 |
5.30.2001 00:05
Lead-paint bills
vie for support
in House hearing
• The Finance Committee considers several bills proposed by an advocacy group and hears criticism of a reform bill that passed the Senate last week.
group and hears criticism of a reform bill that passed the Senate last week.
BY PETER B. LORD
Journal Environment Writer
PROVIDENCE
-- Lobbyists representing the state's poorest neighborhoods and the nation's richest corporations agreed with state legislators during a long-running House Finance Committee hearing yesterday that this is the year the state must do more to reduce childhood lead-paint poisonings in Rhode Island.
But from early afternoon until late at night, they sparred over an array of bills that were in some cases so contradictory that some wondered if anything can be resolved this year.
The Finance Committee considered a series of bills proposed by Childhood Lead Action Project (CLAP), an advocacy group for lead-poisoning victims and their families, that mandates hard-hitting penalties for landlords who own houses in which children are poisoned, while offering tax relief for those trying to curtail poisonings.
As an aside, it also heard a lot of criticism of a comprehensive lead-reform bill sponsored by Sen. Thomas J. Izzo, D-Cranston, and passed overwhelmingly by the Senate last week with support from the insurance industry.
Kevin Johnston, of the Urban League, said he was tired of hearing what pleases insurance people and real estate agents. He's had a lead-poisoned relative and many affected families come to his group for help, he said.
"As a father, I'd never compromise my principles to see a child sick in bed so an industry doesn't lose a dollar," Johnston said. "I'm upset we don't have legislation that says we won't stand for this anymore. It's time. It's three years now. The problem with the [Izzo] bill is it's weak. We don't need weakness. We need strength. We need some profiles in courage here."
To top off the evening, the committee considered for the second consecutive year a bill that would allow Providence to lift the statute of limitations and sue companies that manufactured lead-paint pigments decades ago.
That bill caused the paint companies to fly in the usual collection of legal experts from around the country. They agreed that lead poisoning is a serious problem in Rhode Island, but they insisted their clients shouldn't be blamed.
Late last night, state Rep. John J. McCauley Jr., D-Providence, sponsor of the CLAP bills, said he remained optimistic that the General Assembly will reach an agreement this session, particularly because of the heightened awareness of the lead problem resulting from a recent series of stories in The Journal. But even he had difficulty foreseeing what that would be.
"They're really at an impasse right now," McCauley said. "It doesn't seem like they'll agree. But I continue to hold hope. And if something comes out, it should have Tom Izzo's name on it. If we can't get something out this year with all the attention, then shame on us."
Roberta Aaronson, CLAP's executive director, testified that her group concluded after several months of research that the biggest reason nearly 3,000 children were lead poisoned last year is because the state doesn't enforce existing laws.
The CLAP bills, she said, target the negligent landlords who poison child after child by letting the paint deteriorate on their buildings. The bills would let tenants get court orders to compel landlords to clean up lead problems and to withhold rents if landlords ignore state cleanup orders.
The bills would also strip away the "innocent owner" protection that now exists for landlords of properties where children are poisoned by lead paint, giving victims the right to sue for unlimited damages. They would require companies selling liability insurance in Rhode Island to cover lead damages and the bills would expand the powers of the attorney general to bring repeat violators into compliance with the law.
As a carrot, the bills would also provide tax credits and lower insurance rates for landlords who make their properties lead safe.
"The current state policy is to treat lead poisoning as a private medical condition rather than a public-health issue, meaning other tenants in a building where a poisoning occurs aren't warned," Aaronson said.
Committee Chairman Antonio J. Pires, D-Pawtucket, said he was on the side of the CLAP supporters, but he wondered whether making insurance mandatory would force insurance companies to take their business elsewere. State Rep. Myrna C. George, D-Exeter, asked why the Health Department didn't testify. No one knew.
State Rep. Paul V. Sherlock, D-Warwick, said he was getting impatient with the lack of a legislative solution. He'd be happy if the state treated negligent landlords like "deadbeat dads." It should confiscate their properties, he said, and sell them to pay for special-education programs.
Stephen Zubiago, spokesman for some of the state's major insurance companies, testifed against the CLAP bills and said Izzo's bill was the best way to solve the lead problem. "The statistics are just horrible," he said. "You need a broad bill to solve this horrible problem."
Monica S. Staaf, lobbyist for the state's Realtors, surprised many by supporting one of the CLAP bills -- one offering tax credits for lead-abatement work as well as labeling houses where poisonings occur.
"We like the scarlet letter approach," she said. "If a landlord isn't doing his job, why shouldn't that be punished?"
Izzo said yesterday he wasn't planning to oppose the CLAP bills; instead he was working on lining up support for his bill, which has been referred to the House Corporations Committee.
|
|
