Outrage Stalls Weakened Lead Law

The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is ultimately responsible for the lead-safety of those residences, she said. Why aren't the feds being held to account?

I am confused by this statement. Seems a bit misinformed. If the federal government doesn't own the bldg but provides a subsidy, why would they be ultimately responsible? Is the housing authority owner and landlord of lead contaminated property?

Also, assuming the current law is retained, what is Elicker's plan to stop the poisoning of black and brown children a la Flint? In other words, how would he go about implementing the existing law?

Shame on me for missing this if it is stated explicitly somewhere.

I felt bad for Community Services Administrator Dakibu Muley and Acting Health Director Roslyn Hamilton. They are working hard on this issue and get treated like they're Rick Snyder.

They're good people. They're doing their best.

The key word to this hearing — stunned it wasn't covered in this article, I was there — is the word "triage." Acting Director Hamilton notes we only have so much money and so many inspectors, whatever the law says. She says we need to triage and that that is what the city is doing.

Amy Marx said that the city doesn't need to triage. Alder Morrison asked how we can afford that, given the cost. The response was that we don't know how much it costs, so it hasn't been demonstrated that it will cost so much, so there is no need to triage.

The question I was left with is: does legal aid ever triage? Do they take every case?

Legal aid is doing extremely important work. Every mother at that hearing spoke about Amy Marx was the only person to help them. Legal aid is bringing attention to this issue. But Alders need to make budgets with limited resources.

@newhavenlives -- No, the federal govt doesn't own the buildings, but they also don't just send checks to landlords without having a vetting process in place to know where the money is going. Section 8 dwellings have to undergo inspections, part of which includes looking for cracked/chipped/peeling paint if children will be living there. Unfortunately the inspections aren't always thorough, some inspectors look the other way, and they aren't always conducted as frequently as they should be. These and other factors mean that Section 8 subsidy recipients could be living in substandard housing conditions. It happens frequently.

On another note, I participated in the local health dept / LCI lead abatement program for one of my properties, and it wasn't that onerous. I don't think it's that thorough either, but it should be more widely advertised as a viable option for landlords and homeowners.

@Alex When all individuals are asking for is data driven justification from a department that has categorically failed in the past why would acting health director Roslyn Hamilton get a warm reception when she has twice proposed stripped back ordinances, continues to not respond to requests for information, Ignores the court and fails the address requests for collaboration from the very entity that forced New Haven to come to terms with its failures?

In regards to triage the Alders have taken steps to address this with the approved budget transfer by the finance committee on (8/12/2019) to hire 5 additional inspectors. Legal aid did express concern at that meeting in regards to assigning resources to inspection when the lived experience of residents was that inspections occurred but internal policies in regards to abatement and mitigation were never followed through by the department and maybe it would be best to analyze the problem before throwing money at it. It was asked at that meeting as well that requests for data be met and it was suggested by Alder Adam of the 25th that information should be forthcoming. A month later and we see where that is.

Ellington's map of lead poisoning mirrors that of poverty, not pre-1960 housing likely to have high lead content paint. My guess is virtually every home on Prospect Hill or in Westville has lead paint, yet those areas have no poisoning cases.

I would second the point of @alex above. The health It's absurd for the city to require the health department to inspect more buildings than they have funding and personnel to inspect. If we're going to require that they inspect all homes meeting a certain criteria -- which I have no problem with -- then let's fund them to do so. In general I think making these inspections mandatory rather than optional is a good idea because we can't count on always having people as dedicated and competent as the ones we currently have in these positions, and it's clear from observing national politics that "norms" and "recommended actions" can too easily be broken.

There are lots of reasons to take more action on lead paint, and I'm glad the community is organizing around this issue. Let's try to actually follow this passion up with the policies, enforcement, and resources needed.

