Can Florida's Proposed Law Stop the Next Condo Collapse? (Short Version - Senate Bill 1702)
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 02. 2022
- In this video we discuss Florida's proposed Senate Bill 1702 and several of the professional reports that informed the new law. For Full Version of this video with additional commentary, click here: • Can Florida's Proposed...
Josh's IG: / josh.engineer
Sponsor's site: www.consultengineering.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙏𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙎𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 showcases Josh Porter’s expert analysis of the tragic Surfside condominium collapse. Josh’s ability to explain complicated material in a way understandable to anyone has created a high demand for his instruction. You can get it right here for free, at your leisure.
• Champlain Towers South
The 𝙊𝙣 𝙋𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 offers viewers a deep dive into Josh Porter's decades of experience in the construction industry.
• On Point
In the 𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙅𝙤𝙗 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 we take you out of the studio to where the real action happens, the job site.
• On the Job
The 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 contains interviews with industry professionals discussing everything related to condominiums, construction, and engineering.
• One on One
Building Integrity Supports Crossroads Hope Academy. To Donate to Crossroads Hope Academy, please use the following link:
www.crossroadspg.org/donate
To see more videos about Crossroads and the amazing work they are doing, please watch the following playlist: • Crossroads Hope Academy
#BuildingIntegrity #SurfsideCollapse
Disclaimer: Nothing contained within this video should be construed as legal advice. Building Integrity makes no claims of its own regarding the guilt or innocence or liability otherwise of any legal entities mentioned in any of their videos. These videos are made for news/informational and educational purposes only.
I live in the UK, am a Chartered Builder and I would like to say how much I’ve appreciated your channel; you are a shining example of Professionalism.
indubidably
Also in UK, also an ex-construction - Chartered Civil Engineer - and I agree about Josh and his channel.
@@Mrch33ky Mr. PW good. A word, not used by the new generation. All they know, '' is LIKE ...''' '' and i was, LIKE, totally impressed''.....etc. ''indubidably, MR Spock....""
@@Mrch33ky adverb
in a way that is patently evident or certain; unquestionably; without doubt = INDUBIDABLY
I am glad they got your input. I agree that ALL residents should get a copy of these reports.
It is their lives at risk - yes they should be fully aware of any dangers.
Doesn't matter what they call it, inspections still depend on the integrity and capability of inspectors and then the willingness of owners to take the necessary rectification steps.
Exactly. If a building is not effectively flagged as uninhabitable in a way that gets through to the owners and residents, then none of this makes any difference. And the fact that we still don't know with 100% certainty, as far as i know, what exactly was THE root cause of the collapse, suggests to me that it is unlikely that any inspector would have picked up on it. If the cause was the fact that the pool deck was connected to the main building in a way that made it a death trap, or if the cause was issues at the far end of the deck that could take down the deck and ultimately the whole building, to me these seems very tricky things to assess. Do inspectors get that deep into the physics of all the interdependencies of the structures parts? I'll be very impressed if the answer is yes. Because every building is kind of individual and has an individual history, of where corners were cut, what parts are inherently vulnerable just because of minimalist methods, and not everything is visible even, what is the list of such wierd features that should be checked for?
@@comment6864 Agree 10% - a very complex equation. As good a step in the right direction the new law is - there are many issues that can mitigate its effectiveness. At the very least it will raise awareness of what can go wrong with buildings, and for owners, residents, managers, and potential buyers to be on the lookout for.
Not being able to sell a unit without the report will be a lot of motivation.
Agree.
Yes a powerful motivation. In my part of the world you cannot sell a vehicle without a Road Worthy Certificate, which has all safety aspects checked off.
Dude you are clever. The value of pairing inspections with painting timelines is genius
On some Ferraris, in order to do a major service you have to remove the entire engine. so while the engine is out it's a perfect time to do a major service.
In sweden we have a diffrent system, every part of the building is defined on it's lifespan and when it should be inspected, so diffrent parts have different inspection times. Which also make it eisier to inspect since you don't have to do a full inspection of the building. And also can call in people who experts on the specific part that is to be inspected, like, roofs, walls, pluming, electricity and so on.
I love that. It also cuts down on bribery, as someone May not be able to buy all of the inspectors.
this sounds much much better
Sounds very similar to aircraft inspection and maintenance, every inspection cycle varies according to how deep the probing and replacement of parts. In the most strict regime the aircraft is literally taken apart down to basic parts. However in a rigid fixed building it is infinitely more difficult to even see hidden dangers.
