"Levon" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
insurance will likely put a non covered for existing lead hazards in
your new policy.....

The only local yellow pages listing is an inspector who uses
nondestructive testing and it would cost $400-$450 (because of the
fancy nuclear equipment)!? Jim's specialty at B&W is nondestructive
testing so he will check into possible options with a colleague of his.
I also have a call in to the Health Dept...environmental section and to
the DEQ...no responses so far...but I need to give it more time. Maybe
it's too soon to run it past the gurus!? But maybe you know stuff about
testing for lead paint to determine that they are above or below HUD
toxic levels. Oh, the joys of home ownership:-\


If you buy a house (at least here - Rochester NY) that's over a certain age,
it might have lead paint under several coats of newer paint, so you get a
disclosure statement that you have to sign, indicating that you understand
the situation. Doesn't matter if you have children who might eat paint
chips. The seller can sell the house and the buyer can buy the house.
There's no guarantee that the buyer who has little kids will do anything to
remedy the situation, or that their kids will be properly supervised so they
don't gnaw on the window sills. Rentals are assumed to be a different
situation. Either the landlord might be a cheap ******* who doesn't fix the
situation, or that tenants' kids are more likely to be unsupervised, or
hungry enough to eat paint chips.

Why not just prohibit renting to families with kids, if the building is as
risky as some private homes?