Was the Florida Legislature’s response to the collapse of Champlain Towers South less about avoiding another building collapse than it was encouraged and guided by interests that stood to profit from the resulting legislation? It’s starting to look like the guidance presented to the legislature by the task force had a secondary motive beyond the headline of building and occupant safety. What if legislation could be passed that would put undue financial burden on condo owners in older buildings leading to opportunities for developers to buy out condos on prime property that could then be redeveloped?
Members of the Florida Bar’s task force assembled to guide the legislation have admitted since that while the aim was never to “create financial stress or inordinate burden on anyone” it “would lead to new redevelopment opportunities for developers”. Members of that task force now appear to have been biased even by those like myself who were, at the time, too naïve to suspect that.
It’s beginning to look like our legislators were hoodwinked into passing legislation that would put financial hardship on every condo owner in the state for the benefit of a handful of developers who had their eyes on older condos in south Florida as redevelopment targets. Even our Governor who signed the bill has realized the unintended consequences and has said the new reserve requirements are “imposing costs in situations where it’s not like the integrity of the building is at stake.” Meanwhile condo owners all over Florida including Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral are suffering the consequences of substantially increased fees to maintain the newly required 100%-funded structural reserve. While that may not bother owners who don’t intend to sell in the near term, it is front of mind for some of the older residents on fixed incomes that suddenly find themselves struggling to pay their higher condo fees.
"Since you're a gunslinger, you can't start crying about getting shot." _Chuck D
No comments:
Post a Comment