I’m an Architect, and I agree 100%- including that I don’t feel qualified to do more than identify a possible structural problem that needs an engineer to consider in detail. On your last points, the key effect of Champlain South will be an awareness that even apparently modern, well- kept buildings ( painted, landscaped at least) can FALL DOWN, and their is no mystical authority that ‘ must be looking out for that sort of thing’. That annoying leak in your parking garage may in fact be serious. I think the enforcement mechanism for SB 1702 will be in requiring Milestone Reports at time of sale- if I know I am buying into a 1989 building, there is no excuse for the seller claiming he has no report to give me. It will become impossible to sell without it. Nice video, as always!
I think they should have included provisions in the document for a fine schedule that begins after non-compliance. Non-compliance would mean either not getting a milestone inspection, or repairing found issues.
Some things never change. Cicero 108 till 43 BC. Cicero is quoted as saying " more law, less justice" and he said in a letter to his friend "Two of my shops have collapsed and the others are showing cracks, so that even the mice have moved elsewhere, to say nothing of the tenants"
And post report in lobby, at mailboxes. Too many documents at closing lol
I'm canadian and WestPalmBeach is my second home.....the implement of bill 1702 will affect the value of your property and this is why is no time to waist to fix the damage.
Also resident use their property value to finance their life style, the bank will demand the ''miles stone inspection'''.........Also could be a part of rental property......and send to the insurance companies.....
The natural force of the economics will implement the bill 1702
Thank's for sharing these important information
As far as notifying residents, I know from experience that notifying residents by mail can be surprisingly difficult. I suggest that they do some type of posting of a notice in a well-trafficked area of the building. I was involved in this kind of thing before the web. Often the notice said the full report was available in a building office, or in the apartment of a retired resident who is wiling to help. Now it could be posted online. It probably should be posted on the Internet.
Effective Notice can be yet another litigated issue. What about Old Folks who are not Net Savvy? What about foreigners who don't speak the King's English? What about, etc....
This looks good for Florida's building inspections, and I think you Josh, played a part in their improvements. -- Maybe the local building officials should be required by state law to remove a buildings certificate of occupancy, if the required engineering building repairs are not done in a prescribed time period. Without that certificate of occupancy that building can not be illegally occupied. -- Your videos great, thanks Josh.
Yeah, that's a good point, because that would at the very least stop any sales of units dead in their tracks, and that's a very big incentive to do something
Good. San Frans' Millenium Tower : Ron Hamburger, oughta get-a-hold of Mr Porter, and hash this out. WOULD HELP THOSE tenants, in that money pile of 686,000,000 pounds of cement; leaning/sinking/sliding. AND , cities' bought-off council....
Exactly, and without that certificate of occupancy all insurance should become invalid immediately That would reduce the burden on city enforcement trying to stop occupancy and stop sales and stop airbnbs. When residents, buyers and mortgage companies are told:"This building will nolonger be insured" that should alert them. If that doesn't shake them up then eventually the city should put yellow tape around the building as a crime scene if anyone is renting to unsuspecting public or placing staff in a dangerous building in full knowledge, such as security staff, night receptionist, cleaners etc.
Agree there needs to be some consequences by way of penalties or withdrawal of occupancy permits for serious issues that are not fixed. The process of identifying serious issues in itself is fraught with problems, but the initial law being drawn up is a step in the right direction.
Law, or no law HOA"s usually involve people without common sense, much less members whom are educated, or care about safety. More often than not these members go after unit owners for useless money grabs to add planters, water features or some other useless feature that rarely has anything to do with safety.
Absolutely
This is too true. We who sit on our HOA Boards of Directors are not usually experts in engineering and construction. We're there because someone must serve- all HOAs are required to elect a Board of Directors from among owners willing to serve. Let me tell you that damn few are willing to be bothered with it. In my first condo building, we had to BEG other owners to stand for election to the Board in order to have a quorum. You don't even have a legal association without enough Board members to form a quorum. We who do this love our buildings, and we also have the time to commit to a non-paid volunteer job, as well as (hopefully) the willingness to learn. I daresay my own Board is made of dedicated people who love this old place as I do, and who have done a good job of conserving the association's money and making sure our management company does what we pay them to do. But, again, we are not experts, and many Board members become very timid when contemplating large, but necessary, capital outlays. It feels like such a massive responsibility to, say, select a contractor to install new furnaces or electrical, or outfit a 100 unit building with new windows or a new roof. Directors are terrified of making a bad decision, so all too often drag their feet and make no decision. And when they do that, matters make the decision for them all too often.
