Federal Court of Appeals ruled today that the combined cases of  Gallagher, Steinhauser,Harrilal (rental property owners) vs St. Paul will go to trial.

This case alleges that St Paul housing inspection programs were used in a racially motivated manner to force racial minorities out of St Paul and that such actions violated the Fair Housing rights of the occupants.

A very interesting point is a number of city employees including inspectors are on the hook personally in this suit.  From a legal perspective each city employee must defend themselves as they, their co-workers and their employer have disparate interest.

For the city to win if the allegations are proven true they must claim rouge employees were acting outside of the law and contrary to department policy. For the inspectors to win they must argue that they were following instructions from their supervisors that they believed were legal. And the employee need to name their union as a third party defendant , arguing the union failed to step in and protect them from bad rules enforced by their supervisors  The inspectors may have a hard time at this however as the owners had provided the inspectors with documentation that the inspectors’ acts were contrary to Fair Housing, yet the inspectors continued with their agenda.

From my conversations with two of the plaintiffs over the past five or six years they seem to be just a handful of hard working landlords who independently found themselves on the losing end of government behaving badly.  The current case is a consolidation of three or four cases that started independent of each other, but the claims were so similar that the federal court combined them.  Most of the cases claimed RICO (racketeering) on the part of the city employees.

Much of this is so similar to what we are seeing in Milwaukee.

Note the vacant building ordinance for example.  Our former Commissioner of Neighborhood Services had a number of conversations with his counterparts in MN, and proposed a number of ordinances that were based on what was on the books there.

Here is an except from today’s ruling

To demonstrate a disparate impact, Appellants have offered evidence supporting the following conclusions:

(a) The City experienced a shortage of affordable housing.  The City represented in its 2003 report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) that “the lack of affordable housing opportunities remains a major issue facing many Saint Paul lower income households, who are also protected class members,” and that “27.6% of Saint Paul’s lower income residents cannot find adequate affordable housing in the City.”  Then, in 2005, the City estimated that 32% of the households in St. Paul had unmet housing needs (cost burdens, overcrowding, etc.).

(b) Racial minorities, especially African-Americans, made up a disproportionate percentage of lower-income households in the City that rely on low-income housing.  The district court noted that the parties agree that African-Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of low-income tenants in the City.  The City’s 2000 census data showed that 11.7% of the City’s population was African-American, whereas data from October 2004 showed that 61% and 62% of those on waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 assistance, respectively, were African- American.  Further, the City’s 2000 report to HUD showed that 52% of minority-headed renter households were in the bottom bracket for household adjusted median family income, compared to 32% of all renter households.

(c) The City’s aggressive Housing Code enforcement practices increased costs for property owners that rent to low-income tenants.  Appellants produced at least six affidavits describing the toll that the City’s aggressive Housing Code enforcement took on their rental business. They reported a substantial increase in costs, resulting in evictions for tenants and “forced sales” of their properties in some cases.  These allegations are corroborated by an internal memorandum from the City’s fire marshal in 1995, comparing the Housing Code and the HQS and concluding that the Housing Code was more strict in regard to 82% of the examined categories.

(d) The increased burden on rental-property owners from aggressive code enforcement resulted in less affordable housing in the City.  Documents from the City and the Public Housing Authority acknowledged that any decrease in federally assisted rental housing would reduce the amount of affordable housing in the City.  Those predictions were supported by the City’s Vacant Buildings Report, which showed that the number of vacant homes listed in the City rose from 367 to 1,466 between March 2003 and November 2007, which was a nearly 300% increase.  Further, Appellants submitted affidavits from three tenants who alleged that they endured hardship when their homes were condemned for minimal or false Housing Code violations.

These premises, together, reasonably demonstrate that the City’s aggressive enforcement of the Housing Code resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on racial minorities, particularly African-Americans.  Viewed in the light most favorable to Appellants, the evidence shows that the City’s Housing Code enforcement temporarily, if not permanently, burdened Appellants’ rental businesses, which indirectly burdened their tenants.

Read the entire decision here.  I have a fairly complete set of pleadings if anyone wishes to study this more.

A lively discussion of the case on Ademocracy

I and others were crying tears of joy when we heard this news. It has been a long emotional ordeal for many of us.

There isn’t a jury in the entire world who could listen to this story and not favor the plaintiffs!

