And that's where it4 falls short. And trying to even remedy5 in terms of getting compensation from the6 landlord is extremely rare, especially7 now.8
Sure. And9 what the testimony is revealing to me is10 that there are really two aspects of11 attacking this. One is on the front end,12 prior to; and the other is on the --13 and/or on the back-end, once it's clear14 that a young person has been infected by15 this.16 And so, in your standard17 operating procedures, do you formally18 notify HAPCO that you have in your pool19 of landlords a landlord who is not doing20 the right thing, that there's a formal21 notification?22 We've heard how you assist the23 tenant with X-number of steps. But also24 then signaling the red flag on a25 197 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 landlord; is that a part of the2 practices?3
Well, let me say4 that we don't have any landlords who5 refuse to do these kind of abatements in6 our programs. We don't work with those7 kind of landlords. So that kind of a8 landlord would not be someone we would9 encourage a tenant to rent to.10 Sometimes, of course -- a lot11 of tenants come to us out of the general12 public and have landlords like that. We13 do not have a relationship with HAPCO14 where we ask them to do something about15 that, and we'll look into that; I'm happy16 to look into that.17 I didn't realize that they put18 people out of their fraternity, if they19 didn't do their job, which is really a20 good thing to do.21 On the other hand, putting22 someone out of HAPCO and keeping them23 from renting a property are two different24 things. And so, you know, my concern25 198 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 would be if HAPCO said, "We don't want2 anything to do with you" -- and I really3 appreciate that high standard -- it4 doesn't mean that person isn't going to5 continue to rent that property out to6 someone else, evict the tenant that's7 complained and put somebody else in8 there.9 Now, we also deal with10 discrimination at TURN, and we see family11 status discrimination as one of the most12 common forms. And they'll say, "Do you13 have children? We don't want to rent to14 you." A lot of landlords will ask if the15 child has had lead poisoning in the past.16
And they won't rent18 to you because they're afraid of having a19 higher standard being imposed on their20 unit.21 So it's (indiscernible) problem22 out there. If we don't do it for23 everybody, it's not going to be24 effectively enforced. And we have good25 199 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 laws, but they're not effectively2 enforced.3
Okay. We4 live in a world on this side of the table5 where we have to try to find common6 ground, and a hard stance on either side7 gets us nowhere.8 And so, it appears to me that9 there may be one opportunity for a small10 step to be made, where there is a11 formal -- and I can't speak for12 leadership in either place, but an13 opportunity where there's a formal14 agreement, if you will, that is signaling15 that you've been -- that one of your not16 patients, but clients, has been in touch17 with the landlord in complete violation18 of the law is one small step that in no19 way gets us to the merit and purpose of20 the bill.21
But we23 still have to always look for ways in24 which we can find common ground. And25 200 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 that's why I put that on the table.2
And we have a lot of3 respect for HAPCO and for Attorney4 Zaslow, and we look forward to working5 together with them on a number of things.6 We have in the past, and we'll continue7 to do that.8
Okay,9 then. Thank you for your advocacy. It's10 clear that it's very important.11
Thank you13 very much.14 I don't believe I -- I haven't15 heard from Jane Malone. I don't have a16 check up here by your name yet.17 (Ms. Malone comes forward.)18
21 I'm Jane Malone. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 Thank you for the opportunity2 to discuss recent developments in3 childhood lead poisoning on behalf of the4 National Center for Healthy Housing. S. 19 While the nation has made20 important progress, much more remains to21 be done if our children are to have a22 future free of lead poisoning. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 12 In December of 2000, the CDC13 provided more recent data showing that14 while some counties had prevalence rates15 as high as 27 percent, the average blood16 lead level in young children had17 deadlined by 25 percent between 1996 and18 1999. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 7 million in the 1980s. 12 The reason for this improvement13 is that the nation took action. Congress14 and government agencies mandated lead15 exposures from lead solder and food and16 infant formula, canning, gasoline, and17 new residential and toy paint were18 eliminated. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. S. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. S. 11 This is much, much higher than12 the existing EPA dust lead standard,13 which, we content, is four times too high14 that lead standard of 40 micrograms per15 square foot. 20 The evidence that housing with21 lead paint has as its main problem comes22 from several sources. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. )7
Are we11 going to have that testimony in writing?12 The stenographer is --13
Oh, don't you have14 it?15 STENOGRAPHER: I do, but you're16 reading so fast that I can't keep up with17 your testimony.18
I'm sorry. I'm19 just aware of how much time we've taken,20 so I'm just trying to get through this.21
