Archive for the ‘General’ Category
Fixing The RRP Law
Wednesday, July 14th, 2010It’s safe to say that, when Congress passed the “Repair, Remodeling, and Painting” (RRP) law, the country was distracted. It wasn’t just a presidential election year, it was a historic presidential election. The war in Iraq was still front page news, Afghanistan was on the rise, the housing market was collapsing, and then came the financial meltdown. RRP was so far under the radar it would have taken a submarine to find it.
So, while nobody was looking, we ended up with a law that was so poorly written its implementation has been postponed twice (and it looks like it will probably be postponed a third time); EPA keeps changing the rules, so even knowing exactly what defines compliance is a moving target; the NAHB is filing suit; and firms performing jobs following the new rules (or trying to) have discovered that even the most outrageous sounding predictions of how much compliance would add to job costs have proven to be low. Meanwhile, the number of jobs being done under the table by unlicensed contractors, or by owners escaping compliance and its associated costs by doing it themselves, is growing. (I’ve heard of three in just the last month!)
In short, things are such a complete mess that the law may never actually be implemented or, if it ever is, will be a nightmare for everyone. Worst of all, for all the expense and headaches it will cause, it won’t solve the problem. So, what to do?
First, let’s understand the real problem: The dangers of lead in paint isn’t a new revelation. Trade journals have written about it for decades, and competent contractors have always worked in a reasonably safe manner — cleanliness being the biggest weapon against lead paint dust. Setting aside the problem of incompetent contractors for a moment, the real problem is the lead based paint that still exists in places the RRP law is unlikely to reach: Rentals inhabited by the poor (“slum lords”), in older homes inhabited by either low income home owners or older folks living on fixed incomes. Folks in these homes aren’t just exposed to the lead paint from their do-it-yourself painting projects, but through natural sluffing of the paint through daily use: Opening and closing cabinet doors and windows, sliding everything from cups to flower pots along window sills, washing surfaces with a wash rag that is then used on dishes, and so on. Too, many major interior repainting projects are done between habitation. A renter moves out, the landlord repaints (do-it-yourself style), leaving paint dust in corners, closets, cabinets, and ledges, and another renter, perhaps one with young children, moves in.
So unless we’re prepared to crack down hard on do-it-yourself home improvement (a tactic that would undoubtedly fail), regulation is not going to solve the problem anymore than following even the strictest interpretation of the RRP law while performing a bathroom remodel is going to remove the lead from the old kitchen cabinets. Rather, I propose a three prong approach that addresses the entire problem, without this mess of overblown and ineffective regulation:
- Educate, don’t regulate. Education has proven effective again and again at dealing with the most intractable problems. And let’s face it, most painting is not done by professionals, it’s done by citizens. Teach citizen painters about the dangers of lead paint, how to test for it, and how to safely prep a painting surface and clean up afterwards. After all, there’s nobody more protective of a child than the parents. Also, rather than this silliness of allowing only “certified” testers able to test use “only EPA certified” test kits, let citizens use do-it-yourself kits they can buy in the hardware store. Do-it-yourself lead test kits are about as likely to replace professional testing as home pregnancy tests did doctors office pregnancy tests. More is better, even if the tests are less accurate — a fact package labeling would logically acknowledge. It increases participation and involvement, and involvement is the key to ultimate success.
- Building professionals should be required to adopt clean work habits. Yes, this likely means more regulation, inspection, and testing, but it should be done at the state or local level where it can be enforced as a matter of routine, not by the EPA who has neither knowledge, experience, or infrastructure to be part of the daily building inspection process.
- Building professionals should become the nation’s “first responders”. As professionals, they should be the ones the public can turn to for reliable, professional, lead testing, do-it-yourself oriented lead safe practices training, and so on. Will these lead safe certified contractors charge for the service? Surely. But to baby Johnny’s young parents, paying for a bit of on the job training is a lot cheaper than hiring that contractor to do the job for them, and for that small fee they — and we — have the assurance that they’re making their home safer for their child.
Educate the public, require clean work habits, and ensure that lead safe certified contractors are empowered to test for lead and train the public, and we will have addressed the lead problem at all levels of society. Even better, we will have increased awareness of lead poisoning. And an educated, involved public is never a bad thing.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Independence Day: A Look Back
Sunday, July 4th, 2010Cruise around the web on this day of independence and, in spite of the present polarized political state and caustic political rhetoric, complete with a new poll out showing the nation divided right down the middle on whether President Obama has the nation headed in the right, or wrong, direction, and you’ll find all kinds of links, like this one, to the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. It’s easy, from our nostalgic point of view here in the 21st century, to forget that back when our new country was being founded, things were just as divided, just as tempestuous, as they are today. “Let us now attend to the consequences of this enormous innovation, and daring encroachment, on the liberties of citizens,” wrote a columnist for the Pennsylvania Herald on October 17, 1787. He was replying to a speech by James Wilson given in Philadelphia on October 6th of that same year. Wilson was a supporter of the draft of the proposed constitution that would form the basis of a United States of America.
