4 ms·

I find it strange that tenants have and show very little agency in all this, except for sueing the city when their child is poisoned. City housing is not a righ

by yholio 8y ago

I find it strange that tenants have and show very little agency in all this, except for sueing the city when their child is poisoned. City housing is not a right, it's a public subsidy, and the houses were built with the best interests of the tenants in mind, which unfortunately did not recognize lead hazards at the time. I would expect tenants to be proactive and organize to have lead removed in time, by their own means if necessary, then recoup the costs from the city. As opposed to going for a settlement as if the taxpayer is a private landlord that provided them an inadequate product at market prices.

ekidd 8y ago
> I would expect tenants to be proactive and organize to have lead removed in time, by their own means if necessary, Lead removal and/remediation is hard to do safely. We looked into this when deciding whether to buy an older house, which had flaking lead paint in interior rooms. To avoid contaminating everything with lead dust, we would need to seal the area, control air pressure, keep surfaces damp, etc. We would need HEPA sanders and special training, among other things. We were told that it would cost us at least $18k to outsource, and that wouldn't cover the whole house. So I don't know how people living in subsidized housing can be expected to manage lead remediation without assistance. When the NYC Housing Authority was informed that tenants had extremely high levels of lead in their blood, and that independent tests showed high levels of lead in the apartment, they chose to deal with the problem by sending in their own testers, who said there was no lead. Given that pretty much every building constructed or repainted between the 40s and 1960 (in NY) has lead, I don't think the Housing Authority should be running its own tests. It certainly shouldn't be claiming to have run tests without actually having run them.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  Why remove the paint? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to replace the Sheetrock/plaster?
  - cimmanom 8y ago
    Sheetrock, maybe, but I don't think those buildings (many of them constructed in the 1940's and 1950's) use sheetrock. Plaster, almost certainly not.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Lead paint on the flats is less of an issue than lead paint on trim and windows. Trim because toddlers are down near there and some trim presents a nice target for an inquisitive mouth and windows because mechanical action tends to grind the paint, releasing lead dust which is slightly sweet. The trim is intricate to sand and also would be fairly labor intensive to completely replace as well. (Let's face it: all of this comes down to money...)
    - cobookman 8y ago
      Wouldn't replacing trim + windows. And painting over existing lead paint be good enough? Replacing trim can't be that labor intensive. Especially if your going to paint all the walls anyways
      - AstralStorm 8y ago
        This costs thousands of dollars. It may be even hard to find a compatible window frame for such old building.
        cobookman 8y ago
        Thousands is less than full removal of all the lead paint. """ According to the EPA, professional lead-based paint removal for the following three options costs about $8 to $15 per square foot or about $9,600 to $30,000 for a 1,200- to 2,000-sq. ft. house. The average removal project costs about $10,000. """ https://www.houselogic.com/remodel/painting-lighting/lead-paint-removal/ https://www.houselogic.com/remodel/painting-lighting/lead-pa...
        ekidd 8y ago
- Scaevolus 8y ago
  We ran into the same issue in Seattle, where much of the housing stock was built before 1950. Unfortunately, many people like the look of the original double hung windows, which have been repainted many times over the years, so you end up with single-pane lead dust generators throughout the house.
tree_of_item 8y ago
It's public housing. They're poor, and sometimes immigrants who don't necessarily speak English well. They don't have the time, information or resources to do all of this.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  It’s pretty hard for middle class families to afford lead removal, with prices rising into the 5 digits per a peer’s comment. For those in public housing? Forget it.
- lotyrin 8y ago
  > poor... immigrants who don't necessarily speak English This is, sadly, sufficient reason for many to fail to sympathize with them and, remarkably, do so aloud in public with only the thinnest cloaks of pretense.
barry-cotter 8y ago
If it’s wrong for you or any other private citizen to do it there should be a strong presumption that it’s wrong for the government to do it.
hudibras 8y ago
As it clearly said in the article, the Housing Authority incorrectly and probably misleadingly asserted that only 92 of their 325 developments contained lead, and therefore avoided doing the mandatory lead inspections in those buildings.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
> As opposed to going for a settlement as if the taxpayer is a private landlord that provided them an inadequate product at market prices. So it's legally and morally acceptable for the government to rent out toxic housing, refuse to fix it, and lie about it, as long as it's below market price?
- yholio 8y ago
  Yes, it's morally acceptable for the government to offer subsidized, best effort public services as long as it's not deceiving and knowingly putting people in harm's way. I'm thinking of something like "here's a house, it has toxic paint, but it can be fixed; do you want to live here and accept responsibility to fix the issue and any other, in return for a long term, predictable and low rent?". The corruption here is of course morally reprehensible, but what I'm getting at is that the jobs of those involved shouldn't have existed, the conflict of interest shouldn't have existed between providing public aid and then being on the hook to get that aid to standards. It creates a massive perverse incentive for all those involved to pass the responsibility around until it all explodes in litigation, corruption and poisoned kids. The lawyer fees alone on this one will prevent quite a few kids from getting a house, trapping them into a life of low academic achievement and no opportunity. Wouldn't it all be more effective if a best effort would be provided as such, and for example, allow elder people to live in the house with toxic paint, fully knowing that they are not to eat paint chips and taking responsibility for their actions? The problem I have is with the chronic dis-empowerment against poor people under the guise of helping them.
  - isolli 8y ago
    > as long as it's not deceiving and knowingly putting people in harm's way I think you've answered your own question here. This is exactly what the Housing Authority was doing, if the article is to be believed.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
Well, now they do know the risks. Subsidized or free housing doesn't mean you have to accept that your child will never be normal--ever. Like giving a person a free sandwich, full of antifreeze. Hey, it's free...why blame me. Frankly for these life ruining events I support JAIL for the officials. I'm sure laws, already in the books, require them to do the job correctly.

