New Lead Paint Law Heavy on Budgets

[ChrWright]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703460404575244812466388810.html?m od=WSJ_Technology_RIGHTBottomSBHeadLines

...The new law went into effect in April, but the hazards of lead-based paint have long been known and many businesses have been taking precautions to protect against lead poisoning since the late 1970s.

But small businesses with limited cash flow, including home-repair providers, property-management firms and even landlords, say that while they support the ruling's health benefits, they are concerned about its costs.

Michael Davis, chief executive of Guardian Preservation Services Inc., a Chicago mold-removal company, figures the new ruling will add $160,000 to $300,000 a year in equipment and labor expenses. He's concerned about his ability to pass the extra expense along to homeowner customers, who have already reined in spending.

"We expect profits to decrease by about 12% if we can't recoup the cost from the client," says Mr. Davis.

more... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703460404575244812466388810.html?m od=WSJ_Technology_RIGHTBottomSBHeadLines)

[Bodger]

"We expect profits to decrease by about 12% if we can't recoup the cost from the client," says Mr. Davis.


If the cost of doing the job properly can't be recouped from the client, why would anyone consider doing the job?

This has and continues to be slanted toward being the contractor's problem. A 12% profit decrease because someone else's property has lead paint? I don't see the logic in that.
It's like assuming the cost to upgrade a foundation that is no longer up to code, or having to pay for asbestos abatement before a remodel can commence.

I still don't understand this line of thinking that if the HO doesn't want to pay for the added steps that must be taken to comply with new government regulations as their house is being worked on, it's somehow up to the contractor to absorb that cost.

" The agency estimates that the costs will range from $8 to $167 per interior job, with exterior jobs likely to cost more."

And there it is again, that damned $8 figure. THAT is a joke and every contractor involved in this knows it.

Has ANYONE done a job where this RRP regulation has to be addressed and found it has only added $8 to the cost of doing the work???

That needs to be shoved down the EPA's throat as soon as possible for the utter BS that it is. The more they print that and promote that and minimize the cost of this thing, the more we will be accused of price gouging and taking advantage of the HO's plight, which is that they own a property where lead paint is present and it must be dealt with properly AT THEIR EXPENSE.

[Bodger]

A spokesman for the EPA says it conducted extensive research to determine the impact of the ruling on businesses and found the requirements "are not excessive or overly burdensome."

Has anyone seen a printed report of this extensive research?

Maybe they aren't overly burdensome, but they aren't eight bucks either.

The way the EPA makes this sound, if we add even $100 to the cost, we look like a bunch of goniffs.

[Silvertree]

We've been sold down the river, yeah Bossman!

[nEighter]

Funny the week after the 22nd I got 5 calls for RRP houses... haven't got crap since.. seems a bit fishy..

[Dusty]

LOL.. Obviously, nobody employed by the EPA has never purchased a roll of visqueen or painters tape.

I like to hit estate sales on Thurs. and Fri mornings in search of old lighting. I've been picking up plastic for a buck or two per roll. When I find a large roll of good plastic at that price its like hitting the jackpot.