The stakes of their choices, and of the citizens of the colonists in accepting or rejecting the now famous documents on which our great republic is based, were no less critical to their future (for they could only scarcely imagine the future in which we now live) than ours in how we deal with the seemingly insurmountable issues of our day. They, like us, feared that an unruely majority might trample the will of an honest minority, that individuals and monied interests might trod underfoot the less fortunate members of society. And they understood that popular opinion shifts like the changing winds. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Maddison observed:
Those who contend for a simple Democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice would be most easily collected, and the public affairs more accurately managed. We know, however, that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous mass of Citizens. In the savage State indeed, an approach is made towards it; but in that State little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized Societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations & soils, & according to different branches of commerce, and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent Philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light.
–James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, New York, October 24, 1787 (Spelling and capitalization of the original document retained)
So on this day, of all days, while reminiscing about the wisdom of those who crafted our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and our Bill of Rights, let us especially remember that they did so under the same stresses and strains, and in the same highly charged and politically polarized environment that we find ourselves today. Yet they succeeded and met the challenges of their time.
And so can we!
Powered by ScribeFire.
Making Sense of Green Certifications
Friday, June 25th, 2010We need training programs; we need third party certification and verification systems too. But for them to work, we also need the correct mix of government/private partnership; the right laws, and the right regulations that point industry in the right directions.
In this guest post at Building Moxie I cover some ideas on just what that right relationship should be, and how it could work. Read the whole article here.
CalGreen: A First Cut
Wednesday, June 16th, 2010So, starting in January of this coming year (2011), California architects, designers and builders will have another building code to comply with. The “…first-in-the nation mandatory green building standards code…” Governor Schwarzenegger called it, claiming “…California continues to pave the way in energy efficiency and environmental protection.” It does do a few things worth while:
First, all buildings built under the new code will be required to reduce water consumption by 20%. Also, there’s a little mentioned requirement that building lots deal more efficiently with storm water run off, preferably keeping as much of the water on the lot (and away from the building) as possible by percolating it through the landscaping, before the surplus is picked up by storm drains. This will have a side benefit of cleaning the water before adding it to our streams and rivers. The second most often mentioned requirement is that half of all building waste will have to be diverted, rather than being simply dumped into land fills. What’s been overlooked is the intent to start the reduction at the very beginning of the building process by encouraging the use of pre-assemblies (such as SIPs) or composite materials made for the the job. Another never mentioned item is a requirement that stud walls not be closed up if the moisture content of the wood exceeds 19%. The third most often mentioned requirement is the requirement that all HVAC systems in buildings over 10,000 square feet keep their systems working at “maximum capacity and according to their design efficiencies”, to use the laymen’s language from the press release. The new code also includes a great many voluntary measures, and includes two “tiers” that designers and builders can comply with in their projects for if they choose to.
In some quarters new code has been well received. In others, there’s a lot of head scratching going on. Brian Pontolilo over at Fine Home Building had to ask: “Why CALGREEN? I’m curious why California wrote a mandatory green building code instead of incorporating these provisions into their existing building codes.” To which I might add: Why didn’t they just participate in IBC’s code production process? After all, California has already adopted the IBC for its code model.
For the answer, we have to remember a bit of history. Before (reluctantly) adopting the IBC, the State spent millions and nearly five years trying to write its own building code from scratch. Thousands of pages later, it was only when everyone from the NAHB to the AIA bluntly told the Standards Commission that their proposed code was so different from traditional model codes that it would cause more problems than it solved, that the whole fiasco was stopped and a model code considered. California politicians and bureaucrats are addicted to the notion that the they “pave the way” with their “first-in-the nation” this, that and the other thing. In reality, as the building code debacle showed, they often spend a lot of time (and a lot of hard earned tax payer money) reinventing the wheel.
That said, I think the CalGreen Code does do take some important steps that have nothing to do with whether enough water gets saved or building waste diverted — all of which will be argued until we’re all blue in the face. The legislation takes a stab at providing a set of baselines that are independent of the self promoting NGOs and their programs. Want your project to be LEED? You can do that. Want your project to be HERS? You can do that too. Energy Star? It’s got you covered. BPI? No problem. CalGreen is simply a (minimum) standard. How you get there is entirely up to you. And that’s how it should be. The Senate should take notes and apply them to the Cash for Caulkers bill, with it’s Building Performance Institute (BPI) — and only BPI — certification requirement.
Now, could this have been done by helping to write and then adopt the IBC green code? Yup.
Powered by ScribeFire.