ABC News  -Landlord Suit Could Cost City Millions

A legal battle between the City of Saint Paul and a handful of landlords could force the city to pay millions.

It all centers around code enforcement.

Pioneer Press on the lawsuit.

A set of lawsuits alleging St. Paul’s housing-code enforcement discriminated against black tenants was given new life Wednesday when a federal appeals panel reinstated a portion of the case.

The allegations “reasonably demonstrate that the city’s aggressive enforcement of the housing code resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on racial minorities, particularly African-Americans,” a three-judge panel for the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in overturning part of a 2008 dismissal of the case by U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen.

Share/Save

A couple of years ago the Wisconsin Department of Revenue went around checking for owners who were charging extra for tenants to park or offering a lower rate to those who did not want parking.   The landlords involved had to pay sales tax that they should have collected plus interest and penalties.

Tax 11.48 Landlords, hotels and motels. (1) LANDLORDS.

(b) The sales price from providing parking space for motor vehicles and aircraft and from providing docking and storage space for boats are taxable. If a separate charge is made for the parking, docking, or storage space, the charge is taxable. However, if a separate charge is not made and the price of a rental unit includes a charge for a
parking, docking, or storage space, and if similar units are rented at a reduced price if the parking, docking, or storage space is not utilized, the difference between the rental price of the 2 similar units is taxable as a charge for parking, docking, or storage.

Share/Save

So if the tenancy is disolved and i can not enforce the lease but shouldnt i be able to enforce the damages they did? otherwise this allows tenannts to be sneaky. not pay rent and damage and walk away better.

My response was as follows (cleaned up a bit from the original):

This is a very tricky area.  If the damages and deposit deductions fall within the statue §704.07(3)(a) or administrative law ATCP 134.06(3)(a) 1 through 5, but not 134.06(3)(a)6 or 134.06(3)(b), then often your claim on the damages portion will be accepted.

However the tenant may be entitled to double damages plus attorney fees due to your illegal lease provision requiring them to pay your attorney fees.  There are a couple of published Wisconsin cases on the subject of invalid rental agreements listed further down in this post. By the time a tenant friendly judge is done with you, it usually isn’t pretty.  Double damages and reasonable attorney fees are statutory if you lose on the ATCP violation per §100.20(5).

Reasonable attorney fees does not mean the amount charged to you will be what you consider reasonable, but rather even if the tenant has a free legal aid or pro bono attorney you will still have to pay the going rate for the attorney even though the tenant wasn’t actually billed.

If this is in court you should seriously consider hiring an attorney knowledgeable  in landlord tenant law now rather than slugging it our yourself. I  have met owners who have had stupid little cases turn into tens of thousands of dollars. And while collecting a judgment from a tenant is often difficult, the same cannot be said of collecting against a property owner.  No life is not fair, especially if you chose the life of a landlord.

Now to minimize potential future damage

First step – get an attorney who knows Wisconsin landlord tenant law inside and out to draft a good lease or use the one from Wisconsin Legal Blank, without being tempted to draft a “cleaver” addendum.  In the long run you would be better off with a more aggressive custom rental agreement than the” standard” one. A bit more money upfront, but over the long run you will be glad you spent it.   Really there is no standard rental agreement in WI.

Next – get all of your current tenants on the new leases that don’t violate the “seven deadly sins” of ATCP 134.08. Show the tenant the advantage of the new lease, whether it is extending the term at the same rate or just that the bad language that was removed.

Your attorney can help you draft a letter that explains the reason for the replacement agreement.

Or you can do  as we do when we have taken over properties with bad rental agreements.  Give the tenant a letter that says something like: ‘The rental agreement that you signed with the prior landlord has all kinds of draconian things in it that are contrary to how we treat our tenants, such as the provision requiring you to pay his attorney if he had to take you to court. So here is our standard rental agreement that replaces the one you are on.  Read it over. You  will find it is the same rent as you were paying and expires at the same time as the prior lease.  It just removes the provisions we find contrary to how we do business.  We are doing this because it appears that you are a great tenant (whether that is true or not) and want you to be happy, and stay with us for a long time’

Even if you gave them the bad lease you could do something similar.  (example only) ‘I got the rental agreement we had you sign from [the another landlord / off the internet/found in a box of Cracker Jacks®. ] I was reading it over this weekend and said to myself ‘Wow, this is terrible. I can’t believe anyone would sign something like this.  We don’t treat our tenants like this.  So I am replacing the existing agreement with a shinny new one at the same rent but without the draconian terms because I am a really great landlord who treats my tenants well.’

