If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   EPA: You didn't supply your tenant with our pamphlet. Landlord: But that house is free of lead paint. EPA: That'll be $40K, please   (cnsnews.com) divider line 109
    More: Scary, lead paint, EPA, CFR, landlords, housing units, Toxic Substances Control Act  
•       •       •

10540 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 3:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



109 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-25 10:14:33 AM
This has been around for a long time. If you want to be a landlord take 5 minutes to get familiar with the law.
 
2012-08-25 10:31:47 AM
And for the EPA, the non-compliance business is booming

It's not just the EPA..."compliance" is the buzzword pretty much anywhere anymore.
 
2012-08-25 11:05:35 AM
The law has been around for 20 years. Dumbass tag wasn't available?
 
2012-08-25 11:18:20 AM
In addition, landlords can still be fined even if they prove that their property is free of lead-based paint.  In that case, the EPA will merely "adjust the proposed penalty downward."

"EPA may adjust the proposed penalty downward by up to 50 percent if the violator provides documentation that clearly demonstrates that the target housing was interior lead-based paint free in accordance with applicable state and/or local requirements at the time the alleged violation occurred," the policy states.


How civilized of them to do this
 
2012-08-25 11:32:07 AM
I'm wondering how irresponsible/incompetent you or your realtor has to be to overlook something like this, and what else you may be overlooking.
 
2012-08-25 12:42:27 PM
What I want to know is can I get a cut for ratting out my landlord?


media.tumblr.com
Compliance
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-25 12:50:38 PM

EnviroDude: In addition, landlords can still be fined even if they prove that their property is free of lead-based paint.  In that case, the EPA will merely "adjust the proposed penalty downward."

"EPA may adjust the proposed penalty downward by up to 50 percent if the violator provides documentation that clearly demonstrates that the target housing was interior lead-based paint free in accordance with applicable state and/or local requirements at the time the alleged violation occurred," the policy states.


How civilized of them to do this


So if I can prove that I didn't hit anyone will my speeding ticket be cut in half?
 
2012-08-25 01:13:43 PM
Well I have no doubt whatsoever this is totally true.
 
2012-08-25 01:16:00 PM
That's a lot of money for a paper violation. For once, I'd agree this is excessive to hammer small businesses this way.

I wonder how much the makers of lead paint have been fined.
 
2012-08-25 01:18:40 PM

edmo: That's a lot of money for a paper violation. For once, I'd agree this is excessive to hammer small businesses this way.

I wonder how much the makers of lead paint have been fined.


I'm sorry, did you just take CNS News at their word? If so, I have a WND story to tell you about.
 
2012-08-25 01:33:08 PM
Why would a Christian News Service give a shti about the EPA in the first place?
 
2012-08-25 01:35:00 PM

vpb: EnviroDude: In addition, landlords can still be fined even if they prove that their property is free of lead-based paint.  In that case, the EPA will merely "adjust the proposed penalty downward."

"EPA may adjust the proposed penalty downward by up to 50 percent if the violator provides documentation that clearly demonstrates that the target housing was interior lead-based paint free in accordance with applicable state and/or local requirements at the time the alleged violation occurred," the policy states.


How civilized of them to do this

So if I can prove that I didn't hit anyone will my speeding ticket be cut in half?


Your analogy fails. The purpose of the pamphlet is to warn of the hazards of lead based paint. One pays $$$ to have a dwelling surveyed and $$$$ more to have it abated. If there is no lead paint, there is no risk.

This is another stupid EPA policy.
 
2012-08-25 02:03:20 PM

EnviroDude: In addition, landlords can still be fined even if they prove that their property is free of lead-based paint.  In that case, the EPA will merely "adjust the proposed penalty downward."

"EPA may adjust the proposed penalty downward by up to 50 percent if the violator provides documentation that clearly demonstrates that the target housing was interior lead-based paint free in accordance with applicable state and/or local requirements at the time the alleged violation occurred," the policy states.


