Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apts
Classifieds
Shop
Sometimes the best intentions fall short. That’s the case with Indiana’s law governing the cleanup of illegal-drug labs. The law’s reporting requirements don’t go far enough in mandating not only the cleanup of the toxic remains of a methamphetamine lab but also the protection of prospective homebuyers.
Julie McCoy Sabatino’s case illustrates the law’s inadequacies. As The Journal Gazette’s Angela Mapes Turner reported in her story Saturday, the real estate disclosure form for Sabatino’s Churubusco home included a handwritten note acknowledging “there may have been meth on property,” but Sabatino’s financial resources and desperate need for a place to live with her 10-year-old son outweighed any concerns she might have had.
As soon as they moved in, both began to have respiratory problems. Her son’s asthma symptoms worsened. Sabatino did some research and found the previous owner’s tenants had been arrested in connection with producing meth. The landlord’s efforts to wash away the contamination were clearly not enough.
To comply with the state’s 2005 meth lab law, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management developed rules that set standards for cleanup and inspection of sites used to make illegal drugs.
The guidelines require an inspector to certify decontamination levels for various chemical substances or removal of the property contents in place of decontamination.
The latter course requires removing virtually everything – all the furnishings and personal items, plaster and wallboard, paneling, cabinets, appliances, shelves, doors, baseboards and floor coverings down to the subfloor, which must be sealed.
Indiana’s cleanup law, like that in most other states, places responsibility with the property owner, who in ridding a property of contaminants can face costs of as much as $150,000.
Of about 20 states with meth lab laws, only Colorado makes federal grant money available to innocent property owners facing cleanup costs. Minnesota has a revolving cleanup loan fund.
Sabatino, who had to move out of her house and has now lost it to foreclosure, could have used such assistance. There are others, including low-income elderly people whose homes are used without their knowledge, who also would benefit.
The meth lab reporting requirements Indiana passed can do only so much in protecting residents. Homes contaminated before the law went into effect are left out. And tight budgets limit the ability of county departments of health to maintain electronic records of drug lab properties. With Indiana home foreclosures increasing, the information about properties becomes even more difficult to track, and the likelihood increases that an unsuspecting family will find itself in a former meth-lab home.
Lawmakers should find a way to protect homebuyers like Sabatino. Resources to pay for decontaminating homes would be a good start.
