# Couple Sued Over "Up" House in Santa Clara



## Epoxy Pro

A home owner who has been on the news lately about his paint job (to replicate the movie "Up" house is being sued by neighbors for lead paint contamination in their yards.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Couple-Sued-Over-Up-House-in-Santa-Clara-257436411.html

So much for HO's not having to follow the Lead laws. It's about time. I think it's BS that a HO can do what they want with Lead paint and us as pros have to follow the laws.

I honestly think they should make Lead paint clean up a permit applicable law. I still see so many so called pros dealing with Lead illegally. This would rid us of the scum who do not follow the law. Nothing gets under my skin more than this.


----------



## Lambrecht

I don't she has a case. If checked probably every house in that neighborhood has a contaminated yard. All of the houses there were built in the early 1900's and most likely scraped, sanded, and repainted multiple times over the years this causing contamination. I do agree that a permit should be pulled and that the homeowners should be ultimately responsible since they technically own the lead.


----------



## RH

cdpainting said:


> A home owner who has been on the news lately about his paint job (to replicate the movie "Up" house is being sued by neighbors for lead paint contamination in their yards.
> 
> http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Couple-Sued-Over-Up-House-in-Santa-Clara-257436411.html
> 
> So much for HO's not having to follow the Lead laws. It's about time. I think it's BS that a HO can do what they want with Lead paint and us as pros have to follow the laws.
> 
> I honestly think they should make Lead paint clean up a permit applicable law. I still see so many so called pros dealing with Lead illegally. This would rid us of the scum who do not follow the law. Nothing gets under my skin more than this.


I agree Dave.

Lead contamination by a HO is just as bad as that from a professional. I could never understand why they should get a pass.


----------



## MikeCalifornia

I agree with HO having to follow the same rules, but that lady who was suing over contamination in her yard...pfffft. Did you see the picture of her house. It was peeling bad. These people should be made to take care of their properties as well.


----------



## journeymanPainter

If they would have done a soil sample before hand I doubt the neighbors would have a fit to stand on

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## CApainter

I didn't read much past the headline article, but it doesn't clarify that the homeowners actually painted the house themselves. Which I doubt they did. In that case, the person that may have been paid for painting services will no doubt be liable for the lead contamination. Particularly, if they didn't have a RRP certification.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

CApainter said:


> I didn't read much past the headline article, but it doesn't clarify that the homeowners actually painted the house themselves. Which I doubt they did. In that case, the person that may have been paid for painting services will no doubt be liable for the lead contamination. Particularly, if they didn't have a RRP certification.


Every report I have read or heard the HO did it all themselves.They may be trying to protect some one they know or that did the work (with no signs or names visible).


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Yes the one suing her house is pealing bad and the lead is most likely from her own home. 

This is one reason I call the inspector myself to check out our jobsite to make sure nothing can happen like this. It still can if the right neighbor cries.


----------



## Oden

Obviously when you read the story a case of a frivolous lawsuit by a neighbor irritated by the color scheme. It's about the homeowner not keeping their neighborhood 'historic' by choosing the color scheme they chose. That is all it is.


----------



## CApainter

Oden said:


> Obviously when you read the story a case of a frivolous lawsuit by a neighbor irritated by the color scheme. It's about the homeowner not keeping their neighborhood 'historic' by choosing the color scheme they chose. That is all it is.


I agree with you Oden. My impression was the same. However, It became a lot more serious then aesthetics once the EPA got involved. I still don't believe the homeowner painted that building by himself. Regardless, if there is no paper trail leading investigators to someone who was compensated for the painting, this thing will likely only go as far as small claims court.


----------



## 6126

cdpainting said:


> A home owner who has been on the news lately about his paint job (to replicate the movie "Up" house is being sued by neighbors for lead paint contamination in their yards.
> 
> http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Couple-Sued-Over-Up-House-in-Santa-Clara-257436411.html
> 
> So much for HO's not having to follow the Lead laws. It's about time. I think it's BS that a HO can do what they want with Lead paint and us as pros have to follow the laws.
> 
> I honestly think they should make Lead paint clean up a permit applicable law. I still see so many so called pros dealing with Lead illegally. This would rid us of the scum who do not follow the law. Nothing gets under my skin more than this.


I agree 100% :yes:


----------



## SChiara

What the news didn't say is that the lead-paint lawsuit was filed LONG before the color was ever applied. It started when the owner hired unlicensed workers from another country to do the major renovations and all the prep work. The guys took a power sander and a reciprocating saw to all the layers of old paint on an 1890s house without any containment. Seriously. Not even plastic. The owner claims he's RRP exempt because he did the work himself. Himself? Then who are the four dudes that you just paid in cash who were sanding? Then the state got into an argument with the county and city and they all pointed fingers at each other saying it wasn't their agency's job to enforce CA Title 17. Apparently no one has ever enforced CA Title 17. So, we sued him. We had no choice. It wasn't that hard to prove that he contaminated all over the place. The paint chips were all the colors of his paint (from before) not mine, and my entire house including soil was abated in 2011 by a remediation specialist. Also, I have before and after testing because it had to pass all the HUD tests done by the abatement guy. My paint is NOT peeling! That must be the photo. There are two layers of encapusulant followed by primer, followed by two more layers of color. Fiberlock is your friend. I'm not for product endorsements, but I doubt my house will ever peel again. 

If you want to help our cause, please share your valuable RRP knowledge with the public on the other forums regarding the "UP" house, because as you can tell from the posts, people do not have the level of education that you do, and they need to know that it pays to hire someone who follows the laws to keep the public safe.

P.S. Sorry for hijacking your forum...I just thought you might want to know the truth.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

SChiara said:


> What the news didn't say is that the lead-paint lawsuit was filed LONG before the color was ever applied. It started when the owner hired unlicensed workers from another country to do the major renovations and all the prep work. The guys took a power sander and a reciprocating saw to all the layers of old paint on an 1890s house without any containment. Seriously. Not even plastic. The owner claims he's RRP exempt because he did the work himself. Himself? Then who are the four dudes that you just paid in cash who were sanding? Then the state got into an argument with the county and city and they all pointed fingers at each other saying it wasn't their agency's job to enforce CA Title 17. Apparently no one has ever enforced CA Title 17. So, we sued him. We had no choice. It wasn't that hard to prove that he contaminated all over the place. The paint chips were all the colors of his paint (from before) not mine, and my entire house including soil was abated in 2011 by a remediation specialist. Also, I have before and after testing because it had to pass all the HUD tests done by the abatement guy. My paint is NOT peeling! That must be the photo. There are two layers of encapusulant followed by primer, followed by two more layers of color. Fiberlock is your friend. I'm not for product endorsements, but I doubt my house will ever peel again.
> 
> If you want to help our cause, please share your valuable RRP knowledge with the public on the other forums regarding the "UP" house, because as you can tell from the posts, people do not have the level of education that you do, and they need to know that it pays to hire someone who follows the laws to keep the public safe.
> 
> P.S. Sorry for hijacking your forum...I just thought you might want to know the truth.



So I am taking this as your the home owner next door who is suing? What are you doing about the workers he hired? The house in question is a big home and as you see most of us here are having a hard time believing the home owner did all the prep himself.

If it's not your house that was pictured pealing bad who's is it? From the looks of it all your neighbors have or had lead painted homes. (hard to tell without actually testing for lead paint)

I also feel like the neighbors are all either jealous of what he did (paint scheme) or do not like the family. Only one neighbor said it's his house let him paint it what ever colors he wants. 

Believe me when I say I am one to get mad when illegal lead paint removal is going on. Those of us who do it the right way had to spend our hard earned money to get certified and or licensed. Also the cost of every thing we need to deal with lead paint the right way is expensive.

Good luck with your lawsuit. Hopefully more home owners saw this report and will think twice about hiring non licensed contractors or doing it on their own.