So if25 209 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 you want to summarize.2
Actually, I was3 just getting to the (indiscernible) part,4 which is -- I will read it more slowly.5 The actual cost data show that6 lead hazard control is affordable and7 does not disrupt the housing market. The8 bill requires repair of lead hazards.9 The most common form of hazards is10 deteriorated paint and the resultant lead11 dust.12 Since peeling paint is already13 prohibited in the housing code, it's fair14 to only count as the new cost the15 incremental cost of working safely and16 obtaining the clearance report. In other17 words, the -- as Colleen and others have18 said, the problem of deteriorated paint19 is a code violation that should be20 corrected under the current code and21 under most codes of the United States.22 The issue at hand in terms of23 cost, which should be discussed here, is24 the incremental cost of working safely25 210 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 and the testing.2 New federal rules require use3 of lead-safe work practices during work4 inspired by any purpose; that is, they5 require lead-safe work practices when6 someone is going about the business of7 repairing lead paint, because they think8 there's lead or they know there's lead in9 it. And it goes with -- the same10 practices are also required for any11 repair or painting job in the U.S.12 This rule, I'd just like to13 clarify, was promulgated -- as a final14 rule, was published in 2008, and there15 was a two-year run up to the effective16 date. So there were two years where kind17 of we all knew what was going to be18 required before it was actually in19 effect. And the rule has now been in20 effect for 14 months, since April of21 2010.22 That rule is basically ensuring23 that cleanup, repair work, painting work,24 whatever it is, that work must be done25 211 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 safely. That rule does not address2 extant hazards in the home environment.3
Repeat4 that last statement. The rule does not5 address...6
14 The rule does not also require15 the repair of existing hazards. So if16 you have deteriorated paint all over your17 walls and in your window sills and18 wherever, that rule, the RRP rule, does19 not cover fixing that. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 here, I would say, alone -- have wildly2 overstated the cost of controlling lead3 hazards and related expenses. S. 17 This includes the cost of paint18 stabilization, follow-up maintenance,19 cleanup, and clearance-testing. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 3 More recently, the EPA4 estimated the incremental cost of5 adhering to lead-safe work practices for6 its RRP rule, the renovation, remodeling,7 and painting rule, during rehab was an8 average of $35 per project. 13 But, again, we're talking14 incremental cost. 17 That's not what this $35 is. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 7 Office of Management and Budget, the8 infamous OMB, approved the economic9 analysis accompanying both the HUD and10 EPA regulations. 14 The evidence in unsafe15 practices during maintenance and housing16 rehab, renovation, repair, and painting17 activities caused lead poisoning is18 overwhelming. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 work is nearly $200,000. So in addition2 to the ill effects of child, which, of3 course, you can't put any price on, we're4 also talking about what's involved in5 cleaning up if we allow a mess to be made6 by not following safe work practices or,7 for example, not passing clearance. 10 The bill's requirement for11 clearance-testing is essential to ensure12 no hazards are left behind. Without13 dust-testing, homes that have other lead14 hazards will contain high levels of lead15 dust, which is not necessarily visible to16 the naked eye. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 dust levels. 16 Lead-hazard management does17 cost money, like any other element of18 property maintenance, but peeling paint,19 windows in disrepair, leaks that cause20 paint to peel, these are already21 addressed by the code. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 The federal renovation rule in2 effect for 14 months now was announced by3 EPA in 2008. S. 7 As of the end of April of 2011,8 560,000 persons have been trained, more9 than half a million persons in the United10 States have been trained, which is more11 than twice the number that was expected12 by EPA at that time. 18 That conflicts with some other data that19 I'm aware of. As of March, 24,000 people20 and 5600 firms were certified to do21 renovation work in Pennsylvania. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 So there are issue with2 entities not being aware of the3 requirements, and there's also going to4 be some level of noncompliance, not5 following through. 8 Just a couple other issues I9 want to address, and I'm sure others10 should too. 15 You know, it's really important16 to think about that as the full17 continuum. 21 There are also all kinds of22 informal daycare arrangements going on23 out there. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. C. C. 13
Is restricted --16 the turnover requirement is limited to17 households that have a child present or a18 pregnant woman present. And it's really19 important to look at the pregnant woman,20 as Dr. Campbell was saying.21 You know, we know that lead22 crosses the placenta.23