@jdossgollin As legal aid has noted at previous meetings the main issue was not with inspections not occurring but with the lack of follow through by the department in regards to mitigation plans and abatement. We absolutely should be funding the department in a manner that allows them to to enforce the ordinance but that first requires having an open honest conversation about where the department was failing before the new health director stepped in and a plan forward on how we are going to address those issues. This is a conversation from all accounts and testimony the department is not interested in having.

As I have pointed out numerous times CDC's level of 5 was not determined by any medical evidence of harm. They arrived at this number by statistical analysis and they say so on their website. Nationwide most children tested below 5 (something like 90th percentile) and they figured this was a good number to shoot for.

Another point is the health director has limited discretion when a child tests above 20, or between 15 and 19 twice, at those points the department has mandated timed responses to notify, inspect and abate the problem.

Instead of hiring more lead inspectors the city should pass an ordinance that would allow private companies to do the testing for them and a pool of companies could be selected and rotated on a basis similar to what the city does with towing companies. I'm sure these companies would offer a competitive base price to charge in exchange for a whole lot of work.

My last point, relying on people to develop the policy who have no knowledge or experience dealing with lead paint will result in an unworkable ordinance that won't solve the problem.

@Bohica Very good points all around, I will note when I spoke to Roslyn Hamilton at the finance committee meeting where funds for additional inspectors was discussed she stated that it was more expensive to contract out, though as with most the declarations this has not actually been backed by presented data. Personally I also do not believe we should be directly hiring the staff if as in the proposed changes, we are requiring landlords or other responsible parties to foot the bill for inspection.

Mr. VanHoesen,

Everyone should be treated with respect and dignity. Everyone at that hearing cares deeply about this issue and doing everything feasible to help. Acting Director Hamilton and Administrator Muley are not responsible for the "categorical failures of the past." They have been brought in to deal with the present and the future. They brought in an expert from the State, research from additional experts, and a proposal for change with many changes the advocates said that they agreed with.

They are good people working hard at an intractable social problem. Just like legal aid. This isn't about politics. It's about triage.

I'm glad to see that even you, as a Republican, support fully funding lead inspections, mitigation, and abatement, so we don't need triage. That's huge. Maybe you can lobby your party's leaders in Hartford and Washington to support greater funding for lead inspectors, mitigation, and abatement. We could call it a Green AND Red New Deal.

Bohica: The question for the BoA is if it wants full implementation of the existing program, how will it fund it? I suppose the answer most will have is to charge landlords, charges which will be passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents, making housing less affordable. Moreover, if the 20 standard is so bad, how is the rest of the state getting on with it? If lead paint is the problem, why are there not cases in the wealthier neighborhoods, which have just as much lead paint?

Housing in wealthier neighborhoods is just as old but much more likely to have been renovated. And idk, this is just a hunch, there also may be fewer children in wealthier neighborhoods because (1) they attract grad students and post-suburban empty nesters and (2) they have less dense housing. Fewer children means fewer lead-poisoned children.

1644 and Politics 101,

Education is also a factor, as the Health Director, State expert, and at least one of the mothers pointed out at the hearing.

Alex, perhaps you misheard the testimony of Attorney Marx. I heard her testify that she most certainly did NOT reject triage. What she rejected was the passage of a law that would give the power of triage - and associated discretion - exclusively to a health department that has demonstrated its incompetence. She further questioned the degree to which triage may or may not be necessary, since the health department has not allowed even its own lead advisory committee sufficient access to the relevant data. I assume you would agree that triage - to the extent it may be necessary - should be data-driven and should have the benefit of the advice of a competent and transparently constituted advisory board. The current administration has fought these basic steps of wise public policy and has instead "lawyered up" and obstructed at every turn and at great expense to all involved. At some point, Alex, you've got to admit that "mistakes were made." No? If so, I hope you'll also agree that Legal Aid should hold the incoming Elicker administration to a similar standard as it has done with Harp's.

LoveNH,

The election is over. It's not about the past anymore. Of course "mistakes were made," people have lost their jobs over this.

Atty. Marx said that triage was "immoral" and there is no need for it. Were you there? Because I'm pretty sure that's what she said.