How civilized of them to do this


Came to quote the exact segment, so I'll borrow it from you...
My question is, if you've done a full gut renovation, and there is no longer any interior surface of the offending vintage, do you still need to play this game? Seems like yes. and CRAZY to me.
 
2012-08-25 03:08:13 PM

GAT_00: edmo: That's a lot of money for a paper violation. For once, I'd agree this is excessive to hammer small businesses this way.

I wonder how much the makers of lead paint have been fined.

I'm sorry, did you just take CNS News at their word? If so, I have a WND story to tell you about.


i love that place... so stupid. it's like stormfront farked the onion and the onion used rum instead of water in the bong and saved it for the child's bottle.
 
2012-08-25 03:09:04 PM
the EPA has their own police.

Like many, many other federal departments.

Land of the FREE!! yeah!
 
2012-08-25 03:09:24 PM
Just further proof we need more regulations, not less.
 
2012-08-25 03:12:09 PM
CNS? Really? This is a 'Source' for news?
 
2012-08-25 03:13:38 PM

EnviroDude: This is another stupid EPA policy.


I'd wager you ate a lot of paint as a kid.
 
2012-08-25 03:15:08 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: [media.tumblr.com image 310x229]
Compliance


hahahaha, awesome
 
2012-08-25 03:17:29 PM

vegasj: the EPA has their own police.

Like many, many other federal departments.

Land of the FREE!! yeah!


Admit it, you're one of those people who blog about chemtrails, aren't you?
 
2012-08-25 03:18:32 PM
If the fines are too small a lot of big businesses would just ignore the law and pay the fine if/when they get caught for it. This is my guess for why this fine for not including a pamphlet is so excessive. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how it is.
 
2012-08-25 03:19:42 PM

clancifer: The law has been around for 20 years. Dumbass tag wasn't available?


In North Dakota, it's illegal to sleep with your shoes on. That law has been around over 100 years. That doesn't make it right. The fact that most people would rather sign a bunch of papers than actually deal with issues in this country is sad at best. Maybe you need a warning label telling you not to eat soap.
 
2012-08-25 03:20:10 PM

NickelP: This has been around for a long time. If you want to be a landlord take 5 minutes to get familiar with the law.


Yes, and $8k per violation is more than fair and not outrageous at all. These people should have known they had to attend landlord school when they decided to rent a property to someone. Common sense.

You know, bigger government would keep this sort of thing from happening.
 
2012-08-25 03:20:17 PM

edmo: That's a lot of money for a paper violation. For once, I'd agree this is excessive to hammer small businesses this way.

I wonder how much the makers of lead paint have been fined.


Nothing, because lead based paint was perfectly legal when it was produced. They still make it for certain industrial applications.
One thing lead paint was really good at was keeping mold from forming in damp areas, which is why I'd wager you're seeing a lot more mold showing up in newer construction than you did in years past.

/Not advocating lead paint in your home
 
2012-08-25 03:20:25 PM
From the comments:

"GodHelp Us": Collapse the capitalist free market system and replace it with a Marxist fascist dictatorship.

and

"westriversd1": Most of us grew up with lead paint and actually painted with it thus breathing the dangerous lead particles and and and and GOSH we're still living and our brains haven't turned to mush.

So, if "GodHelp Us"'s brain hasn't turned to mush, how come he can't grasp that Marxists hate fascists and the feeling is mutual? OK, maybe it wasn't lead paint that turned his brain to mush, but overexposure to Fox Izvestia and the Big Fat Idiot.

img839.imageshack.us
 
2012-08-25 03:23:04 PM
Heh, we just signed a new lease on our apartment. The actual lease was two pages. The warnings and other information was 14 pages...lead, mold, etc. I also liked when they had to install this sign on our apartment building.
www.compliancesigns.com
 
2012-08-25 03:24:45 PM

NickelP: This has been around for a long time. If you want to be a landlord take 5 minutes to get familiar with the law.


This.

Meh, cry me a river.

