Really, Ivan? And who will pay these people for the newly created jobs that they’re doing? hmmm? Obama’s handouts? Where do you think that money comes from?
This bill wasn’t about the fire sprinklers, that’s just Crist’s scapegoat reason for vetoing it. He wants the courts to interpret that “special assessment coverage” in a way that just lets the insurance companies pay for the sprinklers.
Wow – this is shouldn’t surprise me but it does – It has always been my understanding that the “special assessment” coverage which the article refers to would not help an owner out in this situation as first there must be a covered cause of loss that triggers the coverage – the coverage certainly is not intended to be used for upgrades – only to cover extra expense in the case of major damage to a building in which the owner is charged a extra assessment to repair – DUH! Wonder where Charlie thinks this extra money qill come from – I co own a unit that I can’t get rid of for what we owe – combine the falling values with a 40-50% default rate on monthly maintenance fees as it is – we’re already being assessed just to MAINTAIN – now we have to retro fit sprinkler systems? this is MADNESS! I am saying goodby and good riddence to Charlie-
Given all the other bone headed things I’ve seen come out of Washington in my 50+ years on this planet, Charlie is certainly qualified to join that Rat Pack.
I just don’t think this country can take many more of these “profeessional” politicians.
Kinky Freidman who ran for Governor of Texas put it quite well: “Politics – from the latin word poly meaning many and tics for BLOOD SUCKING PARASITES!
I applaud Gov Crist for his veto, SAFETY should always be Number 1
Insurance Companies and Insurance underwriters always stress SAFETY and Prevention as a safe Risk Management Practice. That’s why it’s crazy that “Insurance Professional” are against Fire Sprinklers installed on buildings
This is the first time I see people involved in insurance opposing sprinklers and other safety measures
This is like finding a Doctor that tells their patients that smoking is good for your health
The installation of the sprinklers will also create employment and bring additional revenues to our depressed economies
The Gov did the right thing. If the bill is supposed to clean things up, why did it have the change to the fire sprinklers allowing things to remain dangerous for 10 more years. That is the key element of the bill in terms of public policy and it should not have been in there. A poorly designed bill and it deserved its fait.
maybe he’s got some thought process. i agree, what is the cost of someone’s life or property if they are not installed? so what if it is costly, does that not help with job creation and help with the economy. as an owner, i think i would definately preclude upgrading this. as an owner, i know i can write if off my taxes for improvements. so the owner, will not be out of money and it will help the local economy. most important the tenants will have a peace of mind!
Insurance Agents aren’t opposed to fire sprinklers, especially in Condominiums. The current law required the retrofitting of certain high-rise condo’s by 2014. The governor vetoed it because that date was “extended” to 2025. That means he and the legislature could have enacted the “necessary” insurance changes and would still have five (5) years to reduce the 2025 deadline back to 2014 “if” they wanted to, or some other date of thier choosing. Under the governors veto we have neither safety or the “necessary” insurance changes for the next year and no safety until 2014; assumingwe can pass the bill again next year and it doesn’t get vetoed again.
well, as an individual, i could just sue the gov’t for not mandating my personal protection for a fire within a condo or apartment complex…then because i love money sue the owner of the complex as well… sounds like a money tree just growing….
Yes, I guess you could sue the govt. for failure to mandate a safety feature, such as sprinklers in older buildings. but, the government did mandate them however it can’t be done overnight; it was always just a question of giving condo’s the time to implement. Besides suing the government is always subject to Sovereign immunity limits and you must first have a fire and suffer damages; beyond any insurance reimbursement. Also keep in mind, the absence of sprinklers doesn’t automatically mean a building is unsafe. neither does their presence indicate that it is safe. Don’t misunderstand, I agree…sprinklers make sense! I just don’t think this veto did.
The changes were needed as this original statute was poorly written. I also agree fire safety is important but if you work in personal lines this statute has caused nothing but headaches trying to meet the requirements. Listing the condo association as a named insured and loss payee on your condo unit owner policy is just wrong. Hopefully this will be fixed one day.
GOV.CRIST DOSENT CARE ABOUT OUR SAFETY!! CRIST VETO THIS BILL BECAUSE HE GET’S BIG MONEY FROM LOBBIEST OF THE FIRE ALARM AND SPRINKLER/PIPEING COMPANIES! NOW US CONDO & BUSINESS OWNERS ARE GOING TO PAY THE PRICE SOONER THAN LATER IN THIS BAD ECONOMY! VOTE CRIST OUT!
Great – now as an agent I’m confused and as a condo owner I’m ticked off. My maintenance fee has skyrocketed in the last 4 years – this as I watch neighbor after neighbor loose their condos. I agree – this is not about safety or reduced insurance rates. Its not the fire rate driving the cost of the association’s commercial property insurance – it is the commercial wind rate. Help us out there Charlie!!!! You came into office with big promises, waving a big stick and what have you done? Not much that has helped the consumers of the great State of Florida.
Really, Ivan? And who will pay these people for the newly created jobs that they’re doing? hmmm? Obama’s handouts? Where do you think that money comes from?