@@chicagonorthcoast Very valid points. Maybe it should be mandatory that all boards/managements have a paid professional engineer have oversight or even power to override boards/management decisions if they are not conducive to removing risks or preventing building decay. I think this is the idea behind the new law but there needs to be more consequential interface with the owners/management of properties in the decision about what repairs and what inspections occur. Volunteer boards made up of random owners usually, don't have the skills alone to make important decisions, and are driven primarily with how much repairs may cost. Maybe if everyone also realized that insurance policies can be voided or limited if the insurance deems negligence in proper maintenance.
@@rainscratch and they are. I’m an insurance agent for residential condos in South Florida. Property rates skyrocketed since last year. Carriers simply do not offer same terms, or cannot offer renewal quote at all! However, my biggest issue is with casualty claims. Unit owners or their guests sue the association for a trip and fall because it happened on the premises or simply walk into a glass wall because they were not looking where they were going… Blood thirsty lawyers promise them hundreds of thousands of dollars from the settlement… those lawyers make most of the money themselves out of it.. it’s a shame really… This is the biggest factor of rising insurance premiums and budget issues for associations… it’s a vicious circle..
Please do more coverage on the Magic Moving Tower of San Francisco! My peanut gallery prediction is that it will get demolished.
Hey Josh, Jeff O just put out a video on Champlain Towers sister building now having all of these shoring poles both in the garage and outside running up the balconies. Curious as to your thoughts on what this may mean for those people? And thank you so much for your channel, I live in TX and was contemplating purchasing a condo, I probably won't now, but if I do, I know what to ask for!
We'll see how well it works once stupidity, corruption, and greed have had their shot. My take is that had Surfside been built and inspected to code, we wouldn't be here today.
The building was engineered by the subs and contractors since there were no cut through plans to show how to build the building.
As someone who was in construction, never underestimate the ability of customers to misunderstand something a contractor or engineer thinks is very clear. The report given the Condo board was very ominous, given the amount of work recommended, but the board missed the danger or need for speed.
True. It also should have risen to the level where the engineering firm legally needed to inform the City and/or other state construction officials. I get that the engineering firm worked for the condo association and would not want to go over their heads, but at some point, that must be an adopted policy to save innocent lives, if it's not already policy.
@@joseh3564 as it was a legal requirement for the survey to be done, I would assume the engineer would have to furnish the city building department a copy. What, if anything, the city did, I do not know.
@@tomhalla426 the city guy glanced at the report and told the Association the building was fine!
But even if they had started right away, the building was already too far gone to be saved
@@1556cm I will give the consulting engineer the benefit of the doubt, and assume that if the work had started on his recommended repairs when made two years earlier, the building would not have collapsed.
Or they simply didn’t have or couldn’t easily raise the money. Special assessments may need to be voted on… what happens when residents don’t vote in favor?
Condominiums are a strange legal entity where division of responsibility and ownership are concerned.
The AI speaks! Thank you Property Bot 2000.
@@Mrch33ky quiet time Princess.
If you are a engineer making a report on a building inspection I would think on the report it would have to say if these repairs are not done the building may collapse. To cover your back side.
Probably need to state how soon: next 12 months, two years, five years, etc. Need to spook the HOA, the owners and the residents into getting action and not fousing on window dressing such as replacing planter boxes, or tiles in the foyer.
If a condo does not get the inspection done or fails it, cannot the local building department simply withdraw its occupancy certificate?
Yes, and it should be required to do so. There needs to be established a clear line of accountability, and this new law doesn't quite do that.
Thanks for providing a short condensed version.
"A Milestone Inspection"...30 years or 20 years if you're coastal. Then checking every 10 years or 7 years if you're coastal. Josh, I'm almost positive that these new guidelines have something to do with you. You've taught all of us, almost overnight, and then almost monthly, about maintenance, about concrete, water damage, wind damage...and I'm sure that all of your clients could see and understand how experienced you and Building Integrity are. We all knew quickly that you guys were no joke and that you guys made all of this easy for us laymen to understand and appreciate buildings and the way they are built and the way they maintained. Thank you Josh.
I’ve been waiting for the next episode, thanks Josh!!
Glad the issue is being addressed. My concern is that the reponsibility is being place soley on the Home Owners Association. The HOA's are not usually run in a professional manner in accordance with industry and legal standards.
The Community Association Institute has much information on Association indusgtry standards.