And it can cross25 220 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 both ways. What that means is that a2 woman who is exposed to lead and then3 becomes pregnant later, she's got that4 lead store in her bones that can5 influence that child. And once she's6 pregnant, basically, that lead already in7 her body can influence her -- influence8 what happens to her child.9 So, therefore, arguably, one10 would need to really consider the11 universe of people at risk as families12 with women of childbearing age. You13 know, it's not just women who are14 pregnant today --15
-- but any woman,17 because she might become pregnant next18 week. It's women of childbearing ages.19 You know, arguably, we need to protect20 her because her child will be as21 influenced if the child is a year old22 and, you know, crawling around on the23 floor, or if she's pregnant.24 It's just really important to25 221 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 not narrow ourselves to look at who's2 sleeping in the unit at this given time.3 And a couple of other4 differences. In the D.C. rule, we don't5 have quite the explicit remedies for6 tenants, and I think that's a really7 important feature of the bill you're8 looking at, specifically, you know, that9 there is the ability to have a private10 right of action, but there's not spelled11 out some of the protections that are12 proposed here, and we'd really like to13 see that kind of thing in our local law14 as well.15 Also, another difference is16 that the City is not -- that the district17 government is not receiving the18 notifications by the property owners.19 And I think that the other differences20 have been mentioned.21
The22 district government is not receiving23 notifications by the property owners?24
The notification4 that the tenant -- certification, I'm5 sorry, that the tenant has been provided6 with the clearance report.7
Yes, the incoming10 tenant, yes.11 But I understand that there's12 discussion about streamlining that a13 little here to add it to some existing14 form or something, so that will be not15 burdensome at all, it sounds like.16 So that concludes my comments.17
Well,18 thank you.19 Are you working in any other20 municipalities, assisting any other21 municipalities with this type of22 initiative?23
Presently, you24 know, we have a number of staff at the25 223 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 center, and I don't know everybody is2 working on.3 I'm personally involved with4 our efforts with the city of Cincinnati5 to strengthen their approach. Similar to6 Philadelphia, Cincinnati has had7 historically a prohibition on paint,8 which is, you know, such a universal9 policy --10
-- that not12 enough -- it basically doesn't get13 enforced. So they're looking at right-14 sizing their response and looking at15 initiatives like this.16
I'm just23 curious to know what's happening. There24 are typically teaching opportunities for25 224 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 those of us who are going down the road2 to learn what other municipalities have3 done, or are doing, successfully on the4 same issue.5
Yes. Well, there6 are -- George mentioned several that have7 already done this. I think you're8 talking about prospectively, who might be9 doing something in the future. In the10 past, a good number of places have done11 something.12 New Jersey has a state law for13 rental properties that, I'm sure,14 advocates here have looked at, so I'm15 just not familiar with all the research16 that was done.17 But that's a requirement that18 includes a -- there's a clearance19 requirement in that provision, and I20 think it's sort of the same structure as21 you have here, which is requiring22 upfront, you know, repair of any lead23 hazards and using lead-safe work24 practices.25 225 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111
Vermont has a3 requirement for turnover that's somewhat4 similar to what you're looking at here as5 well. Um...6
Elaborate7 on that. When you say "turnover," is8 that referencing Councilwoman Tasco's9 question, which was every -- if10 someone -- every two years, the landlord11 should have it tested, even if -- when12 it's turned over to a new tenant every13 year or every two years, it should be14 retested. Is that what you're15 referencing?16
Vermont does not17 have a testing requirement at that18 frequency, no. There's a -- but the19 requirement that when the property turns20 over is the part I was talking about.21 I'm trying to remember. You22 know, New York City has a pretty23 extensive requirement. I saw some24 testimony earlier that I think may have25 226 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 reported on an old version of the New2 York City law. I think it's more3 comprehensive now than what was in4 someone's statement.5
So are you9 suggesting that New York is ahead of10 Philadelphia in this regard?11
New York13 is ahead of Philadelphia in this regard?14
There's a23 major difference. I heard, based on your24 testimony -- and this is not unusual,25 227 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 because so often, it depends upon who you2 are talking to, that the cost average3 with regards to remediation differs from4 the cost average by the Landlord5 Association.6
Yes. I'd like to7 just comment on that. A lot of the data8 collected over the years was collected by9 people who were, you know, sort of10 following a certain set of procedures,11 and that's how they constructed their12 cost estimate.13
So a key15 difference, as far as I'm concerned here16 today, is that -- just within17 Philadelphia, I'll talk for a second.18