----------



## CApainter

SChiara,

Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and perspective of the "Up House" case. It's rare that we are privileged to such information .

I completely empathize with your concern of the lead contamination on your property. In light of the EPA regulations governing RRP (Restoration, Repair, and Painting) I find it completely irresponsible of your neighbor to pursue an exterior painting project, on their lead suspected house, without considering contamination to not only themselves, but to the surrounding neighbors.

The problem with settling this case to your satisfaction, may very well be with the requirement to provide evidence that someone was actually compensated for the renovation. As I understand it, homeowners, and volunteers are exempt from the RRP lead removal requirements and procedures. 

If anything, your case may help to set a precedent concerning the hiring of unlicensed contractors, and homeowners who do not take into consideration the heath and safety impact on their neighbors when pursuing projects that deal with known hazards.

Good luck to you, and thanks .


----------



## Oden

CApainter said:


> SChiara, Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and perspective of the "Up House" case. It's rare that we are privileged to such information . I completely empathize with your concern of the lead contamination on your property. In light of the EPA regulations governing RRP (Restoration, Repair, and Painting) I find it completely irresponsible of your neighbor to pursue an exterior painting project, on their lead suspected house, without considering contamination to not only themselves, but to the surrounding neighbors. The problem with settling this case to your satisfaction, may very well be with the requirement to provide evidence that someone was actually compensated for the renovation. As I understand it, homeowners, and volunteers are exempt from the RRP lead removal requirements and procedures. If anything, your case may help to set a precedent concerning the hiring of unlicensed contractors, and homeowners who do not take into consideration the heath and safety impact on their neighbors when pursuing projects that deal with known hazards. Good luck to you, and thanks .


Nope. Not feeling it.
No cross examination.
No reason to beleive a word of it. At least not that it is the truth, nothing but, and the whole truth
And not for nothing but to even find the post on a obscure forum and that quick denotes to me anyway a zealousness for the 
Pissing match that is a bit scary. Lol


----------



## Epoxy Pro

I found it strange that she found this thread. It shows me she is atleast looking around the web for either answers or some sort of back up proof that it came from the neighbors house and not hers.


----------



## CApainter

Oden said:


> Nope. Not feeling it.
> No cross examination.
> No reason to beleive a word of it. At least not that it is the truth, nothing but, and the whole truth
> And not for nothing but to even find the post on a obscure forum and that quick denotes to me anyway a zealousness for the
> Pissing match that is a bit scary. Lol


It doesn't surprise me in the least that a simple google search for paint related subjects would prompt a PT address.


----------



## Oden

CApainter said:


> It doesn't surprise me in the least that a simple google search for paint related subjects would prompt a PT address.


He or she ain't googling paint related 
They're googling the up house in their town. 
They found it and posted within 24 hours
Not a coincidence that the day of the post they googled it and found it
They might be googling it 5' times a day or some crazy obsessive other amount
Lol
They are po'd their neighbor painted that house that color. And the lawsuit is frivolous and besides the point. They got a cartoon house next to em is their problem. Got nothin to so with lead contamination IMO


----------



## Jmayspaint

SChiara said:


> What the news didn't say is that the lead-paint lawsuit was filed LONG before the color was ever applied. It started when the owner hired unlicensed workers from another country to do the major renovations and all the prep work. The guys took a power sander and a reciprocating saw to all the layers of old paint on an 1890s house without any containment. Seriously. Not even plastic. The owner claims he's RRP exempt because he did the work himself. Himself? Then who are the four dudes that you just paid in cash who were sanding? Then the state got into an argument with the county and city and they all pointed fingers at each other saying it wasn't their agency's job to enforce CA Title 17. Apparently no one has ever enforced CA Title 17. So, we sued him. We had no choice. It wasn't that hard to prove that he contaminated all over the place. The paint chips were all the colors of his paint (from before) not mine, and my entire house including soil was abated in 2011 by a remediation specialist. Also, I have before and after testing because it had to pass all the HUD tests done by the abatement guy. My paint is NOT peeling! That must be the photo. There are two layers of encapusulant followed by primer, followed by two more layers of color. Fiberlock is your friend. I'm not for product endorsements, but I doubt my house will ever peel again.
> 
> If you want to help our cause, please share your valuable RRP knowledge with the public on the other forums regarding the "UP" house, because as you can tell from the posts, people do not have the level of education that you do, and they need to know that it pays to hire someone who follows the laws to keep the public safe.
> 
> P.S. Sorry for hijacking your forum...I just thought you might want to know the truth.



If we take this post at face value, it seems that this person has a very good case. In this situation (assuming this is a true sequence of events) I would sue also. 

Put yourself in these shoes; You own an older home that you have went to the trouble to have remediated of lead including the soil around the house. 
Then a close neighbor takes power tools with no containment to his own lead infested house and distributes lead dust everywhere including your yard that had previously been cleaned up HUD standards. 

The media hype is focusing on the displeasure of neighbors about the color of the house, which is irrelevant to the issue because the actions in question and the commencement of the law suit occurred before the house was even finish painted. 

There is two or three sides to every story, but unless the post is completely made up lies I think she is in the right. And if the soil was previously tested by an abatement contractor to be acceptable (no doubt there would be a record) and is now contaminated, how is that frivolous?


----------



## Oden

SChiara said:


> What the news didn't say is that the lead-paint lawsuit was filed LONG before the color was ever applied. It started when the owner hired unlicensed workers from another country to do the major renovations and all the prep work. The guys took a power sander and a reciprocating saw to all the layers of old paint on an 1890s house without any containment. Seriously. Not even plastic. The owner claims he's RRP exempt because he did the work himself. Himself? Then who are the four dudes that you just paid in cash who were sanding? Then the state got into an argument with the county and city and they all pointed fingers at each other saying it wasn't their agency's job to enforce CA Title 17. Apparently no one has ever enforced CA Title 17. So, we sued him. We had no choice. It wasn't that hard to prove that he contaminated all over the place. The paint chips were all the colors of his paint (from before) not mine, and my entire house including soil was abated in 2011 by a remediation specialist. Also, I have before and after testing because it had to pass all the HUD tests done by the abatement guy. My paint is NOT peeling! That must be the photo. There are two layers of encapusulant followed by primer, followed by two more layers of color. Fiberlock is your friend. I'm not for product endorsements, but I doubt my house will ever peel again. If you want to help our cause, please share your valuable RRP knowledge with the public on the other forums regarding the "UP" house, because as you can tell from the posts, people do not have the level of education that you do, and they need to know that it pays to hire someone who follows the laws to keep the public safe. P.S. Sorry for hijacking your forum...I just thought you might want to know the truth.


This statement proves to me nothing on it's face. To the contrary actually representatives from the city, the county and the state were informed while the work was being done and not one of those agencies took any action. This person lost her battle and now is doing a end around the system to 'get back at'. That is my definition of frivolous. They don't have a snowballs chance of receiving any damages.


----------



## epretot

Vaccinations, chlorine, fluoride, margarine, soy, and liberalism are all more dangerous than lead.


----------



## epretot

I think "lead discussion" should be moved to the Political Zone where it belongs.


----------



## Bender

epretot said:


> Vaccinations, chlorine, fluoride, margarine, soy, and liberalism are all more dangerous than lead.


Thats nothing!
Do you realize climate change is especially burdening the minority communities!
Here is a message from Gina McCarthy, THE administrator of the EPA.
Thank God for the EPA!
"Environmental justice is social justice"


----------



## CApainter

Oden said:


> This statement proves to me nothing on it's face. To the contrary actually representatives from the city, the county and the state were informed while the work was being done and not one of those agencies took any action. This person lost her battle and now is doing a end around the system to 'get back at'. That is my definition of frivolous. They don't have a snowballs chance of receiving any damages.


There's a difference between a frivolous lawsuit and a legitimate law suit that can't be won because of a lack of evidence.