For instance, the law does not require the HOA to collect and reserve $$ necessary to pay for the required inspections in the years leading up to the trigger dates. How will the inspection be funded? Seems like a weak area overlooked in the proposed law.
Great explanation and input from you afterwards. You are very experienced, levelheaded, and smart which allows you to see the entirety of the potential issues with something like this.
I expect any architect that does these should have some sort of insurance to cover anything that was overlooked.
There will just be a seventeen paragraph disclaimer at the end of every report.
All Professional practicing occupations (Architects, Engineers, etc,) do have "Errors and Omissions" insurance.
I wondered about this. So - an engineer gets paid $1000, or $10,000, to inspect a building. He’s dealing with $ millions in potential damage, or $1 billion in damage and liability in this recent case. Is he going to be able to buy insurance? I read separately this morning in Atlanta that Florida insurance is going to go up exponentially or not be available. It may end up with everyone forming an LLC and being sure their papers are good so they are personally off the hook. l’m not advocating ducking responsibility but it’s a big problem. A one man engineering company can’t take on $1 billion in liability for a few thousand dollars in fees.
Great content! Thanks for your work on this topic!
Hi Josh, Thank you for another excellent video on this subject.
I see enforcement by two agencies, banks and insurance companies. Since these reports will be provided during real estate transactions, part of the mortgage process will include a review as part of the appraisals and the building insurance company can adjust rates based on this report. If a sale of a unit is delayed or cancelled, the owner will have incentive to get things done.
One issue I foresee is a shortage of inspecting engineers when this goes state wide. You might a few years before the supply matches the demand.
A model for the nation, I think not. ... Still no mandatory reserve requirement. Eventually, the insurance companies will determine which 30-year+ condo buildings are structurally-sound or not. Those buildings that do not make timely repairs will have their insurance coverage canceled.
It's floriduh what did you expect
Could that building have been fixed since it wasn’t built correct to start with? That was a lot of rusted rebar. Not to mention the sheer walls not being there. Grandfather clause seem to put people in danger on a building built that haphazard.
Great to see someone caring about residents and lives of strangers to the extent you do trying to help make things safe.
I’m happy they are listening! Congrats on that!
Another awesome video thank you very much love the channel keep up the good work I don't have a condo in Florida if the lottery numbers ever tip right I certainly will be reviewing your videos for what to buy and what not to buy
I am really enjoying your channel. I joined for Champlain Towers but stayed for teh in depth coverage of other subjects too. I am currently visiting Australia. They are high rise crazy here in Sydney. I find myself searching for spalling everywhere but thank heavens I am not finding any
Maybe i misunderstand, but what gives me hesitation is not so much that the residents knew that there were problems, but actually that the reports didn't really give any hints that a lay person could pick up that there was even remotely danger of imminent collapse. I feel like there should be some kind of required conclusion by the engineer of whether the building is categorically fit for habitation or it's not. The criteria for this may be a whole other story, but the end result should be a simple assessment of whether the building is 'in danger' or not. Because do all structural problems make a building dangerous to inhabit? I mean if some external stairway, or even deck is about to crumble, but in a way that does not necessarily affect the structural integrity of the inhabited part of the building (for example that part of the building can be closed down and made off-limits), then that's one thing, but if the issue, or the way the structure was constructed (such as a pool deck that can take down the whole building), puts people's lives at risk inside their units, then that's a whole other level of structural unreliability. Yes that's a good word - reliability - some 'index of reliability' - can this building be relied on to remain standing. Pretty much that simple. And yes, then just the sheer incident of CS would be a little extra bell in the mind of the inspectors that this assessment or 'rating' is not to be taken lightly.
Thanks for this; I literally fell asleep in the last one.
Not to degrade from the quality, I was pretty tired and had put it on as a way to fall asleep.
I can just see now that the Engineers who do these milestone reports will be under enormous pressure from unit investors to water down any predictions of doom. Like always.
I can, too, and that's why we need laws that require the inspecting engineers to state explicitly, in language any non-engineer can easily understand, whether or not the building is unsafe, and precise how long they have to remediate deficiencies (the term "timely" doesn't do it). The law should most of all require inspecting engineers to report dangerous deficiencies to the municipality's building inspector immediately, and require the building inspector must take appropriate action, which may include shutting the place down and evacuating it pending repairs. You might have seen that Morabito just settled with residents and owners of CTS for $83 million, which is an admission of culpability, really. They failed to state in explicit and easy to understand terms that a non-engineer like me could understand, just how compromised and dangerous the place was. But it is clear now that the building was in serious trouble in 2020 and should have been condemned and evacuated then, but that was never stated in so many words in their report to the association.