You know, you have20 historically lead-abatement jobs which21 require a lead-abatement contractor,22 often government money was involved. You23 know, there are certain things that kind24 of can inflate the price of work.25 228 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 But, you know, what you have2 here is, you know, everybody has to3 comply with the new federal RRP rule no4 matter what they're doing; that's5 actually not up to -- that's not a6 condition of this bill.7
You know, that's9 going to have to happen anyway.10 So if you -- if it's understood11 that anybody who's renting out a pre-'7812 property that has problems such as13 peeling paint, they're going to have that14 compliance covered already. So you15 can't -- it's not fair to then count that16 compliance again as a condition for17 compliance for this, if you know what I'm18 saying.19
So just doing the21 math, you know, if an abatement job used22 to cost 8,000 or 10,000 or whatever, and23 then there's another job that someone24 calls interim controls, which is a25 229 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 special term that's abatement but not2 quite abatement --3
-- that interim5 control job, which required certain6 specific things, you know, change out the7 window, do this, do that, that could also8 have a higher cost.9 But a simple requirement to10 make sure that there aren't lead hazards11 without you have to use an abatement12 contractor without -- there's a certain13 way that you are, I think, in this bill14 helping to reduce the cost -- or minimize15 the cost, I should say, not reduce it.16 By saying, you know, Do17 whatever you need to do, whatever it18 takes, to get rid of the lead hazards and19 be able to pass a clearance test, that is20 a -- to me, that's sort of an advanced21 standard. That's we've sort of made some22 mistakes along the way in terms of23 over-specializing this lead business.24
Uh-huh.25 230 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111
And it's really an2 enlightened approach saying, you know, Do3 whatever it takes to achieve clearance,4 you know, working safely, working within5 the confines of the RRP rule, of course.6 But at the end of the day, the7 dust test is, you know, the best8 scientific measure you can have to show9 that, you know --10 (Indiscernible; parties talking11 over each other.)12
Okay. My16 final question is, you state in your17 testimony -- there's so many valuable18 parts -- the training, the number of19 persons trained, the last page of your20 testimony, last paragraph.21
Here23 you're talking about the persons who24 actually do the work?25 231 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111
I should caution4 you that, unfortunately, one of the --5 from my perspective, one of the6 weaknesses of the federal rule is that7 not everybody on the job necessarily gets8 that training. They're only needs to be9 a supervisor or another person.10 But if you've got a crew, the11 feds aren't requiring everybody be12 trained. That would be something I would13 consider as, you know, kind of an14 improvement one could make in the local15 law.16
Mm-hmm,17 okay.18 Anyone else? Okay.19 So we have one more panel,20 based on my record here.21 I thank you all for your22 testimony. It's been quite few23 comprehensive. And unless you're a24 sponge from another planet, you didn't25 232 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 take it all in because there are so many2 facts.3 Panel number four, and our last4 panel:5 James White, Philadelphia6 Association of CDCs, or a representative;7 Stanley Daniel, Realtor and8 Real Estate Investor;9 Alan Krigman, KRF Management;10 Justin Moore, New City11 Investment Solutions, LLC.12 Please move to the witness13 table.14 (Witnesses come forward.)15
Okay,19 then. Mr. James White I don't see.20 However, is there anyone here to speak on21 behalf of the Philadelphia Association of22 CDCs?23 (No response.)24
Okay. Let25 233 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 me just state for the record that there2 is actually testimony here, and I3 actually have a couple questions based on4 this testimony, so I won't be able to get5 to that at this hour.6 So then let's please move to7 Stanley Daniel, Realtor and Real Estate8 Investigator.9
Distinguished13 members of City Council, thank you for14 giving me the opportunity to testify this15 afternoon. 16 I'm a real estate investor, realtor,17 property manager, rehabber, landlord, and18 property owner in the great City of19 Philadelphia. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 2 I heard numbers that it costs3 about $450 for an inspection and about4 $1500 on the average to take care of a5 lead problem in a rental unit. 7 There was a mention that there8 is -- some people said that there's a9 shortage of renovating contractors. 18 Realtors, people in our19 industry, have taken the course, who are20 not contractors. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 20 Anybody who does any kind of21 physical work, wearing coveralls and22 things of that sort, their productivity23 is considerably lower. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 11 All right, there was a comment12 by Darryl Zaslow, the HAPCO legal13 representative. 15 The burden of this law is16 falling on landlords. It shouldn't; it17 should fall on the people that have18 responsibility. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 4 I can only see three ways of5 measuring the effects of the law once6 it's in place. You can measure, number7 one, has there been a decline in lead8 poisoning cases? 15 My wife's sister, my16 sister-in-law, lives in a city that has17 lead-renovation laws. Her house is in18 foreclosure. She and her husband cannot19 rent a one-bedroom apartment in a lousy20 part of town for $1500 a month. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 4 I am a father, I am a5 grandfather. I understand what's6 involved with the safety of children. A7 young lady sat right here; her8 five-year-old son had lead poisoning; I9 sympathize with her. 11 But the way City Council is12 trying to do it is, you're putting the13 entire burden on landlords. 17 Landlords are businesspeople like anybody18 else. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 2 Right now, today, as I sit3 here, there's a shortage of affordable4 housing in Philadelphia. I do business5 soley in the City of Philadelphia. 8 Now, you can't rent anything9 cheaper than $500, so I'm appealing to10 the lower end of what tenants can afford,11 okay? I get 25 to 40 calls a day when I12 put an ad in the Inquirer for a unit at13 $500, okay? 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 2
