This would never be allowed in Oregon.  Our laws here are so much the other direction that the tenants have far more power than the owner. 

It's sad that so many things have to be taken to court because people can't do the right thing and rights have to be fought for.

I am not a lawyer, I have not reviewed all the documents but I see the folks moving. .  It does not make me feel good but again. The devil is in the details.  What does the contract  say?    I read both articles and got more confused.  It does seem the tenants ( used as opposed to owners)  did not perform as required by their lease, is it a lease?  .  Again without seeing the documents it is hard to get a good read.  Older building, needs maintenance and insurance who is to pay is the question.   

Nobody but the lawyers. Land leases along with recreation facilities have been an issue for years regarding unscrupulous developers. Back in the 70's they were disallowed. The ones that remained are in force. That said tha antics here may force the courts to stay the action for ethical and political reasons. Stay tuned.

Sounds like a whole bunch of crazy going on there. I am not familiar with the co-op aspect of RE, as we do not have many, if any ion my area. I know two things...you can always find an attorney that will take any case, & the address in the "Miami Herald" article, is for sale, per RPR. 
Sounds like a forceful takeover to sell to a developer.

This is a complicated situation. Courts will eventually decide the outcome.

Sitting on property that is not running on optimum and putting out its maximum return on investment (roi) is never really at rest but instead, biding its time. The issue between landlords with tenants being evicted so the owner can do what they want with their property is nothing new. It's been both tried and succeeded/ failed depending on the judge's interpretation of the law with a dose of politics thrown in. Usually, the best approach to evicting in large complexes is one at a time. Doing a mass eviction promotes an automatic cry for help to stop it dead in its tracks even if you have the right. Methinks this careless approach won't work and will even taint future tweaking of the owner's business plans. Why not buy them out, one at a time and even help relocate? How about rent increasing until it becomes unaffordable? Even if it is legal and allowable, messing with goodwill, is not a standard, normal business approach (think Scrooge). As for the tenants? Renting comes with the fact that a tenant is not lord of the land but a conditional guest. Landlords rule, Tenants rent!

Good legal advice is needed here.

Deep Pockets Rule.  This may apply more in some states than others depending on the political lean of the regulators. 

Well, this is an interesting situation. I have no clue but There's probably liability on both sides. As a side note, I bet there are plans to demolish the old building and replace it with a luxury highrise.

Probably not, most states are very one sided on the side of the tenant.

Ok, read the first link briefly.  Sounds like some similar problems LA City is facing.  Buildings that are not seismically sound or not up to current codes are looking to evict as well as they cannot make the required retrofits with people living there or  the costs to retrofit are too high and the city will not allow them to continue to operate.

Yes, FL is one of the landlord friendly states ( one of the advantages: easy eviction), unlike mine: CA that heavily tenant friendly. The eviction cost is very high, starting from 2k and often tags in it a relocation fee that also can be very high. 

''The only lawful way to evict a tenant is to file lawsuit and wait for the court to order the Sheriff or Marshal to carry out the eviction. Landlords cannot change the locks, shut off power, or remove personal property in order to force a tenant out of their home.''

Whatever the contract says and litigated out in court will be the answer.  As real estate professionals we know this.  

Boy, some unusual things can go on in FL. I think the courts will be behind the tenant/owners. Freaky that some people rent & some people 'bought in' to the project. 

Also, when do tenants do maintenance of the property?

OOO, they want to kick everyone out over a BS breach and tear down and redevelop before they have to fix stuff! 

WOW! Sounds like they don't want to update/repair - so, sure, let's kick everyone out! 

In NC, that would not fly - not sure about FL. It's usually the party with the deepest pockets who wins. So sad for the 140 individuals/couples/families.