Correct ...see my comments: No law will stop the corruption with contractors, subs,inspectors and building officials. having insurance companies do the inspections this will cut some of corruption.
I have audited Engineering Companies that were doing inspections and some of them never showed up for one inspection!
With private inspectors allowed to do inspections they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them,,,
@@chicagonorthcoast ouch, you used that word - condemned, but that is EXACTLY what it should have been called. Buildings and houses routinely get 'condemned' when they are in danger of imminent collapse. How was this one any different?
@@chicagonorthcoast Did Morabito settle or did their insurers settle?
@@postie48 , same thing, really. I remember reading that their insurers paid- that's why engineers, medical doctors, and other types of professional practitioners have to carry professional liability insurance. What I wonder, is if Morabito will have difficulty obtaining insurance after this disaster. It's a shame about that firm, really, for Morabito has been a highly regarded firm that was credited with saving a Sarasota high rise from collapse.
Great report.! In 20 or 30 years they will forget guaranteed. As a whole Condo residents like to keep fees and problems to a minimum.
Great info again. I doubt always strict timelines for in this case inspections. Some buildings are built better than others. Somehow based on the quality (established during building by a third party?) the inspection interval needs to be set. This also encourage builders to build better as -i assume- owners will want to buy property with the maximum inspection intervals (and they can demand contractually a high number of years for the interval).
How about making the milestones public to view? Any potential resident should be able to determine if they want to live in a failing building, and not discover the status after signing
As usual... You Rock!!!
Good start...
The state agency charged with implementation should be able to address most of these issues through rule promulgation. If so, you should attend the rule workshops (possibly online) and voice your concerns.
Safety laws are always written in blood...and liability lawsuits.
Thank your for freely contributing your input for the public good. Seems we humans always do it this way. Sensible fire regulations like fire escapes also were only put into place after many horrific fires.
You have highlighted the very real problem. Lack of governmental oversight and enforcement. Surely such important issues involving people's lives cannot be left up to private enterprise. Additionally if there was proper governmental oversight at construction stage these problems would be less likely to arise.
Cool information, I know wonder what laws are in effect in my country. Thank you and have a great week.
I know my state of Victoria, Australia, has an issue with Aluminium cladding, which is a fire hazard due to the exposed foam core. An audit was conducted across Melbourne (capital city) that found that this material was used in thousands of apartment and office buildings.
The owners and residents were not informed, citing fite and security risks from the threat of arson. Costs of replacing this cladding was quoted at about $4million per building.
@@gorillaau Och! Who is going to pay for that nightmare.
@@dennis2376 Our state goverment hasn't said. It could be the contractor, as they installed a material that is not approved for high rise buildings. It's a mess all round.
Basically the a fire can burn the foam, but then the fire is drawn up the inside of the aluminum cladding, like a chimney or smoke stack. There is no horizontal spare between the panel edges that would have at least slowed this passive drafting of a fire.
12:49 “the can just kept getting kicked down the road”. It sounds like the clause letting buyers out of contracts on the basis of the reports (out, I presume, a missing report) will put plenty of leverage on owners to take action as soon as real estate agents get smart to this. This might do more than you think to prevent the proverbial can kicking.
Another powerful motivation to plan maintenance properly.
I think that one major issue is that Morabito tried to protect themselves from liability by using vague language instead of specific timelines in their report. The result was that only an engineer could have understood how bad the condition of the building really was. Perhaps requiring a rating system with specific guidelines about when repairs need to happen would help. Like, most people don't know what "damage will increase exponentially" means, but anybody can understand that their building was rated "D" and a "D" rating means repairs must take place within one year.
Well - from what I have seen of the report I am not sure this Engineer would have understood how bad the condition was.
Even if I did a walk round inspection as an experienced construction professional I 'think' I would have had concerns but am not sure if I would have picked up on the 'real and present' danger. (And in one walk round in another country - I did condemn over half of the roof of a 15 storey building!)