Thank you3 for your testimony and for just being4 here today to share with us your5 perspective on this important issue.6 Are you a member of HAPCO?7
Yes, I'm a member8 of HAPCO, DIG, and SJI, the three local9 real-estate groups in the Philadelphia10 area.11
Okay.12 Have you ever had an instance of -- how13 many units do you own?14
I own as rental15 units ten units, and I manage a dozen16 units.17
I see.18 Have you ever had the experience of19 having a tenant infected with lead?20
No, no, no, I21 never have, but I'm not a slum landlord22 either.23 Look, the problem exists;24 there's no question about the problem25 242 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 existing. It just -- you know, you're2 going to take care of one problem and3 cause another problem.4
Mm-hmm.5 You also mentioned the enormous costs6 that come with making a unit -- or7 abating a unit, and that you believe that8 the testimony presented by others does9 not adequately capture all of the costs10 that come with abating a unit; is that11 fair to say, in terms of representation12 of your testimony?13
Yes, yes. And14 everybody's talking expenses, okay?15 Nobody even mentioned the fact that you16 now have a unit that's vacant for another17 month or two months.18
Okay? Yes, you're20 spending money to take care of what has21 to be done, okay? But these things22 also -- you have a tenant, an inspection23 comes, it may or may not cost money to24 take care of a problem, but now the25 243 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 unit's not rented for another month --2
I see.9 Okay. All right, then. That takes care10 of -- are you going to submit written11 testimony just so that we have it going12 forward, or shall we just count on the13 testimony given on the record?14
I will be glad to15 resubmit it, but what I said here is16 different from what I wrote down.17
I'll be more than24 glad to get you a written copy.25 244 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111
Last2 question. You are a LEED-certified3 renovator?4
And based6 on your knowledge base, in the City of7 Philadelphia, there only about 5 percent8 of contractors who are actually9 certified.10
What I said is, if14 you had to find a contractor to do a job,15 just to find a contractor who is properly16 licensed and insured -- forget about the17 lead renovation.18
Just to be20 properly licensed and insured is very,21 very difficult. Plumbers and22 electricians and painters, they're not.23 And then to find one that is actually a24 lead -- is trained to be a lead25 245 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 renovator, they're very, very hard to2 find.3 A lot of the people that have4 taken the courses were people like me, to5 learn about it, to be educated about it.6 They're not contractors.7
I'm in the9 business. If I had to find a contractor10 to do a lead-renovation job, I probably11 couldn't find one in 24 hours.12
I see.16 And the course that you took was hosted17 by whom or given by whom?18
Okay,25 246 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 then. Thank you very much for your2 testimony.3
It's the16 business we're in, okay?17 Please, good afternoon.18
Good afternoon.19 My name slipped through the crack. I20 registered last week, and I asked this21 morning, was it there? And they said no.22
My name's Willie25 247 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 Seward.2
I'm a4 Pennsylvania-licensed real-estate broker5 for more than 40 years. 13 I've been located one block14 from 22nd and Lehigh for all of these15 years. 22 But, I'm sorry to say, in23 today's market, the tenants need24 training. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 20-, 30-year tenant. 5 I believe this bill was written6 with good intent, to protect children7 from lead poisoning. 17 And, by the way, these are your18 voters, too. 22 Ladies and gentlemen of this23 committee, I'm here to tell you, they are24 barely, barely making it. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 4 I'd like to know how these5 landlords are going to be able to pay to6 get certified lead-paint inspectors to7 inspect the properties. 15 And here we go. I believe a16 the Health Department said that paint17 must be removed after being tested if18 there's a certain lead reading. You've19 heard the cost of the removal of the20 paint to make it lead-based-free: 10,21 20, $40,000 and up. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 more than the house is worth. And the2 owner can't afford to pay to remove the3 paint. 8 Does the good here outweigh the9 bad? I don't think so. 12 I would like to know what13 happens to a homeowner with lead paint14 that lives next door to a rented15 property, and the children are in and out16 of each other's houses. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 that it may sound like. 5 The EPA, as you just heard, is6 enforcing a very strict and costly bill;7 you've heard that. 11 I heard here today that the12 property didn't meet what you want even13 behind EPA. 16 Now, your bill is still asking17 to spend more money. That's -- let us be18 for real. 22
