Opinion By Jan Bergemann
President, Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.
hall meetings and public comments were used to create this STUDY-REPORT
and the recommendations that were published by the DBPR. This
report was endendered by demand of Governor Jeb Bush, requested
in his VETO-LETTER
to SB 1556. SB
1556 was a bill sponsored by Senator Geller that added more
provisions to a condo termination bill that had been filed by
House Representative Dudley Goodlette as HB 543.
House bill was a good bill that would have taken care of
problems caused by natural disasters -- and was a
that was before the Senate version made the changes that would
have created an eminent domain situation for condo owners.
Geller's excuse regarding the contents (quote): "I didn't
put any wording into the bill at all. I used what the Florida
Bar Association and what their lobbyist, Peter Dunbar,
we go through all the testimony and input, it is very clear that
we have two opposing sides: The owners on one side and the
developers and other parties making money from termination on
the other. Owners trying to protect their homes --
understandably so! Developers making profits -- still
understandable, but not at the expense of owners losing their
when we go through the testimony and written input, it is pretty
obvious that some people just don't understand what the whole
issue is all about. There really is a big difference between
termination and just amending deed restrictions.
to notice: Anybody
who claims that a little ad in any insignificant newspaper is
sufficient notice to take peoples' homes away must have very
little understanding what "HOME" means to most owners.
I can compare it with the fact that public hearings of
any government committee are announced in the Florida
Administrative Weekly -- a paper only a few insiders really
read. A Certified Letter with Return Receipt Requested or
Service by Process Server should definitely be required in order
to prove that an owner has been officially served. We are here
not just talking about a simple change of rules.
is proof that developers have attempted to take over
condominiums in order to get hold of the property. There can be
huge profits involved -- but people are losing their homes to
input and comments from the owners' side reflected more or less
what I had already said in my Letter
to the Department dated July 2, 2006. We really don't
need a disguised variation of EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CONDO
We surely need a bill that helps condo owners to
sort out their problems after natural disasters. But we don't
need a bill to feed the greed of a few!
DBPR STUDY REPORT
CCFJ, Inc. Letter -- PUBLIC INPUT
COMPLETE PDF.FILE WITH COMPLETE REPORT! (9.71 MB)