Article
Courtesy of The Sarasota Herald Tribune
By
MICHAEL POLLICK
Posted June 9, 2006
SARASOTA
-- Senate Bill 1556 started out in December as a piece of widely praised
legislation intended to help condo owners clean up their complexes after
hurricanes.
But by late April, after snaking through a legislative subcommittee and
receiving a unanimous blessing from both the Florida Senate and House of
Representatives, it had morphed into a green light for developers to
tear down any aging condo by winning over only 80 percent of the owners
to their side.
Critics
claimed the bill, and companion piece House Bill 0543, would have
eroded private property rights.
On Wednesday, Gov. Jeb Bush agreed and vetoed the legislation,
contending it "changes the default provision of requiring the
consent of all unit holders for termination in existing law and
permits voluntary termination in virtually any circumstance,
thereby diminishing security in ownership of private
property."
But those trying to win the bill's passage and those opposed to it
both agree that the issue is not going to go away.
"Developers have quite a bit of pull," said Dr. Virgil
Rizzo, who was fired as the state's condo ombudsman only a few
days before the bill got to the governor's desk. "They
probably saw an advantage."
Incredibly, Rizzo -- a retired Fort Lauderdale physician and
attorney whom Bush fired as ombudsman in late May -- was unaware
that there was such a condominium bill pending in the Legislature
during the last half of his year or so in office.
"I
don't follow legislation much," said Rizzo.
Jan Bergemann, co-founder of Cyber Citizens for Justice Inc.,
initially supported the bill's passage. But the final version of
the bill, which was expanded to include condos not crippled by
disaster, left the condo advocate feeling hoodwinked. |
On
the Internet
To find the Senate condo termination bill
and its various versions, go to www.flsenate.gov.
On the left side of the home page, you will see "Jump
to Bill."
Type "1556," the number of the Senate bill, in the
"Bill #" box and click on "Go."
The page that opens up will show you the versions of the
bill and how they differed.
The original bill S1556 was published Jan. 25.
The first modifications were filed March 15. Others were
filed on March 23 and May 3.
You can access the House bill from the same site. Just type
in 543 on the "Jump to Bill" menu on the left, and
click on "Go."
At the bottom of the Senate pages is a link to help you
"find your legislator." |
|
"When
we looked at it, natural disaster was the trigger. You couldn't use the
wording of the bill because you didn't like the color of the roof,"
Bergemann said Thursday from his home in DeLand. "I thought
considering that we have a lot of natural disasters, it was something we
should do, and I thought it was a good bill."
On Thursday, he scurried around the legislative site www.flsenate.gov
trying to see when and how the rug got pulled out from under him.
"They are trying to hide their facts pretty well," said
Bergemann. "It was not an amendment brought by a specific
legislator. Rather, it is called a committee substitute."
He said changes were jointly made by the bill's chief Senate sponsor,
Stephen Geller of Hallandale, and by two committees.
On Thursday, he wrote to both of the bill's chief sponsors -- Geller and
Naples Rep. J. Dudley Goodlette.
"Who caused the changes to the perfectly great original bill that
finally caused the Governor to veto it? The original wording would have
served a good purpose! Now what???," Bergemann wrote.
Both the original version of the bill, filed Dec. 19, and the two later
modifications that took place in March would have retroactively made it
possible for only 80 percent of the owners of a condominium to terminate
the condominium arrangement. That change could have cleared the way for
tearing down complexes and selling the land to developers for new
projects.
Current law states that the voting percentage in the condominium
declaration rules the day. If there is no specified percentage of votes
specified for terminating the condominium arrangement, the law specifies
100 percent. Florida condominiums have been sold under this legal set of
circumstances for more than four decades.
The initial bill applied only to projects affected by natural disasters.
Two comprehensive write-throughs later, the bill was altered so that it
addressed not just condominiums in disrepair but also circumstances
involving "obsolescence of the condominium property for its
intended use and thereby lower property tax values."
For his part, Geller said, he didn't put any wording into the bill at
all. He said he simply used what the Florida Bar Association and what
their lobbyist, Peter Dunbar, gave him.
But he defends the bill's language as vetoed, saying it needs to be
retroactive and it needs to provide "some method where you can
dissolve a condominium where you have people who won't vote."
And Geller agreed that the bill, which has been floating around in
various versions for about three years, is not going to go away.
There have been too many cases of condominiums where the condo
association has determined that needed repairs were so extreme or costly
that they would exceed the condos' value, Geller said.
He cited one case where, stuck with a condo rule that 100 percent of the
owners must approve a termination and unable to reach all the owners of
record, the only way the condo association could terminate its binding
legal contracts was to go into bankruptcy.
"You don't solve the problem by putting it only for the
future," he said. "It has to be retroactive."
Bush, he said, "is on his way out. I will be back. Something has to
be done."
|