Regardless if the emphasis is on the goofy house colors that don't go with the historic landscape of this particular neighborhood, lead has become the focal issue here because of its known hazard. And, as long as there is evidence that uncontrolled lead exists on the complainant's property, the authorities will have to get involved one way or the other. 

Besides, it is highly unlikely that any liability assumed by the UP House owner would involve the repainting of his home. Particularly if there is no CCR to govern a specific aesthetic value for homes in that neighborhood. At best, and because the plaintiff will most likely not have records of compensation for painting, or show intent in terms of contaminating his neighbors property, this case, at best, will be settled in small claims court with a maximum reward of $7,000-$10,000 for hazardous clean up.

And at the end of the day, the house will remain an eye sore to the neighbors.


----------



## Jmayspaint

epretot said:


> Vaccinations, chlorine, fluoride, margarine, soy, and liberalism are all more dangerous than lead.



So we should just not worry about it then? Just say to heck with RRP because I might get cancer from my toothpaste? Why not go back to leaded gasoline?

The toxicity of lead and its effect on human development is a well documented thing. Useless you assert that the whole thing was made up by the gov (and covertly forced on the scientific community) to increase revenue, which given the financial history of the RRP program seems absurd. 

Our industry created this mess, and it's out responsibility to ensure that we don't make it worse by doing idiot things like power sanding lead paint. 

Arguing various levels of risk is rather pointless, heavy metals in ingest able forms ARE poison period. Why would we not avoid releasing this position into our atmosphere. 

Liberalism is dangerous, to conservatives anyway, after all we're winning


----------



## chrisn

This all seems dangerously close to a political discussion to me.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

This just like any topic will only take one post to make the mods move it. I hope it doesn't get moved. Not because I started the thread but because this is the first time a HO is getting sued by another HO for lead paint contamination that at least I have heard of.


----------



## epretot

Jmayspaint said:


> So we should just not worry about it then? Just say to heck with RRP because I might get cancer from my toothpaste? Why not go back to leaded gasoline?
> 
> The toxicity of lead and its effect on human development is a well documented thing. Useless you assert that the whole thing was made up by the gov (and covertly forced on the scientific community) to increase revenue, which given the financial history of the RRP program seems absurd.
> 
> Our industry created this mess, and it's out responsibility to ensure that we don't make it worse by doing idiot things like power sanding lead paint.
> 
> Arguing various levels of risk is rather pointless, heavy metals in ingest able forms ARE poison period. Why would we not avoid releasing this position into our atmosphere.
> 
> Liberalism is dangerous, to conservatives anyway, after all we're winning


I agree that lead is a documented danger. It used to be in our vaccinations even after it was identified as dangerous. Our health agencies made that decision.

There are a lot of more dangers to our health in our daily lives than lead. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## mudbone

Since the lead law has been in effect I have never understood how city officials and the like can bulldoze down old buildings with dust and debris flying everywhere and get away with it!Speak about blowing minds.


----------



## Oden

I will sprinkle them paint chips on a sandwich and eat it....


----------



## CApainter

epretot said:


> I agree that lead is a documented danger. It used to be in our vaccinations even after it was identified as dangerous. Our health agencies made that decision.
> 
> There are a lot of more dangers to our health in our daily lives than lead. That's all I'm saying.


Personally, I try not to waste too much energy on things I can't change, even though I may perceive them to be frivolous. Lead laws are here to stay, along with laws governing the use of ozone depleting CFC's and HCFC's.

Now, the issue of undocumented workers, under the table pay, and unlicensed contractor's can be changed, and should be changed. I don't mind expending energy to combat those scourges. Even if its just by mentioning it on an internet forum.


----------



## mudbone

Oden said:


> I will sprinkle them paint chips on a sandwich and eat it....


I knew of a guy that use to smoke lead chips in his one hitter.No longer around.


----------



## journeymanPainter

I don't get the big deal about this lead thread. Is lead paint dangerous? It can be, but primarily to children, and pregnant women. It takes a LOT of lead to give you lead poisoning, and can naturally filter out of your body. If the homes are that old, and they all have lead paint then the lawsuit over lead contamination is frivolous because no soil samples were taken. If they really want to get to an end result and never worry about it again pay the bucks, use a hit stripper, prime, and paint. After all that is done dig a few feet of soil on your property then replace it with fresh dirt and grass

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## Painter-Aaron

Pocket postb


----------



## Gough

journeymanPainter said:


> I don't get the big deal about this lead thread. Is lead paint dangerous? It can be, but primarily to children, and pregnant women. It takes a LOT of lead to give you lead poisoning, and can naturally filter out of your body. If the homes are that old, and they all have lead paint then the lawsuit over lead contamination is frivolous because no soil samples were taken. If they really want to get to an end result and never worry about it again pay the bucks, use a hit stripper, prime, and paint. After all that is done dig a few feet of soil on your property then replace it with fresh dirt and grass
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


Lead accumulates in the body, it doesn't "naturally filter out". 

The neighbor has indicated that she had lead abatement done, including soil samples to verify. If that is the case, then the lawsuit is hardly frivolous. She's maintained that she took the steps that you outlined, and now her property has been re-contaminated.

Right now, we're hearing two sides of the story, and I don't know where the truth lies. Often, it's somewhere in between.


----------



## RH

cdpainting said:


> This just like any topic will only take one post to make the mods move it. I hope it doesn't get moved. Not because I started the thread but because this is the first time a HO is getting sued by another HO for lead paint contamination that at least I have heard of.


Thanks to all of you for being aware of this. This mod would prefer to keep this thread here where all can view it.


----------



## Oden

I have been on jobs and been blood tested in and out for lead. And I have been on jobs where guys did get lead poisoned. I got a pretty good idea because of this experience what it takes to get lead poisoned. It ain't easey. You need to really go out of ur way and for quite a bit of time. And I need to be right up ur face right in it to get it and again for a good bit of time. I seen it. I know who got what and what their job was and how long for. That house next to me getting worked on wouldn't bother me at all.


----------



## journeymanPainter

Gough said:


> Lead accumulates in the body, it doesn't "naturally filter out".
> 
> The neighbor has indicated that she had lead abatement done, including soil samples to verify. If that is the case, then the lawsuit is hardly frivolous. She's maintained that she took the steps that you outlined, and now her property has been re-contaminated.
> 
> Right now, we're hearing two sides of the story, and I don't know where the truth lies. Often, it's somewhere in between.


That was more of a 'get over it' type rant. That and I hated doing lead removal projects. I do however think that if governments want to rid areas of this (as well as other toxic entities) they should red flag areas where it is known to have these substances, and whenever trades are seen if proper procedures aren't being used then major fines should be handed out to the contractor AND the owner/management company.

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## Gough

Oden said:


> I have been on jobs and been blood tested in and out for lead. And I have been on jobs where guys did get lead poisoned. I got a pretty good idea because of this experience what it takes to get lead poisoned. It ain't easey. You need to really go out of ur way and for quite a bit of time. And I need to be right up ur face right in it to get it and again for a good bit of time. I seen it. I know who got what and what their job was and how long for. That house next to me getting worked on wouldn't bother me at all.


You might feel differently if you had paid to have actual abatement done and then had your property re-contaminated by the careless neighbor.

I'm not saying that she had it done, with "clean" soil tests and all, but that's she says.


----------



## straight_lines

Oden said:


> I have been on jobs and been blood tested in and out for lead. And I have been on jobs where guys did get lead poisoned. I got a pretty good idea because of this experience what it takes to get lead poisoned. It ain't easey. You need to really go out of ur way and for quite a bit of time. And I need to be right up ur face right in it to get it and again for a good bit of time. I seen it. I know who got what and what their job was and how long for. That house next to me getting worked on wouldn't bother me at all.


There is a big difference between adults and children/pregnant women when it comes to lead poisoning. Pretty good peer reviewed scientific proof that it causes serious problems with development in these cases. Also do a google search for painters colic. 

