Posted on 06/27/2021 8:33:55 AM PDT by TheWriterTX
There is a lot of misinformation floating around FR on the Miami condominium collapse. As a high-rise condominium manager, this story hit home. So here is a quick primer to help people combat fake news.
First, this is not an apartment complex. In an apartment complex, an investor or group of investors owns the building and everyone is a transient tenant. It is a for-profit business. If there are major repairs needed, landlords can raise the rents to cover repairs.
This is a condominium. Each unit has a separate owner, they purchase it with a mortgage or cash.
Every month, unit pay assessments to cover the operational expenses of the building (water, electric, maintenance, staff, grounds, pool, portering, systems, etc.). The condominium functions under a non-profit Association.
Each year, the owners have an Annual Meeting to vote for a Board of Directors. The same way we elect representatives to make laws and spending decisions on our behalf, so too does this community.
It is important to note that condominiums and homeowners associations are self-funded. They only have the money that the owners give it. If there is a big, expensive repair needed, and the association does not have enough money set aside to do it, then the Board must call for a special assessment to raise the money. The special assessment is in addition to the regular monthly assessments and must be approved by the owners (usually 67% must vote yes).
If the manager brought this to the board and the board did not move ahead, the liability is now on the board and there is nothing the building manager can do other than resign. If the board brought this issue to the communuty and the owners did not vote to approve, there is nothing the building manager could do other than resign. The liability falls back on the individual owners for refusing to fix it.
Approximately 2.5 years ago, the building had a structural engineer evaluate spalling, cracking in the underground parking garage, and building envelope issues. The report warned then that major repairs were needed and that structural integrity was compromised.
The building manager should have recommended and the board should have voted to approve having the engineering firm create a scope and then gone out to bid ASAP while calling for a massive special assessment. If they did not, they are in trouble.
Another issue that was impacting this building was land movement. Parts of the building were shifting at different degrees. All of these were putting stressors on the building envelope, as evidenced by external cracks and lawsuits for water intrusion.
So, the long and short is this:
1. There were warning signs the building was in trouble.
2. There were engineer reports the building was in trouble.
3. This was not some McAfee conspiracy theory controlled demo false flag event.
4. If the manager raised the alarm and the board/community did nothing, the manager is not liable.
5. If the board raised the alarm and the owners did nothing, the owners are liable to each other. Let the lawsuit party begin.
6. Buildings are evaluated every 40 years by law. Annual building inspections typically only deal with fire life safety equipment, boikers, chillers, elebators and other components, not structural. That may change in light of this event.
7. People blaming DeSantis are delusional. Give them a dime and tell them to buy a clue.
The roof inspector was probably only focused on ensuring the roof repairs were done to code. They are not structural engineers or P.E. and would not be looking at the underground parking garage where the structural weaknesses were located.
VERY informative a HUGE thank you!!!
Where did you read the building inspectors report I would like to read it!!
Inspector on the roof was probably checking the roof repair.
If it was (a conversion), then foundation issues should have been addressed during the rehab prior to the City issuing the final certificate of occupancy.
That is why I asked, and your point about how this may have an effect on criteria for city inspection procedure is illustrated.
Thanks again,
I would SAY YES to that one!!
Does the board hire the building manager??
Down on the beach they install pilings to the bedrock due to the beach sand.
I disagree with some of your statements, but you are mostly accurate.
In short - and somewhat in agreement - I fault the condo owners themselves for failing to involve the county. Technically, every surviving tenant and, most-pertinently, surviving members of the board/association share liability. Some reports seem to be absolving the county of liability in citation of a yet-scheduled 40-year inspection per code; we shall see in the ensuing weeks as to whether the county knew of the building deficiencies and, as I suspect, where the money flowed. Reports are that the mandated inspection ‘was underway’; how any responsible engineer could not have previously cited major structural flaws in a single visit is a bit beyond the pale, considering the photos most of us have seen. Those who inspected the building prior to its collapse share liability.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article252340108.html
I recommend anyone interested read both the article above and about Miami-Dade County’s “Unsafe Structures Board”, linked below:
I find it very difficult to believe that the county was unaware of potential structural issues with this complex.
The 12-story beachfront condo in Miami-Dade County was built in 1981 — and had been sinking into the ground since the 1990s, according to a 2020 study conducted by Shimon Wdowinski, a professor at Florida International University.
“I looked at it this morning and said, ‘Oh my God.’ We did detect that,” Wdowinski told USA Today on Thursday.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/24/collapsed-florida-condo-was-sinking-for-decades-researcher/
From the link in #42
“The building is in fact on piles, not footings (to clear up some info I’ve been seeing). So if it had ongoing settling as the 90s report indicated that is quite unusual.
The manager can only facilitate the decisions of the board, that is why they have indemnification clauses in their contracts.
I have refused to take on properties and terminated properties that neglected their infrastructure for this reason.
It is the same as a roofer telling a homeowner to fix the sagging roof or it will fall in. The roofer can’t proceed with the repairs if the owner does not authorize it. They are not liable when it caves in.
There’s a link in one of the threads on FR. I don’t have it handy at the moment, or I’d repost for you.
And you may want to add to your complete analysis:
If it is shown the managers and the HOA Board were negligent in getting things fixed, then the insurance companies might balk at paying any claims.
Good summary. If the association required 67% approval and only 60% approved, I’m assuming the ones that voted yes (for an assessment) are still liable as an owner (even if they voted yes)?
It’s BOINKER silly (it was a typo)
:D
The lawyers will have the taxpayers pay for this.
There is not much rational thought or honor with most human beings.
I’ve worked many buildings on the beach. What I’ve noticed is the developers want nothing to do with the buildings after 10 years because that’s when they start falling apart.
They might start as apartments then are converted to condo’s that way they get the maximum amount of profit out of the project before heading off to the next project.
Is your boiker elebated or are you just happy to see me?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.