No good deed goes unpunished: removing environmental hazards
The Boston Globe reports, in tones almost sympathetic, that:
A prominent Boston-based real estate company has agreed to test for and remove any hazardous lead paint from nearly 10,400 apartments nationwide, including more than 7,000 in Massachusetts, under a consent agreement that federal and state officials plan to announce today.
All this arises from a series of Federal laws aimed at improving environmental quality in housing. Starting with asbestos - yesterday’s fire-protection marvel, today’s ticket to bankruptcy, as Johns Manville found out - there is also lead-based paint (subject of this settlement), and the more recent claims concerning mold.
There’s no doubt lead is toxic if ingested - it’s why so many Roman emperors went mad, eating off pewter plates and scraping down all that lead - but before its residential ban in 1978 , it was not only permitted, but practically encouraged as both a pigment fixer and fire retardant. As a result, 75%-80% of all homes built in America before 1978 have lead-based paint throughout unless it has been removed.
Who pays for removal? Well, not the Federal government, because despite a concerted effort , there are very few programs to grant funds for abatement. There are some state tax credits , but these seldom cover the full cost. De-leading becomes, in effect, a cost of doing business.
Or getting out of the business. Laws to the contrary notwithstanding , many owners simply no longer rent to families with children under the age of six because the legal exposure is too great. Home buyers now sign a lead paint disclosure that either the buyer or the seller may ‘know’ is false, but only because there is no alternative if the house is to be bought or sold.
Compliance, in short, falls disproportionately on the largest, best-capitalized, most visible - even if (like Winn) the properties affected are those they acquired from other owners who are no longer in business.
Do a favor once and it is appreciated. Do it twice and it becomes expected. Do it indefinitely and you may be punished for it.
Goodness knows, lead is bad and cleanup is desirable. But mandate-first, fund-later, often leads to unfair outcomes and very perverse motivations.
P.S. Full disclosure: Some Winn partnerships are clients of my for-profit US company, Recap Advisors ( www.recapadvisors.com ), although only on specific transactions and nothing to do with this issue.