If this homeowner has spent the money to encapsulate their home and rid the soil of contamination only to have their neighbor put their family at risk again then they deserve compensation.


----------



## Gough

journeymanPainter said:


> That was more of a 'get over it' type rant. That and I hated doing lead removal projects. I do however think that if governments want to rid areas of this (as well as other toxic entities) they should red flag areas where it is known to have these substances, and whenever trades are seen if proper procedures aren't being used then major fines should be handed out to the contractor AND the owner/management company.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


That's what the EPA has tried to do with RRP. What has been red-flagged is housing built when lead paint was available in consumer paints.

The missing part is owner responsibility. I think a discussion of how that came to be is probably better suited for the Politics tab.


----------



## journeymanPainter

straight_lines said:


> There is a big difference between adults and children/pregnant women when it comes to lead poisoning. Pretty good peer reviewed scientific proof that it causes serious problems with development in these cases. Also do a google search for painters colic.
> 
> If this homeowner has spent the money to encapsulate their home and rid the soil of contamination only to have their neighbor put their family at risk again then they deserve compensation.


The hose/project doesn't have to be encapsulated. Lead is so heavy that it falls straight to the ground. What you need is a caution/danger tape with warning signs every few feet. Also proper sheeting(the orange tarps) on the ground to avoid lead contaminants from getting into the soil. However if it's already peeling and failing then soil abatement should be done as well.

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## Jmayspaint

journeymanPainter said:


> The hose/project doesn't have to be encapsulated. Lead is so heavy that it falls straight to the ground. What you need is a caution/danger tape with warning signs every few feet. Also proper sheeting(the orange tarps) on the ground to avoid lead contaminants from getting into the soil. However if it's already peeling and failing then soil abatement should be done as well.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk



"Lead is so heavy that it falls straight to the ground"

Completely false. Lead Dust is extremely fine (nearly microscopic) and stays airborne for a long time once disturbed. Hence the need to mist the work area with water so the water droplets can capture the dust particles and bring them to the ground, rather than be blown around on the wind.


----------



## Oden

I went back and watched the video again. Lol lol lol
It is so about them painting that house like a cartoon. The oldest neighborhood in Santa whatever it is and they got the up house next to em. I don't care what they say for the record. It is the house color that is the problem. Too funny

One time way back I painted for a guy his trim in old city. The paint was supposed to have been matched and it wasn't and all of this I did not know. Well there were three of us so by the end of the day we had quite a bit done. It was twenty years ago. I can still remember the look on the lady next doors face. LOL and this wasn't up colors they were just a bit off compared to that.

I guarentee it is all about the color of that house. The lead angle is just a tool for retribution. Them historic neighborhoods it is a huge thing to them people that everybody keeps in line with their colors. The very fact that the spokesman for the historic society says on the video they don't care about the color is an out and out lie. They are fuming. Lol


----------



## Oden

http://articles.philly.com/1991-07-08/news/25784986_1_purple-house-day-glo-paint-color

Haddonfeild. Big money in that town. The people that live there they paid to live in Haddonfeild. For a reason. Anyway this is not the up house but were u to ride through that town it sticks out. Lol it is a huge thing to the people who live in a town like that.
The up house over there is the same thing.


----------



## Gough

I think it's amazing that we can come to such ironclad conclusions on so little information.


----------



## straight_lines

journeymanPainter said:


> The hose/project doesn't have to be encapsulated. Lead is so heavy that it falls straight to the ground. What you need is a caution/danger tape with warning signs every few feet. Also proper sheeting(the orange tarps) on the ground to avoid lead contaminants from getting into the soil. However if it's already peeling and failing then soil abatement should be done as well.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


From what I read the owners had their house encapsulated. Which means they paid for someone to put heavy mils of some sort of bonding primer before having it painted and they had the soil around their house removed and replace. All tested to verify it was clean. 

Then the neighbor has a couple of day labors show up scraping and sanding with no containment. As you well know it is a certainty that the lead contamination of their yard came from the work done on their house next door.


----------



## Gough

straight_lines said:


> From what I read the owners had their house encapsulated. Which means they paid for someone to put heavy mils of some sort of bonding primer before having it painted and they had the soil around their house removed and replace. All tested to verify it was clean.
> 
> Then the neighbor has a couple of day labors show up scraping and sanding with no containment. As you well know it is a certainty that the lead contamination of their yard came from the work done on their house next door.


Dis you see other information that indicated that the owners had the LBP encapsulated. In the homeowner's post (#12), she writes that she had abatement done. That may or may not have included encapsulation. In any case, if she has the documentation to back up her claims, I would expect that to have a substantial impact on the suit.


It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## RH

Be careful what you guys say here - or you may get called in to testify.


----------



## Bender

What did this poor family do prior to 2010


----------



## straight_lines

Gough said:


> Dis you see other information that indicated that the owners had the LBP encapsulated. In the homeowner's post (#12), she writes that she had abatement done. That may or may not have included encapsulation. In any case, if she has the documentation to back up her claims, I would expect that to have a substantial impact on the suit.
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


It was from their post stating what the abatement company had done. 



> That must be the photo. There are two layers of encapusulant followed by primer, followed by two more layers of color. Fiberlock is your friend. I'm not for product endorsements, but I doubt my house will ever peel again.


----------



## Oden

There are other stories if u google the up house. Not for nothing but the house was being rehabbed inside and put for two years.
I'm sure their neighbors were calling the applicable agencies the whole way along. The rehab did not get shut down. That is all I need to know to take the up house side


----------



## Bender

And I have no doubt the plaintiff drives a new car, sleeps in a nice bed,
and has a home full of fine furnishings.

As a painter I would worry more about aluminum and the risks of Alzheimers then I would about a problem that is slowly correcting itself since 1978.

Common sense with LBP not withstanding


----------



## Bender

And as interesting as it is, this is supposed to be a site for professionals. Not a place for HO's to rant.
Friend them on Facebook if you wish to be privy.


----------



## Gough

straight_lines said:


> It was from their post stating what the abatement company had done.


You're right, I skimmed her post and had totally forgotten about that part. My bad.


----------



## CApainter

Oden said:


> There are other stories if u google the up house. Not for nothing but the house was being rehabbed inside and put for two years.
> I'm sure their neighbors were calling the applicable agencies the whole way along. The rehab did not get shut down. That is all I need to know to take the up house side


OK, here's the deal:

-Once the evidence of lead contamination was included in the controversy surrounding the theme painted house, colors have taken a less prioritized role in the debate.

-It doesn't matter if Joe Macho eats lead chips for breakfast,
the ninety nine pound lawyer litigating this case, has all the power.

-Recognizing that the neighbor pursued the lead issue as a means to combat the aesthetic assault on their neighborhood, is as obvious as beans in frijoles.

-Ignoring known hazards is just ignorant.


----------



## Oden

If I owned the up house. I just decided to let out space to some homeless people. Charity starts at home. They can set theirselves up a little camp sight over in the side yard there. Beer and whine is on me.


----------



## Darps

epretot said:


> I agree that lead is a documented danger. It used to be in our vaccinations even after it was identified as dangerous. Our health agencies made that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of more dangers to our health in our daily lives than lead. That's all I'm saying.



Like driving. We should give up our vehicles and make ladder racks for bikes.



Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## Darps

The point is that, at some point, the hypocrisy becomes so absurd that we might as well follow the logic to it's ultimate end, which is living in a cave. We could still paint little symbols on the walls, so there will still be work.


Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## Darps

Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## PRECISIONVANCOUVER

cdpainting said:


> A home owner who has been on the news lately about his paint job (to replicate the movie "Up" house is being sued by neighbors for lead paint contamination in their yards.
> 
> http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Couple-Sued-Over-Up-House-in-Santa-Clara-257436411.html
> 
> So much for HO's not having to follow the Lead laws. It's about time. I think it's BS that a HO can do what they want with Lead paint and us as pros have to follow the laws.
> 
> I honestly think they should make Lead paint clean up a permit applicable law. I still see so many so called pros dealing with Lead illegally. This would rid us of the scum who do not follow the law. Nothing gets under my skin more than this.


