RRP Compliance: the costs of an unenforced law

By dhoggard | Published: May 18, 2010

Update: WXII TV’s Bill O’Neil follows up on the issue.  One quibble, Bill:  We are a specialized window “restoration” company.  We restore, repair and weatherize existing windows.  Window “replacement” companies are a dime a dozen and worth every penny.

**********************************

Looking out the window of my 1908 house I can see three of my neighbors’ houses receiving a new exterior paint job.  All of them are being undertaken illegally by the companies hired to do the work.

Nearly six months after North Carolina implemented the EPA’s “Repair, Renovate and Paint Rule” (aka RRP), which subjects ALL companies who undertake paint-disturbing work on pre-1978 dwellings* to fines of $750.00 per day, per occurrence, only a small fraction of N.C.’s firms are certified by the state (list here).

Normally I could give a crap about that; but, because my company is in full compliance with the draconian and expensive-to-deploy regulations,  we stand to lose a ton of business unless my competition is forced onto a level playing field.

Problem is, there is zero enforcement of the new law.  No agency is in the field holding every company’s feet equally to the fire that the fine folks at the EPA stoked to protect us from ourselves.  (Note: According to the CDC, incidents of elevated lead levels in children has dropped precipitously over the last 10 years - without this onerous and expensive Rule.)

So here we stand - certified, trained and fully invested in the material and equipment required by these unnecessary rules that have caused us to raise our prices by at least 15% - watching companies undertake work blissfully ignorant that the RRP Rule even exists,  with no fear of consequence.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, implementation of this rule couldn’t couldn’t come at a worse time.  With the depressed state of construction industry, the last thing the government should be doing is implementing ANY regulations that cause prices to rise so precipitously.  But the Rules are here - and my company tried to do the right thing by coming under compliance months ago.

All I have received for following the rules so far is lost business, and more to come.

Posted in Double Hung, Preservation | 5 Comments

Sitting in the Council’s chairs

By dhoggard | Published: May 5, 2010

Last night, members of The Spirit of the Sit-In Movement Initiative temporarily occupied the dais (as in - they ‘sat in‘ the Council’s chairs.  Get it?) during a break of the City Council meeting.  Some were subsequently arrested for trespassing.

Yesterday, I received a wide distribution email from Rev. Nelson Johnson of the Beloved Community Center.  As I read the release, I thought it curious that it encouraged people - twice - to stick around for “the second half” of the meeting:

“…TONIGHT…the SSIMI will make another presentation to the City Council of Greensboro, and continue to make an (sic) address some of the deep issues race and social justice.  Ulitmately (sic)the group is speaking to the citizens of Greensboro, and are seeking build community around these various issues.  People are encouraged to participate in the (sic) tonight’s discussion in City Council Chambers at 5:30 PM.  The group is very hopeful in receiving a response from the council as a result of their presentation.  Therefore, people are further encouraged to remain at the meeting until the second part of the agenda.

Please make a special effort to come (and encourage others to come). Also please stay until the second half of the meeting occurs as we are hopeful of a postive (sic) response from the Council.  Thank you so very much.”

Now I understand why people were twice asked to stick around.  What good is a protest without a proper audience?

Posted in Greensboro Politics | 1 Comment

WMS - Next steps

By dhoggard | Published: May 3, 2010

The N&R covers the latest happenings surrounding War Memorial Stadium.

I appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission last week to start the process of folding the stadium property into the boundaries of the Aycock Historic District.  The presentation sparked enough interest for the issue to be placed on the agenda for next month’s meeting of the group.  If that ball starts rolling, it will take a minimum of six months for the designation to go into effect.  This zoning change would give the stadium protections that it doesn’t currently enjoy.

Preservation Greensboro’s Director Benjamin Briggs is quoted in the article regarding the possibility of utilizing historic tax credits. (an idea that has been talked about for years, but never actually pursued)  He is in contact with the National Trust and others who can make this happen.  A portion of an email conversation from one of the CPA’s looking at the deal last week indicates that such an arrangement is possible and doable but will require quite a bit of money and legwork and, on the part of the City and public, patience…

” . . . I think the first step is to figure out who is going to be the developer.  The City, PGI, local investor group?  Number two, a viable business plan needs to be developed.  Three, if there needs to be a major fund raising effort (in excess of $1,000,000), that needs to be scoped out (feasibility).   Then we can worry about tax credits.  It’s the easy part.”

Seems that this process should have been started by the City some years ago, but absent that, it is best to get started now with or without them.

