Opinion What should be done with the Surfside property?

[ralphc1]

There is a lot of confusion about the Surfside property where the condominium collapsed. Residents and relatives of residents seem to be expecting some type of compensation. Didn't the residents own the building? How is it any different than if a single family dwelling would collapse? I have insurance on my house but I doubt it would cover the house collapsing because I didn't maintain it. Who do the residents and their survivors expect to pay them? Did they have insurance? Is insurance to cover a collapse of a building even available.

Rosenthal still owes money on the two-bedroom condo he bought 20 years ago, and wants a solution that provides the fastest financial recovery for the survivors and victims' families.
"I lost everything, my life is totally upside down, people I called friends are gone," he told CNN. "I'm 72 years old, I can't spend what's left of my life trying to rebuild. Whatever they do, they just need to compensate people."
He also would like to see some sort of memorial at the site to honor the lives of those lost.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/25/us/surfside-collapse-site-future-memorial/index.html

Who are THEY? It seems like they want the government to pay for a privately owned building. This doesn't appear to be a natural disaster like an earthquake or hurricane or even a sinkhole. So far it appears to be a man made disaster where the owners didn't take proper care of the property. Maybe they will find faulty design or construction which could lead to others having fault or possibly the municipality failing to inspect the construction that could place the blame elsewhere, but until then, the responsibility seems to lie directly with the owners.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael Hanzman has appointed a receiver, attorney Michael Goldberg, to oversee the complicated legal and financial issues involved and explore the land's value as a potential source of compensation for the victims.
Hanzman also ordered the start of the process to sell the land, which could fetch up to $110 million, said Christina Pushaw, a spokesperson for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The judge said this week that proceeds from the sale should go directly to the survivors and victims' families.

There are also people who want the site to be turned into a memorial for the people who died there. They want the government to buy the site.

To me, the land should be sold, the costs incurred in cleaning up the debris taken from the proceeds and the rest distributed to the owners and their heirs using some type of formula related to the value of their unit in the way improvements were assessed.

 

[ICHEERTHEBULL]

People that have been left homeless in the short term should have accommodation provided by the state. Aside from that you kind of answered the question yourself. Insurance companies will be a bitch with this but in the end a building of that age doesn’t just come down by itself, someone be it the original designers/contractors or the current building management are liable and will have to pay a hefty price. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people scramble to offer settlements early

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Someone "owns" the property.
They sell or lease units.

Typically, the insurance tenants buy is for your possessions, temp living facilities and liabilty in case someone is hurt in your residence.
As a tenant you are not owed any of the proceeds from the sale of this land, if that happened.


The owners might be fucked if it's proven that they failed to maintain the property.
On the other hand the owners could find themselves with a brand new building.

Lawsuits will be next..followed by a bankruptcy by the "owners"

 

[Hadron90]

If they have renter's insurance, they should be covered through that policy for their personal goods.
If they want to get paid for dead relatives, they are going to need to sue.

 

[ralphc1]

If they have renter's insurance, they should be covered through that policy for their personal goods.
If they want to get paid for dead relatives, they are going to need to sue.

Someone "owns" the property.
They sell or lease units.

Typically, the insurance tenants buy is for your possessions, temp living facilities and liabilty in case someone is hurt in your residence.
As a tenant you are not owed any of the proceeds from the sale of this land, if that happened.


The owners might be fucked if it's proven that they failed to maintain the property.
On the other hand the owners could find themselves with a brand new building.

Lawsuits will be next..followed by a bankruptcy by the "owners"

It is my understanding that in this situation, the individual units are owned by someone and the individual owners collectively own the entire building and set up an association to run it. There is no external property owner to sue. Developers use the condo model to avoid the pitfalls of ownership. Once they sell all of the units they are free to go on to the next one. As I understand it they will set up a corporation to build the building and dissolve the corporation after all of the units are sold so there is no entity to sue and no assets to seize. Somebody might own an individual unit and rent it to someone. It seems like the only people who could be held liable are the owners that survived .

 

[BIKES!]

Builder will be sued for negligence by the insurance companies dragging their feet to pay.

Premiums in the area will go up. There were 136 units with 20 expensive ones. I’m guessing total cost is under one million per unit on average. It’s really pennies to any of the big insurers…

If tax dollars are used in any way to bail out insurance companies that is insane.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

It is my understanding that in this situation, the individual units are owned by someone and the individual owners collectively own the entire building and set up an association to run it. There is no external property owner to sue. Developers use the condo model to avoid the pitfalls of ownership. Once they sell all of the units they are free to go on to the next one. As I understand it they will set up a corporation to build the building and dissolve the corporation after all of the units are sold so there is no entity to sue and no assets to seize. Somebody might own an individual unit and rent it to someone. It seems like the only people who could be held liable are the owners that survived .

That would seem like a pretty shit deal for the tenant to buy into a property and be responsible for every cost that comes with a building. Outside of normal upkeep.
Your version doesn't seem very likely.