Now as you are trying to digest all of this you are probably thinking ‘Where do you find the laws that effect me?’   Below are the important ones from this post. I have a page of links I use all  the time posted here.

The published Wisconsin Court Cases on invalid rental agreements

• Baierl d/b/a Supreme Builders v. McTaggart, Wis. Supreme Court, Case #98-3329 (2001). Because a lease contained a provision specifically prohibited by ATCP 134, the landlord could not enforce the lease against the tenant. The court declined to sever the illegal provision and enforce the rest of the lease, because that would undermine the policy behind ATCP 134.
• Dawson v. Goldammer In Dawson v. Goldammer, 2003 WI App 3 (Dawson I), the court of appeals held that a tenant may seek enforcement of a rental agreement that includes an attorney fee provision that violates Wisconsin Administrative Code section ATCP 134.08(3). In the case at bar, the court held that when a tenant seeks enforcement of such a lease, the tenant can sever the attorney fee provision and enforce the remainder of the lease. The court therefore reversed the part of the circuit court’s judgment that awarded attorney fees to the landlords, but it affirmed the circuit court’s rulings on all other disputed grounds (see ¶ 1).

The “Seven deadly sins” per ATCP 134.08 per the Admin Code are:

ATCP 134.08 Prohibited rental agreement provisions.

No rental agreement may:

(1) Authorize the eviction or exclusion of a tenant from the premises, other than by judicial eviction procedures as provided under ch. 799, Stats.

(2) Provide for an acceleration of rent payments in the event of tenant default or breach of obligations under the rental agreement, or otherwise purport to waive the landlord’s obligation to mitigate damages as provided under s. 704.29, Stats.

(3) Require payment, by the tenant, of attorney’s fees or costs incurred by the landlord in any legal action or dispute arising under the rental agreement. This does not prevent the recovery of costs or attorney’s fees by a landlord or tenant pursuant to a court order under ch. 799 or 814, Stats.

(4) Authorize the landlord or any agent of the landlord to confess judgment against the tenant in any action arising under the rental agreement.

(5) Relieve, or purport to relieve the landlord from liability for property damage or personal injury caused by negligent acts or omissions of the landlord. This does not affect ordinary maintenance obligations assumed by a tenant under a rental agreement, in accordance with sub. (7) and s. 704.07, Stats.

(6) Impose, or purport to impose liability on a tenant for:

(a) Personal injury arising from causes clearly beyond the tenant’s control.

(b) Property damage caused by natural disasters, or by persons other than the tenant or the tenant’s guests or invitees. This does not affect ordinary maintenance obligations assumed by a tenant under the rental agreement, in accordance with sub. (7) and s. 704.07, Stats.

(7) Waive any statutory or other legal obligation on the part of the landlord to deliver the premises in a fit or habitable condition, or maintain the premises during tenancy.

ATCP 134(3) SECURITY DEPOSIT WITHHOLDING; RESTRICTIONS.

(a) A landlord may withhold from a tenant’s security deposit only for the following:

1. Tenant damage, waste or neglect of the premises.

2. Unpaid rent for which the tenant is legally responsible, subject to s. 704.29, Stats.

3. Payment which the tenant owes under the rental agreement for utility service provided by the landlord but not included in the rent.

4. Payment which the tenant owes for direct utility service provided by a government-owned utility, to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant’s nonpayment.

5. Unpaid mobile home parking fees which a local unit of government has assessed against the tenant under s. 66.0435 (3), Stats., to the extent that the landlord becomes liable for the tenant’s nonpayment.

6. Other reasons authorized in the rental agreement according to par. (b).

(b) A rental agreement may include one or more nonstandard rental provisions which authorize a landlord to withhold from a tenant’s security deposit for reasons not identified under par. (a). The landlord shall include the nonstandard provisions, if any, in a separate written document entitled “NONSTANDARD RENTAL PROVISIONS” which the landlord provides to the tenant. The landlord shall specifically identify and discuss each nonstandard provision with the tenant before the tenant enters into any rental agreement with the landlord. If the tenant signs or initials a nonstandard rental provision, it is rebuttably presumed that the landlord has specifically identified and discussed that nonstandard provision with the tenant, and that the tenant has agreed to it.