I am confident that there are a least 5 votes on the City Council to stop the wrecking ball from tearing down the old place while ALL of the options and possibilities are actually explored and not just talked about.  There has been another Task Force meeting called to present the decision by the P&R decision to move forward with the demolition of the place.  I’ll take a pass on that meeting.

I really don’t have time for this, and I’m afraid that the general public is fatigued about the whole issue of “Save War Memorial”.  But, we have to at least try.

Posted in Preservation, War Memorial Stadium | 1 Comment

Demolition by neglect

By dhoggard | Published: April 20, 2010

In 1999, the City of Greensboro adopted an “Ordinance to Prevent Demolition by Neglect”.  Found under Chapter 30, Article IV, 30-4-4.2, the ordinance was adopted to protect historic properties from ‘demolition by neglect’ on the part of uncaring or unresponsive owners.  The ordinance says:

….any building or structure, (e)ither designated as an Historic Landmark or found to have significance located within the Historic Overlay District shall be preserved by the owner or such other person who may have legal possession, custody, and control thereof against decay and deterioration and kept free from structural defects…”

The clear intent and directive of the ordinance is to preserve and protect Greensboro’s historic architecture.  Once a neglected property is identified, the ordinance authorizes the City to undertake sufficient repairs to stabilize the building in order to prevent its ‘demolition by neglect’ and bill such repairs to the owner.  If unpaid, the City is authorized to attach a lien on the property for the repairs.

If any property in Greensboro ever clearly suffered ‘demolition by neglect’ by its owners, it would be the City’s own War Memorial Stadium.

Although on the National Registry of Historic Places, WMS lies just outside the boundary of the Aycock Historic District overlay and has never been officially adopted as a county ‘Historic Landmark’. And so, due to reticence on the part of the City to become neither, WMS has never been subject to the protections afforded to structures whose property lines abut that of the Stadium.  Chief among those protections is the ‘Demolition by Neglect’ ordinance

It is indefensible for the City to impose the provisions found in the Historic District Guidelines - which have undeniably stabilized, protected and improved the architecture of hundreds of Greensboro structures (including Aycock Middle School) - on others and not agree to live under its own laws for its own historic properties.

I am going to suggest during the next meeting of Greensboro’s Historic Preservation Commission that War Memorial Stadium be included in the Aycock Historic District and become officially designated as a Historic Landmark.

What’s good for the goose should be well suited for the gander.

Posted in War Memorial Stadium | 1 Comment

WMS and that ‘vision thing’

By dhoggard | Published: April 17, 2010

Update: Here’s a 2008 video report from WXII.  Nothing much has changed since then.

Indications are that Tuesday night’s City Council meeting might be interesting in regard to the Staff and P&R Commission’s recommendation of spending $1.3M to demolish War Memorial Stadium.  Some on Council might be concerned about their legacy.  The prospect of having their names embossed on the obligatory bronze plaque that would be attached to whatever the finished project ultimately looks like is a pretty hefty thing to bear. 

scheme-5-wide-panoramic

Click for Larger Image

The question: Will that plaque name those who oversaw the destruction of Greensboro’s history or commemorate the decision to preserve the structure for generations to come?  We’ll know more soon.

Meanwhile, the renderings here are more like where we should be headed…

Scheme 5 - Estimated to run $3.8M - seeks to expand the Farmer’s Market across Yanceyville Street and create a new “City Market” within the confines of the old stadium footprint.

scheme-5-seating

Click for Larger Image

With covered individual seating (which would be salvaged from the Coliseum) for 1500, this plan includes accomodations for multiple useages: An outdoor amphitheatre, team locker rooms, public restrooms, concessions, a catering kitchen, the City Market, and - not to forget - a pretty damn fine baseball field.  Many of the activities could occur concurrently.

My argument has been all along that it is an imperitive for the stadium be re-configured to attract the largest possible crowds.  I’d estimate that since minor league baseball left WMS five years ago, less than 1% of Greensboro’s citizens have had any reason to enter the stadium and, so, probably don’t give a hoot about what happens to it or what it looks like.

