this is "Facing South Florida" with Jim DeFede.
>>Welcome to "Facing South Florida."
I'm Jim DeFede and today we are going to focus
on two of the biggest failures
of this year's legislative session.
The failure to address the rise
in homeowners insurance rates
and the failure to pass a single reform
following the Surfside building collapse.
we'll get to homeowner's insurance in a minute,
but we start with Surfside.
Three and a half million people in Florida live in condos,
and 60% of those buildings are at least 30 years old.
Making sure they are safe
and that critical repairs are being done in a timely manner
should have been the legislature's
highest priority this year, but their efforts failed.
Last week we heard from state Senator Jennifer Bradley,
who sponsored the Senate reform bill.
The week before I interviewed
state representative Danny Perez,
who carried his own House bill.
This week I speak to state Senator Jason Pizzo,
who represents Surfside and was at the site every day
as they searched for bodies.
>>It continues to be a tragedy
where I think the memory or the recency
is still very real for people in my district.
You know, the whole east side
of the 15 cities that I represent
are all condo laden along the coast.
And so it, you know, we drive by it, you walk by it,
it still has recency, it's in memory for all of us.
I can't say that for my colleagues, you know
but it's still very real and even this morning,
I'm hearing from from one of the fathers
of one of the young women that were lost
ask asking questions and asking for assistance.
It's every day.
>>The effort to try to pass some sort of reform
in the wake of Surfside, that bill was in the house,
we spoke to Danny Perez a couple weeks ago,
the Senate bill was by Senator Jen Bradley,
we spoke to her last week.
They couldn't come to terms and reach a middle ground
and so therefore nothing was done, is that disappointing?
>>It is disappointing, but I also think
it's disappointing to both of them as well.
I think both of them came from a good faith basis
in earnest to try to do something
and on a side by sort of comparison between the bills
as they evolved during the legislative session,
there was obviously some division,
some parts that either side
felt to be incompatible with the other
and not willing to compromise,
but when you asked me about disappointment,
I think it was shared by both.
>>Where it really seemed to break down to me
in talking to both Senator Bradley and representative Perez
was on the issue of waving reserves.
And again, just for my viewers,
reserves are the money that is collected
over a period of time
in anticipation of having to make repairs
at some point in time, whether it's the roof,
whether it's the foundation whether it's ceiling cracks,
whatever it is the state requires
that buildings set aside money on a regular basis
so that when those repairs are needed
there's money available to do it.
The state law also, however,
allows for condominium associations to waive those reserves.
The House bill said no waving of reserves,
the Senate bill said, the only way to wave reserves
is if two thirds of the entire building votes to do so.
That seemed to be the biggest stumbling block,
was trying to marry those two things.
Where do you think it should be?
>>I think that representative Perez on the House version had
no flexibility whatsoever on waving.
In practical application, Jim,
to get two thirds of all unit owners,
not two thirds of a quorum of the association
that's actually meeting, which can be three members,
five members, seven so to speak,
not a majority of those,
but to get two thirds of all unit owners
is not an easy task and I think for many buildings
it's tantamount to effectively, or by default,
just going to the position of not being able to wave.
'Cause to get that kind of participation is a very high bar
or at least it suggests a very deliberate decision
to to wave it and it better be qualified to do so.
>>When I talked to representative Perez and Senator Bradley
their initial statement to me was,
we'll try again next year.
You know, and I pressed both of them, I said,
why not continue the discussions now?
Why not see if you can come to some sort of middle ground
and suggest that it be taken care of in a special session,
maybe along with homeowners insurance rates
and deal with it that way?
Would you support a special session?
Would you support trying to continue to work on this now
and try to bridge the gap between the two of them.
>>Absolutely yes and I think,
I saw when you had Senator Bradley on about a week ago
and the week before that you had representative Perez on,
both indicating that they'd continue to work towards it,
and then I reached out to both of them collectively
and said, invited them even into the district,
and said can we work this out over a weekend?
And they were both quick to say, we're working on it,
we're gonna get something done.
So I'm with you, you know, there's a number of bills
that get close to the finish line
that seem close to be able to passing.
And sometimes they're sort of academic
or they're tax related or they're somehow finance related.
But when you're talking about bills
that have to do with life and safety, you know, another year
or we'll kick the can down the road for another year,
when you asked me if I was disappointed, the answer is yes.
But again, I think representative Perez and Senator Bradley
were also disappointed that nothing passed
because you let a year pass, and again,
you're talking about things that involve people's lives,
you never want any time to waste.
>>It seems like there is ways to try to meld these two,
but if the House version
and the House stays with the position,
it's either never wave reserves or nothing at all.
That's not a good position to take.
I'm curious your thoughts.
