Gregory D. Luce wrote:
Bringing increased funding to the problem is one of the ultimate goals,
which will benefit property owners. After all, the lead paint
manufacturers, who caused this environmental problem in the first place,
point their fingers at property owners for failing to keep properties lead
safe.
WM: In 1928 western Europe and North Africa (then in thrall to the
French) banned lead in paint. The US Congress, in thrall to the lead
mine owners, refused. In 1978 the US Congress, in response to outcries
from the public, finally banned lead in some types of paint. Thus, it
would be a triumvirate of responsibility--Congress, the people, and
industry owners. Seventy-six years later, who you gonna name to blame?
By now virtually all those folks have stepped on a rainbow.
While advocates for tenants may also point the fingers, we want to
avoid that except in egregious cases (renting to tenants with the knowledge
that hazards exist).
WM: There is more than one way to rent to tenants while still not lead
free. The limiting aspect is that landlords cannot rent to children,
and, anyone they rent to has to have lead information so that
he/she/they know how to stay lead safe.
There may be some interesting partnerships with
property owners out of this campaign, partnerships that demand the lead
industry account for its wrongs; i.e., by ponying up the funds to take care
of it. This benefits us all.
I have done numerous lead abatements on buildings that I renovate. Since
I have my own crew, I can do a lead abatement for around $3,000 to $4,000 on
an average 3 bedroom house. A lead abatement company will charge anywhere
between $10,000 to $18,000 for the same job. For newer property owners,
this could become an excessive burden, especially for newer landlords.
This is one difference that our campaign may make as well. Currently, if a
child is lead poisoned, the city must respond with work orders for lead
abatement, thus triggering the requirement that the work be done by a
licensed lead abatement contractor (thus, the expense). If, however, we
document the lead hazards BEFORE a poisoning, the property owner is not
required to use a lead abatement contractor but MUST use lead safe measures.
This may dramatically decrease the costs of remediation. Further, we are
now sponsoring a FREE workshop for contractors, tentatively set for February
22, to train them on lead safe renovation and rehab. This is a FREE
seminar, and I encourage property owners and contractors to attend, with
details to follow.
Hooray! and Good on You! This is marvelous. What a change of prevailing
winds. Thanks for this should go directly to Karen Clark, Judy Adams,
the parents who sued for their children, and all those other folks who
fought so hard to get lead abatement into the light in Phillips. (I'll
take a bow here, since I was an integral part of this issue for a few
years.) I applaud everyone who helped make this happen: Steve Compton
and the Alley Newspaper, the people in Phillips who supported this long,
long, and continuing struggle, the city and state for reaching a point
where they could work together on this issue. This is a tremendous win
for Phillips Neighborhood. It makes me tear up.
Another potential problem could arise. One can not do a lead abatement
with people occupying a building. When a building has been identified
with the need for lead abatement, where are the tenants going to go? If the
owner can not afford the cost, we might start to see more vacant buildings
and all of the problems associated with them. Most of these units would
fall in the category of being affordable. Unless there is some sort of
safety net, the shelters will be filling up soon.
WM: What about the Lead Project in Phillips. The program designed and
initiated by them included temporary housing for families who face lead
poisoning in their homes.
Despite all my stringent disagreements with Mr. Meldahl, this point is
critical. It is certainly not our intent to create homelessness and in all
our Tenant Remedies Action (TRA) work to date we have not in one case
created homelessness (we cannot be responsible, however, for a tenant's
failure to pay rent or abide by a lease, which may have led to an eviction).
Rather, we have pulled buildings out of imminent condemnation. There are
numerous creative solutions, both legal and extra-legal, to the problem
identified here, and we will be working with our local lead hazard control
folks in the City to assure that the issue of displacement of tenants does
not occur, except to displace them temporarily so that work can be done.
Minneapolis is actually blessed with a talented and committed team of local
officials who are responsible for lead hazard reduction in the City.
This can be a win-win campaign for property owners and tenants. In all
candor, however, the property owners who fail to see the big picture and
insist that nothing be done are likely good targets for the campaign as
well.
I encourage anyone interested to call our hotline at (612) 521-LEAD.
Gregory Luce/Project 504 (Minneapolis)
St. Paul residence
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