We can23 remain forever optimistic and work in24 that direction.25 252 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111
Beg your pardon?2 But maybe we can ease the main.3 Education.4 What good does it do spend5 money following certain EPA regulations6 and finally do not know how to maintain7 the property. And, believe me, it's a8 lot of them.9 The young lady testified, and I10 feel for the situation with the son, that11 she would have been -- had known, been12 educated on what to look for, she would13 have never moved in the property.14 I'm here to tell you that it15 would do more good to amend the bill,16 allowing the landlord to rent a unit to a17 family that have a certificate of18 counseling, without the cost of19 inspection, because the tenant will know20 what to look for, know how to clean, and21 that would lower the possibility of the22 child getting lead poisoning.23 But tenants can get free24 home-buying and free rental counseling25 253 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 from HUD-approved counseling agencies.2 There are agencies that would be glad to3 do the counseling, and the agencies are4 free of charge.5 Number two. Allow the6 inspection to be visible, the inspection.7 The cost of inspection will be much8 lighter.9 Exempt the properties that was10 built since 1978 and total rehabs.11 I recommend that this bill be12 tabled for further study.13 The tenant will win because14 there will be more units for rent. The15 landlord will win, not to have abandoned16 the property. The City will win because17 the landlord will still pay taxes on the18 property.19 Ladies and gentlemen, thank you20 for your time. And I hope you will --21 thank you for your time and that you will22 think about the bill.23
Thank you24 for your attention to this matter.25 254 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 Any questions from members of2 the committee?3 (No questions.)4
Do you5 have written testimony, Mr. Seward? You6 do? Okay, then, 'cause I want to be able7 to read this again. And so, the last8 name is Seward.9
Okay.11 That's why written testimony helps.12 Okay, then. Thank you for your remarks.13 Sir? Alan Krigman, is that the14 correct pronunciation of your name?15
I'm Alan Krigman.16 I am a member of HAPCO. I'm here17 representing myself and what I know, not18 as a representative of that organization.19 I had prepared a presentation,20 but so much has been said, and you don't21 have to hear the same thing over and over22 again.23 I would like to make some24 comments about what we've heard and what25 255 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 we haven't heard.2 The Health Department and3 others who advocate the bill have been4 very clear about the fact that this5 problem is not only in decline in the6 United States but has been in strong7 decline in the City of Philadelphia with8 the rules that we already have.9 And, in fact, the Public10 Citizens for Children and Youth, in 2008,11 was commissioned by the City of12 Philadelphia's Health Department to study13 this issue, and they concluded the14 following, based on the Lead Court and15 the associated procedures, and I quote:16 "This approach has been a17 phenomenal success," their words, "a18 prime example of how a confluence of19 forces inside and outside government,20 along with a commitment and21 collaboration, can bring about powerful,22 effective system change to benefit the23 public good, and should be celebrated and24 replicated for the sake of children25 256 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 everywhere."2 That's what they said about the3 way the system now stands based on the4 Lead Court, the procedures for testing5 children, and what's already written in6 the City code.7 You also heard somebody from8 the Health Department talk about low9 levels of lead causing irreversible10 damage. Well, what's a low level of11 lead? Nobody mentioned any numbers.12 The fact is that the Centers13 for Disease Control -- I got to flip14 through and find this stuff. The Centers15 for Disease Control says that if children16 are tested at a level on a spike of 2017 micrograms of lead per deciliter of18 blood, whatever that means -- just19 remember the number 20 -- this is not in20 and of itself hazardous.21 This is, though, appropriate22 for use as a trigger for case management23 and an environmental investigation24 because it may, in fact, portend a25 257 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 problem.2 Now, they also say -- that's3 20 -- the number 20 for a spike. They4 also say, in all fairness, between 15 and5 19 micrograms per deciliter on a6 persistent basis is cause for case7 management.8 Lead can be detected in9 children at a much lower level than that.10 And at a lower level than that, it is not11 -- it does not cause irreversible damage.12 And, in fact, is generally acknowledged13 to be not nonhazardous.14 So to just simply say that low15 levels of lead cause irreversible damage16 and to predicate a law based on what if17 these things happen and that by the time18 we can detect the lead, it's too late,19 that's not being true to the actual data.20 Now, let me just go on. Again,21 I think the law is too broad.22 Ms. Reynolds-Brown, you were23 saying something about -- I don't know --24 you didn't use the word slumlord but25 258 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 that's the usual word.2