>>I think to ramp a up
and what's effectively gonna be accelerating,
remember it's sort of a number of years of go slow
and now it's hurry up.
Now, who's at fault?
It's the artificial I think suppression of association fees
or what appropriate reserves
should have been over the years.
But again, it's sort of a, you know,
perennial bad habits that are now of catching up with you.
And I consider buildings
to be almost like living, breathing animals.
You know, this is not in a vacuum, it's not two dimensional.
These things age and they deteriorate
and they have maintenance issues
which are accelerated or exacerbated as we know,
by being close to a coastline or having a high water table.
There are other differences
between the House and the Senate bill
that extend beyond reserves
and I have some concerns as well,
only because of my experience
even well before the Surfside tragedy.
>>Well, gimme an idea, gimme an idea.
What are some of those?
>>The capacity for the state agency,
the Department of Business and Professional Regulation
to adequately fund and and follow through
with investigations, that's been the bane
of every sort of condo association or owner's existence
ever since I got in office and before I got in office.
You file the complaint as it relates to records
or financial statements or any of the above
as a condo owner,
and it's a very frustrating process because
DBPR has very limited resources.
Each condo owner in the state of Florida,
whether they know it or not,
is baked in , it's like $4 a year,
that goes up and it's supposed to be kept by the agency
to use for investigations, to use for arbitration,
and and carrying out their role and responsibility.
At one point, I think they only had 33 agents
for a million and a half condos,
that's just woefully inadequate.
The bigger issues for me outside,
I think reserves we can get to it,
there there's many different ways to convey value
or to be able to have a line of credit,
all different types of vehicles for that and instruments.
For me my concern was the responsibility,
the added responsibility, the new responsibility,
that would be added on
either to a local building official in one bill
versus the agency in another.
And you know, most of the bills that we see
they have what's called fiscal, right?
There's a cost associated with carrying out a bill.
This the session, one of the bills was on election security.
So the bill called for the addition
of 15 full-time employees to go to FDLE
for these inspections, you know, for these investigations.
Neither of these bills had sort of any cost
or fiscal associated with carrying out these roles.
Now, if I represent Miami Beach, Surfside Bell Harbor,
Bay Harbor, North Bay Village, Sunny Isles Beach,
these are obviously explosive,
you know, large heavy density condo areas.
And you're laying upon a building official
a lot of responsibility in one bill
or a state agency in another,
which, you know from practical purposes,
it sounds nice in theory,
but they really don't have the resources.
When you go from just two counties
that have a recertification model to all counties
and you're putting a large burden on a state agency
that is already woefully underfunded
for their existing tasks,
that was a bigger con concern to me.
>>Given the differences, can they come together?
Do you think at some point, is it reasonable to think
that these differences can be ironed out
in a timely enough manner
to include in a special session this year?
>>It should be, they should absolutely be able to do so.
Listen, the very first bill,
there was three versions of the Senate bill,
a couple versions of the House bill,
even if we just did what, what was in the Senate bill,
and it really was just a placeholder, right?
You can put something into bill drafting
and then it pops up and appears and it's published
and that was reducing the re-certification
or the inspection of a building, you know,
a number of years lower.
Different on both sides, it was 20 years of age
and then seven years thereafter in the Senate bill,
it was 25 and then 10 thereafter in the House bill.
Any one of those is substantial.
Even just that one point, I mean, there's, you know,
side by side, probably 22, 23 different points
and treatments of different issues,
anything would've been an improvement.
So when you say special session, obviously,
the governor can call one, you know,
a number of of house and Senate members
also agreeing on it can call it.
>>I mean, I've now talked about this issue
the last three shows,
am I wrong to focus so much attention on this issue?
>>You're not.
And remember, and I mean this
with all due respect to my colleagues in the Senate,
many of whom come from agricultural, you know,
centric areas, from single family detached homes.
I think I'm the only, I might be the only Senator
out of the 40, who lives in a condo with my wife and kids.
So it's a daily issue for me,
It's a daily occurrence for me when I go to bed
and when I see my neighbors and when I walk down the street
I'm walking out of a condo and looking at other condos.
And so I'm respectful and mindful that it's not,
you know, incredibly sort of,
I don't wanna say that it's not important,
it's just not pressing on an everyday basis.
>>Three and a half million Floridians
a live in these buildings.
You know, that's a lot of Floridians
whose lives would be affected in a good way
if they could come to some sort of agreement
up in Tallahassee.
>>Yeah, it's critically important.
But I will tell you this, and I said this early,
and I think, you know this,
you've seen the governor's influence on a number of bills
or policy or theory or philosophy,
however, you know, legitimate or not,
but there was no overriding pressure or influence whatsoever
from the governor's office on condo issues this session.
>>When we come back we turn to homeowners insurance,
stay with us.