by yholio 8y ago

ekidd 8y ago

> I would expect tenants to be proactive and organize to have lead removed in time, by their own means if necessary, Lead removal and/remediation is hard to do safely. We looked into this when deciding whether to buy an older house, which had flaking lead paint in interior rooms. To avoid contaminating everything with lead dust, we would need to seal the area, control air pressure, keep surfaces damp, etc. We would need HEPA sanders and special training, among other things. We were told that it would cost us at least $18k to outsource, and that wouldn't cover the whole house. So I don't know how people living in subsidized housing can be expected to manage lead remediation without assistance. When the NYC Housing Authority was informed that tenants had extremely high levels of lead in their blood, and that independent tests showed high levels of lead in the apartment, they chose to deal with the problem by sending in their own testers, who said there was no lead. Given that pretty much every building constructed or repainted between the 40s and 1960 (in NY) has lead, I don't think the Housing Authority should be running its own tests. It certainly shouldn't be claiming to have run tests without actually having run them.

merpnderp 8y ago
Why remove the paint? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to replace the Sheetrock/plaster?
- cimmanom 8y ago
  Sheetrock, maybe, but I don't think those buildings (many of them constructed in the 1940's and 1950's) use sheetrock. Plaster, almost certainly not.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  Lead paint on the flats is less of an issue than lead paint on trim and windows. Trim because toddlers are down near there and some trim presents a nice target for an inquisitive mouth and windows because mechanical action tends to grind the paint, releasing lead dust which is slightly sweet. The trim is intricate to sand and also would be fairly labor intensive to completely replace as well. (Let's face it: all of this comes down to money...)
  - cobookman 8y ago
    Wouldn't replacing trim + windows. And painting over existing lead paint be good enough? Replacing trim can't be that labor intensive. Especially if your going to paint all the walls anyways
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      This costs thousands of dollars. It may be even hard to find a compatible window frame for such old building.
      - cobookman 8y ago
        Thousands is less than full removal of all the lead paint. """ According to the EPA, professional lead-based paint removal for the following three options costs about $8 to $15 per square foot or about $9,600 to $30,000 for a 1,200- to 2,000-sq. ft. house. The average removal project costs about $10,000. """ https://www.houselogic.com/remodel/painting-lighting/lead-paint-removal/ https://www.houselogic.com/remodel/painting-lighting/lead-pa...
        ekidd 8y ago
Scaevolus 8y ago
We ran into the same issue in Seattle, where much of the housing stock was built before 1950. Unfortunately, many people like the look of the original double hung windows, which have been repainted many times over the years, so you end up with single-pane lead dust generators throughout the house.

tree_of_item 8y ago

It's public housing. They're poor, and sometimes immigrants who don't necessarily speak English well. They don't have the time, information or resources to do all of this.

village-idiot 8y ago
It’s pretty hard for middle class families to afford lead removal, with prices rising into the 5 digits per a peer’s comment. For those in public housing? Forget it.
lotyrin 8y ago
> poor... immigrants who don't necessarily speak English This is, sadly, sufficient reason for many to fail to sympathize with them and, remarkably, do so aloud in public with only the thinnest cloaks of pretense.

barry-cotter 8y ago

If it’s wrong for you or any other private citizen to do it there should be a strong presumption that it’s wrong for the government to do it.

hudibras 8y ago

As it clearly said in the article, the Housing Authority incorrectly and probably misleadingly asserted that only 92 of their 325 developments contained lead, and therefore avoided doing the mandatory lead inspections in those buildings.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

> As opposed to going for a settlement as if the taxpayer is a private landlord that provided them an inadequate product at market prices. So it's legally and morally acceptable for the government to rent out toxic housing, refuse to fix it, and lie about it, as long as it's below market price?

yholio 8y ago
Yes, it's morally acceptable for the government to offer subsidized, best effort public services as long as it's not deceiving and knowingly putting people in harm's way. I'm thinking of something like "here's a house, it has toxic paint, but it can be fixed; do you want to live here and accept responsibility to fix the issue and any other, in return for a long term, predictable and low rent?". The corruption here is of course morally reprehensible, but what I'm getting at is that the jobs of those involved shouldn't have existed, the conflict of interest shouldn't have existed between providing public aid and then being on the hook to get that aid to standards. It creates a massive perverse incentive for all those involved to pass the responsibility around until it all explodes in litigation, corruption and poisoned kids. The lawyer fees alone on this one will prevent quite a few kids from getting a house, trapping them into a life of low academic achievement and no opportunity. Wouldn't it all be more effective if a best effort would be provided as such, and for example, allow elder people to live in the house with toxic paint, fully knowing that they are not to eat paint chips and taking responsibility for their actions? The problem I have is with the chronic dis-empowerment against poor people under the guise of helping them.
- isolli 8y ago
  > as long as it's not deceiving and knowingly putting people in harm's way I think you've answered your own question here. This is exactly what the Housing Authority was doing, if the article is to be believed.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Well, now they do know the risks. Subsidized or free housing doesn't mean you have to accept that your child will never be normal--ever. Like giving a person a free sandwich, full of antifreeze. Hey, it's free...why blame me. Frankly for these life ruining events I support JAIL for the officials. I'm sure laws, already in the books, require them to do the job correctly.