Oh Mah Gawd!

People are ridiculous. Doing anything they can to bleed money that they don't have to work for by sueing other people.


It makes me want to puke.


----------



## Darps

I hear faint chants of "More Red Tape" coming from this thread. Seriously, nobody cares about lead paint. The people with the power to control laws care about 2 things: 1) money 2) more money. Should there be a standard for how we deal with lead paint? Sure. Does lead paint kill people? Doubtful. Seems like our beloved government has better things to do than make it more expensive for painters to make money.


Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## CApainter

PRECISIONVANCOUVER said:


> Oh Mah Gawd!
> 
> People are ridiculous. Doing anything they can to bleed money that they don't have to work for by sueing other people.
> 
> 
> It makes me want to puke.


Before you puke, consider the following scenario:

1.) You live in a historic neighborhood in California USA. Your area reflects one of the highest home values in the region, boasting upwards of $500K to $1M on average.

2.) Considering the latest lead laws, and penalties imposed and governed by the US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) you spend an extraordinary amount of money to renovate your historic home, knowing that a contractor would need to be RRP (Repair Renovation, and Painting) certified in order to keep compliant. Your house is completed per the standards and procedures required by the RRP, and a qualified post project testing indicates no lead contamination.

3.) Meanwhile, your next door neighbor, who's house is identical to yours and who's house is also suspected of containing lead, decides to renovate his exterior without complying with the proper standards and procedures mandated and governed by the EPA and RRP regulations. Coincidently, you find your back yard has since become contaminated with lead again. And if that wasn't bad enough, your neighbor completely strays from the aesthetic continuity that is desired by everyone in this historic neighborhood.

4.) You are now really pissed off, because not only are you not comfortable inviting family members with young children over, because of the lead contamination that now exists in the back yard thanks to your inconsiderate neighbor who was trying to save a buck, but your home value also declines because your neighbor has no sense of decor and his responsibility to the neighborhood's historic value.

Unfortunately, you realize nothing can be done about the colors of your neighbors house because there are no city ordinances, or neighborhood agreements governing aesthetics. Fine, but there is still lead contamination in your yard.

So PP,
Are you saying that you would rather ignore the risks the neighbor subjected you to, and pay for the lead clean up out of your own pocket (again) because the right to sue makes you puke? If so, you may want to have that condition checked.


_Disclaimer: The above scenario is all conjecture based on here say, and is only intended to make the point about the right and ethics of suing._


----------



## Gough

Darps said:


> I hear faint chants of "More Red Tape" coming from this thread. Seriously, nobody cares about lead paint. The people with the power to control laws care about 2 things: 1) money 2) more money. Should there be a standard for how we deal with lead paint? Sure. Does lead paint kill people? Doubtful. Seems like our beloved government has better things to do than make it more expensive for painters to make money.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


Not sure how long you've been in the business, but there was a much less onerous set of regulations for dealing with LBP before RRP came along. It involved a pamphlet for the homeowner and a general set of guidelines to follow. The main problem? Nobody followed it. 

As an industry, we had an opportunity to follow those rules. We chose to ignore the and have to bear some reponsibility for the more restrictive rules that followed.

Each dollar NOT spent on lead paint hazard control has been estimated to cost the US economy between $17 and $221.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717145/


----------



## CApainter

Darps said:


> I hear faint chants of "More Red Tape" coming from this thread. Seriously, nobody cares about lead paint. The people with the power to control laws care about 2 things: 1) money 2) more money. *Should there be a standard for how we deal with lead paint? Sure. Does lead paint kill people? Doubtful.* Seems like our beloved government has better things to do than make it more expensive for painters to make money.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


Is this not an example of someone talking out of both sides of their mouth?

I don't get it with people. Just because an individual doesn't give a crap about a known hazard, what gives them any reason to believe no one else should? The exact reason why we are over regulated in the first place, is because these same reckless people have a tendency to circumvent common sense.


----------



## CApainter

Gough said:


> Not sure how long you've been in the business, but there was a much less onerous set of regulations for dealing with LBP before RRP came along. It involved a pamphlet for the homeowner and a general set of guidelines to follow. The main problem? Nobody followed it.
> 
> As an industry, we had an opportunity to follow those rules. We chose to ignore the and have to bear some reponsibility for the more restrictive rules that followed.
> 
> Each dollar NOT spent on lead paint hazard control has been estimated to cost the US economy between $17 and $221.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717145/


you basically said it better then me. Thanks.


----------



## Oden

http://www.slashfilm.com/lol-neighborhood-arms-pixar-themed-house-remodel/

This video u can still see cause they haven't taken it down yet temporary tarped construction fence around the whole property.
A interveiw with the other neighbor. He is cool with everything. No lawsuits from him.

It is a nice lookin job even from what you can see. Still needs site work. The fence took down and landscaping but the job is square up to that point. Clean. Tidy. Nice and square.


----------



## Jmayspaint

....


----------



## epretot

Good team work guys. Way to make things look like something they're not.


----------



## Jmayspaint

epretot said:


> Good team work guys. Way to make things look like something they're not.



To me it just looks like an off topic post touching on subjects not allowed in the general forum, along with all posts quoting said post were removed. 

Yeah, good job mods!


----------



## CApainter

Did someone delete content from this thread, or was it moved as it should have been?


----------



## Epoxy Pro

CApainter said:


> Did someone delete content from this thread, or was it moved as it should have been?


I must have missed some comments.


----------



## Schmidt & Co.

CApainter said:


> Did someone delete content from this thread, or was it moved as it should have been?


Both Dean an I moved content referring to the issue of abortion. It's off topic and political, both reasons to trash it.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Schmidt & Co. said:


> Both Dean an I moved content referring to the issue of abortion. It's off topic and political, both reasons to trash it.


Thank you for not moving the whole thread. I did miss that post.


----------



## CApainter

Schmidt & Co. said:


> Both Dean an I moved content referring to the issue of abortion. It's off topic and political, both reasons to trash it.


I didn't see the moved content in the Political Zone. Is it in there?

Thanks


----------



## Darps

You're all missing my point. You're all for over-regulating the painting industry while we get poisoned in 100 other legal, much more dangerous ways. I'm not advocating for ignoring lead paint issues, but saying that most of you are hypocrites for supporting things that directly kill people, while worrying yourselves to death about something that's been around for a long time, and hasn't been shown to immediately kill people. A little consistency would be nice, instead of just trying to prove how safe you are when it comes to the "lead paint monster." 


Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## Schmidt & Co.

CApainter said:


> I didn't see the moved content in the Political Zone. Is it in there?
> 
> Thanks


Nope. To be honest, the posts by themselves are totally out of context and I don't see a way to save them.


----------



## CApainter

....................


----------



## Gough

.........................


----------



## Oden

Darps said:


> You're all missing my point. You're all for over-regulating the painting industry while we get poisoned in 100 other legal, much more dangerous ways. I'm not advocating for ignoring lead paint issues, but saying that most of you are hypocrites for supporting things that directly kill people, while worrying yourselves to death about something that's been around for a long time, and hasn't been shown to immediately kill people. A little consistency would be nice, instead of just trying to prove how safe you are when it comes to the "lead paint monster." Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


Not for nothing but politics are almost always about money. You know who has the lead liscences and is practicing that kind of work by reading what side of the isle there on and how adament. Common sense. It's Kool. I would b also. But it is what it is.


----------



## CApainter

...........

............


----------



## CApainter

Gough said:


> There is the famous "Ignore" feature....


You're right.


----------



## Schmidt & Co.

Guys, please. This thread is about to get closed.