This is a legally very slippery slope for the professionals who get involved in this. An inspection will almost never result in a habitable / uninhabitable conclusion - it's not a simple binary result. For the professional conducting the review they will be forced to err on the extreme side of caution to limit their legal exposure. I am a Structural Engineer with over 30 years of experience and wouldn't touch one of these assignments with a 10ft pole, strictly due to the legal exposure and the fact that you cannot be sure your assessment is 100% correct - there are too many structural components covered by architectural finishes (and you can never properly observe the condition of 100% of the reinforcing steel buried in concrete). I suspect when negative inspection results are encountered, strata councils will be lawyering up to go after the original building designers which opens up another set of questions about how to properly (and economically) design structures for longevity. The issues spread amongst design, construction and maintenance and the challenge will always boil down to how to execute the project within the budget and what sacrifices will be made to achieve the budget. Cost - Time - Quality - you can have any two but not all three (if you want a quality building you have to sacrifice either cost or time to construct). You don't have to think about this very long to come to the conclusion that societies expectation of economical safe buildings - in the long term - is largely untenable due to the cost constraints. And if it is untenable, should there be someone to blame when the objective is not met?
The problem with your last point is that in a few years the CTS collapse will be all but forgotten, and condo boards will be back to the same old. The legislation is needed to keep that momentum going.
Excellent! As always! As far as enforcement goes, not to worry! Without these available, legally required inspections, all individual condo ieill be absolutely unsellable. As such the owners will insist that any issue is taken care of correctly! Additionally, not to worry again, every condo association purchases insurance. Without these required reports with a good bill of health, these buildings are will be uninsurable! As a consequence, of the uninsurability, financing will not be available for the building association itself as well as individual units! In addition to the obvious, every Condo board has Director liability insurance. That too will be unavailable at any price if the building doesn’t meet the requirements.
Let’s see, without meeting the letter of the law, each condo in every building will be unsellable, uninsurable, and not qualified for any financing!
Enforcement, will be a non-issue!😎
Great video, have learned quite a bit from watching your presentations.
well said & explained ect hope this is a wake-up call to the these older / coastal buildings , ps like your response ect
I'm glad this start is being made. I hope the weak points get fixed but this seems to be better than the existing situation.
Theres a Defcon talk I watched- I forget the presenters name, but he said in the talk, “The best way to sell a fire alarm system is to burn down the building across the street.” I believe that is corroborated by your conclusion.
From working vacation Delray Florida... Beats the snow in Plattsburgh NY
I wonder if they should put a clause in the law saying the board has to follow the law and act on bad inspection reports or they have to waive their dues.
The Miami collapse tragically has focused on many vital safety concerns regarding buildings everywhere. The overall scenario is very complicated, starting with design, planning, certification by authorities, quality of materials, skills of the architect, builders, location, soil and substrate, foundations, and so much more.
Then there are unforeseen future events such as modifications to the structure, additions and changes, that will impact the overall integrity. Even seemingly benign things like adding tiles to balconies, or upgrades internally such as installing massively heavy granite/stone kitchens or bathrooms will add tremendous weight to a building, and if it is already stressed to near or past limits can be a tipping point that no one can adequately foresee.
As a non professional/but could be a resident, residents should be notified for accountability purposes it seems.
Judging by what is happening in Florida with regards to insurance companies and their unwillingness to insure they will probably be your first line of defence. I can see them saying no report, no insurance for the condo corporation or for content insurance for residence. That would probably do the trick.
One of my key takes on this is that the engineers are still working for the residents and beholden to them. Municipalities (or their subcontracting engineers) should be taking on the task of conducting basic inspections and pushing corrections through the code compliance process. I know there have been many instance of cities bullying people over the look of their property with codes but basic structural life safety is one case where it is actually necessary.
OMG absolutely agree
The comment about notifying residents and not just unit owners IS covered by Senate Bill 1702 in that the report must be posted on the site and also on the building's website (if there is one):
"For a milestone inspection of a building that is a condominium or cooperative, the association must distribute a copy of the inspector-prepared summary of the inspection report to each condominium unit owner or cooperative unit owner, regardless of the findings or recommendations in the report, by United States mail or personal delivery; must post a copy of the
inspector-prepared summary in a conspicuous place on the condominium or cooperative property; and must publish the full report and inspector-prepared summary on the association’s
website, if the association is required to have a website."
From what you've presented, the bill does not seem to put any onus on the boards to carry out any repairs or is this covered in existing legislation. There does not seem to be any prescriptive requirements or penalties for failure to do so. Also, will anyone want to sit on such boards if more liability (civil or criminal) is attached to taking on such positions ?
In one of your previous videos, you had mentioned that the engineering report mentioned problems, but there was debate on whether either the engineers or the condo board for Champlain towers south had understood the urgency for such repairs.
It is feasable for a law to require such engineers to qualify urgency of suggeted fixes following inspection or is just a task more "art" than science and you can't bake into law a requiremenmetr for engineers to be held responsible for "art" ?
