The City Council resolution seeking a lawsuit against the lead paint industry ran into a wall Monday, failing to pass with a vote of 6-1 and seven abstentions.
The resolution, introduced by Mary Pat Clarke, asked City Solicitor Ralph Tyler to “explore” the possibility of suing the paint manufacturers to pay for the removal of lead pigment from city housing. But lobbying by representatives of the paint industry seemed to win over the council, with several members who originally sponsored the resolution against it, including City Council President Sheila Dixon.
Clarke, D-District 14, though, was unfazed by the defeat. “Lead is always a tough fight, but if you vote against this bill, you?re voting against children,” she said.
In a debate on the floor, Clarke argued that the city needed the money to pay for costs such as special education that health experts have linked to lead poisoning in children. “The social costs of lead poisoning are enormous,” she said. “This is a way for the city to get back some of these costs,” she said.
But Dixon, who abstained, argued that enough money had been spent on the lead paint removal already.
“We have spent $742 million already on lead,” she said.
The failure to pass a resolution marks a setback for the child advocates who have been pressuring the city to sue paint manufacturers. Their argument ? that a recent court victory by the state of Rhode Island against paint companies clears the path for Baltimore to recoup the costs of removing lead from city housing ? was made in the recent hearings over the bill. Saul Kerplemen, an expert lead litigator, told the council that Rhode Island?s success meant “the floodgates were open.”
“The city has nothing to lose by filing this suit,” Kerplemen said.
But Tony Dias, a spokesman for Sherwin Williams, said paint companies are not responsible for poorly maintained apartments, and thus should not be held liable. “This is a problem of housing neglect, because landlords are not properly taking care of rental properties,” he said.