Share/Save

It election time again…at the Apartment Association.

Here is a real opportunity to help change the industry, the direction of the association and your life. Yes, and improve your life. As an AASEW board member you will see opportunities and pitfalls facing our industry well in advance of others. You will help decide which issues we should address and what resources the association should provide.

Back in the 1980′s I looked at joining the Association, but was reluctant because I did not see it as addressing my needs and concerns. Then John Chitko, Jeff’s Dad, said the one thing that changed my life probably more than anything else: ‘This is an all volunteer group. Join, put your ideas out there. If they have merit people will support them, if not you’ll learn something’

Taking John’s challenge and becoming actively involved with the board taught me so much and propelled my business far beyond were it would have been otherwise. Ask any former board member – I am certain you will not find one who will not tell you they came away with more than they gave.

You say ‘I don’t know all that much about landlording, what can I contribute?’ I did not know that much either when I first became a board member many, many years ago. I only  knew there were things in my industry that needed to be changed.

So take John’s challenge and improve your life.

Requirements: Member of the AASEW for six months

Share/Save

Share/Save

What services, tools, resource, supplies, innovations, changes in laws, grants, education, support from fellow owners etc. do you find lacking, unavailable, too expensive, too difficult to obtain, change etc.?

You get the idea…what do you see as the three, four or twenty things that would make your business more successful? Skies the limit. If it has to do with landlording or real estate investing throw it on the list.

Don’t worry if you think it is “doable” or not, Wild Ideas welcome and encouraged. But also don’t put off posting the more pedestrian needs and wants either.

You can leave comments, here or via private email to me at Tim [at] JustAlandord.com (makes sending the truly wild and innovative stuff easier for shy folks like me.)  I’ll compile the list for all to see.

Some will have readily available solutions that will be posted and shared, I’m sure.  Others are things our industry should be working on finding, changing, designing etc.

Some rather thought provocative comments below. Many of these were sent via email or posted on one of the list serves and reposted here as a central collection place. Please throw yours into the mix — Thanks Tim

Share/Save

The effective date of the law was 1/1/2010.  Yet nearly seven months into it none of the real estate pros I spoke to knew about it.

I accidentally stubbled upon the  WI law while researching the HUD proposal to prohibit seller financing.  Low and behold on one of the HUD pages WI and TX were listed as states that had enacted their own version of the Safe Mortgage Act.

.

What is the need for such a law?

Was the mortgage meltdown caused by seller financing?  Of course not.  When a seller financed deal falls apart the loses are suffered solely by the seller, with no effect on the general economy.  Quite unlike the securitized mortgages that put our nation’s economy into the mess we are in today.

However when reading the law there is one advantage to the state in passing it… that is the $775,000 a year in new fees they hope to collect.

Why is seller financing important?

Seller financing has always been the exit strategy of choice for owners of small residential rental properties.  There are tax advantages to installment sales plus mainstream banks during most economic times do not write mortgages for small rentals or homes located ‘not in the best of neighborhoods.’  The banks did make exceptions to this durning the wild west days of 2003-2006, but that obviously did not turn out well for anyone.

In fact seller financing is probably more necessary to sell properties today than anytime since the early eighties.

Who should be concerned?

• Obviously owners of one to four family buildings that are considering selling and possibly holding paper.  But the effects are far more ranging.
• Do you do rent to own/rent with option?  If you use the broadest reading of the law these too are prohibited.
• Real Estate Brokers/Agents are protected when:

“… negotiating, on behalf of any party, any portion of a contract relating to the sale, purchase, lease, rental, or exchange of real property, other than in connection with providing financing for the transaction;”

So this means as soon as a broker gets involved in a seller financed deal they need to become a license mortgage broker. This may also mean that brokers and agents who help secure financing for deals are subject to these rules.

• Every city, town and village in the state should be up in arms as reducing financing options for many properties obviously reduces sale prices, which reduces the tax base, which increases the tax mil rate, which makes homes less affordable , which reduces sale prices …. ∞
• Mobile homes are specifically included.  Mobile homes are more often seller financed than other types of owner occupied housing.

• And the real kicker… those that have existing owner financing may run afoul of the rule if they renegotiate the terms, such as extending a balloon payment date or lowering an interest rate.

What should I do today?