This bill wasn’t about the fire sprinklers, that’s just Crist’s scapegoat reason for vetoing it. He wants the courts to interpret that “special assessment coverage” in a way that just lets the insurance companies pay for the sprinklers.
If it quacks like a duck…..
Voters, exercise your rights and overwhelmingly VETO Crist’s election aspirations in 2010!
Wow – this is shouldn’t surprise me but it does – It has always been my understanding that the “special assessment” coverage which the article refers to would not help an owner out in this situation as first there must be a covered cause of loss that triggers the coverage – the coverage certainly is not intended to be used for upgrades – only to cover extra expense in the case of major damage to a building in which the owner is charged a extra assessment to repair – DUH! Wonder where Charlie thinks this extra money qill come from – I co own a unit that I can’t get rid of for what we owe – combine the falling values with a 40-50% default rate on monthly maintenance fees as it is – we’re already being assessed just to MAINTAIN – now we have to retro fit sprinkler systems? this is MADNESS! I am saying goodby and good riddence to Charlie-
Given all the other bone headed things I’ve seen come out of Washington in my 50+ years on this planet, Charlie is certainly qualified to join that Rat Pack.
I just don’t think this country can take many more of these “profeessional” politicians.
Kinky Freidman who ran for Governor of Texas put it quite well: “Politics – from the latin word poly meaning many and tics for BLOOD SUCKING PARASITES!
I applaud Gov Crist for his veto, SAFETY should always be Number 1
Insurance Companies and Insurance underwriters always stress SAFETY and Prevention as a safe Risk Management Practice. That’s why it’s crazy that “Insurance Professional” are against Fire Sprinklers installed on buildings
This is the first time I see people involved in insurance opposing sprinklers and other safety measures
This is like finding a Doctor that tells their patients that smoking is good for your health
The installation of the sprinklers will also create employment and bring additional revenues to our depressed economies
The Gov did the right thing. If the bill is supposed to clean things up, why did it have the change to the fire sprinklers allowing things to remain dangerous for 10 more years. That is the key element of the bill in terms of public policy and it should not have been in there. A poorly designed bill and it deserved its fait.
maybe he’s got some thought process. i agree, what is the cost of someone’s life or property if they are not installed? so what if it is costly, does that not help with job creation and help with the economy. as an owner, i think i would definately preclude upgrading this. as an owner, i know i can write if off my taxes for improvements. so the owner, will not be out of money and it will help the local economy. most important the tenants will have a peace of mind!
Now I know what the term “educated idiot” is based upon
Insurance Agents aren’t opposed to fire sprinklers, especially in Condominiums. The current law required the retrofitting of certain high-rise condo’s by 2014. The governor vetoed it because that date was “extended” to 2025. That means he and the legislature could have enacted the “necessary” insurance changes and would still have five (5) years to reduce the 2025 deadline back to 2014 “if” they wanted to, or some other date of thier choosing. Under the governors veto we have neither safety or the “necessary” insurance changes for the next year and no safety until 2014; assumingwe can pass the bill again next year and it doesn’t get vetoed again.
well, as an individual, i could just sue the gov’t for not mandating my personal protection for a fire within a condo or apartment complex…then because i love money sue the owner of the complex as well… sounds like a money tree just growing….
Yes, I guess you could sue the govt. for failure to mandate a safety feature, such as sprinklers in older buildings. but, the government did mandate them however it can’t be done overnight; it was always just a question of giving condo’s the time to implement. Besides suing the government is always subject to Sovereign immunity limits and you must first have a fire and suffer damages; beyond any insurance reimbursement. Also keep in mind, the absence of sprinklers doesn’t automatically mean a building is unsafe. neither does their presence indicate that it is safe. Don’t misunderstand, I agree…sprinklers make sense! I just don’t think this veto did.
The changes were needed as this original statute was poorly written. I also agree fire safety is important but if you work in personal lines this statute has caused nothing but headaches trying to meet the requirements. Listing the condo association as a named insured and loss payee on your condo unit owner policy is just wrong. Hopefully this will be fixed one day.
GOV.CRIST DOSENT CARE ABOUT OUR SAFETY!! CRIST VETO THIS BILL BECAUSE HE GET’S BIG MONEY FROM LOBBIEST OF THE FIRE ALARM AND SPRINKLER/PIPEING COMPANIES! NOW US CONDO & BUSINESS OWNERS ARE GOING TO PAY THE PRICE SOONER THAN LATER IN THIS BAD ECONOMY! VOTE CRIST OUT!
Great – now as an agent I’m confused and as a condo owner I’m ticked off. My maintenance fee has skyrocketed in the last 4 years – this as I watch neighbor after neighbor loose their condos. I agree – this is not about safety or reduced insurance rates. Its not the fire rate driving the cost of the association’s commercial property insurance – it is the commercial wind rate. Help us out there Charlie!!!! You came into office with big promises, waving a big stick and what have you done? Not much that has helped the consumers of the great State of Florida.