If I were a condo owner in the undamaged portion of the Surfside
building that is going to be demolished, do I have any possibility of collecting from the government under the 5th amendment.

While one could question the remaining value of the condo, I would think
the contents would be different.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com>:

If I were a condo owner in the undamaged portion of the Surfside
building that is going to be demolished, do I have any possibility of >collecting from the government under the 5th amendment.

While one could question the remaining value of the condo, I would think
the contents would be different.

If I were the government, I would reply that there is no undamaged
part of the building, they would let you collect your stuff if there
were any way to do so that was not absurdly dangerous, and since your
condo is a public nuisance that could collapse at any moment and kill bystanders, you're lucky we're not charging you to dispose of it.
Presumably people can try and reclaim their stuff later from the
rubble if they see recognizable bits being carted away.

I'm more interested to see how they determine the liability for the
collapse. It looks like there were some bad design decisions when it
was built 40 years ago, insufficient maintenance since then, and the
condo association didn't act on the 2018 report on its condition. It
makes no sense for the owners to sue the condo association, since
that's just suing themselves, but there's lots of other possibilities.



--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/3/2021 9:46 PM, Rick wrote:

"Roy"  wrote in message news:sbqicm$c75$1@dont-email.me...

If I were a condo owner in the undamaged portion of the Surfside
building that is going to be demolished, do I have any possibility of
collecting from the government under the 5th amendment.

While one could question the remaining value of the condo, I would
think the contents would be different.

Key phrase in the 5th Amendment is "Due process of law".   If a legal process was followed in ordering the building to be condemned, I'm not
sure any owner would have an action against the government.  Mayors have pretty extraordinary powers in a public safety emergency, which this
seems to be, so I'm guessing due process was followed.

--

While the mayor might be able to condemn the building, he would still
have to compensate the owners. The amendment wording is "without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:sbqicm$c75$1@dont-email.me...

If I were a condo owner in the undamaged portion of the Surfside building >that is going to be demolished, do I have any possibility of collecting
from the government under the 5th amendment.

While one could question the remaining value of the condo, I would think
the contents would be different.

Key phrase in the 5th Amendment is "Due process of law". If a legal
process was followed in ordering the building to be condemned, I'm not sure
any owner would have an action against the government. Mayors have pretty extraordinary powers in a public safety emergency, which this seems to be,
so I'm guessing due process was followed.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/3/2021 9:54 PM, Roy wrote:

While the mayor might be able to condemn the building, he would still
have to compensate the owners.  The amendment wording is  "without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

But it's not being taken "for public use". It's being demolished to
prevent additional deaths and injuries, and the owners will still own
the land it sits on and can rebuild -- hopefully doing a better job of
building and maintenance in the future.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:sbretk$5ir$1@dont-email.me...

On 7/3/2021 9:46 PM, Rick wrote:

"Roy" wrote in message news:sbqicm$c75$1@dont-email.me...

If I were a condo owner in the undamaged portion of the Surfside
building that is going to be demolished, do I have any possibility of
collecting from the government under the 5th amendment.

While one could question the remaining value of the condo, I would think >>> the contents would be different.

Key phrase in the 5th Amendment is "Due process of law". If a legal
process was followed in ordering the building to be condemned, I'm not
sure any owner would have an action against the government. Mayors have
pretty extraordinary powers in a public safety emergency, which this
seems to be, so I'm guessing due process was followed.

--

While the mayor might be able to condemn the building, he would still have
to compensate the owners. The amendment wording is "without due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just >compensation."

But the key phrase here is "for public use". The mayor isn't seizing
property in some kind of eminent domain situation, but is instead addressing
a major public safety issue. If anything, I wonder if the government might have a claim against the owners for allowing the building to reach the state
of disrepair that it created the need for demolition.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/4/2021 10:19 AM, Rick wrote:

"Roy"  wrote in message news:sbretk$5ir$1@dont-email.me...

On 7/3/2021 9:46 PM, Rick wrote:

"Roy"  wrote in message news:sbqicm$c75$1@dont-email.me...