For now I would recommend that owners of small residential properties either sell only for cash or sit tight and hope a correction is made to this legislation or an administrative clarification is made in writing by the folks given the duty to enforce this rule, which is the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions.

Reading the legislation in the strictest terms would make rent to own arrangements illegal unless the person negotiating the terms holds a mortgage broker’s license.  So I would stay away from these.  There are other reasons to avoid rent to own as well, such a problems evicting the tenant when they don’t pay.

‘I’m still going to do seller financing.  What can they really do?’

Under the act, any violation of this state regulation would subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and / or imprisonment up to nine months.

The borrower]may also recover the aggregate amount of costs and expenses which the court determines were reasonably incurred by the person in connection with the action, together with reasonable attorney fees. The act expands this private cause of action to cover any violation of state regulation of these professions, including any rule promulgated under these regulations. In addition, the act increases the possible recovery associated with loan origination costs from not greater than $2,000, to not greater than $25,000 for each violation.

Plus there could be a strong argument that violating this rule when selling to an owner occupant could result in double damages under the consumer protection laws.

Where can I read find out more?

A fairly plain english overview on the HUD SAFE Mortgage Act is available here.  (Seems HUD may have removed this document – too bad as it was the only easy to read version out there) One of the more important points from their page is the clarification that the only exemption for seller financing is for folks selling their primary residence:

The commercial context implied by the taking of an “application” is also absent where an individual seller provides financing to a buyer pursuant to the sale of the seller’s own residence.

The Wisconsin version of The SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act can be found here. (Beginning at page 55, which is page 59 of the PDF) It is very convoluted and difficult to read.  This, of course, will make the law quite profitable for attorneys.

While there has been little if any written about Wisconsin’s version of the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act, there is a large body of articles on a similar Texas version of the Act.  Do a Google search to see what Texas Realtors and owners are saying about these rules.

How can we stop “stealth” legislation in the future?

We need to prevent important legislation from being buried in the middle of the budget bill.  Remember this is how ATCP 134 came to be.  Legislators may be quite willing to pass something onerous that is buried well inside a large bill like the budget as they can say ‘Gee, it was 1500 pages. I might have missed something in there.’  Our elected officials would be more accountable if bills had to stand on their own and be voted upon individually.

Truth in titling: Laws must titled in a manner that no one will know the true impact.  For example this bill’s title should have indicated that it included a prohibition against seller financing, rather than simply a law to regulate mortgage brokers.

Finally, when state legislation is based on federal rules, the state legialtaion should be writtn in a manner that the repeal or delay of the federal law should result in a similar change at the state level.  For example EPA has extended the lead paint training until October.  This does not affect WI’s deadline.  Likewise there is a move afoot to modify HUD’s SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act to permit some seller financing.  If adopted will Wisconsin follow by changing their law? They may, but they are not required to.

Share/Save

While many are applauding the delayed implementation of the training rule as a win, it is not.  In fact it exposes those who are not trained to greater risks.  You still must comply with all other portions of the rule, but without benefit of learning what is required of you.

I have this vision of drunk football fans high fiving each as their team scores. Yet, their team is still down by 21 with two minutes and ten seconds remaining in the fourth.  Likewise, as some are claiming a victory with the delayed training, they may not want to face the cold hard fact that instead of better, the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule may just become a whole lot worse due to the pending dust clearance rule.

Also note that the delayed enforcement of the training rules does not affect WI as our program is not run by the EPA.  Same applies to IA, KS, MS, NC, OR, RI, UT.

So instead of celebrating – go get trained.

Share/Save

Thanks for these comments. You devote a lot of energy to criticizing the rule. Given the health problems caused by lead-based paint, what kind of rule should the EPA write? Let me know, and thanks.

My reply (edited to remove at least a few of my many typos):

The very short version

Everyone who works on older housing should receive lead safe training.  Such training could be accomplished in four hours and should be provided at no or low cost to anyone desiring it.

Our association provided this type of training to our members until our state health department required that only lead training course certified by them could be provided in WI.

A more detail explanation with support documents:

The long version – with an explanation of my position

Let’s start with a point of clarification. My comments are directed to the most recent proposed revision that requires laboratory dust clearance testing and changes the definition of HEPA vac.  This is the game changer, adding cost and confusion to an already difficult rule.  How would your tenants feel if you had to tell them that they could not reoccupy their unit after simply fixing a window frame until a certified lead sampling tech had time to test it.