----------



## Gough

From the Posting Rules:

Users shall treat each other with respect at all times on PaintTalk.com. Name calling, personal attacks, or other inappropriate behavior will not be allowed and may cause you account to be banned.


----------



## RCP

Wow, if the homeowner comes back, she'll surely wonder what briar patch she stepped in!:blink:


----------



## epretot

Schmidt & Co. said:


> Both Dean an I moved content referring to the issue of abortion. It's off topic and political, both reasons to trash it.


With all do respect, the entire RRP discussion is Political and should be moved.


----------



## Gough

epretot said:


> With all do respect, the entire RRP discussion is Political and should be moved.


You forgot to add the whole "IMNSHO" part.


----------



## Jmayspaint

Darps said:


> You're all missing my point. You're all for over-regulating the painting industry while we get poisoned in 100 other legal, much more dangerous ways. I'm not advocating for ignoring lead paint issues, but saying that most of you are hypocrites for supporting things that directly kill people, while worrying yourselves to death about something that's been around for a long time, and hasn't been shown to immediately kill people. A little consistency would be nice, instead of just trying to prove how safe you are when it comes to the "lead paint monster."
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


 Where is this hypocrisy your referring too? This thread is about RRP regulations and how they affect people's lives. Sure, many other terrible things are happening in the world, and there are other threats to public health, but most of them are not related to ( or have any bearing on) the topic at hand. Can we not talk about the dangers of lead poisoning and the effect RRP has on our industry without bringing up unrelated topics that have no business being in this part of the forum anyway? 

If you want to talk consistency, and compare different public health issues unrelated to the painting trade, this is wrong forum to do it in.


----------



## epretot

Schmidt & Co. said:


> Nope. To be honest, the posts by themselves are totally out of context and I don't see a way to save them.


Out of context? 

If the argument is children's safety, then it wasn't out of context. Your personal views are different than mine. That's alright with me. What isn't is removing one of the better argument made over the last couple of days.


----------



## Schmidt & Co.

epretot said:


> Out of context?
> 
> If the argument is children's safety, then it wasn't out of context. Your personal views are different than mine. That's alright with me. What isn't is removing one of the better argument made over the last couple of days.


I'm talking about the posts referring to abortion.


----------



## epretot

Schmidt & Co. said:


> I'm talking about the posts referring to abortion.


You mean the number one threat to children's safety?


----------



## Schmidt & Co.

epretot said:


> You mean the number one threat to children's safety?


Oh come on?!!!!


----------



## epretot

Schmidt & Co. said:


> Oh come on?!!!!


Oh, you think it's BS? Is it about the children? That's what you guys talk about.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

epretot that has nothing at all to do with this discussion. I would appreciate it and I'm sure other would if stuff like that isn't brought up on a painting contractors forum.

I swear some times you try to derail topics just to either get them closed or moved to the PZ zone which some of us are not part of or want to be part of.


----------



## Schmidt & Co.

epretot said:


> Oh, you think it's BS? Is it about the children? That's what you guys talk about.


You know full well the rules regarding political discussions, and the abortion topic doesn't get any more political. Throw in religion and you have a thread closing discussion.

I'm asking you epretot, please stop.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

This thread didn't start out for the childrens sake, it started out because of contamination from some one illegally scraping lead paint and contaminating a neighbors yard who is suing. Not one person interviewed in the news even mentioned kids. Maybe you need to go read How To Win Friends and Influence People On PT


----------



## Oden

cdpainting said:


> This thread didn't start out for the childrens sake, it started out because of contamination from some one illegally scraping lead paint and contaminating a neighbors yard who is suing. Not one person interviewed in the news even mentioned kids. Maybe you need to go read How To Win Friends and Influence People On PT


Alleged,contamination.
Alleged illegal work.
Just sayin.
But Yeh. It iis about that.


----------



## journeymanPainter

So what you guys are saying if I say abortion, or politics, or maybe even religion you might shut the forum down?

Just asking out of curiosity sake

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Oden said:


> Alleged,contamination.
> Alleged illegal work.
> Just sayin.
> But Yeh. It iis about that.


Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

JMP not the forum the thread. Take that stuff to the PZ right where it belongs.


----------



## Gough

journeymanPainter said:


> So what you guys are saying if I say abortion, or politics, or maybe even religion you might shut the forum down?
> 
> Just asking out of curiosity sake
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


Go to the FAQs and read the Posting Rules and Terms of Service. 

There is a Political Zone for established members, that's the place for such discussions.


----------



## Schmidt & Co.

journeymanPainter said:


> So what you guys are saying if I say abortion, or politics, or maybe even religion you might shut the forum down?
> 
> Just asking out of curiosity sake
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


Religion is not allowed to be discussed. 

Political discussions are to be held in the political sub forum, called the PZ.


----------



## journeymanPainter

Gough said:


> Go to the FAQs and read the Posting Rules and Terms of Service.
> 
> There is a Political Zone for established members, that's the place for such discussions.


I was poking fun at the guy (can't see his name) who was trying to stir the pot

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## Gough

Schmidt & Co. said:


> Religion is not allowed to be discussed.
> 
> Political discussions are to be held in the political sub forum, called the PZ.


Thanks, I forgot about the Religion part. I was having flashbacks to another forum. These guys don't have any idea how obnoxious a mod can be.:whistling2:


----------



## Darps

Honestly, I admit that you make a valid point, cdpaintng. So let me express my opinion in a way that's related. After going through countless pointless hours of different training, whether it be for an OSHA certificate, a aerial work platform certificate, a specific job site safety training, a certificate to work at gas stations, or for a company I used to work for, I can say that 99% of it is all common sense, and the only point is for someone to get paid for telling painters how, when, and where they're allowed to make money. I certainly don't want lead paint all over my yard, my neighbor's yard, or anywhere in my neighborhood, but to sue someone over lead paint after it's all said and done is ridiculous. Certainly the neighbors could have asked immediately after work began, and could have taken action before it turned into this mess. So, if we want to go down the path of throwing negligent painting contractors under the bus for not following standard procedures, maybe we can start taking pictures of our job sites to show how every ladder is tied-off, every man is tied-off, everyone has at least a 10 hr OSHA certification, and so-on. 


Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## journeymanPainter

What I would like governing bodies do is utilize there red seal programs. EI if you want to do remediation work you have to have a journeyman on site, if you want to do major projects, you need a journeyman on site, and so on, and so forth.

I know a lot you guys are very smart, and extremely talented, but don't you want a reason to get rid of the splash and dashers? 

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Darps said:


> Honestly, I admit that you make a valid point, cdpaintng. So let me express my opinion in a way that's related. After going through countless pointless hours of different training, whether it be for an OSHA certificate, a aerial work platform certificate, a specific job site safety training, a certificate to work at gas stations, or for a company I used to work for, I can say that 99% of it is all common sense, and the only point is for someone to get paid for telling painters how, when, and where they're allowed to make money. I certainly don't want lead paint all over my yard, my neighbor's yard, or anywhere in my neighborhood, but to sue someone over lead paint after it's all said and done is ridiculous. Certainly the neighbors could have asked immediately after work began, and could have taken action before it turned into this mess. So, if we want to go down the path of throwing negligent painting contractors under the bus for not following standard procedures, maybe we can start taking pictures of our job sites to show how every ladder is tied-off, every man is tied-off, everyone has at least a 10 hr OSHA certification, and so-on.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


Ok so you spend thousands of dollars doing your home the right way according to HUD and have the soil removed, no contamination left in your yard, your next door neighbor then has illigal lead paint removed and it ends up in your yard, you call the state and talk to them about it. What would you do? Yeah maybe she tried talking to them about it maybe they didn't want to take blame. What would you do then? Spend thousands more of your money to fix your yard again? No you would sue.

None of us know the whole story only what we have read or heard on the news. The news could have cut all that out who knows.