Let me tell you5 that, consistent with what Willie said6 about mom-and-pop owners, this is not a7 business where we're all rolling in8 dough, raking in the profits from these9 buildings. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 that Willie is talking about. Some of2 these buildings are worth very little3 more than $10,000. 6 But let's look at where that7 $10,000 comes from. 14 If you go to borrow $10,000 at15 6 percent for 10 years, it costs you $11016 a month to pay back that loan. 19 So what's going to happen? Are20 we going to absorb the cost? You can't21 afford to do it. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 2 Willie mentioned that some of3 his tenants are paying 50 percent of4 their household income to rent their5 apartments. 8 If you charge an extra $110 a9 month to a tenant, and we're talking10 about this 30 percent criterion, $110 a11 month is $1320 a year that that tenant12 has to pay. 16 Now, we already have people in17 this city that we know about, that have18 probably been in your office, your19 offices, worrying about things that have20 already cut back on their food. We know21 there are people that cut back on their22 heat, because we know how many people the23 gas company is after, just so that they24 can pay the rent. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 3 And that's a low figure, by the4 way. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 splitting up a family, neither of which2 is very good. Or maybe they're just3 going to be homeless. 9 But what about other people10 with other issues? 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 this bill would lead to more widespread2 flouting than we already have of federal3 fair-housing laws against discrimination,4 against renting to families with5 children. 7 And I have some families with8 children. 12 So that it would be -- if I13 were of a mind to disobey that federal14 law, it would be very easy to get away15 with. 17 Let's look at some other18 points. Massachusetts was one of the19 first jurisdictions to have very strict20 lead-remediation laws. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 half of percent of what were considered2 high-hazard units across the state. 16 Baltimore launched a lead-17 paint abatement project of a different18 type in the 1980s. They did it19 themselves. The city was going to be20 responsible. 22 They launched the program in23 the late 1980s, and they dropped it in24 1991. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. 12 Minneapolis -- one of the13 speakers here said there's no data on14 what's happened to affordable housing or15 abandonment. That's not true. 11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 and the people who live there had no way2 to pay. They were out. 5 So why did they lose affordable6 housing? 19
Okay.20 You've shared with us a number of21 examples of other cities. And in no way22 do I want to curtail or ask you to23 abbreviate your testimony. Your point is24 well taken and your evidence well25 267 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 supported by the position that you've2 taken.3
Yes. And, in4 fact, in the document that I'm going to5 give you, it's got a whole series of6 references that document everything that7 I'm saying.8
One16 observation I had is that in the cities17 you stated, Baltimore and Boston, did18 they have a lead court, which, in many19 ways --20
No. As best as I21 know, we're the only city that has that.22 And based on the performance, I think23 it's great.24
Clearly,25 268 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 the Lead Court made a major, major2 difference in raising the numbers of3 landlords who were forced to move into4 compliance, or forced to comply; would5 you agree?6
Well, yes,7 because the way that the Philadelphia8 code is written now, contrary to what the9 interpretation some people give, the10 Property Maintenance Code, Section 305.611 says the following:12 "Lead paint shall not be13 permitted to remain on interior surfaces14 of..." and then it names a whole bunch of15 things "occupied by children when the16 Department of Public Health determines17 that its presence creates a health18 hazard."19
So when the21 Health Department finds some kid with an22 elevated blood lead level, hopefully not23 to the point of being irremedial but24 detectable, they go in and inspect the25 269 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 priority.2 I had this happen to me once.3 I wasn't thrilled about either the fact4 that there was a problem or that I had to5 do something about it, but I went ahead6 and did it.7 Now, what the Lead Court does8 is to say, Well, for people that are just9 going to say, Forget it, I'm just not10 going to do it, it does force them to do11 it.12 But there's something else as13 long as I'm talking about the City code14 --15
Okay, all16 right. Then I'm going to ask you to17 begin to bring some closure to your18 testimony.19
And then I21 will ask you to please close your22 testimony --23 (Indiscernible; parties talking24 over each other.)25 270 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111
One, it's been5 said in testimony that good housekeeping6 alleviates the problem, and this is the7 CDC and the EPA both say that. And what8 they recommend is biweekly, every other9 week, damp-mopping of floors and10 damp-wiping of other horizontal surfaces.11
So punt12 the responsibility of making a property13 lead-safe to the tenant?14
