Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

There is an easy fix. Condo finances should be public record, and when repairs are needed, the local code/planning/inspector office reviews with the condo board, approves if necessary, and then puts encumbrances on the units in the complex. Those who can afford the cost pay right away, those who can’t have essentially borrowed against their equity to finance their share of the repairs, with the loans paid back with interest when the property is sold.

Transparency is one part, but also independent oversight and enforcement of the work necessary.

View on HN

Could you elaborate on how this is different from the current system?

With the current system, the condo board decides that repairs are needed, assesses fees, and makes the repairs. The fees are either paid immediately by the condo owners, or the HOA puts a lien on the condo. Local laws require larger buildings to be inspected on some scehdule... in New York I think there's a type of inspection (FSPM: fire safety and property maintenance) that is required every three years, for all multi-tenant residential buildings.

From what I can tell, the big problem is that the condo board is just made up of people who own the condos, and the bylaws of individual HOAs require certain actions by the condo board to be approved by the owners.

The other problem is that Florida has weaker laws for condos than other states.

If the condo board doesn’t have the will or the unit owner votes to approve the work, it won’t be done.

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to tighten the building codes?

The condo board is already required to perform repairs to keep the building up to code.

> The condo board is already required to perform repairs to keep the building up to code.

A collapsed condo building disagrees.

> A collapsed condo building disagrees.

That's a really cutesy way of putting it.

My take on this is that the building codes in Florida are perhaps too lax, although I'm not an expert on building codes. From the reports I've been reading, the relevant inspections were to be done on a 40-year interval, and the building lasted less than 40 years (so its first inspection, in service, was never conducted).

This, to me, indicates that if the building was ever up to code, the code was too lax. If the maintenance was done to code, then the code was too lax.

It’s about incentives. If you try to tighten building codes, developers will fight tooth and nail to prioritize profits over more durable and longer lasting housing (and everyone will complain housing isn’t affordable). If you tighten maintenance and life safety reviews and upkeep, owners will vote you out of office (either your condo board or local government) because they don’t want to spend the money (or failing voting you out, stonewall approving repairs as long as possible).

You need an independent party that can force life safety repairs when necessary (which, in this most recent case, should’ve been Surfside’s building dept), and longer term, some development will likely be entirely off limits due to financial unsustainability (as you elude to).

What makes the incentives in your proposal different? If the city is coming in and mandating repairs, then their authority comes from laws, which were passed by politicians, who can be voted out of office by condo owners.

Usually, I think you’d be right, but this is a great opportunity to use this crisis and the Surfside tragedy to enact robust measures along these lines. Regulations are written in blood as they say. A firefighter had to recover the body of his 7 year old daughter out of the rubble pile. Hard to take the other side of the argument while this is occurring, and I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.

Wouldn't we be able to tighten building codes and enforcement / inspection in Florida for exactly the same reason?

Maybe! Really depends on the appetite of the Florida legislature and the governor. With DeSantis eyeing a 2024 presidential run, it could be feasible. Hard to say. Without state efforts, it’d be up to each local government.

This is the right answer. Some repairs should be mandatory, if the owner can't pay it should be treated as any other debt. If the owner can't afford repairs, it should sell the unit, otherwise the damages are greater for all other owners.

I guess there's the potential problem of the inspector suggesting repairs for the sake of business. Mandatory repairs would likely be gamed unless there are robust checks and balances.

How much of a problem is this? In most places, there are laws regarding the conflict of interest for building inspectors. For example, building inspectors may not be allowed to be involved in the any building business at all, with some exceptions carved out for making modifications to their own home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com