November 7, 2003

HOUSING, LEAD PAINT AND THE CITY COUNCIL

By James Eugene*

The City Council has supposedly reached an agreement on a new lead paint law. Be afraid, be very afraid.

I must confess that this may be one of the most difficult issues that a legislature will have to face. Lead is a very dangerous substance, even more dangerous than asbestos, although we are deathly afraid of asbestos poisoning, and less so of lead. Since I have some fear of asbestos and more fear of lead, do not take this column as a belittlement of the lead poisoning issue.

My concern about the new lead paint law is two-fold. First is the atmosphere in which the bill was agreed. Second is the failure to discuss rationally the potential negative impacts of the bill.

A number of Council Members and advocates painted the recent intransigence on reaching a compromise over lead paint abatement as "environmental racism." The argument went that since most of the children suffering from lead poisoning were minorities in poor areas, the failure to pass a bill was racist. After years of trying to figure a way to get the media's attention on this issue, the environmental racism angle worked.

Of course, any racism angle should have its limits, as one could argue that because poor families in this City are predominantly minority and they live in substandard housing, the fact that the housing is substandard is racist. However, someone needs to explain to me how such housing can be made standard and affordable to the poor. Guess what? Such housing can't be made affordable unless it has government subsidies. If the government has no money and cannot provide the subsidies, does that make the government racist? What if tax dollars are being used to address other issues, such as education? What if there is no money for both housing and education and the City needs to pick one? Does the mere fact that the City must pick one racist? Obviously, the racism argument is both dangerous and absurd.

Unfortunately, the environmental racism moniker took the lead paint argument away from a policy discussion and into an emotional one. No one likes being called a racist of any type. So some Council Members along with some advocates used the "environmental racism" argument to pressure various officials, Council Speaker Gifford Miller being one of them, into an uncomfortable position.

Now true environmental racism would be siting environmentally sensitive projects in a minority neighborhood (and this does happen). But lead paint was universally used in both rich and poor neighborhoods until a few decades ago. Its existence in the City's housing stock is not a diabolical plot against some race (indeed at the time such housing was built, most of the inhabitants were white). So the environmental racism card was simply unfair, though I give the advocates and Council Members credit for a public relations success. Is it, however, a policy success? Given that only advocates are enamored by the bill, and that the other side finds the bill odious, I wonder if the compromise is really fair.

And it is fairness that will be important to the housing market. Lead paint removal is costly. (Don't let the advocates fool you into believing it is not. It is in their interest to use nominal numbers.) And, considering that many of the buildings in which lead paint exists are marginal in their economics, I wonder if such buildings will remain economically viable. Who will pay for this remediation? In market rate low income housing, the landlord will try to pass along the cost to the tenants, who may then be unable to afford the rent. In stabilized buildings, the landlord cannot pass along the cost. If the cost is prohibitive, abandonment becomes a real issue. Theoretically, lead abatement can be factored into the cost of operations by the City's Rent Guidelines Board (which sets the rents for stabilized buildings), but if the cost is prohibitive and it leads to high rent increases, then rent stabilized tenants will not be able to afford their units either. Thus, the real questions are what is the cost and who pays?

Do you have concerns yet? Most people who want affordable housing also want lead paint abatement. But lead paint abatement might make housing less affordable. So I repeat what I said at the beginning of the article: this may be one of the most difficult issues that a legislature will have to face.

The problem is this issue was not examined in the realm of economics and science. It was examined in the realm of racism. Viewed through the wrong prism, I can only have serious doubts over the agreed upon bill. And, thus, I suspect that in a few years, if the economics of the bill show that it is unworkable (as I suspect it is), the Council will once again grapple with the lead paint issue in order to preserve housing stock. Only then, I hope the discussion will take place in a more rational environment.

The Unfunded Mandate.

And as Council Members complain about unfunded mandates from Albany and D.C., it may wish to consider that the lead paint bill is the City's unfunded mandate upon the private sector housing owners. I guess the Council is a "do as I say and not as I do" group.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.