Forwarded at the request of Greg Luce... Mark Snyder Windom Park
------ Forwarded Message From: "Gregory D. Luce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Project 504 Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:53:08 -0600 To: "'Mark Snyder'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Mpls] Lead removal v.s. MAC 150 Mark: Feel free to forward this to the issues list. The PS&RS Committeed voted 5-1 today to postpone action for one additional cycle (i.e., two weeks) and requested the staff of the Childrens' Environmental Health Department to look at potential funding through the Community Development Block Grant. In my mind, referring it for CDBG consideration is akin to passing the buck and referring it to a black hole, as CDBG funding is the pool of money everyone is now looking at to make up for severe budget cuts. But, if the council members who wish to refer it to CDBG are committed to the problem of lead poisoning prevention, I assume that they would support CDBG allocations in lieu of the $3.00 fee. That's yet to be seen. While the result is mixed for those seeking this funding, the process so far reveals a significant breakthrough: landlords, tenants, and all council members at this committee hearing were unanimous that lead paint hazards must be remedied in the city. I was also impressed that no one explicitly blamed parents, as has often been the case. The disagreement that arose at the hearing was whether this minimal annual fee (which tenant organizations have endorsed, even if it means passing the fee on down to tenants), was the best and most precise tool to raise those funds. Given all alternatives, we believe it is. It remains short-sighted to delay or eliminate funding because, as you say, we all pay tenfold later, in special education costs particularly. Moreover, the "scare" tactics of bringing up the bogeyman lawyer is remarkably short sighted and, indeed, ironic. Without a lead hazard control program to assist property owners in remediating hazards, the ONLY solution is condemnation. Once condemnation becomes the only solution, Project 504 is empowered to work with and organize tenants to bring the landlord to court to force lead abatement measures, likely meaning encumbrance of the property through a mortgage or other loan. Thus, failing to fund lead hazard control so that it can help prevent lead poisonings and respond proactively to lead poisonings (i.e., by offering financial assistance) will lead to more litigation to prevent the resulting condemnations. Funding it through this fee will very likely lead to less litigation and no need for tenant or organization-initiated TRAs. In my cynical and angry moments, I say "tank the fee, council, and bring on the court-initiatd TRAs." But the court-initiated actions are, ultimately, a last resort and are generally not cost effective, particularly when a solution is right at hand. Finally, a few things need to be said: By far the vast majority of lead poisonings come from lead dust, which is invisible to the human eye. A tiny quantity can poison--about the size of a grain of sugar. While leaded gasoline contributed to the problem of lead poisoning, its ban in 1986 led to decreasing incidents of lead poisonings attributed to lead in soil. The incidents still occur, but less and less so. The standard is lead-safe. Intact paint is considered lead safe. There is no requirement that a house be lead-free, which would mean exhorbitantly expensive remediation. The fees raised by this proposal would only go to rental housing. Other separately budgeted funds would go to address owner occupied housing with documented lead hazards. Under the current regulatory regime, children are society's "lead detectors." That is, they are the ones who--through ingestion of lead dust-- signal to us that lead is in or around the house. Until a child is poisoned, there is generally no legal requirement to do anything about lead-based paint, with the exception of certain federally funded housing programs and renovations. We are working hard to make this regime less punitive and more preventative. Ignoring the problem by cutting general funds to Childrens' Environmental Health, on top of a lack of support for a targeted and minimal surcharge on rental housing license fees, will continue a punitive approach. I continue to hope that at least seven council members will "get it," as CMs Zerby, Zimmermann, Samuels, Lilligren, and Johnson Lee did on Monday. Gregory Luce St. Paul Links for more info at: www.aeclp.org www.hud.gov/offices/lead/ TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ 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
