‘Major error’ flagged in ‘18 inspection of collapsed building near Miami Beach
miamiherald.com
miamiherald.com
My question is: how did any sale of units get approved between home inspectors, lenders, appraiser, insurers, or other third parties having this information who would participate in a transaction? The condo association knew about this report since 2018, and would’ve been required by Florida law (Section 503(2) of Florida’s Condominium Act) to disclose to any buyers.
http://www.wgmorrislaw.com/Marco-Island-Law-Blog/2020/August...
I don't think this is the right way to characterize the issue.
There are a huge number of unlikely disasters, and we round the small probabilities to zero.
This should not be called an error or a fallacy unless you can point to an alternative way of evaluating things which would be a practical improvement.
The idea that people should obviously take small risks seriously reminds me of Pascal's wager.
What's "obvious" at first is not so obvious once you consider the unlimited number of possibilities.
If you do assign a non-zero probability to any of them, then the total will be way too much, and you can't use it for making coherent decisions.
With serious maintenance issues it's different, a catastrophic outcome is guaranteed. When you see photos like from the report you can't tell if the building will fall in today or next month, but you do know with certainty that it won't be standing ten years from now. Mors certa, hora incerta.
And how did the parking garage ever come to be in such a state? The condominium board is so shambolic that no one who values his life should buy into the condo association.
That's all you need to know to make a good decision.
I think one can distinguish between the tenants and whoever is responsible for the building and had the reports on the deterioration.
Probabilities depend on what an individual knows and doesn't know.
For a tenant, all they know is everyone acts like things are fine, and therefore a small probability of disaster applies. That doesn't mean it applies to someone else with different information.
I know nothing about it, but I used to park in a garage for work, where they would periodically remove some concrete, exposing rebar, involving a huge amount of noise and dust, and I wondered why.
I assumed they were checking structural integrity, but it always seemed hard for me to conceptualize how you could take concrete out and then patch it up without somehow damaging the relationship with the rebar going through it.
> Just one month after an engineering report warned of "major structural damage" that required immediate repair, a Surfside, Fla. official assured residents of Chaplain Towers South that their building was sound.
> The engineering report was dated Oct. 8, 2018. At a Nov. 15 board meeting of the Champlain Tower South Condominium Association, a building official from the town of Surfside, Ross Prieto, appeared to discuss that report. "Structural engineer report was reviewed by Mr. Prieto," the meeting minutes say. "It appears the building is in very good shape."
> The inspector's comments directly conflicted with an engineering report from five weeks earlier, which warned that failed waterproofing in a concrete structural slab needed to be replaced "in the near future."
(In case the content is behind the Miami Herald’s paywall.)