re: Real bad condo collapse in Surfside, FL

quote:

---

Criminal charges?

Jesus Christ I’ve heard it all

---

the victims whiny families will probably even sue to make a buck off some poor schmuck who was just doing his job!

quote:

---

3. Building management, which was informed by the 2018 report of major necessary repairs yet chose not to do them.

---

Sounds like a City Official told them the building was fine. That person needs to be interviewed STAT.

quote:

---

Not good.

---

Is that article even discussing the condo that collapsed?
Sorry, I may be a little confused

quote:

---

I wonder if the insurer of the Master Insurance policy will argue that there is no replacement/re-build coverage because of a failure to maintain and repair the property per the 2018 report?

---

Seriously doubt it. It’s Florida. Denial will undoubtedly bring a CRN with Florida DFS and lawsuit. That case being in South Florida will end with a recovery/award of at least something (if not all). I’m guessing someone like Chip Merlin would get. Eventually… Door gets open for plaintiffs to bring a bad-faith case and risk/exposure would be astronomical. Don’t know when the Policy renewed, but you’d assume they’d also be entitled to attorneys fees/costs under old guard or DeSantis reform bill.

quote:

---

NPR has obtained minutes of a Nov. 2018 meeting that shows a Surfside town inspector met with residents of the building, and assured them the building was "in very good shape." That directly conflicts 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."

---

I can tell you from experience, a city inspector is absolutely worthless in that scenario. Even if the city official was a licensed civil engineer, he has no business passing judgement on an existing report, much less a judgement that allows the permit holder to do LESS than the minimum action recommended in a report.

In fact, I have yet to meet a city inspector who did anything more than perform a minutes long cursory inspection before confirming that a stamped engineering document was properly filed in his office.

quote:

---

One less Democrat.

---

Still gonna vote though

quote:

---

Still gonna vote though

---

Fact.

I always say please dont let me vote Democrat when I’m dead.

I just read that 2018 report and I am triggered. Ive been on two sides of this, assessing consulting engineering firm and the municipal inspector side including post-incident with casualty (but not mass).

This 2018 report is extremely un-nerving in that it is unprofessional and IMO geared toward securing the next contract for buddy/family company. A major cardinal sin is violated when he states blame or deficiency on a particular person name or business name. This assessment calls out what is probably a competitor. Another major issue is that he speculates that the leaching of calcium carbonate has "surely caused [the client] to repaint numerous cars" . I dont doubt the findings but wow, one of those pictures labelled as typical cracking and spalling is clearly mechanical damage via contact by vehicles.

In his $3.8M remediation estimate, only $250K is for structural repairs including pressure washing entire structure as "repair" and not something believable as "prep". Some of the waterproofing is valid but that itemized list is a joke.

[/rant]

quote:

---

I just read that 2018 report and I am triggered. Ive been on two sides of this, assessing consulting engineering firm and the municipal inspector side including post-incident with casualty (but not mass).

This 2018 report is extremely un-nerving in that it is unprofessional and IMO geared toward securing the next contract for buddy/family company. A major cardinal sin is violated when he states blame or deficiency on a particular person name or business name. This assessment calls out what is probably a competitor. Another major issue is that he speculates that the leaching of calcium carbonate has "surely caused [the client] to repaint numerous cars" . I dont doubt the findings but wow, one of those pictures labelled as typical cracking and spalling is clearly mechanical damage via contact by vehicles.

In his $3.8M remediation estimate, only $250K is for structural repairs including pressure washing entire structure as "repair" and not something believable as "prep". Some of the waterproofing is valid but that itemized list is a joke.

[/rant]

---

I was just about to say something similar. 2500 sq ft of garage slab replacement was the most "structural" repair in there. With $350k for landscaping, not including hardscape.

Although my takeaway was a bit different:

1) it's not an inspection, so much as a renovation rec

2) nothing in it is damning, as far as the structural condition of the building

3) lots of waterproofing, but minimum actual RC work

4) I wouldn't have been "scared" of being in that building based solely on that document.

5) the media, as always cherry picked things from it to make it sound bad. "$10 mil in required repairs" when the biggest structural item is under $300k.

6) obviously many residents had concerns greater than what was documented here. If this report missed so much, where's their counter inspection or photos?

7) obviously something caused the building to collapse, did these guys miss it, or did things deteriorate rapidly since then, or did something happen that caused direct damage (including construction accident)


I don't disagree that this looks more like a sales pitch than a report. But I don't sense any thing devious. Unless you personally know something we don't, like did the engineers brother in law actually get hired? Because calling out a competitor for shoddy work on a building that actually falls down doesn't seem insincere or a bad judgment at face value here.

Honestly my first thought after reading was "well where else do you start looking for a cause, because it isn't here."