The reason that this was probably postponed was because it is probably illegal to add this to a RENTAL LICENSING ordinance. The attorneys on the Council committee probably had their legal hats on and that is why it was postponed.
The reality of the problem is the inherent unfairness of the proposed ordinance. I did over 3,000 home buyer inspections and Minneapolis Truth in Housing inspections in Minneapolis from 1975 until the mid 1990s. There was no more lead paint in rental properties than in home owner occupied properties. I saw many owner occupied homes with small children with the same lead exposure risks such as peeling window sills and peeling exterior paint as I saw in rental properties. The only fair way to pay for this problem is to charge ALL properties equally. A 50 cent charge to 1 dollar per year charged to each property (water bill charge or on tax statement as a special assessment) would be a much more fair approach. This would also avoid the liklihood of a lawsuit as far as the legality of the proposed ordinance. Steve Meldahl Jordan (work) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Minneapolis Issues Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Gregory D. Luce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:24 AM Subject: FW: [Mpls] Lead removal v.s. MAC 150 > 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 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