If you require engineers to qualify the urgency of work, won't they then just label all suggested fixes as "urgent" to protect their butt?
The timeline had passed, the repairs were not completed.. The building should have been taped off with crime scene tape.
This sound like a really good step!
That bill is ridiculous. A licensed professional structural inspector should be REQUIRED for step 1. That's the MOST IMPORTANT STEP. If some architect says all good, then everything is all good? How moronic! Who the hell let that slip in?
you have to prevent any owner of a condo unit to forbidden to rent the space without the proper inspection reports, this protects any residences.
That is some good news! Bravo! I'm happy that our government is functional on some levels.
You think there is enough special engineers around to do all these inspections in the time frame you stated??? Is there a turn around time of when the work to rectify the discrepancies has to be completed??
Please do a video on the apartment explosion/collapse in DC this week
Will the insurance cos get a copy? Would they be willing to underwrite a property that doesn't take action or fails to get a report? Seems they could be a player going forward that acts as a motivator for anyone dragging their feet.
Does SB1702 contain any type of scoring criteria for these new threshold reports that will clearly indicate to the governing organization has to do something to address deficiencies identified in report?
Hello Josh, great video. Great subject matter. As a dumb A$$ welder (Still working @ 68 yr's) / ex-Body & Fender (25 yr's experience) guy, to address: ALL residents should get a copy of these reports. As your well aware, their is more than one way to build a house. In that vein, may I suggest a couple of remedies: Just like an employer must "POST- MINIMUM WAGE POSTERS," etc, why not the same for the 20 year report(s)? Not the whole report, just a one page or less, of just: Who, What, Where, Why, and When, anyone could get said report(s.) Or talk to the lawyer's and ask them to think about adding a provision that a copy of the report "SHALL" be filed with the local city / county / state government, where a permit would be applied for a building permit(s,) repair's / or where the legal DEED would be filed, etc.
Your on the money, with the Carrot (the report) & Stick (no enforcement) approach. Government is lazy, so try to sell the idea, of "self-executing provision," something like failure to file 20 year report on time, commences a 180 day window, {or whatever is needed} before the Certificate of Occupancy is revoked. That would get someone's immediate attention / smell the coffee. No (big-time) COST(s) to implement, a "self-executing provision."
In this day & age of 2022, it is very rare that a city / town / county/ state official writes his/her(s) own legislation, usually some "think-tank," etc, does the "deed," and just like making sausage, it gets very ugly after that. Remember Josh, politics is HOLLYWOOD for the ugly. Stay safe, Josh, don't embrace the call of the wild (Politics.) God Bless.
The milestone inspections should be tracked and enforced by the local building inspectors office. Either on the county level or city level. County or municipal governments should make the penalty for not getting the inspections done, occupancy permits for that building are withdrawn. In effect condemning the building and deeming it unsafe for occupancy. Until such inspection is completed and building is proven safe.
So...do you inspect before they paint it or after? Hummm!
Architects are not engineers! If they are involved, they will 95% of the time, side with the person who is paying them! Engineers on the other hand, are legally responsible for their calculations and much more responsible with their decisions.
Have they (the investigators engineers) consider the possible effect of sea salt from the ocean in front of the building affecting the structure during construction and that rusting during the following years contributing to the collapse of it?
Should 'coastal structures' be classified by whether the body of water is salt or fresh?
Why wouldn’t they require this law apply to buildings less than 3 stories too? There’s probably 1000’s of unsafe apartment complexes that aren’t 3 stories or more especially in Florida where corruption is king.
Kind of crazy to think that the collapse of a pool deck would cause half the building to go down with it but I guess there were some poor engineering decisions made. Why would the columns supporting the building be attached to the same slab running out to the pool deck? Wouldn't you want to keep those areas separate? I'm not an engineer so I'm sure I'm overlooking something obvious but it just seems like a really bad design. Once the punching sheer happened and the slab fell, all that weight started tugging on the main support columns for the building instead of breaking away cleanly from it.
This could have turned out a lot differently had the slab connections been designed differently and I doubt it would have even added much to the original construction costs.
Who is responsible for noticing distress. The architect? An architect can state what the board of home owners want to see (who pays the bill decide). I suppose this will give discussion between home owners while a number of home owners don't want to spend (more) money on it. At least that is what I see in my building in Europe and that will be not different overseas in Florida.
Nice work, shame it took a collapse to try to get it passed.
