Who stands to gain from blowing this out of proportion? Well, attorneys for one. Any institution or government agency adding this to their curriculum. The licensing authority. Contractors who raise their fees. Some of the contractor's vendors. Inspectors. The only one who doesn't gain a thing is the consumer whose costs go up.

....and giving a crap about clients....that could be taken a lot further than LBP. I wonder how many of us here sold houses to clients we "cared" about who have lost their houses since? It was a nice commission though, eh? Assisting the people you "care" about into 30 years of indentured servitude. Wouldn't call that protecting them or their kids seeing as how often foreclosure and divorce go hand in hand. The kids are the ones who really get screwed.

It is hard to believe I am hearing this stuff come from professional real estate agent on a public forum. No wonder the public thinks so little of us.

It doesn't matter whether this law is right or wrong. We have to follow it.

Personally, I want to thank the OP for letting me know I can be liable for not recommending a certified painter.

It really sucks when the moderators help the peanut gallery ridicule a poster for pointing out new laws we have to follow.

It's hard to believe that you would belittle an open debate between professionals on the premises and motivations behind the law. Could that be why the public may think so little of us? Is it a general lack of critical thinking skills? Spit out what you are fed.....no questions asked?



Nowhere did I say not to.....or could you be implying that my open criticism of it (and calling it a "crock") means that I am encouraging people not to follow it? Asking a question. You tell me.

The board is here for learning and getting different perspectives. Seeing as how you've been around just a year less than I have, you've should have seen your fair share of those opinions voiced and challenged on a myriad of issues. I don't just accept the reasons because Dean said so or my government said so or Bigtoe said so. Neither should you for that matter.



I did not personally ridicule Dean. I challenged the premise behind the law, the legitimacy of that premise, and I made absurd comparisons to illustrate it. I also called it a "crock". I did not call Dean a "crock". If you can find where I personally ridiculed Dean in this post, show me otherwise I will have to conclude that you are making a false statement.

Bigtoe, please unwad your panties. Noboday is ridiculing anyone. This is a discussion/debate of an issue.

Bigtoe, appreciate the support.

I personally don't see this even as a debate/discussion. Rest assured, if this was a debate on facts, I have enough knowledge to protect my position.

To debate "opinions" is a waste in time.

Back to the original subject ...

A good way to show the weakness in a agent's risk management, I could contact the seller and ask ...

1. Did your agent warn you about using Lead Safe Certified Firms on any renovation, repair or painting taking place?

2. Did your agent recommend a non-certified contractor?

3. Did your agent warn you that you should disclose any work done by a non-certified contractor.

4. Did your agent do any construction work personally themselves?

5. Did your agent pay any contractor directly?

If yes, then I probably have an easy lawsuit and in certain situations, could turn them into EPA, who could fine them up to $37,500. Both the agent and their broker.

On the agent representing the buyer ...

1. Did your agent give you time to read the lead disclosure booklet, before signing?

2. Did your agent say you should just assume the home has lead based paint? If so, did they also say you should just assume the home has toxic lead dust?

3. Did your agent warn you about the new changes coming in the RRP, that could devalue your home?

4. Were you given the lead disclosure and booklet before making an offer?

If not, then you may have a good case for a lawsuit.

Real Estate Professionals can take simple minor steps to reduce their risk management dramatically in these areas. This is what the original post was all about. Protecting the agent.

That is $37,500 per day

deepsea,

Correct. Up to $37,500 per day, per incident and even possible jail time. Normally, there are several incidents that each person does.

Even with these high fines, I believe that lawsuits will make the fines look insignificant.

If a lawsuit happens, an agent and/or their brokerage firm will lose ... even though they may win in court.

Yeah, so I guess the attorneys, licensing authorities, the contractors, vendors, and inspectors all got together and lobbied the EPA to change the laws? Or did the EPA do it to raise revenue?

To be technical, the EPA doesn't change laws. If a law is to be changed or repealed it would have to run the gamut through Congress. However, all of that BS can be bypassed by the EPA just creating a new "policy". A basic knowledge of how government works helps to understand this. Your licensing authorities are government, incidentally. As for attorneys, what in the h*ll do you think the House and Senate are primarily made up of? It sure is not managers from your local grocer or your local contractor. This bit of BS also came through the stimulus package mind you.....but more on that later.

Just talking with a few local contractors and reviewing contractor comments on Angie's List should give you an idea. Homeowners and contractors alike don't like it. I took a snippet but you can also find it here :



Also consider this. Where does all the plastic go when the project is over??? Landfill??? It's going to be buried or burnt. How long does it take plastic to decompose? How bad is it if you burn plastic? C'mon, if even if you were gullible enough to believe the EPA meant to protect the environment what is this blantant hypocrisy? We will remove the poison from your home but poison your environment. Don't go outside. LOL!!!!!!

Unless non-government funded or sponsored proof (facts) can be provided, my position stands. To this point, none of that proof (facts) have been provided. Likely because it would be a rare find to not find some individual involved in other areas of government or lobbying. Hence, I see none. All that has been provided is law and ways to protect yourself. It's law but it's doesn't mean the law isn't a "crock".

Oh yea, one more thing. EPA and OSHA regulations are in conflict. I know, just opinion. It's not fact......

http://www.shawnmccadden.com/rrpedia/bid...HA-Requirements

Want more proof it's a racket? Look at the 6.7 mil reward that came through the "stimulus package" for lead remediation to one government funded non-profit. How about this gravy train?



Your statement has just been answered but it's all opinion, none of it fact.

Danneskjold,

To be technical, it isn't a law, but a rule. Two totally different things. I personally call it a law, just for ease of discussion.