If I were a condo owner in the undamaged portion of the Surfside
building that is going to be demolished, do I have any possibility
of collecting from the government under the 5th amendment.

While one could question the remaining value of the condo, I would
think the contents would be different.

Key phrase in the 5th Amendment is "Due process of law".   If a legal
process was followed in ordering the building to be condemned, I'm
not sure any owner would have an action against the government.
Mayors have pretty extraordinary powers in a public safety emergency,
which this seems to be, so I'm guessing due process was followed.

--

While the mayor might be able to condemn the building, he would still
have to compensate the owners.  The amendment wording is  "without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

But the key phrase here is "for public use".  The mayor isn't seizing property in some kind of eminent domain situation, but is instead
addressing a major public safety issue.  If anything, I wonder if the government might have a claim against the owners for allowing the
building to reach the state of disrepair that it created the need for demolition.

--

The "taking" has to be for public use otherwise they can't take it. In
this case the public safety is a public use. It also doesn't have to be
a permanent taking nor a physical one (example a zoning restriction).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/4/2021 12:03 PM, Roy wrote:

On 7/4/2021 10:19 AM, Rick wrote:

"Roy"  wrote in message news:sbretk$5ir$1@dont-email.me...

On 7/3/2021 9:46 PM, Rick wrote:

"Roy"  wrote in message news:sbqicm$c75$1@dont-email.me...

If I were a condo owner in the undamaged portion of the Surfside
building that is going to be demolished, do I have any possibility
of collecting from the government under the 5th amendment.

While one could question the remaining value of the condo, I would
think the contents would be different.

Key phrase in the 5th Amendment is "Due process of law".   If a
legal process was followed in ordering the building to be condemned,
I'm not sure any owner would have an action against the government.
Mayors have pretty extraordinary powers in a public safety
emergency, which this seems to be, so I'm guessing due process was
followed.

--

While the mayor might be able to condemn the building, he would still
have to compensate the owners.  The amendment wording is  "without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation."

But the key phrase here is "for public use".  The mayor isn't seizing
property in some kind of eminent domain situation, but is instead
addressing a major public safety issue.  If anything, I wonder if the
government might have a claim against the owners for allowing the
building to reach the state of disrepair that it created the need for
demolition.

--

The "taking" has to be for public use otherwise they can't take it.  In
this case the public safety is a public use.  It also doesn't have to be
a permanent taking nor a physical one (example a zoning restriction).

There have been many court rulings on the subject of zoning
restrictions, and the overall thrust is that zoning does not constiute a "taking", unless you prevent nearly all economic use of the property.

I'm not saying that I agree with that (in fact, I think that any
downzoning made after the current owner has acquired the property should
be compensated in terms of the decrease in the property's value).

But that's the way the current rulings are.

Also, under City of New London, the taking can be for a public "purpose"
rather than only a public "use". The example in that case was the city
taking people's homes and giving them to a private developer on the
theory that it would lead to higher property taxes and other public
benefits. (Another ruling I disagree with.)

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 2:47:51 PM UTC-6, Roy wrote:

If I were a condo owner in the undamaged portion of the Surfside
building that is going to be demolished, do I have any possibility of collecting from the government under the 5th amendment.

While one could question the remaining value of the condo, I would think
the contents would be different.

If I were a Champlain Towers South condo owner interested in a payout as high as possible, I would be looking for the deep pockets. I think the deepest pockets may be the insurer for the City of Surfside. In October 2018, the Morabito engineering firm,
overflowing with strictly licensed, highly experienced Professional Engineers specialized in structural engineering, provided a detailed report naming a number of concerns. Some of these concerns were structural in nature. In November 2018 Surfside's
bumbling, ignorant, possibly murderous city building official Ross Prieto told the condo's members and directors that the building was safe.

How many directors did Prieto persuade that a sizable special assessment was not needed?

It's not clear what the cause was. As has been noted in the media, a "perfect storm" of events may have caused the collapse. (I am ignoring the New York Times hysterical above-the-fold headline the other day referring to their being a "single cause." It
was beneath the Times's standards.)

Plaintiffs have indeed named the city of Surfside as one of several defendants. It may be well-deserved.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)