Connect with us

Politics

Florida homeowners deserve roofing choices, not unnecessary restrictions

Published

on


For decades, asphalt shingles have been the roofing material of choice for Florida homeowners, providing an affordable and reliable solution to protect homes from the harsh Sunshine State climate. Yet recently, reports have circulated that legislators may consider restrictions favoring alternative roofing materials.

This idea, driven more by market interference than sound policy, misrepresents the reality of Florida’s roofing industry and could ultimately hurt the very homeowners our laws should protect.

I’ve been a roofer and business owner my entire adult life, so I’ve spent decades on rooftops across Florida. I know firsthand what works in our state’s unique climate and what doesn’t. I also had the honor of serving in the Florida Senate and House and recognize bad ideas that would favor a select few at the expense of the general public.

Metal roofs are a great option that homeowners should have access to, but they should not be pawns in choosing winners and losers. Asphalt shingles have proven themselves to be a cost-effective, durable, and accessible roofing option for millions of homeowners. Any effort to restrict them would do more harm than good.

Asphalt shingles remain the most widely used and versatile roofing material in Florida, covering approximately 70-75% of homes. This isn’t by accident — homeowners choose asphalt shingles because they offer a combination of affordability, durability, and aesthetic appeal that other materials often can’t match.

Some critics point to the large number of insurance claims related to asphalt shingles as the reason to push for alternatives and restrict the use of asphalt. But this argument ignores a basic fact: asphalt shingles simply cover more roofs in Florida than any other roofing material. Damage doesn’t occur because of the roofing material itself – instead, it’s affected by whether the roof meets modern standards and, in some cases, by the quality of installation.

Government overreach is going to cost homeowners more money without any benefits. Rather than restricting options for Florida homeowners, we should be focused on strengthening overall roofing performance across all materials.

Over the years, Florida’s building codes have improved significantly and modern asphalt shingles have evolved to meet higher standards for wind resistance, hail impact, and fire protection. The industry continues to innovate, with manufacturers working alongside regulators to improve installation practices and durability.

There are already proposals to further enhance Florida’s building codes to improve roofing resilience — without placing unnecessary financial burdens on homeowners and would-be homebuyers.

If Florida were to impose new restrictions or disincentives on asphalt shingles, the biggest losers would be working families and middle-class homeowners who can’t afford more expensive roofing materials like metal or tile. Roofing policies shouldn’t be dictated by the commercial interests of those selling competing products but should instead prioritize consumer choice and economic fairness.

As someone who has built a career in the roofing industry, I know that no two homes — and no two budgets – are alike. Homeowners should have the freedom to choose the roofing materials that best fit their needs.

As a roofer, a business owner and former legislator, I urge policymakers, industry leaders, and regulators to take a measured, fact-based approach to roofing discussions. Let’s focus on ensuring strong building standards, promoting consumer education, and allowing homeowners the freedom to choose the roofing materials that best fit their needs and budgets.

___

Keith Perry is a former member of the state Senate representing Alachua, Putnam, and part of Marion counties in North Central Florida.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Rollback of Parkland-inspired age limits on gun purchases clears House committee

Published

on


Legislation that could roll back age restrictions on gun purchases put in place after the Parkland shooting cleared its first House committee.

The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee advanced a bill (HB 759) that would reduce the age limit to buy firearms from 21 to 18. That follows a call from Gov. Ron DeSantis to roll back restrictions signed by his predecessor, former Gov. Rick Scott, in the wake of a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“At 18 to 20 years old, you can be tried for crimes and sentenced to death. You can sign contracts, can sue and be sued,” said Rep. Michelle Salzman, a Pensacola Republican.

“You can get married and you can own property. House Bill 759 rectifies an inconsistency in our legal framework by ensuring that all adult citizens in Florida are afforded their full second amendment rights by lowering the minimum age for firearm purchases to 18. We acknowledge the responsibilities and rights that come with adulthood.”

The bill passed on a 13-5 vote. It now heads to the House Judiciary Committee.