Here's what it15 says in Property Management Code 305.1:16 "Every occupant shall keep that part of17 the structure where such occupant18 occupies or controls in a clean and19 sanitary condition." It's already the20 law.21
And this gets23 back to making people aware and training24 them. We're not talking about a very25 271 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 elaborate cleaning procedure; we're2 talking about reasonable, good3 housekeeping.4
Lead dust is much10 worse of a hazard than lead chips, and11 it's because the dust gets everywhere and12 settles in, and kids can ingest it by13 breathing, as opposed to eating the lead14 paint, or who knows what.15 Wooden double-hung windows that16 were installed before 1978 and,17 therefore, have paint on them that18 contains lead are probably the worst19 source of lead dust in these old houses.20 Not the walls, not who knows what, but21 opening and closing these windows.22 Now, if we were to focus our23 resources, as opposed to a blanket24 requirement that places that may or may25 272 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 not ever have children in them have to be2 remediated at, according to the City's3 own figures, 10,000 bucks, but that's too4 cheap compared to what's been experienced5 elsewhere.6 New York City's numbers are7 closer to what Darryl told you. New York8 City paid a contractor 50 to $60,000 for9 each remediation in a whole bunch of10 two-bedroom apartments.11 You could replace -- and in12 fact, if they do the remediation, they13 do, in fact, want you to replace the14 double-hung wooden windows with vinyl15 replacement windows, which eliminates16 that whole problem.17 You can buy a good-quality18 vinyl replacement window for $125 that19 not only doesn't have any of this paint20 on it but is double-glazed so that it21 gives you heat insulation.22
So are you23 offering that up as an alternative means24 to remediation?25 273 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111
No. I'm offering5 that as a suggestion of one of the things6 that could be considered as an alternate.7 I'm not -- yes, and I'm offering that you8 suggest -- that you study things like9 that.10 But further, further, Chicago11 -- oh, and it cost about another 125 to12 put them in if you hire a certified13 contractor of the type Stan was talking14 about, which you would have to do.15 That's assuming they do a whole bunch of16 them.17 Chicago -- and I'm not just18 offering -- and I'm not just suggesting19 that you require people to do it.20 Chicago had a plan. They offered owners21 low-interest loans to install these kind22 of replacement windows.23 The loans had a nominal 14-year24 amortization period. If you repaid half25 274 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 the principal in under seven years, they2 forgave you the rest. So, basically, you3 could have the job done if you paid for4 it within seven years.5
Who is9 "you"? "You" is the landlord? I just10 want the record to be clear.11
The City would15 find a source for the low-interest loans.16 The City would arrange for the low-17 interest loans, and that would work that18 way.19 Other cities, Milwaukee --20
Okay, and21 this is the last example of other cities.22 We now have ten on the record.23
Right, yeah. I24 realize that, after people went on for an25 275 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 hour. (Indiscernible.) I'm only sorry2 it has to be me, and I forgive you.3
In talking about6 looking for targets -- you know, this is7 a Willie Sutton study. You know who8 Willie Sutton was, the bank robber?9 A reporter once asked him,10 "Willie, why do you rob banks?" And his11 answer was, "Because that's where the12 money is."13 Well, why are we going after14 the whole city where the problem isn't,15 rather than focusing on where the problem16 is?17 Now, one of the Health18 Department people said they were going to19 give you the demographics. I can give20 you a rough cut. Out of 48 zip codes in21 this city, 50 percent of the cases of22 lead poisoning come from eight zip codes.23
Now, they can25 276 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 give you a better breakdown.2
That's the3 additional data that we hope to get.4 Thank you.5
What Milwaukee6 did was, it identified two high-risk7 areas, with a total of about a thousand8 properties. They didn't go after9 complete remediation; they went after10 stabilization of paint and replacement of11 deteriorated windows and preventive12 plumbing and roofing work because leaks13 are what cause paint to peel and get at14 the lower layers.15 But the landlords had to pay16 for it, but the city got a $3 million17 grant from the Department of Housing and18 Urban Development.19
This is the city22 of Milwaukee, in their community23 lead-safe zone program.24 Okay. I have more, but I'm25 277 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 going to --2
But you3 are going to submit that document,4 correct?5
I'm going to6 submit about a 30-page document to you.7 And I'll quiz you on it tomorrow morning.8
I need a9 little bit more time than that.10 Well, I thank you. The11 research is important, which is why we so12 often ask what is happening in other13 municipalities, to see where we as a city14 stack up against the goal that we're15 trying to achieve.16 So know that the document will17 certainly not be viewed in vain; it will18 be read.19
Well, I hope so.20 And I would have only hoped -- and I21 don't know if there's a mechanism for22 this. When a bill is about to be --23 maybe you can answer this for me.24 Somehow, when you prepared this25 278 6.13.11 HEALTH/HUMAN SVCS. - BILL 1000111 bill, it didn't just happen in a flash of2 insight.3