----------



## RH

cdpainting said:


> Ok so you spend thousands of dollars doing your home the right way according to HUD and have the soil removed, no contamination left in your yard, your next door neighbor then has illigal lead paint removed and it ends up in your yard, you call the state and talk to them about it. What would you do? Yeah maybe she tried talking to them about it maybe they didn't want to take blame. What would you do then? Spend thousands more of your money to fix your yard again? No you would sue.
> 
> None of us know the whole story only what we have read or heard on the news. The news could have cut all that out who knows.


Are you insinuating that the media doesn't always engage in fair, balanced, and accurate reporting? I'm shocked I tell ya', shocked!


----------



## Darps

cdpainting said:


> Ok so you spend thousands of dollars doing your home the right way according to HUD and have the soil removed, no contamination left in your yard, your next door neighbor then has illigal lead paint removed and it ends up in your yard, you call the state and talk to them about it. What would you do? Yeah maybe she tried talking to them about it maybe they didn't want to take blame. What would you do then? Spend thousands more of your money to fix your yard again? No you would sue.
> 
> 
> 
> None of us know the whole story only what we have read or heard on the news. The news could have cut all that out who knows.



I know that neighbors typically don't like change in the neighborhood, depending on which neighborhood it is. I know that some neighbors of HO I've worked for will call the police over parking issues. I just know that some people will do anything to stand in the way of someone getting what they want, like the government often does. We no longer worry simply about paying our taxes, because the tax money isn't enough. We now have to worry about all the organizations that penalize us for not adhering to their high demands that often have nothing to do with giving a paying customer a good product. Wait until you're the one getting sued for some employee carrying a half-full five, cut pot, and extension pole up to a pick, and falls. Will you take the heat for not being on your A game when your employee has to sue you for medical bills? This is the culture we live in. If it offends you, sue! It's crazy. Maybe there should be a standard fine awarded to the "victims" of lead dust based on square footage, but the world is a dangerous place. There's no sure answer for any of it. Either way, I support small businesses. I despise every corporation I've worked for. In "the system," we're all just numbers. My number just happens to apply paint better than most.


Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## Darps

Even a painter that adheres to all the regulations might have a bad product to offer customers. If we continue down this road, we'll all be unemployed. There's already systems in place to replace us. Don't support your own demise.


Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## journeymanPainter

Darps said:


> Even a painter that adheres to all the regulations might have a bad product to offer customers. If we continue down this road, we'll all be unemployed. There's already systems in place to replace us. Don't support your own demise.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


What system is that?

I know the paint manufacturers are trying to produce a paint that will fix itself when is chipped, or scratched

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## RH

I think there is a great deal of emotion, hyperbole, and over thinking being displayed in this thread concerning RRP - which in reality is dealt with using pretty basic processes. It is certainly not the end of painting as we know it or our "demise".


----------



## Wolfgang

I'd have closed this sucker pages ago. If you haven't read the rules and can't follow them, why should Mods have to explain them to you post after post?


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Darps said:


> Wait until you're the one getting sued for some employee carrying a half-full five, cut pot, and extension pole up to a pick, and falls. Will you take the heat for not being on your A game when your employee has to sue you for medical bills?


First there is no reason in the world one of our employees would have to carry a half full 5er up a ladder ( I won't allow it any ways) we spray bodies (this one we may even spray the upper trim atleast on the sides of the home), cut pot for trim only. As for some one falling I hold safety meetings every morning (yeah the guys last summer hated me for always repeating myself) but to me it has to be done. I know it can still happen and do my best to make sure every one is working safely. (If I don't like their ladder set up I will set it up and explain to them this is how I want it done).

I am safety first work and production second.

I really do hope no one ever falls if they do we do carry comp, that won't prevent some one from suing I know. Not one of us want an employee to fall and get hurt.


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Sorry Mods I know this is getting out of hand and you guys are doing your best to keep it open. We all know the rules or should know them.


----------



## Darps

cdpainting said:


> Sorry Mods I know this is getting out of hand and you guys are doing your best to keep it open. We all know the rules or should know them.



What is it that I'm saying that offends anyone? I took the criticism and made my point in a way that relates to the topic. I'm not saying anyone here is unsafe, or hoping something bad happens to anyone. I'm simply making the point that even the most vigilant people make mistakes. I'm not one to ask for new laws and regulations because of the mistakes of an otherwise great company. This lead paint issue is the same. I'm not gonna act like companies that are negligent once in a while, or ignorant HO are a bunch of apes because they miss the mark on SOP. 


Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## Epoxy Pro

Darps there were posts made in this thread that do not belong here or any where on the forum. Not saying it was you.


----------



## Darps

It doesn't matter. I'm done arguing. This easily becomes political when people want the government and courts to get involved, and I'm not one to talk politics with a bunch of painters.


Sent from my iPhone using PaintTalk.com


----------



## CApainter

Darps,

As a "Commie POS" I'm probably more of a right wing conservative then you. But I didn't bring politics into this thread. I simply pointed out the inaccuracy another poster made when making a comparison, in the lead debate, as it relates to children. I understood I was walking a very thin line and really wasn't surprised my content was deleted. However, once mine and another person's content was removed, it didn't seem to stop your political position, regarding lead, from remaining. I didn't understand why that was left in this thread, when clearly we're debating the rights and ethics of someone willing to sue because they were exposed to lead.

The debate on regulating the removal and handling of lead, by painters, has been signed, sealed, and delivered a long time ago. Sure there are discrepencies with the lead laws, as there are with most things. But to rally around the notion that RRP has no place in the efforts to regulate a known hazard, is like trying to reverse the laws that require motorcycle riders, in California, to wear brain buckets. 

Look, If the Hells Angels can abide by the helmet laws in California, we bad ass painters can surely abide by lead laws.

Good thread though. And your participation made it interesting.


----------



## journeymanPainter

What does RRP stand for?

In my experience we've called it abatement, remediation, or removal.

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


----------



## Jmayspaint

journeymanPainter said:


> What does RRP stand for?
> 
> In my experience we've called it abatement, remediation, or removal.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk


Renovation, Repair, and Painting. Its an acronym for EPA lead regulations. Abatement 
,remediation, and removal are different things.


----------



## Bender

Rape, Rob, and Plunder


----------



## Oden

It is ironic or funny or whatever. The thread. The people were doing work on the house for two years. All kinds of neighbors were calling all kinds of agencies. Nothing got stopped. Nobody got fined. Nothing.

That job was under scrutiny the whole way. And they still walked, almost any kind of a inspector will cause some kind of a problem for some amount of time if only to justify their position. Them people in the up house ought right now have all the documentation they need. The government via their neighbors did the documenting for them.


----------



## Gough

Oden said:


> It is ironic or funny or whatever. The thread. The people were doing work on the house for two years. All kinds of neighbors were calling all kinds of agencies. Nothing got stopped. Nobody got fined. Nothing.
> 
> That job was under scrutiny the whole way. And they still walked, almost any kind of a inspector will cause some kind of a problem for some amount of time if only to justify their position. Them people in the up house ought right now have all the documentation they need. The government via their neighbors did the documenting for them.


This is the ironic part. You're assuming that the appropriate authorities were involved and that acted appropriately. In most states, that's the EPA. How many people outside the building trades even know that?


----------



## CApainter

Oden said:


> It is ironic or funny or whatever. The thread. The people were doing work on the house for two years. All kinds of neighbors were calling all kinds of agencies. Nothing got stopped. Nobody got fined. Nothing.
> 
> That job was under scrutiny the whole way. And they still walked, almost any kind of a inspector will cause some kind of a problem for some amount of time if only to justify their position. Them people in the up house ought right now have all the documentation they need. The government via their neighbors did the documenting for them.


 
Just because an agency representative didn't follow through with inspections, records, and or advice, doesn't necessarily mean the plaintiff doesn't have a legitimate case. If lead exists where it didn't before, it will have to be pursued by the EPA if they want to maintain any semblence of legitimacy. The courts are the only place to settle things when all the parties involved choose to point fingers at the one another, rather then take responsibility.


