This page tells you:

-The current issues and what can you do
-How to write or call your legislators
-Who are my elected officials?
-Join SPOA’s Action Alert email list
-Register to vote

The Current Issues:

-   Let’s get a rent escrow law passed!

-   A bill to ban last month’s rents in advance –
we must stop it!

-   A bill to impose more lead paint requirements –
we must stop it!

Let's get a rent escrow law passed!

A bill to ban last month’s rents in advance – we must stop it!

Joint Committee on Housing: Bill No. H.1209

Hearing date for this bill: June 5, 10 a.m., Hearing Room B-2 at the State House

Sitting quietly (for the moment) in the state legislature’s Housing Committee is a bill (Bill No. H.1209) that would outlaw the taking of last month’s rents in advance. If we want the security of having a month’s rent in advance, it would force us all to take security deposits with their many legal minefields.

When renting, current law allows landlords to take first and last months’ rent in advance and another month’s rent to be held as a security deposit. Once the tenant moves in, however, the first month’s rent is no longer “in advance,” so the landlord is left with just one month’s rent in advance if no security deposit is taken, and two months’ rent in advance if a security deposit is taken as well. The bill lying in committee would stop the practice of taking a last month’s rent, giving landlords no more than one month’s rent in advance.

Security deposit risks

Some landlords currently prefer to take just the first and last month’s rents in advance, because of the strict rules, extra work and greater risk involved in security deposits. Failure to follow the  security deposit rules exactly (and we mean exactly) can cost landlords triple damages. If this bill passes and forces landlords to take security deposits, more landlords will run afoul of the rules and get into trouble. Could the tenant advocates who proposed this bill have had exactly this on their minds?

Using the security deposit as a last month’s rent, moreover, undercuts the whole reason for a security deposit, which can be held up to 30 days past the last day of the tenancy and can be used to pay the documented costs of repairing tenant-caused damages to the apartment. Using the security deposit to pay rent means it can’t be used for any damages.

Pushing rents up

Furthermore, if landlords cannot take last month’s rents and either lose rent or must pay for damages out of their own pockets, rents will be pushed upwards enough to recover these losses.  This particular rise in rents will not bring in any additional income to the landlord; it just covers the losses forced on them by not being able to take last months’ rents in advance. The problem here is that everyone will have to pay higher rents, making the good tenants pay for bad tenants who cause damage or skip out on the last month’s rent.

Without a last month’s rent in advance, owners will be left stranded if tenants do run off without paying the last month’s rent (a not uncommon practice) or if a tenant starts playing the free rent trick in the middle of a tenancy and stops paying any rent at all. Owners are protected more if they have two months’ rent in advance. Without the ability to take a last month’s rent, a security deposit would become critically important for landlords to demand, so that if tenants do stop paying, at least the security deposit could be applied to the unpaid rent.

Losing an income check

Finally, the reduction in the total amount that landlords can take in advance limits the ability of owners to judge the financial capacity of prospective tenants. In other words, if tenants can’t come up with three month’s rent “up front,” owners can determine that the prospective tenants don’t have the savings or resources at hand to pay it, and that is a strong sign that they either do not have sufficient income or do not handle their finances well. Taking three months’ rent in advance is a kind of income qualification test.

This bill is sure to kick up a storm of protest at the upcoming June 5 hearing.

A bill to impose more lead paint requirements – we must stop it! 

Joint Committee on Public Health: Bill No. S.1230

Hearing date for this bill: May 30, 10 a.m., Room A-1 at the State House

 Is it time to panic about lead poisoning? Time to firmly ramp up enforcement of lead paint abatement? That’s what Senate Bill No. S.1230 would have us believe.

Yet lead poisoning of children has declined dramatically since 1970, due largely to taking the lead out of gasoline. Today, lead levels in children continue to decline steadily, with most lead poisoning occurring only in certain small pockets of the population, notably, low-income minority neighborhoods. The best practices across the country now recommend targeting resources and action towards those neighborhoods and those children most at risk. But you won’t see any of that approach in this panic-inducing legislation sponsored by Somerville Senator Pat Jehlen.