The regulation in the article is nothing compared to the Chicago Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance. There are law firms that deal in nothing but RLTO plaintiff cases, and make a mint. Not only does it have lots of plenty of technical violations from which to chose (such as failing to give each tenant a copy of the RLTO with each lease / renewal, failing to give tenant info on lead paint whether there's any or not, failing to keep deposit money in a separate, interest-bearing trust account and credit the tenant's rent with the amount of interest each year, inter alia), but it has fee-shifting (landlord-defendant pays the tenant-plaintiff's legal fees & costs, as well as his own) and treble damages (i.e., court decides that you were not justified in not returning the cleaning deposit on the utterly trashed apartment, so you pay deposit×interest).

It was written to protect against absentee slumlords, by giving tenants an affordable (since they're not the ones paying) method of forcing landlords to comply with the law, and did a good job with that. Unfortunately, it's also ripe for abuse.

But compliance with the RLTO is actually easy and mechanical.
 
2012-08-25 03:24:46 PM

sno man: Came to quote the exact segment, so I'll borrow it from you...
My question is, if you've done a full gut renovation, and there is no longer any interior surface of the offending vintage, do you still need to play this game? Seems like yes. and CRAZY to me.


Yes. You're disclosing the history of lead-based paint in the building. If there was lead-based paint at one time, you provide the document saying that, the documentation that it was removed, and that's that. If you've had the paint tested and found it wasn't lead-based, you disclose that. If you didn't do any testing, you disclose that, too.

Basically, the renter gets all the information about the presence or absence of lead-based paint that the landlord has. If it's lead-free, you tell them it's lead-free. If it's not, you tell them it's not. If you don't know, you tell them you don't know. It's not a terribly difficult law to comply with - you check a few boxes on a form, photocopy documents if applicable, and give them a pamphlet.
 
2012-08-25 03:25:37 PM
Lead paint? Mmmmm.... wall candy.
 
2012-08-25 03:27:07 PM
CNSNews.com, eh?

So, basically, the landlord didn't follow an established rule that's been around since forever and ever at this point, got fined and now a bunch of conservative farktards are whining because somebody didn't do something easy that is obvious to everyone.

Next.
 
2012-08-25 03:28:16 PM
Wow, I've rented several houses that were built in the early 1900's and I've never heard of this pamphlet before.
 
2012-08-25 03:29:04 PM
I used to rent out my mother's house and I had to give these forms to my tenants. There is one page that asks the owner if they are aware of any lead paint on the property, not is there lead paint, just are you aware of any. I answered no to that question because I never had the house tested and testing was not required so I really had no idea if there was lead paint or not. I always pointed this out to the tenants with children and told them it probably wasn't a good idea to let the kids chew on the walls anyway because then they would probably loose their security deposit for damages
 
2012-08-25 03:33:31 PM
Clearly a win for Obama. If only we could expand upon this, we be set.
 
2012-08-25 03:36:34 PM

Sum Dum Gai: sno man: Came to quote the exact segment, so I'll borrow it from you...
My question is, if you've done a full gut renovation, and there is no longer any interior surface of the offending vintage, do you still need to play this game? Seems like yes. and CRAZY to me.

Yes. You're disclosing the history of lead-based paint in the building. If there was lead-based paint at one time, you provide the document saying that, the documentation that it was removed, and that's that. If you've had the paint tested and found it wasn't lead-based, you disclose that. If you didn't do any testing, you disclose that, too.

Basically, the renter gets all the information about the presence or absence of lead-based paint that the landlord has. If it's lead-free, you tell them it's lead-free. If it's not, you tell them it's not. If you don't know, you tell them you don't know. It's not a terribly difficult law to comply with - you check a few boxes on a form, photocopy documents if applicable, and give them a pamphlet.


One of the points that Sno-man completely overlooks is that "full-gut renovations", unless very carefully done, spread lead-paint dust all over the place, into ductwork, etc., etc.
 