We did not file comments on the original EPA RRP rule as it was originally presented it did not appear that it would be overly burdensome. Obviously its implementation turned out to be a bit more onerous than I expected. Rather, we worked hard to insure our members and our own companies could comply with the least amount of hassles.  This included offering reduced price training to members of the Apartment Association of Southeastern WI as well as strategic planning on how to comply.

My background on the lead issue

Almost all of my adult life (since 1977)  I have been a residential landlord.  Our industry has been severely impacted by lead paint remediation costs and litigation.  This hardly seems equitable as none of the current crop of owners had applied the paint and the prior owners were using a product that was not only legal, but mandated for some federally insured housing.

Due to the impact and potential impact on my business I have spent literally thousands of hours trying to understand the issue and working towards resolutions that solve the problem while not running me and every other landlord out of business.  Our company has replaced thousands of window units at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars as a step to mitigating the issue.

In the late 1980′s I was a member of the  Milwaukee Lead Poisoning Task Force, which I remained a participant for the following decade. In 1995 I was appointed to the Wisconsin Legislative Council on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention by then Governor Tommy Thompson.  Thompson went on to be the Secretary of Health under George W Bush.

The committee’s work  became the groundwork for 1999 Wisconsin Act 113. Read a summary of the committee report here.  I coauthored the minority opinion starting on page 26, in which we argued that the final proposal was lacking remediation funding as well as training and education of those who work on and live in pre 1978 housing.

Are all elevated blood lead levels due to lead paint?

No.  Studies such as those in Washington, Cincinnati, Seattle and Baltimore and others point to industrial / automotive emissions as being a major source of lead dust.  Just last week a scientific report was released indicating again that automobile emissions were a leading cause of EBLs in Cleveland during  latter part of the 20th century. (Updated 5/29 to remove bad link)

What are some solutions to the lead paint issue?

The solution to lead based paint hazards created during remodeling and other maintenance activities is, or should be, pretty simple.  The thing that gets in the way is there is so much money available to those who profit by making this larger and more unworkable than it should be.

Simply put: At the beginning of the job make it so you can easily clean it up at the end and then clean it up when you are done.

This means use drop cloths, don’t  sand or use water blasting, use wet scrapping when possible and then clean up after yourself using a HEPA vac and damp mopping. This could easily be taught in well less than half a day.

Note I said drop cloths instead of the now required 6 mil plastic.   If you have ever tried to use plastic for exterior work you know how poorly it contains debris as the slightest breeze sends everything everywhere.  Plastic also is a poor choice for wet scrapping as it becomes dangerously slippery. However the law currently is 6 mil plastic so you MUST use plastic and do not use drop cloths

Barriers to receiving the training need to be eliminated.  Currently training is only available in English, hard to obtain due to a lack of trainers and is prohibitively expensive to many.   Let’s face it, there are a lot of workers in housing who speak Spanish and a lot of small owners and contractors who can’t really afford a day off work plus $280.  The government, paint companies and perhaps home improvement suppliers should all pitch in and make the training free or very cheap.

Why the proposed EPA changes to the RRP are wrong

EPA, HUD and the National Builders Association have all conducted test that show proper work methods eliminate most risks.  Therefore the expensive dust sampling is unnecessary.  But what about the contractors who don’t follow proper methods you ask.  Well let’s be honest.  If they are unwilling to follow the rules to keep the job safe, what makes anyone think they will follow the dust clearance rule?

Additionally, most HEPAs that were purchased for this purpose in the past couple of months do not qualify under the proposed rule.  And the ones that do qualify suck (as in they are junk) because they do not suck (as in suction)

The 60 day comment period ends July 6th, 2010

Let the EPA know your opinion:

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID)number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0049, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Mail:

Document Control Office (7407M)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460– 0001.

Share/Save

The real game changer is the proposal to require laboratory testing for dust clearance at a cost of at least $160 per job, but more realistically $480 for most jobs.  This includes jobs as small as fixing a single window frame or broken door jamb.

Comment period to the EPA ends July 6th, 2010.

You can get a copy of the proposed rule, where to submit comments and read the Apartment Association of Southeastern WI, Inc.’s comments to the EPA at:

www.RenovatorRules.com

Share/Save