And to that, I can think of no one better to fill the place up and utililize it to the fullest than Coliseum manager Matt Brown.  I’d even go as far as to suggest that, since it is a War Memorial, that the old stadium be removed from the authority of the Parks & Rec commission/department and handed over to the War Memorial Commission and the Coliseum staff.

scheme-5-entrance

Click for Larger Image

Everyone realizes that we don’t have all of the money right now to do the place justice, but we do have the money to get started.  Here’s what I suggest we do with the $1.3M we currently have in hand. (Estimates are from the architect in charge)

Renovate the grand entrance (est. $275k):  Everyone agrees that this feature should remain.  Fix it.

scheme-5-thrd-base

Click for Larger Image

Create the “Plaza” connector to the Farmer’s Market (est. $150k): Making the approach to the stadium more inviting will spark interest and give it some dignity.

scheme-5-panoramic

Click for Larger Image

Demolish the structure down third base and create terraced open space (est. $120k): Nearly everyone agrees that this part of the structure is superfluous, deteriorated beyond repair and  needs to go.  Get it gone.

Then stop right there and spend the remaining $700k somewhere else. 

Despite N&R editorial suggestions to the contrary, the stadium is not in any danger of collapsing.  Sure, there is some loose concrete, but I’d imagine another $100k would repair that well enough for another 10 - 12 years of public use.  Baseball can still be played there and we could try the place out for small concerts in its current state.

There is currently $1.3M earmarked for the “renovation” of War Memorial Stadium - under Scheme 6, $550k of that amount is to go towards the complete and unnecessary demolition of the entire stadium bowl.  That is is simply wrongheaded.

Posted in Aycock Neighborhood, Greensboro Politics, Preservation, War Memorial Stadium | 10 Comments

N&R: Naysayer

By dhoggard | Published: April 16, 2010

I have meticulously crafted an eloquent opposing opinion on this morning’s inaccuracy riddled N&R editorial.

Their position on the matter doesn’t simply support, but urges the demolition of War Memorial Stadium.  If I had more time this morning, I would further elucidate the inaccuracies.  But alas, duty calls.

I do realize that a lone voice railing against the rising tide is a pitiful thing to behold, but it suffices to say that seemingly lost causes are just my thing.

Posted in Greensboro Politics, Preservation, War Memorial Stadium | 1 Comment

“Renovation” my ass

By dhoggard | Published: April 15, 2010

The only thing more misleading than the online headline: “New renovation plan proposed for War Memorial Stadium” is the opening line of the article that appears in today’s N&R: “The city’s War Memorial Stadium might soon get a long-awaited facelift….”wms6-whats-left-sm

Characterizing the demolition of 99% of a structure as a “renovation” and a ” facelift” is akin to terming the practice of slavery as merely a civil rights violation.  

The  architectural rendering provided for Scheme 6 depicts the extent of the “facelift” that is currently on the table.  The four little black boxes you see will be all that is left following the stadium’s “renovation”.  All of the light blue - which is the stadium itself -  goes to the landfill.

The headline for the print edition of the article did a better job of  capturing the truth of the matter: “City plan would save historic stadium’s arch.”

Posted in Aycock Neighborhood, Greensboro Politics, War Memorial Stadium | 5 Comments

In Memoriam: War Memorial Stadium

By dhoggard | Published: April 13, 2010

wms6-plaza-sm1

Pretty, isn’t it?

This is the latest architectural rendering of what the exterior of Greensboro’s long neglected War Memorial Stadium will look like if our City Council approves the expenditure of the $1.3M that was earmarked a couple of years ago, via 2/3rds bonds, for the ‘renovation’ of our National Registry of Historic Places property.

But wait… there’s more.  That’s not all we’ll get.  The interior of one of the nation’s oldest sports facilities will undergo some slight, shall we say… alterations during its “renovation”.  It will be lovingly transformed through the complete demolition of its 5500 seat capacity into the new and improved War Memorial Wall repletewms6-3rd-base-sm with seating for 500 fans who will enjoy a baseball game perched atop temporary aluminum bleachers.

Oh, I can here the echoes of the anti-naysayers still.

“No one’s talking about tearing it down”, they said.  “War Memorial will become the state’s premier amateur sports facility”, they said.

Well… here you go, Greensboro.

These renderings were presented yesterday to the 325th meeting of the War Memorial Stadium Task Force that was appointed by then-mayor Keith Holiday to undertake planning for the facility.  Over the years we developed many, many desirable options that would do the place proud for generations to come.  But this  one, known as “Scheme 6″, is where things are likely headed with the prevailing budget climate.

The preservationists on the Cwms6-1st-base-smommittee rejected “Scheme 6″ out of hand and have asked for a 6 month reprieve before the bulldozers show up.  Since the taxpayers in Greensboro have rejected spending any money on the place during 2 previous bond referendums, we are going push for some sort of private/public funding to do what needs to be done to preserve the place in as close to its current form as possible.

If we fail, the pictures you see here closely resemble what we will get.