2012-08-25 03:38:23 PM

gremlin1: I used to rent out my mother's house and I had to give these forms to my tenants. There is one page that asks the owner if they are aware of any lead paint on the property, not is there lead paint, just are you aware of any. I answered no to that question because I never had the house tested and testing was not required so I really had no idea if there was lead paint or not. I always pointed this out to the tenants with children and told them it probably wasn't a good idea to let the kids chew on the walls anyway because then they would probably loose their security deposit for damages


The larger issue is that as the paint ages and oxidizes, the paint will start to break down into dust, the dust falls on to the floor, where children play, or, a window in a painted frame moving up and down will wear the paint out quicker, children can use window sills to pull themselves up when they're learning to walk, what do children that age do? stick their fingers in their mouths...a lot. Another issue comes with exterior paint getting ground into the soil, where kids like to play, dogs and other people walk through, track it inside, and the metals can even get taken up into any vegetables being grown in the yard.

It isn't just eating paint chips.

/Lead Inspector
 
2012-08-25 03:38:43 PM

Nemo's Brother: Clearly a win for Obama


"Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992"

i301.photobucket.com 

Did you eat a lot of lead paint as a child?
 
2012-08-25 03:39:32 PM
All these things are just other ways of funneling big dollars to the 0.1%. Period.
 
2012-08-25 03:40:15 PM

mynameist: clancifer: The law has been around for 20 years. Dumbass tag wasn't available?

In North Dakota, it's illegal to sleep with your shoes on. That law has been around over 100 years. That doesn't make it right. The fact that most people would rather sign a bunch of papers than actually deal with issues in this country is sad at best. Maybe you need a warning label telling you not to eat soap.


I think clancifer's point was not that the law was good, but that its decades-old existence means that the landlord damn well should have known about it and how to comply. It wasn't a matter of not keeping up with the minutia of every new regulation and every decision about interpretation (e.g., the cluster-fark with HIPAA during its first few years.) It has been required standard procedure for 20 years, and there was nothing complicated about the procedure. A landlord makes a big investment, and keeps making investments of time and money while being a landlord. Failing or refusing to take a couple of hours to protect all of that by learning how to dot your 'i's and cross your 't's is dumbassery.

I do agree with you, however, about stupid obsolete laws. Some legislatures periodically have a house-cleaning, but that costs money to review all of the statutes, find what has been struck down by the courts, what has been blue-lined by the courts, what is obsolete, what is stupid, and so-forth, then make recommendation and draft the mass-revision. The Chicago City Council did that just a few years ago. Some state legislatures have done that in the past decade or three.
 
2012-08-25 03:40:54 PM

gremlin1: I used to rent out my mother's house and I had to give these forms to my tenants. There is one page that asks the owner if they are aware of any lead paint on the property, not is there lead paint, just are you aware of any. I answered no to that question because I never had the house tested and testing was not required so I really had no idea if there was lead paint or not. I always pointed this out to the tenants with children and told them it probably wasn't a good idea to let the kids chew on the walls anyway because then they would probably loose their security deposit for damages


actually, it can still be in the dust even if the kids dont chew anything. Also, kids are always more vulnerable.
 
2012-08-25 03:42:33 PM

Girion47: gremlin1: I used to rent out my mother's house and I had to give these forms to my tenants. There is one page that asks the owner if they are aware of any lead paint on the property, not is there lead paint, just are you aware of any. I answered no to that question because I never had the house tested and testing was not required so I really had no idea if there was lead paint or not. I always pointed this out to the tenants with children and told them it probably wasn't a good idea to let the kids chew on the walls anyway because then they would probably loose their security deposit for damages

The larger issue is that as the paint ages and oxidizes, the paint will start to break down into dust, the dust falls on to the floor, where children play, or, a window in a painted frame moving up and down will wear the paint out quicker, children can use window sills to pull themselves up when they're learning to walk, what do children that age do? stick their fingers in their mouths...a lot. Another issue comes with exterior paint getting ground into the soil, where kids like to play, dogs and other people walk through, track it inside, and the metals can even get taken up into any vegetables being grown in the yard.

