Asbestos abatement: money foolishly spent

Real Estate Weekly, March 10, 1999 by Thomas F. Campenni

We live in a country governed by laws that were instituted to protect us from not only harm from our fellow citizen, but the government as well. The United States government and the American people are capable of dealing with so many wrongs both domestically and abroad. What we don't seem capable of is quantifying whether all wrongs are really threats to us.

What happens to us is that we lose sight of just how dangerous something is to our well being. A prime example is our reaction to asbestos. The Nineties became the time to deal with this self-inflicted scourge of mankind. And like everything else we must fix, it is not just a problem, but a major calamity without precedent.

On February 12th, the New York Post ran an editorial that was so very accurate regarding the abatement of asbestos entitled "The Great Asbestos Ripoff." In it, the paper briefly outlines the silliness from a health point of view of abating a nuisance that really does not exist - a non-existent health risk that continues to cost the American people over three billion dollars a year.

While it has been devastating to the real estate industry throughout the country, it has taken on a realm of absurdity in New York. Not only have we been forced - in order to obtain financing or insurance for our buildings - to remove a non-existent threat, we must continually do asbestos testing every time we want to apply for a permit to improve our property. We could be doing so many other things with the money we are forced to waste on something that does not benefit our tenants or ourselves.

A Harvard study cited in the Post editorial stated that we were 21,500 times more likely to die from smoking than from asbestos exposure. Even the American Cancer Society's chief epidemiologist states that if all asbestos in buildings were eliminated, it "wouldn't create a measurable blip in the (171,000 cases) of lung cancer every year."

Then why does someone with asbestos on their cellar pipes have to spend several thousand dollars before they can sell their home to abate a hazard that does not exist? Every real estate salesperson and broker who is involved in the residential market adds this to their list of other potential environmental questions when taking a listing. From lead to radon to asbestos, it is a combination that costs billions of dollars a year.

America likes to think of itself a country governed not by men, but by law. We continually heard in the impeachment debate that no one is above the law. Everyone has rights under our laws. We are all equal under the law. The law protects the small man from the big corporation or government.

It is easy to take someone to court to enforce your rights. Because if there is one thing we have more of than laws, it is lawyers. When a society solely relies on the law to set it's moral course, then that society can be much less concerned with morality or ethics in deciding what to do. Right or wrong no longer matter, only if it is legal.

It is perfectly legal for a group of attorneys to go shopping for litigants in order to form a class, as in class action suit. It is standard prosecutorial tactics for the government to convict people using RICO instead of actual evidence. Our President feels vindicated by escaping removal by the Senate from office, as if the actual wrongs he inflicted need not be addressed. It is the right of injured parties to sue - even if no hurt was actually suffered.

Johns Manville Corp., the nations leading asbestos maker, was driven into bankruptcy by lawsuits that enriched lawyers more than any victim. Workers who had handled asbestos dally for decades, such as shipyard employees, were the ones harmed by long-term exposure.

School children were never at risk, yet New York City has spent billions of dollars to remove a substance that causes no threat. No money for new glass in windows, but a substantial budget to fend off lawsuits.

Our housing and commercial stock is some of the oldest in the country. Because of a plethora of laws and regulations, we spend building dollars not on improvements, but on abatement of non-existent problems. Owners no longer ask how they can improve their buildings in order to maximize their investments. Rather, they ask what they must do to avoid a lawsuit.

(Thomas F. Campenni is a real estate consultant advising owners, condominiums and co-ops. He welcomes responses in writing at P.O. Box 724, Old Greenwich, CT 06870 or by calling 203-637-5621.)