Congress (both Democrat and Republican) voted the TSCA in which ultimately forced the EPA to come up with this law. EPA dragged it's heels until the politicians applied pressure. Without getting into a political debate ... don't blame EPA ... blame the people you voted into office.

On another point, EPA doesn't get rich off of this. Any fines collected goes into the treasury ... not EPA's pocket. So, they ain't doing it for the money

As far as Angie's list ... no one is excited about this, including homeowners and contractors. Heck, contractors (which I was one for years) don't like standards, building permits, follow manufacturers recommendations or anything that cramps their style. Where would all these homes be, without building permits and inspections. Fallen to the ground. So to highlight that contractors don't like it ... doesn't carry much weight. A hack contractor would rather wire your whole house, then pay a licensed electrician. Of course it will burn down and kill your whole family.

Tons of studies are not done by the government and not funded by the government. An example: A painter (each and everyday) is lead poisoned from working on lead based paint. They're sick enough to go to the doctor or hospital. The doctor takes blood and sees a ton of lead in it. Doc makes note of the problems they are having. Reports this. This is the stuff studies are made out of. Not government sponsered

On the OSHA VS RRP. Shawn and I email each other. I've written an article for him, so he can post it. Good guy. However, that OSHA article written by that other guy has so many problems with it. If contractor firms would protect their people and follow 1926.62 ... we probably would never had needed RRP and probably would have near the problems we now have. I know OSHA 1926.62. It requires proper house keeping and many times, stricter than RRP. Once again, if contractors worried about their workers, they would have been following OSHA and we probably would have never had RRP to begin with (because they overlap).

But remember ... contractors hate following rules.

That's from the EPA's website. Federal law. If they are inaccurate on something as simple as this, then I think we've got more to be worried about than LBP. I do not think that the EPA is a primary benefactor either, however, the money for these things came directly from the stimulus and is being shelled out to who? You've got some hints in my previous post.....

One of my top clients many years ago was a painter. Brilliant man. He used to joke with me how him and his friends used to take the asbestos covering on the pipes and turn them into spit balls in school. The man lived a long life and died of lung cancer, due to the fact that you couldn't tell the difference between him and a chimney sometimes. No reports from the family about lead in him. Ancedotal just like your example but it's there.

From where I stand in my own market, I can look at the conditions of municipalities with overly bearing inspections and ordinances on the people as opposed to munis without. It's as simple as an east side of town, west side of town view. The towns without the overbearing legislation and needless inspections fair better, in some cases much better than their east side counterparts. No too mention either the corruption scandals with HUD funds that occur and are newsworthy locally.



This to me is a dead giveaway. If OSHA is much stricter than RRP is useless. Sounds to me like this is a government problem. They could not, cannot, or will not enforce what they already got on the books. Since they can't enforce it they create another law/rule less stringent and contradictory to the previous rule they could not enforce in an attempt to enforce the contrary new rules?

Does that make any sense? Thanks for pointing that out for me. Now I'm more convinced than ever, it's a "crock". What a waste of money and resources......

Study more and you will find that it's a Rule.

Your painter friend lived to a rip old age with no problems. Sh.. happens. I'm pretty sure some of his clients didn't.

Being an outdoors man, I like fishing in a clean river/lake. I'm similar to John Stossel and you about government interference, but even John Stossel sees the need for environmental laws/statues/rules. We like the laws that help us and hate the laws that don't help us personally ... even though they help others. Human nature.

OSHA helps employees. The one man company can poison himself. If he hires a sub, they can poison themselves too. No OSHA rules applies. While it is ok to poison yourself, it is not ok to poison others, especially if you are getting paid to do a job.

Head into a court of law and tell them it's your opinion that this is a bunch of crock. I'll head in with expert witnesses and boxes of studies.

So who is guilty of misrepresentation here? You or the EPA?



I don’t think so. I know little about Stossel but I can refute your assumptions of me based on your responses. I don’t think the intentions of all laws are benevolent, even if they benefit me. Earlier in my life it would have been easier to give up and go on food stamps, welfare, section eight. Would that be a benefit? Some would argue so. I didn’t do it. My broker asked me if I wanted to list HUD properties (and we met the criteria) but I would not consider it because I believe that NSP is a complete fraud and I would not compromise myself to sell to a government agency. I can’t list for Fannie or Freddie either for the same reasons. Would it have benefited me? Assuming we received the contract it would have been a nice pad to the wallet but I can’t act against principles I espouse. Rationalizing it would only make me a hypocrite.



That’s a great line……so I go to a federal court where you would be using studies that were either federally funded or federally written with witnesses who at some level were on the federal payroll or recipients of federal grants. Let’s not forget that the conviction rate for federal cases is almost 95% , very similar to that of totalitarian regimes. Of course you’d win……but I haven’t told anyone to disobey the law. I simply called the law what it is, a crock.

So OSHA is only for employees? I see. Then why isn’t RRP simply geared towards the one man shop and his subs? Why pile more crud on the OSHA compliant companies and create contradictory rules? Why have them take new classes with new certifications if what they are already doing exceeds RRP guidelines? Why not let OSHA enforce what they already have on the books for these guys or is OSHA inept? You’re still not answering the question. Companies that comply with RRP are ripe for penalties from OSHA and vice versa. Even if the company wins the fight against the fines and penalties they lose……as you say.

I was hoping you would study some before responding.

EPA's Renovation, Repair and Painting RULE
HUD's Lead Safe Housing RULE

Congress enacts a LAW that is signed by the President to do something. It is then turned over to an appropriate government agency that develops a RULE.

So, in simple terms ... a RULE is a LAW, but a law is not necessarily a rule.

As far as the other lead stuff ... I will quietly give up.