U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-27-2017, 04:24 AM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,469 posts, read 4,360,408 times
Reputation: 4476

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfatdude View Post
Find a deleaded apartment or buy one, why should someone else spend $40,000 (cost of deleading + two months worth of hotel) on you just because you couldn't keep your legs together? There's plenty of landlords who already chose to delead so they can charge higher rents.
It's the law! Complying with the law is one of the requirements of being a landlord. The risk that one of your tenants might legally require you to delead is one of the risks of owning a leaded apartment. If your business model hinges on breaking the law--even if you think it's a bad law--you need to reconsider your business decisions. For the same reasons you can't just refuse to hire women because they might get pregnant and make your life more difficult. You can't just fire women who become pregnant. I mean you can, it's just against the law.

Continuing to break the law is still an option, but it carries a risk, too. If that's your decision, it's probably a good idea to at least understand the law you're breaking. It's also probably a good idea to not say things like "couldn't keep your legs together."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2017, 05:41 AM
 
32,770 posts, read 22,707,241 times
Reputation: 29798
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfatdude View Post
Find a deleaded apartment or buy one, why should someone else spend $40,000 (cost of deleading + two months worth of hotel) on you just because you couldn't keep your legs together? There's plenty of landlords who already chose to delead so they can charge higher rents.


Wow. Unbelievable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 06:07 AM
 
2,769 posts, read 2,214,685 times
Reputation: 2174
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
Wow. Unbelievable.
I'm sure his mom would be proud.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 06:19 AM
 
16 posts, read 7,668 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfatdude View Post
Find a deleaded apartment or buy one, why should someone else spend $40,000 (cost of deleading + two months worth of hotel) on you just because you couldn't keep your legs together? There's plenty of landlords who already chose to delead so they can charge higher rents.
I suppose you yourself kept your virginity intact until such time when you were making the approx. 100,000+/year you would realstically want to afford a deleaded home, just in case you became a parent? Only people who earn X amount should procreate there? Tricky territory you get into with that line of thinking! I guess it's fine for locals who inherited family homes from long ago, but for attracting newcomers not so much..unless you only want to rub shoulders with the wealthier newcomers. Poor kids deserve to be "fed lead dust", rich kids whose parents loved them enough to be rich can afford the safety of modern times.

Technically, landlords should be paying to delead because they would then be within the law. Either before they put the rental on the market or as soon as they rented to a family-- or perhaps only renting one bedroom homes should be their solution. They should rent to anyone with an acceptable background (credit, references, etc) and not *discriminate* when considering applicants for these reasons. If that means that they need to follow the law and de-lead, that's the line of work they chose to make income. Lots of professions have to follow laws, and aren't we glad they do? Like it or not, that law is there to protect children from something potentially very serious.

The ones that have de-leaded before the others are probably smart too. They can charge more for theirs because the supply is lower. When de-leaded is commonplace, probably not so much more each month. I could be wrong though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:19 AM
 
486 posts, read 361,378 times
Reputation: 801
Sure, it's the law but there's plenty of downright idiotic laws on the books. Having landlords cover and contain lead paint instead of forcing to spend 20-30k and rip the place apart would have been fine, but in this case all it did was drive up rents and made it impossible for families with kids to find housing. And if the nanny state does make everyone delead, you'll see rents go up even higher, and most small landlords will cash in and sell their properties to large corporations who can do whatever they want because their lawyers are better than yours. Once again, be careful what you wish for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 07:53 AM
 
16 posts, read 7,668 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfatdude View Post
Sure, it's the law but there's plenty of downright idiotic laws on the books. Having landlords cover and contain lead paint instead of forcing to spend 20-30k and rip the place apart would have been fine, but in this case all it did was drive up rents and made it impossible for families with kids to find housing. And if the nanny state does make everyone delead, you'll see rents go up even higher, and most small landlords will cash in and sell their properties to large corporations who can do whatever they want because their lawyers are better than yours. Once again, be careful what you wish for.
Abatement includes professional covering of lead paint though. Still costly and need to hire professionals to make sure it's done right, but it is an option and supposedly there are tax credits and other incentives available to them.

From Mass.gov:

What does the lead law require?

The Lead Law requires the removal or covering of lead paint hazards in homes built before 1978 where any children under six live. Lead paint hazards include loose lead paint and lead paint on windows and other surfaces accessible to children. Owners are responsible with complying with the law. This includes owners of rental property as well as owners living in their own single family home. Financial help is available through tax credits, grants and loans.

How does an owner comply with the lead law?

There are two ways:

Have all lead hazards removed or covered. The owner must first hire a licensed lead inspector who will test the home for lead and record all lead hazards. After the work is approved, the owner will receive a Letter of Full Compliance.
Have only urgent lead hazards corrected, while controlling remaining hazards. This temporary method is called interim control. The owner must first hire a licensed risk assessor who will explain what work needs to be done for interim control.
After the work is approved, the owner will receive a Letter of Interim Control. Owners then have up to two years before they must have the remaining lead hazards removed or covered and receive a Letter of Full Compliance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 08:23 AM
 
282 posts, read 150,388 times
Reputation: 384
I can see both sides of the argument here ...... although there are some very extreme viewpoints. There are of course 'professional tenants' who use Massachusetts pro-tenants laws for their own benefit/gain
and there are unscrupulous landlords who lie/cheat/discriminate against tenants.

That being said,

1. Lead pain exposure is a very real problem and it is universally accepted that there is no safe exposure level/limit when it comes to neurological development in children. Legislation is needed because without consequences nobody would mitigate. Here are some stats from Mass. department of public health:

- Pre-1978 homes (when lead paint was banned) is ~70% percent of the housing stock in Massachusetts.
- Only 17 percent of these homes built prior to 1978 have actually been inspected for lead.
- Of the houses built pre-1978, 90% have yet to report any deleading activity.

Lead exposure is disproportionately higher in lower income neighborhoods - here are some data from 2015
- Approx. 3 percent of children under age 4 tested positive in MA for elevated blood-lead levels.
- New Bedford, Brockton, Milford, Fall River and Worcester, all have census tracts where 10 percent of children have elevated blood-lead levels.

2. However, the MA lead abatement rules are excessive .....probably because they were one of the first to be implemented in the country. The stringent, high-cost approach is having the net result that many landlords are skirting the law (whether you like it or not) ...... which is leading to no abatement and continued lead poisoning .... almost 40 years after lead paint was banned!!.
Rhode Island (with similar age housing stock) has taken a milder, education-oriented (and easier/ultimately less expensive to the landlord) approach. In just 3 years post-implementation Rhode Island cut its poisoning rate to 25% of its previous high. The MA laws are relaxing.... in 1993 they were revised to allow for encapsulation/covering lead paint - buys you two years before full remediation needed. Additional revisions are in discussion and are needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 08:36 AM
 
3,268 posts, read 2,197,578 times
Reputation: 2682
I still don't know why the deleading costs should fall completely on the landlord. Why should some of the costs not go to the family with the kid/s wanting to move into the place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 08:37 AM
 
2,769 posts, read 2,214,685 times
Reputation: 2174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatsnext75 View Post
I still don't know why the deleading costs should fall completely on the landlord. Why should some of the costs not go to the family with the kid/s wanting to move into the place?
Because the landlord owns the property and is responsible for its maintenance and upkeep. This isn't rocket science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 08:44 AM
 
3,268 posts, read 2,197,578 times
Reputation: 2682
Then he should be able to say, no I will rent to someone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top