Alex - So glad we agree the election is over. Definitely time to make efforts to unite and move forward with earnest and good folks such as yourself to come aboard and help out bringing the city together for good policy and constructive work for the incoming administration.
When you are ready, I hope the tenor of your comments will begin to reflect this viewpoint in the future. I think that's not the tone I've heard from your comments thus far - eg about rallies related to your accusations against the support for Elicker from Democrats. Anyhow, if you've licked your wounds from a difficult defeat and moved on and that's behind us, I am so so glad.

Regarding Marx's testimony, look in the relevant Facebook recording at about minute 17:05 into her testimony and see her agree that "of course" there are cost benefit trade offs that must be considered but that they must rely on DATA.

I'll be signing off this thread. I hope to look forward to being on the same side in future comment sections!

I know I'm super late for this. But does anyone actually know if the majority of lead poisoning cases comes from the home or other sources? Playing with toys bought on Amazon that were made outside the US is also a significant lead concern. Also, with many low income tenants, who may move more frequently, checking the current home may not solve the issue. Seems like there is room for improvement on both sides.

1644 -- I'm the mother of a youngish child (11 yrs. old) and remember maybe eight years ago chatting with another mother who had two little kids. She lived on Canner Street, if I remember correctly, and was very upset because one of her kids had tested with high lead levels. The mother was SHOCKED that this could happen, and when I said, "It is not good, but it shouldn't be SHOCKING given the age of the housing stock around here," she sort of conceded the point.
There is a LOT of rental housing in East Rock that hasn't been gut-renovated in a long, long time. There are a LOT of really old windows. I'm not saying any of this is GOOD, mind you, just observing. My own 100+ year old house, one of the reasons why we bought it was that the woodwork on the windows and baseboards and so on had no paint on it. All the woodwork had been stripped by the lady of the house in the 1950s (we met her once and she told me all about it!). But a lot of the less expensive housing around here, there's often a reason why it's less expensive, and "up-to-date"ness is usually part of the reason.
I suspect that the layers of 1975-onward paint in many of the East Rock houses might have created a buffer zone to keep some of the lead paint from affecting residents -- I imagine apartments here might get repainted more often than places elsewhere -- but beyond that... I just wanted to say, It CAN happen here, and it DOES happen here, though apparently at lower rates (evidence at my hands purely anecdotal!).
I really hope the city can arrive at a system that WORKS to protect kids at risk here. This entire saga has left me sick to my stomach.

@Atticus Shrugged

Idk about toys from China but I have been told (I am no expert) that ingestion of soils (i.e. kids eating dirt) that haven't been remediated is also an issue. Apparently (again, not an expert), lead was included not just in interior paints but in exterior paints. You can imagine what soils in the backyard of a home painted in lead paint would look like.

Eva: Thanks. Blowing up the map, I may have misread it. At normal screen size, the dots are not visible on my computer, and I thought the shading represented lead poisoning cases. In fact, I guess the dots, some of which are in higher-income neighborhoods, likely represent high lead level cases. The good news is that a level above five is not necessarily damaging, just a warning sign indicating your child has abnormal levels and allows the parents to take action to reduce those levels, both through environment and diet, before permanent damage is done. Personally, I would clean and repaint any abrading surfaces in my home, look for similar hazards in other places my child visited often, ensure there was no exposed dirt in the yard, and ensure my child was getting enough iron and calcium. [My 1890 home on George Street had beautiful woodwork which my wife's family had laboriously stripped during a renovation.]

Poli: I am sure there is lots of lead and other heavy metals in the soil of New Haven, not just from paint, but from gasoline.industrial pollution and insecticides as well. Arsenic was a common insecticide for fruit trees, and old orchards have high arsenic levels in their top soil. The prescribed solution for contaminated soil is to ensure a good lawn keeps the contaminants from getting stirred up. Lead was far more common in exterior paint than in interior paint, as, ironically, it helps paint adhere and is more weather resistant than non-leaded paint.