 

[genecop]

People that have been left homeless in the short term should have accommodation provided by the state. Aside from that you kind of answered the question yourself. Insurance companies will be a bitch with this but in the end a building of that age doesn’t just come down by itself, someone be it the original designers/contractors or the current building management are liable and will have to pay a hefty price. I wouldn’t be surprised if some people scramble to offer settlements early

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those “ original designers / contractors are long gone or have already dissolved corporations..the tenants will most likely get fucked..

 

[Pizza Werewolf]

Turn it into an empty lot and send some of these homeless people over there.

 

[ralphc1]

Builder will be sued for negligence by the insurance companies dragging their feet to pay.

Premiums in the area will go up. There were 136 units with 20 expensive ones. I’m guessing total cost is under one million per unit on average. It’s really pennies to any of the big insurers…

If tax dollars are used in any way to bail out insurance companies that is insane.

It depends on what the insurance covers. Does it just cover the contents? Does it even cover that in this case? Did the association have insurance on the building and does it cover collapse on it's own with no wind.

 

[lilelvis]

That would seem like a pretty shit deal for the tenant to buy into a property and be responsible for every cost that comes with a building. Outside of normal upkeep.
Your version doesn't seem very likely.

He’s correct.
The owners create an HOA. The HOA fees upkeep the “common areas” of the property and pay for an insurance policy on those areas.
Individual owners purchase separate policies that cover their private residence and possessions.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

He’s correct.
The owners create an HOA. The HOA fees upkeep the “common areas” of the property and pay for an insurance policy on those areas.
Individual owners purchase separate policies that cover their private residence and possessions.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/28/us/surfside-condo-owners-assessments-invs/index.html

https://therealdeal.com/miami/2021/...iation-faces-5m-lawsuit-seeking-class-action/

Are they suing themselves?

If they all Owned it equally.. .. sell the land and split it between the 150 people.

 

[ralphc1]

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those “ original designers / contractors are long gone or have already dissolved corporations..the tenants will most likely get fucked..

Over the last 20 years, many building projects are completed by a group of companies who form a corporation for the project then dissolve it upon completion and probably can't be touched if something was done wrong.

 

[ralphc1]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/28/us/surfside-condo-owners-assessments-invs/index.html

https://therealdeal.com/miami/2021/...iation-faces-5m-lawsuit-seeking-class-action/

Are they suing themselves?

If they all Owned it equally.. .. sell the land and split it between the 150 people.

They paid differing fees based on the value of their units so the money from a sale should probably be apportioned on a similar basis.

 

[Bald1]

One of my customers runs the financial side of a condo board at a downtown highrise and we talked about this situation.

It's crazy to think that buying a concrete space for hundreds of thousands, then paying condo fees (in his case almost $600/month) still leaves you at the mercy of others. They had to restructure the balconies a year ago and are now short on money to do other maintenance projects that need attention. Besides that, being at the mercy, so to speak, of your immediate neighbours poor decisions or habits makes that type of a living situation nonsensical imo.

They own the pile of rubble that was their homes so why should taxpayers be on the hook for damages or loss of life and assets? Especially in light of the fact that recent engineer reports made it clear that the building needed attention? Between deferred maintenance and poor engineering as far as controlling water from my understanding this was an avoidable tragedy.

On a different note, if your single family dwelling goes up in smoke at least you're still left with something of value whereas these poor saps are completely sol.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those “ original designers / contractors are long gone or have already dissolved corporations..the tenants will most likely get fucked..

Yup. During the boom here there were all sorts of "builders" throwing up shit homes. Some were promising "45 day homes". I know you're in the industry so I have no need to explain how bad of an idea that can be. Now, 15 years later, many homeowners are dealing with some brutal shit. My favorite is the problems stemming from pouring basements and driveways on top of snow and ice and complete lack of controlling water run off.

I have a serious beef with developers and builders who only concentrate on their bottom line. I'm all for making money, but it has to be done ethically and with long term vision ffs.

 

[ralphc1]

That would seem like a pretty shit deal for the tenant to buy into a property and be responsible for every cost that comes with a building. Outside of normal upkeep.
Your version doesn't seem very likely.

I never thought much about the condo, townhouse or duplex purchase until I knew people who got involved in them. Some friends bought one side of a duplex when the downsized when they retired. The owners had been living in one side and renting the other side. They decided to sell and the realtor told them it would be easier to sell as separate units. That doesn't give either owner any control over who buys the other unit and it turned into a nightmare for the couple that I knew.

Another guy bought a unit in a 6 unit townhouse. 3 of the owners were couples who broke up and neither could afford their units or the upkeep fees. The townhouse was only 15 years old but everything was breaking down. The value dropped quickly.

It can be a nightmare sharing ownership of something with a spouse. Imagine sharing ownership with over 100 other people.