4 ms·

There are entanglements - to remove and replace some of the pipe requires removing and disposing of asbestos, or updating or replacing materials or structural e

There are entanglements - to remove and replace some of the pipe requires removing and disposing of asbestos, or updating or replacing materials or structural elements of a house. A contractor or homeowner can't simply replace plumbing and ignore everything else, and property value is garbage for those houses even if they fix everything up. They could waive code requirements and grandfather in exceptions that would allow focus on the plumbing but there isn't necessarily a simple answer to the issues facing these people. Who wants to spend a ton of money on a property declining in value in a notorious market? And even if there was a clear and easy path to fix things what effect is lead exposure having on their cognition? Gotta solve for potential pathologies, obstinacy economics, labor rights, and so forth - it's not a simple home project even if it should be. Filters start to look like a better solution in the face of politics and bureacracy.

mjevans 5y ago
Waiting for 'an act of god' like a tornado or a great Chicago fire event to force the issue appears to be the default option.
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I mean if the government wanted they could identify homes that are too expensive to repair, put the residents up in temporary housing, remove and replace the home with a simple new one, and put the residents back. The federal government gives hundreds of billions to big corporations every year in tax breaks, incentives, contracts, and protection, but we would balk at giving individuals safe homes.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  This is the way. Habitat for Humanity does this with donations, governments can do it too. Put families in brand new, safe, modest homes, demo and landfill old homes like you would handle a superfund site (and safely dispose of the asbestos, lead, and god knows what else is in these homes).
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Wow, yeah I didn't even think about the asbestos in older houses. Imagine having some people come in and check your pipes for lead but check for asbestos (because they'll have to tear out walls to fix it) and then you find out that you now have two problems :(
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  And depending on the area, the local government, local banks, and contractors could be working hand in pocket, arranging things such that you'll need to pay out the nose, and/or go into debt to resolve the problems. Honestly, I'd probably sneak a pex run and pay a friend of a friend and not notify the authorities if faced with lead issues, but my exposure to lead might have my brain mangled to the point that I don't care or can't effectively plan a surreptitious fix. Flint is just all sorts of fucked.
freeone3000 5y ago
There seems to be this unwillingness to imagine better. We can't fix the lead because there's also asbestos and we can't fix the asbestos because of shoddy construction and we can't fix the shoddy construction because even if we did the house wouldn't be profitable. Insanity -- the house valuation isn't the point, human safety is! Fix broken things! If things were fixed as you went, there wouldn't be huge reputational problems and infinite constrained loops, there'd just be one isolated issue! (As corroborating evidence, Montreal has a problem with lead in some pipes. So, they're replacing the pipes, in every residential building, on the island. The mains past the property lines have already been replaced. On the private side of the line, there are two options: You either have it done yourself or the owner pays $3000 for the government to do it. There is no opt-out. It's been going on for two years, and in three more years, there will be no more lead. Problem solved. No reputational hazard. No valuation considerations. It just gets done because it's the correct thing to do.)
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  >Insanity -- the house valuation isn't the point, human safety is! Fix broken things! Ok, are you going to pay for it?
  - freeone3000 5y ago
    Yes, sure. That is what taxes are for.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    Well we could start by making sure super wealthy corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and using that tax money to improve American infrastructure. This “who is going to pay for it” question is nonsense. No one ever asks this when we release massive and inflated military budgets. No one ever asks this when we give tax cuts to the super wealthy, who have more than enough wealth to pay for important infrastructure work while maintaining a lavish lifestyle. Remember that corporations do well when Americans are not falling victim lead poisoning. Corporations do well when young children have their full mental function due to a lack of heavy metals in their water supply. Who is going to pay for it? Well if we don’t pay for the infrastructure work needed, it will continue to be the innocent children of Flint Michigan who are paying for the shoddy infrastructure with sacrifices to their health and well being.

mjevans 5y ago

Waiting for 'an act of god' like a tornado or a great Chicago fire event to force the issue appears to be the default option.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

I mean if the government wanted they could identify homes that are too expensive to repair, put the residents up in temporary housing, remove and replace the home with a simple new one, and put the residents back. The federal government gives hundreds of billions to big corporations every year in tax breaks, incentives, contracts, and protection, but we would balk at giving individuals safe homes.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
This is the way. Habitat for Humanity does this with donations, governments can do it too. Put families in brand new, safe, modest homes, demo and landfill old homes like you would handle a superfund site (and safely dispose of the asbestos, lead, and god knows what else is in these homes).

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Wow, yeah I didn't even think about the asbestos in older houses. Imagine having some people come in and check your pipes for lead but check for asbestos (because they'll have to tear out walls to fix it) and then you find out that you now have two problems :(

robbedpeter 5y ago
And depending on the area, the local government, local banks, and contractors could be working hand in pocket, arranging things such that you'll need to pay out the nose, and/or go into debt to resolve the problems. Honestly, I'd probably sneak a pex run and pay a friend of a friend and not notify the authorities if faced with lead issues, but my exposure to lead might have my brain mangled to the point that I don't care or can't effectively plan a surreptitious fix. Flint is just all sorts of fucked.

freeone3000 5y ago

There seems to be this unwillingness to imagine better. We can't fix the lead because there's also asbestos and we can't fix the asbestos because of shoddy construction and we can't fix the shoddy construction because even if we did the house wouldn't be profitable. Insanity -- the house valuation isn't the point, human safety is! Fix broken things! If things were fixed as you went, there wouldn't be huge reputational problems and infinite constrained loops, there'd just be one isolated issue! (As corroborating evidence, Montreal has a problem with lead in some pipes. So, they're replacing the pipes, in every residential building, on the island. The mains past the property lines have already been replaced. On the private side of the line, there are two options: You either have it done yourself or the owner pays $3000 for the government to do it. There is no opt-out. It's been going on for two years, and in three more years, there will be no more lead. Problem solved. No reputational hazard. No valuation considerations. It just gets done because it's the correct thing to do.)

HideousKojima 5y ago
>Insanity -- the house valuation isn't the point, human safety is! Fix broken things! Ok, are you going to pay for it?
- freeone3000 5y ago
  Yes, sure. That is what taxes are for.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Well we could start by making sure super wealthy corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and using that tax money to improve American infrastructure. This “who is going to pay for it” question is nonsense. No one ever asks this when we release massive and inflated military budgets. No one ever asks this when we give tax cuts to the super wealthy, who have more than enough wealth to pay for important infrastructure work while maintaining a lavish lifestyle. Remember that corporations do well when Americans are not falling victim lead poisoning. Corporations do well when young children have their full mental function due to a lack of heavy metals in their water supply. Who is going to pay for it? Well if we don’t pay for the infrastructure work needed, it will continue to be the innocent children of Flint Michigan who are paying for the shoddy infrastructure with sacrifices to their health and well being.