In the 2018 Parkland attack, a 19-year-old shooter killed 17 people, including 14 teenage students, and injured 18 others. He used an AR-15 rifle he purchased from a gun shop shortly before the crime.

Gun control advocacy groups vocally opposed the potential change in gun-buying age, which many lobbied for in the aftermath of the shooting.

“After that tragedy, Florida did the right thing by raising the minimum age to buy a long gun to 21. That law has saved lives,” said Fiona Shannon, who leads the League of Women Voters’ gun safety committee.

“Now there was a push to undo that progress, to lower the age back to 18. Why? What has changed? Have we forgotten the pain of Parkland? Have we forgotten the parents who still wake up every day missing their children, the teachers who sacrifice their lives to shield their students?”

But gun rights advocates say it’s unconstitutional to restrict the right to purchase firearms for adults. Luis Valdes, Florida State Director for Gun Owners of America, said similar legislation has already run into legal trouble in other states, including Tennessee and Minnesota.

“On top of that, the Parkland situation was an abject failure of government, not gun control,” Valdes said. “Gun control doesn’t solve anything. The shooter had over 30 points of contact with the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, and at no point did they take the proper action with him.”

Democrats on the committee criticized House Republicans taking up a rollback of restrictions for the third year in a row. Rep. Dianne Hart, a Tampa Democrat, said gun violence remains a problem in too many Florida schools.

“18-year-olds don’t need guns,” she said. “We don’t let them drink alcohol for a reason: because they’re not ready.”

This marks the first Legislative Session since the Parkland law passed that all House members who voted on that law when it passed have now been termed limited out of office.

Rep. Shane Abbott, a DeFuniak Springs Republican, said if the nation enlists 18-year-olds to fight in the military, citizens that age should be allowed to purchase firearms of their own as well.

Rep. Taylor Yarkosky, a Montverde Republican, said many 18-year-olds are already better trained with firearms than many older residents. He said his own daughter started taking gun safety classes at age 10.

“She’s extremely proficient, and she’s going to college next year at FAU down in Boca, and she’s like, ‘Dad, you’re telling me, I can’t have my rifle? I can’t bring this?’” Yarkosky said. “And I said, ‘No, you can’t under the current law.’ And she is more well trained at this than a lot of people.”

A companion bill (SB 920) has been filed in the Senate by Sen. Jay Collins, a Tampa Republican, but it has not been placed on a committee agenda to date. It was directed to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Ana Maria Rodriguez’s property rights bill again advances unanimously, heads to floor next

Published

on


Rodriguez’s bill creates non-judicial procedures for property owners to request that unauthorized persons be removed from commercial property.

The Senate Committee on Rules advanced a property rights bill that seeks to give commercial property owners more teeth to evict individuals found to be squatting.

It now heads to the Senate floor.

Doral Republican Sen. Ana Maria Rodriguez introduced the measure (SB 322) that would authorize a County Sheriff to promptly remove any unauthorized persons at the request of the owner. The bill is similar to an already adopted law that allows a Sheriff to remove unauthorized persons from a residential property.

“This bill creates a non-judicial procedure for a property owner to request that the County Sheriff immediately remove an unauthorized person from commercial real property,” Rodriguez explained. “This procedure is like procedures in existing law, for the removal of an unauthorized person from a residential property. An unauthorized person is someone not authorized to occupy the property who is not a current or former tenant.”

In the bill’s analysis, it states that an owner would be required to contact the Sheriff and file a complaint form. Ownership would be required to be verified before law enforcement can remove the unauthorized person. The owner would further be required to pay a civil eviction fee to the Sheriff, plus an hourly rate if a Deputy is required to stand by and “keep the peace” while the person is removed.

Wrongfully removed persons could have cause to take action against the owner for three times the fair market rent, damages, costs and attorneys fees. The legislation would also expand crimes relating to unauthorized occupation of a residential property or falsely advertising a residential or commercial property for sale or lease.

In 2024, Gov. Ron DeSantis enacted legislation (HB 621) that allowed police to remove squatters from a property. The new legislation amends the 2024 law, adding an express grant of authority to law enforcement to use reasonable force to enter a property.

