Town 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. 

The House bill was a good bill that would have taken care of problems caused by natural disasters -- and was a well-intentioned bill. 

Senator 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, gave me."

When 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 homes!

But 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. 

As 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.

There 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 greed!

The 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 OWNERS!

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!

SEE DBPR STUDY REPORT

SEE CCFJ, Inc. Letter -- PUBLIC INPUT

SEE COMPLETE PDF.FILE WITH COMPLETE REPORT! (9.71 MB)