By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

One of the usual outgrowths of election or primary season and the associated candidate interviews is the emergence of an issue or two that seem to strike a nerve.

At the moment, one such issue has our newsroom buzzing.

The City Council’s effort to pass a new law to prevent childhood lead paint poisoning arose in a discussion I had with Councilman James Sanders, Jr.

Sanders, who I described as quixotic in spirit, was trying to find an issue that separated him from the Council leadership. He suggested that watering down the proposed “Lead Paint bill” would not be acceptable. In matters of conscience, he implied, sometimes you have to go against the leadership and this was a fight he was willing to take. “Anything that would cause us to save fewer children from death or brain injury is a compromise I cannot accept,” Sanders tilted at special interest windmills.

Subsequent to that discussion, we chatted with a number of Council members, challengers and Sanders several times more to try to understand the debate on the “Lead Paint bill.”

Let me say up front, we are not experts. We are just beginning our due diligence on a not-so-simplistic subject. In weeks to come, we at the Tribune will follow this issue in order to inform our readers and monitor the Council and its members’ performance on this matter that seems to pit the best interest of the most vulnerable of our city against a very powerful and well-funded special interest group – the real estate lobby representing landlords.

I will do my best not to make accusations in this, my first foray into the issue, however Sanders and a number of his colleagues have brought my blood temperature to just short of the boiling point.

Again, what I share with you is my preliminary information, but probably enough for you to turn to your Council member and ask, “Why hasn’t the Council acted on childhood lead paint poisoning prevention?” That is really the question I place on the table today.

On July 1, a 1999 lead poisoning prevention law was set aside by the courts leaving our City’s children with inadequate protection and landlords not obligated to take the essential steps to abate this childhood plague. What seems to be entirely preventable continues to strike our children.

Very simply, the ingestion and/or inhalation of lead paint (or its dust) can lower IQ’s, cause brain damage and even result in death. And children under the age of six, most often in the inner city, are too frequently diagnosed as victims of this preventable poisoning.

Intro. No. 101-A The New York City Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 2003 is the current proposal to deal with the preventable plague. It is being co-sponsored by 36 members of the City Council.

A little, simple math would indicate that sponsorship by 36 of 51 Council members means that it will become law — real soon.

Not so, says Councilman Sanders. “I am very concerned that the [well-funded] special interests are going to put undue pressure on well-meaning Council people,” he said.

Sanders, who informed us that he is gathering information on this issue, has been “assured by the best authority” that retardation and deaths will result if the Council fails to act.

And the bill sits in committee.

And has sat there for months.

And has not come to the floor of the Council for a vote.

Where, at this moment, 36 of 51 — a clear majority of members — have indicated they are prepared to act to protect our most vulnerable...our children.

Is it that simple?

The unspoken cause of the delay — actually spoken, “off the record” — is that nothing happens in the Council unless the Speaker wants it to.

And Speaker Giff Miller is a candidate for Mayor and he and other members don’t want to alienate the very large contributing block of real estate interests, but are also concerned with protecting the children and thus may have moved slowly. And the bill won’t get out of committee until the Speaker says so.

According to many Council members, it is the Speaker who will single-handedly decide when, and in what form, lead paint poison prevention legislation will come to the floor. It is his decision alone whether the present proposed high standards, all-inclusive protection should be modified or not.

Or, as Sanders sees it, “If we compromise and some kids who we could have  saved are damaged or die, then we have betrayed our trust.”

Others tell this writer privately that a number of Council members signed onto this bill because of the heavy handed lobbying of organizations like the Working Family Party and ACORN and they really believe a new bill could and should provide the necessary protection for the children at risk without being overly onerous on landlords or excessively costly for the City to enforce.

Citing the geographic “lead belt” – which includes portions of Queens and indicates where there is still a high incidence of poisoning – there are those who are suggesting compromise by limiting new regulation to those areas.

Knowing the Speaker, I believe that he will act quickly on this matter and in the best interest of all the children of the city. However, while he and his Council wait, how many children are we losing?

Queens members sponsoring Intro 101-A (in order of signing on to the bill) are: John Liu (20th), James Sanders, Jr. (31st), Melinda Katz (29th), Eric Gioia (26th), Hiram Monserrate (21st), Allan Jennings (28th), Joseph Addabbo, Jr. (32nd), Leroy Comrie (27th) Tony Avella (19th) and David Weprin’s  (23rd).

Against the bill is Councilman James Gennaro (24th) who claims that he is the Council’s environmental expert, but he is unable to convince his colleagues that the bill is not good.

Councilmember Peter Vallone Jr. (22nd) tells us, “The law can be improved, almost all laws can. I support some of it, like including lead dust, but I don’t support the current version, which is nothing but pandering to trial lawyers. It will cost the city money and hurt children, while making the trial lawyers even richer. I was a trial lawyer, so I know of what I speak.”

Also opposing the bill is Councilman Dennis Gallagher, the delegation’s only Republican who has not been convinced of the need for additional protections.

Councilwoman Helen Sears (25th) has yet to weigh in on this issue. We shall reach out to her and keep you informed.

In summary, as Councilwoman Melinda Katz explained to this writer, “as long as the new law includes lead dust and a short timetable for landlord action, we will have provided our children with much needed protection.”

One of the other important provisions of the new proposed legislation is clearly placing the responsibility on landlords to determine if there are children living in an apartment that may require lead paint abatement.

The matter is before the Council, the public is watching; the facts aren’t changing; and the clock is ticking.

Come on City Council, why must our children wait any longer?

From the National Safety Council
Lead Poisoning Fact Sheet

What Is It?

Lead is a highly toxic metal that produces a range of adverse health effects, particularly in young children.

Where Is It Found?

There are many ways in which humans are exposed to lead: through deteriorating paint and dust, air, drinking water, food, and contaminated soil. Airborne lead enters the body when you breathe or swallow lead particles or dust once it has settled. Lead can leach into drinking water from certain types of plumbing materials (lead pipes, copper pipes with lead solder, and brass faucets) and can also be found on walls, woodwork, and the outside of your home in the form of lead-based paint. Lead can be deposited on floors, windowsills, eating and playing surfaces, or in the dirt outside the home.

About two-thirds of the homes built before 1940, and one-half of the homes built from 1940 to 1960 contain lead-based paint. Some homes built after 1960 but before 1978 may also contain lead paint. Most paint made after 1978 contains no intentionally added lead, since it was banned from use on the interior and exterior of homes.

Even though leaded gasoline is seldom used today, high levels of lead found in soil can be attributed to past emissions.

Children can swallow harmful amounts of lead if they play in the dirt or in dusty areas (even indoors) and then put their fingers, clothes, or toys in their mouths, or if they eat without first washing their hands.

What Are The Health Effects?

Exposure to excessive levels of lead can cause brain damage; affect a child’s growth; damage kidneys; impair hearing; cause vomiting, headaches, and appetite loss; and cause learning and behavioral problems. In adults, lead can increase blood pressure and can cause digestive problems, kidney damage, nerve disorders, sleep problems, muscle and joint pain, and mood changes.

Fetuses, infants, and children are more vulnerable to lead exposure than adults since lead is more easily absorbed into growing bodies. Also, the tissues of small children are more sensitive to the damaging effects of lead.

Exposure to lead is estimated by measuring levels in the blood (micrograms per deciliter). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has set a level of concern at 10 micrograms per deciliter. The CDC recommends testing children at their one-year checkup or at six months if the child is at risk of high-dose exposure.