The bill was passed unanimously without debate. The Judiciary and Criminal Justice committees also approved the measure unanimously.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Total ban on in-school cellphone use coasts through first House committee

Published

on


Legislation expanding a 2023 law banning students from in-class cellphone use is advancing in the House, where lawmakers agreed that the devices have a detrimental effect on learning.

Members of the Education and Administration Subcommittee voted unanimously for legislation (HB 949) that would prohibit students from cellphone use throughout the school day, rather than just during instructional time.

The bill would also require schools to designate locations on campus where students can use their phones, with permission from a school administrator.

Coral Gables Republican Rep. Demi Busatta, the bill’s sponsor, said its language provides school districts flexibility on how to implement the change. One Miami school issued locking pouches to students so they could still have their phones but couldn’t use them, she said. At least one school in Palm Beach has done the same.

“Cellphones not only cause constant distractions to student’s focus during the school day, which impedes their ability to learn, but it also has shown to increase bullying,” she said Tuesday.

Busatta added that the most frequent argument she hears against her bill has come from parents concerned that they wouldn’t be able to get hold of their kids during school time.

“To which I’ve said, well, when we were in school, we didn’t have phones — except for maybe (Miami Republican Rep. Juan) Porras, because that was, you know, yesterday,” she said to good-natured laughs. “Our parents managed to get a hold of us by calling the front office. We figured it out, and we can continue to do that.”

Porras, who is 27, later retorted, “I had a flip phone, for the record.”

Busatta’s bill is an update to HB 379, which the Legislature unanimously approved in May 2023. That measure banned TikTok, Snapchat, Twitter and other social media platforms on school devices and prohibited students from using their cellphones during class time except for educational purposes, as directed by a teacher.

School administrators from across Florida gave lawmakers mostly positive feedback in January about the relatively new law, which more than a dozen states have since copied. Schools in Orange County have had a bell-to-bell ban for over a year.

And the results are staggering, said Nathan Hoffman, Senior Legislative Director for the education-focused Foundation for Florida’s Future nonprofit. High schools in the district have seen a 31% drop in fighting and a 21% decline in serious misconduct. Middle schools saw a 58% decrease in fighting and a 28% reduction in gross insubordination. The district overall also saw a 158% decrease in school threats.

Hoffman said research shows that 97% of students report using their phones during the school day, usually for more than an hour and a half, and that it takes students more than 23 minutes to get back on task after getting a phone notification and reacting to it. On average, he continued, they receive more than 200 notifications during school.

“This is certainly a distraction that they don’t need during class time,” he said.

Hoffman’s group supports HB 949. So does the conservative Florida Citizens Alliance.

Ocoee Democratic Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis said the bill makes sense, but expressed worry that broadening the ban more than the measure contemplates could put kids at risk.

“Things have changed, and because of school lockdowns and school shootings I do have concerns if this were to go even a step further in terms of the pouches, where students wouldn’t have access at all to their cellphones,” she said.

Miami Beach Republican Rep. Fabián Basabe spoke to the addictiveness of cellphones and noted that other countries, including the United Kingdom and France, have implemented similar restrictions.

“You see adults have a hard time. Imagine kids. It’s like psychological manipulation,” he said. “I’m glad that we’re really strengthening this and giving teachers and parents kind of that extra push they’re going to need. I mean, it’s really hard to tell a kid, ‘Hey, we need to take your phone away.’ But when you say that it’s the law, it just kind of ends the conversation there.”

HB 949 does not have a Senate companion, according to the Senate and House websites. But it’s not the only bill looking at cracking down on cellphone use in filed this year.

Zephyrhills Republican Sen. Danny Burgess, who sponsored the upper-chamber analogue of HB 379 in 2023, is carrying a measure (SB 1296) that would study the effects of a full-school-day ban on cellphones in six school districts in the 2025-26 school year.

Burgess’ bill is also without a House companion.

HB 949 will next go to the Education and Employment Committee before reaching the House floor. SB 1296 awaits a hearing before the first of three committees to which it was referred last week.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.