be joking. Do you really think you are in any position to be accusing anyone else of being nasty? A quick look back through your 200+ posts will show some of the most outrageous name-calling I’ve ever seen on what purports to be a community discussion forum.

      • I’ve never accused people of being criminals, scum, shady, or all the other things that have been leveled at Jeff.

        I guess, if defending against libel and anonymous cowardice is nasty, then I’m nasty. What I see is a bunch of people who love to dish it, but can’t handle even a fraction of it in return.

        Recalls are nasty business. It’s one of the reasons I find the “negative campaign” as an excuse for it, and “a fresh start” as a benefit of it, laughable; and since I don’t think Ron et al are stupid or naive, the advancement of them as arguments disingenuous.

        This recall should never have been launched, and must be defeated.

  • Jeff didn’t send out “Propaganda”. He sent out a well supported and researched pievce outlinign what his position was on landscaping and fire prevention.

    He never said that the HOA wasn’t “in compliance”. He HAS said that there are better practices currently advocated by experts in the field, including on a report specific to SEH.

    You, and Walters, just don’t seem to get it: many of us are tired of the same old “we are legal”, de minimis, service level from the HOA. We want something BETTER, and a standard that meets “Best Practices”, or better yet, “state of the art”, in things like fire safety, traffic calming, website and communications, etc.

  • From Jeff’s flyer, he says “I will ensure we get the experts to bring us into compliance.” Doesn’t that imply that he does think the HOA is not currently in compliance? And doesn’t that also imply that “in compliance” is a standard he thinks is satisfactory, if that’s the level he wants to bring us to?

  • He preaches risk assessment and fire expertise, but all I see is a list of things he thinks the community wants to hear. Is he a traffic risk assessment specialist too? He is lying to the community about his resume and credentials. What positions did he hold in risk management? What “task forces” was he on? Trained in Hazard and Risk Management, where? He isn’t being forthright in what he does. He does not do fire risk assessment for a living. What a crock!!

    Don’t try and say that he isn’t selling stripper training videos. I hope the people of San Elijo see what kind of character he is. I’m glad you think pole dancing is great exercise. Maybe they can teach it at the middle school? How can we support someone that clearly sells smut for a living. I don’t see any overweight people on his videos. All those products are junk. Snake Oils and scam products. 6 second abs….really Tom??? Check out his latest creation:

    It is important to know what kind of person is trying to ambush our community. I have seen people like this and they have no ethical boundaries. I noticed it in the meetings when he dodged question after question about his trying to work against the advice of the attorney and behind the backs of other board members. Don’t be naive Tom, there is an agenda and he will do whatever he wants to do without any care about you or anyone else in this community.

    Why do you keep bringing up the fire safety? Do you not believe the fire department? I do. They put their lives on the line and would be the first to tell us to cut down the fire load. I was here when the fires happened and it was a much different landscape. Have you noticed that we have stucco homes and tiled roofs? The common areas are meticulously maintained and loads measured. Do you realize that we have a fire department just down the street too? Fire load is quantitative and it is constantly reviewed. You guys are doing this just to preserve your views. How self-centered can you be? Are you just mad you signed the CC&R’s and did not read them? Let’s just cut down all the trees and look like Long Beach.

    What is your issue with the HOA, or do you mean the property management? From what I understand, they are the best in the business and you want to change that? San Elijo Hills has won numerous community awards and has been a very well run community. What exact issues do you have? That some people speed? Are we going to install radar guns and speedbumps? Oh great, now we can look like Lake San Marcos too. Why don’t you guys come clean with what you are looking to change. This is all just smoke and mirrors.

    I feel like the SE4 candidates are making up all these fake issues to stir the pot. We don’t need self-serving homeowners trying to change the entire community for their own self-interests.

    Just curious, do you speak Latin Tom? You sure like using it.

    • I get it: you don’t like Jeff Tuller, and you think that his business is somehow beneath your moral standards.

      What has that to do with his qualifications for the board?

      What would you do differently?

      What does the number of languages I can read, write and speak have to do with anything related to this?

      Why do you persist in “ad-hominem” which, while Latin, is a widely used phrase in English that best describes your, and the bulk of the pro-recall, posts?

  • Yes, I believe it’s below most people’s standards. Maybe because I have a mother and three sisters and appreciate women. Sorry, but I don’t see where fire training and risk assessment came out of mass marketing stripper videos?

    First, I would come clean and tell the community that there is not a single thing Jeff or the board is going to be able to do about the trees. It is a non-issue since it poses no threat to the community, there is not a fire load to worry about, the CC&R’s are for the whole community, not to be rewritten for a few select homeowners. The city has made it clear the trees are staying.

    Second, I would also admit that there is absolutely nothing they can do to control traffic since it is a public street. That’s right, nothing can be done. Live with it and don’t drive fast and watch your kids. clear and simple. What in God’s name do they think they are going to be able to do? Add stop signs every 50 feet. Make us all drive golf carts? Does anyone have an explanation to this issue? What this new board thinks they can do?

    Third, I would resign from the board before the entire community wakes up to the lies and deception of these characters and end up at the losing end of a lawsuit. Remember, if a board member/s breaks the laws that they are bound to by the corporate code of California, they are personally liable, not the HOA. Our HOA insurance doesn’t cover illegal actions by board members. I wouldn’t hesitate for one minute if something illegal was done by this shady board to take them to court. I wouldn’t sue the HOA, but whoever was in the wrong. The courts don’t like HOA boards that work outside the lines which they already have. I’m looking into that now.

    What exactly did the developer do?

    Jeff hasn’t answered that question. When this campaign came out it was “Problems with the Developer.” People asked direct questions and we did not get an answer. Now it’s “fire safety” and “traffic control” Maybe they will find a new hot button with the people.

    I love the recent post by Jeff saying they saved $360k for landscaping. That was from the last board’s tenure. Jeff has done nothing but send out propaganda and lies about things he didn’t even do.

    You guys are a piece of work. How many posts do you have on here Tom, 200? Wow!!!!

  • Tom oh Tom,

    Tell us how much is Jeff paying you to sit on this blog all day & night?
    It is beyond evident, why any sane person would spend this much time ranting and raving how wonderful he his. Your 200+ ass kissing posts are hilarious!

    Oh yeah, he sells great products…. 6 second abs :Timeless classic
    He’s an infomercial guy! He’ll sell you cr@p, with a big smile. And you buy it all up.

    You TRY to cover up your stupidity with LOTS of big words, and TOO many sentences. Doesn’t work.

    Get a life Tom, or at least a job to fill all your free time. 😛

  • annamarie carson

    oh my, with all the time spent on these blogs all the trees along the San Elijo Road slope could
    have been removed or replaced – in 2004 we new homeowners were told the developers over planted and planted soon- to- be oversized trees for the sake of quick greenery equating with an attractive and quick-selling community. No thought to maintaining the views in the advertisements to quickly sell homes – oh…other than to include the oft quoted 8.13.

    Aside from the trees, anyone care to step forward to stand up for their children and the “distinguished” education provided by “caring” teachers in the schools in SEH – bullying of students is not limited to other students. How about the teachers who criticize students in class, dress provocatively in the classroom, allow cheating to become the norm and show favoritism? When these teachers are approached by principles with parental concerns they respond that they are tenured and don’t have to change. I’m surprised there hasn’t been parental picketing outside the schools. Stand up for your children as well as your property values. If you listen….there is more to hear than the sound of the wind blowing through the trees and the birds chirping on the back fence.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.