I urge anyone with an interest in these CID issues to read ‘Privatopia’ by Evan McKenzie, a book published in 1994 that discusses condos, co-ops, and other Common Interest Developments from their origins to the present. In addressing the current issue of legislation reforming how CIDs are maintained, this book makes a very important point. The laws and lobbying for CIDs are done by three groups: 1) the developers, 2) attorneys specializing in CIDs, and 3) the commercial management companies. Note well that HOAs / owners don’t enter into this at all, and when we add to that the numbers of condos that are owned by investors whose only concern is their bottom line, the conditions for disaster are built in to the system. Mr. Porter points to this when he states that nowhere in the law are there any criminal penalties attached to the bill (FL Senate Bill 1702). With no consequences, why expect that anyone will be strongly motivated to change the existing system? At least in our condo (not in FL) the bylaws prohibit renting / leasing. A prospective buyer was declined on these grounds just last week.
Serious? Of course architects are serious. I have condemned buildings because they were evidently distressed. I'm not qualified to do the quantitative calcs, but I can qualitatively assess movement, out of plumb, non-conforming structure or whatever.
The hammer here is liability. A condo assn that does not get the inspection, or somehow disregards the inspection, or an owner that somehow does not inform the buyer, or an engineer that does poor work, and the building collapses or has serious problems, is now more firmly on the hook. The insurance companies will ultimately be the enforcers.
I hope you realize the condominium board is condominium owners voted there by other owners. No one wants the position now, so who will be the Board members with liability?
@@Drwild75 Anyone that should have done something listed in the law...and failed to do it. I listed the assn because they sometimes have a group liability and are exempted from individual liability as a board member.
-movin' to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon...
Good video - well done Josh, and well done Florida.
Should we assume that Milestone Inspection reports will be public documents and not Restricted/Confidential - free speech and all that.
I have always felt that buildings should be like cars and come with a log book and manufacturers recommended service plan! (well cars do in UK dunno about USA).
I assume IF condo owners/boards don't commission the required milestone reports that the buildings/units will be uninsurable and unsaleable (except at heavily discounted prices) - but I agree the proposed law needs some regulatory and enforcement requirements. I assume that USA does have such requirements for fire safety so it wouldn't be revolutionary.
Question Josh and I’ve been active in tweeting lawmakers, is that aeronautical miles or driving miles from the coast? We have 3 to 4 story apartments/condos going up in my county and they will be 4 aeronautical miles from the coast. We have a height limitation once we are west of I-95. I’m fortunate that we only have 5 condos beachside that’s over 3 stories.
Yes, but it’s often the building’s finances and lack of reserves which dictate what a board can and will do.
with regards to doing the inspection ; i imagine liability for damages would be clear if the law required you to get a safety inspection, you didn't do so, then a safety incident occurred.
The building was engineered by the subs and contractors since there were no cut through plans to show how to build the building.
The question is are there enough engineers to handle all of the work that's coming their way, and do they have building structure integrity in their bones, or will they fall prey to the all mighty dollar 💵?
I agree that there needs to be criminal liability written into the law in some manner.
Should construction and sale-profit be clawed back from developer builder heirs?
not going to happen
I'm working in a 1979 cement block 2 story condo. Block construction, all wiring in EMT Tubes, but mostly 14 gauge and only 2 circuits in kitchen. Lots of chopping out concrete block to recess outlet boxes, using 12 2 w ground. No green ground wires used, EMT as ground
None of that should be any problem. Fairly normal
@@willschultz5452 Normal is not necessarily the same as not being a potential problem. I might rent such a place, but I'd never buy. 14-gauge wire to a kitchen?
@@Inkling777 its ok as long as it's on a 15 amp breaker. However a modern kitchen today should really have 3 - 20 amp circuits by rights. Too many appliances these days. Same as a bathroom outlet, you need a 20 amp circuit. Most blow dryers are between 1500 and 2800 watts.
It may be a blessing in disguise that the Bill doesn't try to spell out in detail what constitutes distress in a building. This is something which is much better delegated to the State Board of Engineers, who can issue a guidance document defining exactly what constitutes sufficient distress to warrant a Phase II inspection. Depending on the authority of the Board, the document may not have the force of law, but it will establish standards to which licensed professionals can be held to account.
I don't say this very often but there are some smart politicians working on this. Next year, this bill would've received significant pushback from the condo associations, lawyers, building owners, etc. but with Champlain still so clearly in everyone's mind, NObody wants to be on the wrong side of this.
A toothless law, what a surprise! I'm obviously being sarcastic.