Controversial proposal to withhold Citizens insurance is part of condo bill impasse
Florida lawmakers pushing for adjustments to condo safety laws have hit an early impasse over two proposals: one that would allow condo associations to invest funds that have been saved for future building repairs, and another barring associations that shirk the law from getting insurance under the state-run Citizens program.
Lawmakers sponsoring the House and Senate proposals are trying to bring condominium associations into compliance with laws they crafted after a 12-story residential tower in Surfside collapsed in 2021, killing 98.
Those laws mandate Florida condominium associations get building inspections that are triggering immediate repair costs, and that they also save for future building maintenance.
The state hasn't offered assistance with either new financial burden, even as unit owners who can't afford the extra expenses are facing foreclosure. Sen. Jennifer Bradley is proposing in her bill, SB 1742, that associations be allowed to make investments with the money they save for future building repairs to help offset the cost to condo owners.
'We're going to have a lot of dollars in reserves, and these associations should be able to leverage those dollars,' said Bradley, a Fleming Island Republican. The Senate Committee on Regulated Industries, of which she is chairwoman, approved her proposal on Tuesday.
The bill still has two more Senate committees to get through before it is taken up by the entire chamber.
'It puts up guardrails. We invest our state employees' retirement, and it's a similar structure,' Bradley said. 'And the earnings on those investments will go towards capital repairs, capital improvements first.'
But Rep. Vicki Lopez, a Miami Republican, told the Herald/Times on Tuesday that she worries the provision will create 'lots of fraud.'
'I worry. I worry every day because not all association board members are sophisticated,' Lopez said, adding that many condominium associations in her district are 'run by elderly people.' 'I'm worried that someone may take advantage of them. … What happens to those funds if they're not invested properly and they lose their shirts? So I don't think it's a good idea.'
Lopez is proposing a different change to the status quo in a bill she's sponsoring, HB 913, which Bradley doesn't support.
Lopez's bill would prohibit condominium associations that aren't complying with the post-Surfside laws from obtaining insurance through the state-run Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Currently, there are no criminal penalties for associations, for instance, that shirk the requirement to get a 'structural integrity reserve study,' which outlines costs associated with saving for future repairs.
But associations that don't complete the study will be hard pressed to get loans or insurance on the private market, experts have said. Lopez wants to provide the same tough incentive with state-run insurance.
'It is the stick,' Lopez said earlier this month about the provision.
Lopez's bill will face one more committee in the House before it is taken up by the entire chamber.
Bradley previously spoke out against the Citizens component of Lopez's bill on social media, saying the condo insurance market 'is held together by duct tape.'
'Denying access to Citizens makes the situation worse,' Bradley wrote on Feb. 24.
Bradley said on Tuesday that she was still against the concept.
'I would never say anything is a no-go in negotiations … but that's not something I think I'd want to embrace,' Bradley said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk goes scorched earth: Trump will cause recession, implies he should be impeached
Elon Musk and Donald Trump's alliance continues to publicly implode, with the world's richest man taking aim at the president's signature economic policy — tariffs — and implying he should be removed from office. 'The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year,' Musk wrote on X Thursday afternoon. It marks Musk's biggest criticism yet of one of Trump's most beloved policies. Musk also took aim at one of the president's most-hated political maneuvers: impeachment. Responding to another post about who would win in a fight between Musk and Trump — which also calls for Trump to be impeached and for Vice President JD Vance to replace him — Musk simply responded: 'Yes.' Trump was impeached twice by a Democratic-controlled House during his first term, but was acquitted both times by the Senate. Musk — who's been launching back and forth attacks with Trump all day Thursday — has never been a big fan of Trump's sweeping tariff plans, and publicly ridiculed Peter Navarro, one of the public faces of Trump's trade war, while he was still a government employee. The tariffs are set to have huge implications for Musk's car company Tesla, because of the rising costs of materials and manufacturing abroad. The car company's stocks took a dive following the tariff announcements, and were also impacted by Musk's growing absence from the company during his time as Trump's special adviser while leading the Department of Government Efficiency. That said, Musk has called Tesla the 'least affected' car company from the tariffs, due to supply chains being split between Europe, China and North America. But the Tesla CEO hasn't shied away from bashing Trump's trade advisers in the past — even labeling Navarro a 'moron.' In addition to railing against the tariffs, Musk has spent the last three days rallying against the administration's "big beautiful bill," which he called "disgusting" and "pork-filled" in a flood of X posts — urging Senate Republicans to reject the mega-funding legislation. Trump hit back early Thursday, saying he was 'disappointed' by Musk's comments. 'Elon and I had a great relationship,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'I don't know if we will anymore.' Upon return to their respective social media sites, the two turned up the heat. What has since ensued has been a barrage of X posts from the billionaire and corresponding Truth Social posts from the president that have widened a chasm between the two — who just last Friday stood side by side at the Oval Office on Musk's last day in the White House, as Trump thanked him for his service. Now, Trump said Musk has a case of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' a taunt usually reserved for his political opponents. He's also floating ending all of Musk's federal government contracts including with his company SpaceX — one of NASA's biggest contractors. The attacks escalated when Musk suggested that Trump would not have won the 2024 election without his help, and that Republicans would have been outnumbered in Congress. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X, referencing the hundreds of millions he poured into Trump's and other GOP campaigns. Musk had a poll running at the top of his X feed asking people about forming a third party. He had suggested on Tuesday, when he took his first big shot at the Republican megabill, that he could fund campaigns to primary and potentially unseat Republicans that backed the legislation. The SpaceX founder then dropped what he described as the 'really big bomb.' Musk suggested that Trump's name appears in records of the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and said the records 'have not been made public' to conceal that fact. In February, the Department of Justice released what it called the 'first phase' of documents related to the Epstein investigation, which has been a fixation of some of the president's supporters. It has long been public that Trump — along with other prominent figures, like Bill Clinton — are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein. But Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. Trump has tied Musk's criticism of the 'big beautiful bill' to the looming end of a tax credit for electric vehicles, which will also deal a blow to Tesla. 'Suddenly he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out we're going to cut the EV mandate that's billions and billions of dollars,' Trump said Thursday. Musk denied Trump's framing, reaffirming his larger criticism of the bill's spending and the potential for it to add trillions to the national deficit over the next 10 years. The former DOGE adviser also shut down the idea that he was familiar with the 'inner workings' of the bill from his time in the White House, calling that a lie.