Posted in Greensboro Politics, Life in General, War Memorial Stadium | 23 Comments

RRP Rule - It affects everyone

By dhoggard | Published: March 27, 2010

My business is profoundly affected by the EPA’s Repair, Renovation and Paint Rule, and so are you.

Never heard of it, you say?  Oh, you will.

Starting January 1st of this year, here is what is going on:

“Under the North Carolina Rules (PDF), beginning January 1, 2010, dust sampling technicians, firms, and individuals performing renovation, repair and painting projects for compensation that disturb lead-based paint in homes and child-occupied facilities built before 1978, must be certified and must follow specific work practices to prevent lead contamination. Child-occupied facilities include, but are not limited to, child care facilities and schools with children under the age of 6 years of age that are built before 1978″

So, anyone who undertakes repair, renovation or paint work for pay - even your uncle Joe or the neighborhood kid down the street - must pay the state $300.00 and become a Lead Certified Firm.  In addition, your uncle Joe, must have paid an additional $200 (+/_) for an 8 hour training course to become Certified Lead Renovator.

If a company or individual you hire for even basic maintenance  is not on this list, and they undertake renovations covered by the rule, they are breaking the law and are subject to fines of up to $32,000 per day for non-compliance.

My company is on the list and we have certified personnel on staff.  Unfortunately our prices have gone up due to the extra time and costs required to comply with the new regulations.

My prediction is that once the public finally figures out how much these regulations are going to cost them, there will be a tremendous outcry.

If you are a contractor or a homeowner, you might want to check out these great discussion on the new rules.  The former topic opens with this…

“I became a EPA certified contractor today.

I must say that nothing since I started a contracting business have I run into that has been what I feel is a deadly hammer blow to the ability of a contractor to run a profitable business as this new RRP rules.

After sitting through 8 hours of this and listening to the questions and answers and asking some very specific ones myself, I personally believe that no legitimate contractor will be able to be 100% compliant to these new rules and regulations, AND remain a viable business.

In my opinion - on April 22, the EPA will essentiall turn every single person in the home improvement field into a criminal no matter how well intentioned an individual is to comply with these regulations.

After taking the certification I am personally appalled that this legislation was allowed to get to where it is.”

There is a movement afoot to delay the implementation of the RRP Rule to help contractors avoid obscene fines for non-compliance of a law that most of them have never heard of.  American Public Media’s “Marketplace” recently aired a segment on the issue.

Posted in Double Hung | 2 Comments

Nothing nefarious, they’re called Historic Tax Credits

By dhoggard | Published: January 28, 2010

Today’s Rhino takes a stab at understanding Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credits for income producing properties and how it relates to the long-awaited opening of Greensboro’s International Civil Rights Museum.  But, I suspect, the article had only enough information to make people suspicious of what had to occur to finish the project.

As the name implies, such credits are only available to qualified, historically significant, income producing properties against Federal taxes owed on income of the owner.  Since a non-profit, such as Sit In Movement, Inc. doesn’t pay income taxes, it had to sell the property to an entity that does to capture the credits.  In this case, that apparently occurred back in August when the building was sold to Museum Landlord, LLC.  Museum Landlord, LLC could then, and only then, make the tax credit funded capitol  investments in the property - within strict guidelines outlined by the Secretary of the Interior - and capture the tax credits for themselves.

Museum Landlord, LLC was then free to “syndicate” their tax credits, or sell them off to other tax paying entities  (individuals or companies) - at a discount, thereby marginally lowering the effective income tax rate for the purchasing entity.

The National Trust for Historic Places is the leading agent of this syndication as well as the syndication of New Market Tax Credits, which may have also been utilized for our Civil Rights Museum.  The money made from this  “syndication” is then invested into the historic property in the form of  preservation related improvements.  That is, in no small part, how the Museum’s board was able raise the balance of the $14M needed to finish the project.

Back during the “baseball wars” in 2003, proponents of War Memorial Stadium tried valiantly to explain that just such an arrangement could be utilized to raise the funds needed to renovate the place.  People just couldn’t grasp the concept nor get past the fact that the publicly owned stadium would have to be privately owned during the period when the tax credits were being captured (usually 7 years) and then, like the Museum will be, reverted back to the original owners.

That arrangement is still available for WMS… or any other designated historic property in Greensboro.  The work my company performs always qualifies for not only Federal, but also State Historic Tax Credits.  Around 1/2 of our business comes from tax credit qualified projects.

Posted in Greensboro Politics, Preservation, War Memorial Stadium | 2 Comments