CHICAGO

IF RHODE ISLAND Atty. Gen. Patrick C. Lynch has his way, the state “rehab police” will be knocking on the doors of some 240,000 homeowners and apartment dwellers statewide, forcing them to move to temporary quarters, and arranging for mandatory renovations to their homes even without their consent. People may feel “a sense of loss of privacy,” the state concedes, but says its actions are warranted by a crisis akin to the typhoid and cholera epidemics of the last century.

What is this crisis? Lead-based paint abatement, necessary to protect “the children,” even though an ever-declining number of them are currently being exposed to excessive lead — 790 last year, according to the state.

Though Rhode Island’s 132-page rehab plan, released Sept. 14, is just a proposal right now, several things about it are certain. First, its estimated $2.4 billion cost (about $11,250 per unit) is grossly understated. Second, it will take decades longer than its estimated four-year time frame. Third, it will be a bonanza for lawyers.

The plan is part of the damages phase of the 2005-06 public nuisance trial, which resulted in a jury verdict against three defendant paint companies in February 2006. The defendant companies were found to have created a public nuisance — defined for the jury as “something that unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public” — by selling lead-based paint in the state, even though these sales ceased more than 50 years ago. Now they are going to have to pay the abatement costs. The defendants will respond to the state plan on Nov. 15. An appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court is under way, and abatement will not take place if the verdict is reversed.

And it should be reversed. Even the judge, who denied nearly every substantive defense motion, agreed public nuisance is a “collective” right common to the general public, rather than one possessed by private-property owners. This distinction was lost on the jury, which was barred from hearing evidence about lead-based paint on any particular property. This distinction will not be lost on property owners, though, if this plan goes into effect.

Here is what will happen if the state’s plan is approved: Initially, each housing unit built before 1980 will be inspected and an abatement plan drawn up to address the presence of lead-based paint, even if it isn’t deteriorating. If the property owner does not agree to the plan, an appeal can be filed. But recalcitrants can also be forced to allow the work by court order.

Under the plan, windows will almost always be replaced with new, energy-efficient ones, and new drywall will cover existing lead-based paint. The plan can call for new doors, new flooring, new kitchen cabinets, and new stairways, banisters, spindles and newel posts. If these items are unique, they will be stripped and refinished rather than replaced. If the housing unit is part of the state historic-preservation program, replacements will have to be custom-made.

The interiors will then be repainted. The choice of color is up to the homeowner. Surprisingly, the state doesn’t include Martha Stewart as a color consultant.

Repairs to prevent water infiltration will also be done — roof and plumbing leaks, leaking or missing gutters and downspouts, and improperly hung windows. If the house is too deteriorated to be repaired, it can be demolished.

More work can be done on exteriors if lead-based paint is present. Siding is to be replaced with new vinyl material or, if the owner prefers, clapboard. Outside soils will be covered with sod, mulch or gravel, or excavated and replaced by cement or asphalt if soil lead levels are high. Soil near houses will be regraded to drain away from foundations.

The plan does not address where all the demolition debris will go for disposal, except to an “appropriate” facility. While lead-contaminated construction debris is not typically a hazardous waste, the plan doesn’t address whether there is enough landfill space in Rhode Island to accept it. And lead-contaminated soils might be considered hazardous waste, with increased disposal costs.

And there’s more. Occupants of the units to be extensively renovated usually will not remain there while the work is in progress. So they will be required to move to temporary housing — equivalent or superior to their current units — paid for by the defendants through stipends, including meals and transportation. Their belongings will have to be protected or stored.

And all of this work can be done at an average cost of $11,250 per unit based on two state estimates of uncertain scope, the state says with a straight face.

Not only that — the state maintains it can all be completed within four years. That’s about 60,000 units per year, or completed work on 230 units each day. Never mind that there are only 833 certified abatement workers in Rhode Island, and the job requires about 10,000. General-construction workers can be borrowed from neighboring Connecticut and Massachusetts and retrained, the state says.

The paint companies called the plan “ridiculous.” That doesn’t even begin to describe it.

Some homeowners and renters may find it an incredible invasion of their privacy, or even a confiscation of their property. It could even be a public nuisance, according to one judge’s definition — something that unreasonably interferes with one’s “peace, comfort or convenience.” But for others, perhaps those who would like to be featured on This Old House, it may be the chance to decorate on the paint companies’ dime. Make that lots of dimes.

For sure, it is unwarranted. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s booklet “Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home,” parents can shield their children from ingesting lead — paint chips and dust from deteriorating paint are the primary culprits — by keeping floors, windows and other surfaces clean, by washing children’s bottles, toys and pacifiers, by feeding their children nutritious food and preventing them from eating paint. All Rhode Island renters and home buyers are being required by law to get this booklet.

These measures, plus enforcement against landlords who fail to keep their properties in good repair, are working. The number of children with excessive blood-lead levels has declined dramatically in Rhode Island in recent years. It is unthinkable to require the paint company defendants to expend untold billions of dollars when childhood lead exposure is preventable through parents’ common sense and good housekeeping, and by holding landlords accountable for maintenance and repairs that only they — and not the paint companies — control.

On the other hand, for lawyers, this whole program could prove to be an ambulance well worth chasing, as legal issues abound. Is a forced inspection an illegal, unconstitutional and warrantless search? Is forced renovation an illegal and unconstitutional seizure of private property? Don’t like the state’s plan for your property? File an appeal. Don’t like the way the work was done? File an appeal.

And, though lead ingestion by adults can lead to high blood pressure, cardiovascular problems, kidney problems, nerve disorders and cognitive difficulty, housing for the elderly, psychiatric institutions, alcohol-detox facilities and prisons are among the places deliberately excluded from rehabbing. So does the plan unconstitutionally discriminate against the elderly, the drunk, the druggies and the crazies? Go to court. Is it cruel and unusual punishment for jailbirds? Jailhouse lawyers already know how to sue over second-and smoke; lead-based paint can’t be far behind.

And there’s probably even more litigation lurking.

The state’s plan will be a boondoggle for lawyers, a gift to unscrupulous landlords who put off needed repairs that will be free, and a burden to law-abiding citizens forced to evacuate their homes. The state is crowing over its win at trial, and the attorney general says he is “proud” of the case. It will be interesting to see if he feels the same way when the awful reality of what his office has wrought goes public.

Maureen Martin ( martin@heartland.org) is senior fellow for legal affairs at The Heartland Institute.