What the bill does

This wide-ranging bill would dramatically increase the scope of required lead paint abatement and the frequency of lead inspections and re-inspections.  Current law only requires abatement of lead in “paint, plaster or other accessible structural material.” Under this bill, owners of pre-1978 housing with children under the age of six would be forced to abate the lead in soil and tap water as well.  Besides affecting new abatements, all owners with current letters of compliance must renew their letters and abate any lead in soil and tap water.

Currently, a letter of compliance is issued only once. Under this bill, everyone with a letter of compliance would be required to have a post-compliance inspection and renew the letter every two years.

Currently, inspections are required only when a child under age six lives in a property. Under this bill, an inspection would be required in all rental properties, regardless of occupants’ ages, every two years or prior to a change in occupancy, whichever is less.

Currently, owners selling their pre-1978 homes are only required to give prospective buyers notice of the possible presence of lead paint. Under this bill, full lead paint inspections would be required prior to the sale.

Finally, the lead poisoning level would be officially lowered from 25 micrograms per deciliter of blood to 10 micrograms. At 25 micrograms, there are no visible symptoms of lead poisoning, and invisible effects are claimed but disputed by some experts.

What this all means

By redefining the poisoning level, this bill effectively creates a new lead poisoning epidemic in contradiction to the declining statistics. It will scare parents, who will demand increased lead paint abatement.

The soil abatement requirement will be very expensive, probably involving replacement of the top six inches of soil around a house. Years ago, when lead paint abatement was first being proposed, regulators pondered whether to require soil abatement and calculated that the cost was too great to impose the requirement. Now this bill would require it.

Two-year inspections

The rationale for two-year or tenancy-turnover inspections is confusing and vague. The lead in old paint leaches into woodwork and is not removed by the scraping done during deleading. That’s why a critical inspection occurs during the deleading process at the point when all wood has been scraped but before it is repainted, to verify that the paint was indeed scraped off. Once the wood is repainted, it will still test positive for the presence of lead. An inspection two years later will show that residual lead in the wood just as if the property had not been deleaded.

Do the proponents of this new law expect a complete deleading to be repeated every two years? Probably not, but their legislation does not make this clear. We can only guess that the two-year re-inspections are only to make sure that all paint is intact in a unit. But that requirement is a waste of time where the occupants are six years of age or older. By age six, children are past the stage of putting their dirty hands in their mouths, the primary way young children get lead in their bodies.

Similarly, once lead has been removed from soil or tap water, there is no need to recheck it. The proposed bill is only creating make-work re-inspections that will serve no public good. Indeed, it will cost landlords more and tend to push rents up.

Renting & selling

The rationale for requiring inspections prior to renting or every two years or prior to signing a purchase and sale agreement is also unclear. If a unit or property has already been deleaded, the proper action to take is to give the prospective tenant or buyer a copy of the letter of compliance, which is now currently required by law. Inspection after a letter of compliance has been issued will only show that lead still remains in the woodwork, and prospective tenants or buyers will be confused. Is the property safe? Does another deleading process need to occur? These questions will deter prospective tenants and buyers from renting or buying when a property may be perfectly safe for them.

Education as always

Removing lead from gasoline accounts for almost all of the dramatic decline in blood lead levels nationally. Further decline in lead levels can be attributed far more to widespread education of the public about lead hazards than to actual abatement of residential properties. In virtually all cases of lead-poisoned children, the offending source of lead is quickly identified and remedied before owners start any formal abatement activity. Scraping intact paint off of woodwork does nothing to improve the situation. Such intact paint is normally not hazardous to start with, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has affirmed this viewpoint. The American Council on Science and Health says: “Exposure to lead can be successfully eliminated or minimized through adjustments to personal habits, public education, and improvements in living conditions, particularly among certain population groups.”

We conclude that the proponents of this bill are simply pushing a make-work, scare ’em approach to lead poisoning.

Writing or talking to your elected officials

            Why. Our elected officials usually get only two or three messages from their constituents about any particular piece of legislation. So when they get dozens of messages from small property owners on an issue, they sit up and listen! Each message tells them there are hundreds of more small property owners in their voter base who feel exactly the same way you do.

Who. In general, you should always write your own elected officials, your State Senator and State Representative. To find who your State Senator and State Representative are, go to: www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php. Follow the steps. You are looking for “Senate in General Court” and “Rep in General Court.”