----------



## Oden

SChiara said:


> What the news didn't say is that the lead-paint lawsuit was filed LONG before the color was ever applied. It started when the owner hired unlicensed workers from another country to do the major renovations and all the prep work. The guys took a power sander and a reciprocating saw to all the layers of old paint on an 1890s house without any containment. Seriously. Not even plastic. The owner claims he's RRP exempt because he did the work himself. Himself? Then who are the four dudes that you just paid in cash who were sanding? Then the state got into an argument with the county and city and they all pointed fingers at each other saying it wasn't their agency's job to enforce CA Title 17. Apparently no one has ever enforced CA Title 17. So, we sued him. We had no choice. It wasn't that hard to prove that he contaminated all over the place. The paint chips were all the colors of his paint (from before) not mine, and my entire house including soil was abated in 2011 by a remediation specialist. Also, I have before and after testing because it had to pass all the HUD tests done by the abatement guy. My paint is NOT peeling! That must be the photo. There are two layers of encapusulant followed by primer, followed by two more layers of color. Fiberlock is your friend. I'm not for product endorsements, but I doubt my house will ever peel again. If you want to help our cause, please share your valuable RRP knowledge with the public on the other forums regarding the "UP" house, because as you can tell from the posts, people do not have the level of education that you do, and they need to know that it pays to hire someone who follows the laws to keep the public safe. P.S. Sorry for hijacking your forum...I just thought you might want to know the truth.


C'mon. She called everybody multiple times and followed through multiple times. Doubt she left a stone unturned. She could be a thread on here 'nightmare next door neighbor to job won't mind her own business. What to do?'

She brought all the scrutiny she could on that job site I am sure.


----------



## CApainter

Oden said:


> C'mon. She called everybody multiple times and followed through multiple times. Doubt she left a stone unturned. She could be a thread on here 'nightmare next door neighbor to job won't mind her own business. What to do?'
> 
> She brought all the scrutiny she could on that job site I am sure.


And there inlies why it is now a court case. All the parties involved will now have to rely on evidence, rather then conjecture and emotions. This case will be settled in a court of law, and will most likely challenge the RRP regulations and requirements, and how they apply to Do it yourselfer's, or it will just vanish like a _loud_ _fart _in a strong wind. 

_And that's not political, just really funny to me!_


----------



## Gough

Oden said:


> C'mon. She called everybody multiple times and followed through multiple times. Doubt she left a stone unturned. She could be a thread on here 'nightmare next door neighbor to job won't mind her own business. What to do?'
> 
> She brought all the scrutiny she could on that job site I am sure.


You did read the part about the dispute on jurisdiction, right? According to her post (!), each agency claimed it wasn't their job. If that's the case, then either some agency dropped the ball or the appropriate agency was never involved.

Again, this thread has gone a long way, and fanned a lot of flames, on a combination of he said/she said and personal biases.


----------



## Bender

Gough said:


> You did read the part about the dispute on jurisdiction, right? According to her post (!), each agency claimed it wasn't their job. If that's the case, then either some agency dropped the ball or the appropriate agency was never involved.
> 
> Again, this thread has gone a long way, and fanned a lot of flames, on a combination of he said/she said and personal biases.


Then sue the agency.


----------



## Oden

Gough said:


> You did read the part about the dispute on jurisdiction, right? According to her post (!), each agency claimed it wasn't their job. If that's the case, then either some agency dropped the ball or the appropriate agency was never involved. Again, this thread has gone a long way, and fanned a lot of flames, on a combination of he said/she said and personal biases.


Yes I did read that.
Do you beleive she found an obscure painters forum with one post about her neighbors house in less than 24 hours and responded to it and could not in two years pin down the correct agency if something illegal was being done at that same house? And hound that agency till something was done about the supposed illegal activity?

I do not


----------



## CApainter

Oden said:


> Yes I did read that.
> Do you beleive she found an obscure painters forum with one post about her neighbors house in less than 24 hours and responded to it and could not in two years pin down the correct agency if something illegal was being done at that same house? And hound that agency till something was done about the supposed illegal activity?
> 
> I do not


 
Oden,

Just a question. I'm not trying to dismiss your position on nosey neighbors, or lead laws. But I have to ask, why shouldn't someone have the right to sue if they believe they've been ignored while pursuing all other avenues. Wouldn't it be a reasonable option to have the courts address the issue and determine the outcome rather then makinking conclusions based on here say?


----------



## TJ Paint

I have nothing to add to this thread. I'm just glad I haven't read most of it


----------



## Oden

CApainter said:


> Oden, Just a question. I'm not trying to dismiss your position on nosey neighbors, or lead laws. But I have to ask, why shouldn't someone have the right to sue if they believe they've been ignored while pursuing all other avenues. Wouldn't it be a reasonable option to have the courts address the issue and determine the outcome rather then makinking conclusions based on here say?


Well they do if in fact the court hears the case have the right to sue. But that does not make it a not frivolous lawsuit. Frivolous lawsuits are part of the system. I don't know what the law is but IMO if she loses the case she should have to pay the the bills for the neighbors defence,

Yes. I am coming down conservative on this one.


----------



## Bender

For the record, and all bs aside, I like the colors. I've seen painted lady's look a lot worse.


----------



## CApainter

Oden said:


> Well they do if in fact the court hears the case have the right to sue. But that does not make it a not frivolous lawsuit. Frivolous lawsuits are part of the system. I don't know what the law is but IMO if she loses the case she should have to pay the the bills for the neighbors defence,
> 
> Yes. I am coming down conservative on this one.


Just because you believe it is a frivilous law suit doesn't mean that it is. Especially to those affected.

There is a tendency, for too many people, to argue positions that in my opinion are frivolous, but I understand them to be just positions. Like questioning the right for an individual to sue, or questioning laws regarding known hazards when scientific evidence supports that they are in fact a threat. And again, this doesn't need to be political, or for someone to be required to ally with one side of the political aisle or the other. It simply has to do with all free men, being allowed to excercise their rights.

I do find it interesting though, that staunch conservatives have the need to announce their displeasure with government to the rest of us conservative sheeple, as if we've never listened to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or Levin. 

It's all about picking your battles. I usually choose the winnable ones.


----------



## CApainter

Bender said:


> For the record, and all bs aside, I like the colors. I've seen painted lady's look a lot worse.


In my neighborhood, there are all kinds of inconsistencies in terms of any aesthetic continuity. And honestly, I don't give a sh!t. Because I'm kind.


----------



## Gough

Oden said:


> Yes I did read that.
> Do you beleive she found an obscure painters forum with one post about her neighbors house in less than 24 hours and responded to it and could not in two years pin down the correct agency if something illegal was being done at that same house? And hound that agency till something was done about the supposed illegal activity?
> 
> I do not


One of the few things that is abundantly clear in this thread is that you don't believe the neighbor. I think a lot of the other details are still in dispute. 

Shortly after this showed up on PT and in the news, I did a GIS for (IIRC) "up house lawsuit"...this thread ranked #4. That hardly qualifies as "obscure".


----------



## Oden

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/220060/couple-sued-for-painting-their-house-like-up/

I googled also. Depends on who is telling the story. I beleive it to be more like this.


----------



## Gough

Oden said:


> http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/220060/couple-sued-for-painting-their-house-like-up/
> 
> I googled also. Depends on who is telling the story. I beleive it to be more like this.


Sorry, my point about the GIS was that PT was especially easy to find, rather than being an "obscure painters' forum".

This story is being viewed through quite a range of filters. Maybe if it ended up in court, we'd at least get some more facts....then again, maybe we wouldn't


----------



## Bender

My God! Do you people realize you can die from _water_
:whistling2:


----------



## slinger58

Bender said:


> Rape, Rob, and Plunder


I concur.


----------

