Seven Proposals for Additions / Improvements to the Syracuse Lead Ordinance
1.Prevent Avoidable Tragedy: Currently as written, the Ordinance requires
a landlord to fix lead paint-based hazards if they are found during a routine
inspection. In the case of a complaint by a family before a routine inspection,
the Ordinance requires a landlord to fix lead hazards in only
the apartment of the tenant who filed a complaint.
As pointed out in Public Comment 10 of the Final Environmental Impact
Statements by Ms. Ellen Morrissey, this means that in a house with multiple
apartments, if only one of the apartments is inspected prior to a routine
inspection (perhaps because a child was lead poisoned in that apartment),
only that apartment will be addressed.
The FGEIS reply to her comment suggests that a routine Codes inspection
for a Certificate of Occupancy or Rental Registry Certificate, which should
eventually happen, is the City’s answer to this problem. But, will this
inspection happen soon enough?
Meanwhile, as the other apartments await a routine inspection, lead hazards
may exist in them. And a future family may tragically discover those hazards
months before one of Syracuse’s overwhelmed Codes inspectors makes a
routine inspection.
For safety’s sake, shouldn’t we require an inspection, and remediation, of all
units of a rental house if just one unit turns up with lead hazards that have
poisoned a precious child?
2. Standards for Housing of Displaced Residents: The proposed lead
ordinance states that “Occupants shall be relocated during hazard
reduction activities and until a clearance examination has been successfully
completed….” (Section 54-9(A)(2)).
What will be the standards for this “relocation”? Will the re-location be leadfree? Will it be safe and healthy for the family?
Our own NYS Attorney General weighed in this matter. In Public Comment
15 (Response 15i), the Attorney General recommends
that the ordinance require the landlord to pay rent for the relocation.
The AG also recommends the landlord pay the family or friends of the
displaced occupant, if the occupant moves in with them during displacement.
The AG also recommends that the landlord who displaces the occupants be
required to pay for rent in an apartment not owned by the occupant’s landlord, if the landlord doesn’t have an available
apartment.
The AG also recommends that the Ordinance should require the occupants be
given an apartment in the general vicinity of where they are being displaced
from.
Will the City please clarify the standards for treating displaced residents in a
healthy, safe, predictable manner?
3. Warning Signs in Primary Language and Universal Pictorial
Depictions: With Syracuse continuing to play host to new immigrants from
lands where English is often not generally spoken and/or read, the Ordinance
should provide better language about how landlords inform
residents in the residents’ own language of the construction work being done
to fix lead hazards.
The Ordinance calls for signage outdoors when exterior lead-hazard reduction
happens. For indoor work, it requires a sign indoors. And it requrires either a
sign, letter, or memo to the tenant for any exterior or interior work to be
done.
Section 54-9(B)(2) is right to require a sign, in the tenant’s primary language,
near each entry to a room where lead-hazard
reduction work is performed inside the rental unit. However, this section
should be strengthened to require the sign be in the tenant’s primary
language (not “to the extent practicable”).
Further, all letters, signs, and memorandum should make use of pictures and
diagrams to communicate the required message. This should include signage
for exterior lead-hazard reduction work (Section 54-8(C)(1)) and any letters or
memos to the tenant Section 54-8(D)(1).
Additionally, pictorial depictions should accompany, not be a substitute for,
language in the tenant’s primary language. Communication of safety
measures is too important to leave to chance whether or not it will be
understood.
Finally, Section 54-9(B)(2) refers either to a missing or a mis-named “Section
54-9(C).”
4. Stop Playing Games: Lower the “Lead Dust Clearance Levels” for
Window Troughs to “less than”100. Currently, HUD requires all leadhazard work that uses HUD money to pass lead-dust wipe clearance standard levels of less than 10 / 100 /100. (See Public Comment 3K in FEIS.)
That is, less than 10 micro-grams per square-foot for floors; 100 micro-grams
per square-foot for window sills; and 100 micro-grams per square-foot for
window troughs.
However, in Section 54-7(D) of the Syracuse Ordinance, the City proposes
uses a more dangerous clearance standard of 10 / 100 / 400 – making the
window troughs less safe than they could be.
Why are we playing games with our children’s health? Already, HUD-funded
work to fix lead hazards in Syracuse uses the 10 / 100/ 100 standard (see
Public Comment 3K). The rest of Syracuse rental units should meet the same
HUD standard. Lower the Clearance Standard for window troughs to “less
than”100 micro-grams per square-foot
5. Three Year Inspection Question
The Attorney General sees things different from that of the City - the City links enforcement of this law to the three year renewal of the rental registry. If three year renewal inspections for the Rental Registry are the central mechanism for enforcement of the law, that needs to be made explicit in the law itself, rather than only in the FGEIS.
Also, especially with low Registry compliance, there should be an explicit mandate for inspections of properties that have been reported by tenants REGARDLESS of whether they are on the Registry.
6. Transparency of Information on Poisoning and Abatement
Currently, information about abatement using HUD dollars and lead poisoning violations in connection with HUD-funded remediation is/will be publicly available but only to those who can come into the office during business hours (section 3.3.2.1). This seems hardly sufficient transparency when affordable digital options are available and the City is already collecting this information for the public without the need for a FOIL. Why not include the data in a digital database?
7. Inclement Weather and Interim Control Loopholes
Section 54-6-B allows the inspector to release the property if “interim controls have been implemented”, but interim controls are by their nature temporary; similarly 54-11-B allows for a delay of exterior abatement because of inclement weather, but does not recognize that inclement weather can last for months while children are still being exposed.
How long is an “interim control” designed to last, and will it prevent lead poisoning until either remediation or abatement occurs?
Interim controls should be re-defined to mean something that will definitely prevent lead poisoning until a longer-term intervention (encapsulation, replacement, etc.) takes place. Also, it should have a non-renewable time-limit before such longer-term measures occur, such as 30, 60, or 90 days.
Also, per Section 54-11-B, properties should not be released until a permanent abatement has occurred. Further, for exterior work, there should be a requirement for “interim controls” / “lead hazard reduction” to be implemented after a maximum delay of a week for inclement weather.