6 comments

[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 22.0 ms ] thread
This is a challenge laid down to any Conservative party anywhere - be better than this. “F*ck you, I got mine.” is a pretty horrible political or ethical philosophy.
I'm not sure I understand the failure to back this law - it certainly wouldn't have cost the state (or localities) very much compared to the cost of a collapse. The real question to me is whether the condo owners as a group could afford to fix their properties. We've got bridges falling down because the government can't afford to fix them and I don't see a huge difference here. Unfortunately, I also can't suggest a solution.
Can’t afford or won’t afford. There’s a (big) difference.
I think the government should inspect the buildings, as they would for any multi-tenant housing facility and then declare what repairs are required to make it continue to be habitable. If the repairs are not made inappropriate timelines since declared uninhabitable.

Forcing condo boards to keep the appropriate reserve seems like something better handled by those who are members of the condo association. There's something to be said about when you buy into an association such as this to be an active member in it. Otherwise you're just abdicating everything as if you're in a public housing project. If you have the money to buy into a condo you should have the wherewithal to do your due diligence.

I wonder how much the insurance companies could do on this (legally, politically, and practically). They've got real skin in the game, and far less incentive to listen to lobbyists or condo owners.
>lawmakers have pledged to pass measures that could help avoid a similar disaster.

>On Friday, they failed.

There's this thing about failures turning out to be lawmakers more in the 21st century than anybody would have ever imagined.