It isn't just eating paint chips.

/Lead Inspector


Sorry didnt see you posted first.
 
2012-08-25 03:44:02 PM

Somacandra: Why would a Christian News Service give a shti about the EPA in the first place?


Lotta good Christian readers are slumlords.
 
2012-08-25 03:44:51 PM
If subby had some sort of point to make - it was missed. Badly. The regs the landlord needed to follow have been around forever & were EASY TO FOLLOW. And - this is the best part - there was no reason not to follow the regs andEVERYONE BENEFITS WHEN THEY ARE FOLLOWED!

The landlord is a dumbass. He got off cheap at $40k.
 
2012-08-25 03:46:05 PM

HopScotchNSoda: It was written to protect against absentee slumlords, by giving tenants an affordable (since they're not the ones paying) method of forcing landlords to comply with the law, and did a good job with that. Unfortunately, it's also ripe for abuse.


Maybe it's my nature as a tenant with a frequently dickish landlord, but several of those outrages seem like no-brainers to me. If there's no extra penalty for withholding a deposit, then a landlord will just hold on to that $1000 (for instance) and say "Well, now-former tenant, if you want that back, you'll have to sue me. Enjoy!" Making it triple damages ensures an incentive for actually following the goddamn law in the first place. Most landlord/tenant laws have (and where they don't, they should) as their philosophy that in the case of a dispute, the tenant who is being farked over by a landlord is losing much more. For instance, in NJ, you can't evict a tenant (including doing such things as changing the lock on them) without an explicit court order, because otherwise, a tenant could lose their residence and all their possessions on a whim.
 
2012-08-25 03:50:59 PM
I own a small business. I was randomly audited by a government agency. It took days to assemble and complete all of the documents they needed/demanded. After expending all of that time and money, the government determined that I miscalculated one figure over the course of 5 years and owed $5.41.

Thanks bureaucrats for encouraging me to keep by business open and continue to support and insure over a dozen people.

#voting for Gary Johnson
 
2012-08-25 04:01:05 PM
I thought this was pretty absurd when I had to sign multiple lead paint disclosures on a newly built house a few years ago.
 
2012-08-25 04:02:06 PM

GAT_00: Well I have no doubt whatsoever this is totally true.


My name is GAT_00, as leader of the free world, I don't even have to search google.

i.imgur.com

link to bigger size Link link to pdf Warning: PDF
 
2012-08-25 04:05:29 PM
I'm sure some of that money is going to the renters who were harmed by the non-disclosure...

Right???
 
2012-08-25 04:10:32 PM

GAT_00: Well I have no doubt whatsoever this is totally true.


Exactly. I'm sure these landlords were in no way warned multiple times before handed these hefty fines. Apparently this is a law signed under Bush, but I've recently found out that a black man occupies the White House, so I think we should blame him.
 
2012-08-25 04:10:57 PM
I wonder what other information is conveniently missing from this whole story. Like how the EPA ended up fining these particular people? I wonder if it was a case that one or more of the tenants go sick and an investigation was done to determine what made the person sick. In the course of that investigation they inspected the house the person lived at and discovered that none of this documentation was given to the tenants. Because I find it hard to believe that the EPA would just throw a dart at a board and decide to go after whoever it landed on.

Plus how hard can it be to have a page that the tenants sign in the rental paper work saying that they received these pamphlets and then have a stack of pamphlets in a closet so if the EPA ever comes you can always say you gave them out despite what the tenant says.
 
2012-08-25 04:18:22 PM

Tellingthem: Heh, we just signed a new lease on our apartment. The actual lease was two pages. The warnings and other information was 14 pages...lead, mold, etc. I also liked when they had to install this sign on our apartment building.
[www.compliancesigns.com image 150x150]


That sign is basically everywhere these days. The rule says that if even the tiniest amount of a listed substance is detected, you must post the sign. You will ALWAYS find at least one of the things on the list. The warning has lost all meaning.
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report