The State House address for all legislators is State House, Room___, Boston, MA 02133. You should address them as “The Honorable (title and name of person)”

It is also important to contact the State Legislature’s leadership. In other words, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, and the Chairpersons of the Committee. These people are critical in getting bills to move forward or to stop them. They must be convinced of the merits of our position.

Senate President Therese Murray at:
therese.murray@state.ma.us; 617-722-1500;
or write her at State House, Room 332, Boston, MA 02133

Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi at: Rep.SalvatoreDiMasi@hou.state.ma.us; 617-722-2500;
or write him at State House, Room 356, Boston, MA 02133.

FOR THE RENT ESCROW AND LAST MONTH’S RENT BILLS:

Housing Committee Co-Chair Senator Susan Tucker at: Susan.Tucker@state.ma.us; 617-722-1612;
or write her at State House, Room 424, Boston, MA 02133

Housing Committee Co-Chair Representative Kevin Honan at: Rep.KevinHonan@hou.state.ma.us; 617-722-2470;
or write him at State House, Room 38, Boston, MA 02133

FOR THE LEAD PAINT REQUIREMENTS BILL:

Public Health Committee Co-Chair Senator Susan Fargo at: Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us; 617-722-1572;
or write her at State House, Room 504, Boston, MA 02133

Public Health Committee Co-Chair Representative Peter Koutoujian at: Rep.Peter.Koutoujian@hou.state.ma.us;
or write him at State House, Room 130, Boston, MA 02133

How. Should you write, fax or email a message? Should you phone call? A written letter is always the best. It shows you took the time; it shows your commitment on the issue. Faxing a letter is almost as good, and may be the only way to get your message through fast enough before a critical deadline vote. Emailing is, of course, fast and easy, and every email received by an elected official is read and tallied as for or against a particular issue. A phone call works for those without email.

            What. Whether you write, fax, email or call, remember these tips:

1.      Always be courteous and keep your message short.

2.      Identify your topic or concern at the start, including a reference to the bill number, if possible.

3.      State your position for or against it, and ask your legislator to take the same position you favor.

4.      Explain briefly in your own words the reasons why you take the position you do.  

5.      If you have had a personal experience that leads you to your position, tell your story briefly.

6.      End by again asking your elected official to please vote for or against the issue you are writing about.

7.      Give your name and street address so they can identify you as a constituent.

Writing your Representatives
     Should you write, fax or email a message? Should you phone call? A written letter is always the best. It shows you took the time. And every letter tells an elected official that there are 20 or 30 or 100 more people in his or her district with the same viewpoint as yours. Faxing a letter is almost as good, and may be the only way to get your message through fast enough before a critical deadline vote. Emailing is, of course, easy and fast, and every email is read and tallied as for or against a particular issue. A phone call works for those without email.
     Whether you write, fax, email or call, remember to be courteous always and keep your message short. Identify your topic or concern at the start, including a reference to the bill number, if possible. State your position for or against it, and then say why. If you have had a personal experience that leads you to your position, like being ripped off by a tenant playing the “free rent trick,” tell your story briefly. It is also important to emphasize the public benefits to your position. For example, a good mandatory rent escrow law in Massachusetts will not only protect small property owners from serious harm and financial loss caused by unscrupulous tenants, but it will also improve the supply of rental housing by making it safer to be a landlord.

Who are my Elected Officials?     Click here to go to the State Election Division’s web page that will allow you to determine your elected officials.

Get Action Alerts by email
     For those members with email, it’s a MUST-DO to sign up on SPOA’s email list (totally confidential, never given out). Just click on the following link and send us your email address: emaillist@spoa.com.

Register to vote
     Legislators will listen most of all to registered voters in their district. That’s who elect them. Their future as legislators depends on their voters. When you write them, they will often check to see if you are a registered voter in their district. So it is very important for you to be a registered voter.
     How to Register to Vote     Click here to go directly to the State’s Election Division website that tells you how to register. You cannot actually register online (too risky for fraud), but you can request online that they send you a mail-in registration form. Or, alternatively, this site can tell you where your local Election Commission office is, and you can go there in person to register.