While everyone is working on the minutiae of who said what and where dots are on map, what everyone needs to understand that the City wants to walk away from this and not tell out-of-town landlords that the housing stock they purchased and are renting out to residents is toxic and needs to be renovated. All of the sudden the land grabbing out-of-towner's will have to come to terms with the reality that IF their properties are really tested then they are stuck with a huge liability.

So what to do? Follow the NY Landlord Handbook below

NY LANDLORD HANDBOOK
1) Make believe everything is OK and there are no problems
2) Don't test anything
3) Pay-off officials to pass laws preventing government from doing anything
4) If the government says it has to be fixed, get illegal immigrants who don't understand the danger of their jobs to do some cleanup (again pay-off inspectors to look the other way)
5) Pay-off inspectors to pass everything as lead-free even if it is not.

I think we are at NY LANDLORD HANDBOOK #3 - Pay-off officials to pass laws preventing government from doing anything.

Essentially, any rental unit that poses a danger to the residents should be shut-down and taken off-the-market for purposes of rental. What's the mystery here? The mystery is that more than 1/3 of the housing in New Haven would become vacant overnight and the landlords would have a financial collapse.

With all the foregoing in mind, the insurance companies and local fire departments will have to be very worried....if everyone gets my drift.

okaragozian1: New Haven itself would suffer grevious financial harm from the lead standard it says it wants. With something like 70% of its housing stock pre-1978, the Grand List would collapse. And yes, as in NYC under rent control, arson would be prevalent. The logical step to prevent the massive economic waste that withdrawing housing with lead paint from the market would cause is allowing landlords to discriminate against applicants with young children. Lead's dangers are most acute for those under six, whose nervous systems are still developing.

1644: I didn't know that pre-1978 housing stock was as high as 70%; I apologize. Nonetheless, in considering your position, your position is untenable. This matter of "You can't live here because you have kids under 6 years old." is wrong. What is right? Have the owners make the repairs and if the owners don't want to make the repairs, then they can't rent. The proposition you put forward is: For New Haven to prosper, children should suffer lead poisoning. Truthfully, I've never come across this type of proposal of sacrifice. Specifically, a better re-statement of your proposal would be, "Landlords need to make money on the lead poisoning of children so that they can pay their taxes to the City of New Haven." Are you promoting the idea that it is in the best financial interest of New Haven to have children under 6 be exposed to and suffer lead poisoning?

A vested landlord would make the investment in repairs - a out-of-town investor landlord will "cut-and-run." What landlords don't realize is that by making their owned properties righteous the value of their properties will rise and although a substantial up-front investment may be required, pay-back would be reached within 7 to 10 years through higher property values and likely higher rents. New Haven real estate is at a premium and imagine what rents could be commanded in the face of shortage - there is money to be made here. And there are jobs to be created - the lead remediation jobs would be very well paid.

Every adversity brings about a financial change and financial profit and job creation. We need some shake-up here and this is a good way of doing it - make things right with the properties in New Haven all the while employing more people and raising rents to reflect the high quality of housing and all to the benefit of the New Haven Tax collector as well; its a win-win and everyone is fighting it because they can not see 1 inch beyond their nose.

As a landlord who owns 1 rental property ( lead free ) and my primary home ( not lead free ) I would like to see a program implemented that would give tax abatement to homeowners that will offset the cost of lead abatement, on the tail end of the tax abatement period a re-evaluation of the home would occur. ( I spoke with Acting Health Director Roslyn Hamilton before the Alder meeting and was pleased to learn we are on the same page on that one ) .

The unfortunate reality is that raising taxes raises the cost of rent. I need to put a new roof on my rental in 6 years and that requires me making a certain profit margin each month to do so. Given one of the biggest drivers of tax increases is personnel costs I have yet to see the justification in New Haven hiring additional inspectors instead of contracting out to licensed private companies when the proposed ordinance change explicitly stated homeowners would pay the cost of inspection.