Find a better argument

Author John Abrams said, quite correctly, “If the people who make the decisions are the people who will also bear the consequences of those decisions, perhaps better decisions will result.”

But, when the decisions are being made by our governmental leaders, consequences too often are the last thing on their minds.

On March 23, area home builders met to discuss the unintended consequences of building regulations. They did some venting as well concerning energy efficiency and lead paint.

But, are the arguments the building contractors make valid?

The Illinois Energy Conservation Code was amended in August to include residential buildings and went into effect Jan. 29.

The Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity said, “Renovations, alterations, additions and repairs to most existing commercial and residential buildings must follow the Illinois Energy Conservation Code.”

Boiled down, this means added costs to any project. But, these days, what does not lead to added costs?

Another new regulation, which will go into effect April 22, involves the testing of lead paint on residential homes built before 1978. It is a different regulation, but the same result — added costs.

Phil Zobrist, of Don Hoerr & Sons, added, “We’re concerned — just what it’s going to do to cost.”

“This is going to add a large amount of labor cost to even small jobs,” Brent Hoerr, of Don Hoerr & Sons Inc. in North Peoria, said.

Economist Elliot Eisenberg said the result will be one of unintended consequences.

“People will move out of the area to buy cheaper homes elsewhere,” he said. “It’s a slow sapping of your economy.”

Energy conservation is something we all need to practice. We have limited energy resources. The time is now to conserve those resources.

But, Terry Ruhland, owner of Plum Creek Builders in Chillicothe, made a good point.

“It’s unprecedented in the fact that most of it’s handed down from the federal government. The energy conservation code was handed down from the federal government to the state as a prerequisite to qualify for stimulus dollars. They said any state that doesn’t have the energy conservation code won’t get any money, so they kind of held us over the barrel to do that,” Ruhland said.

Since the feds own the money printing presses, and the states do not, that gun being held to the heads of the state and contractors breeds justifiable resentment.

When it comes to regulating the abatement of lead paint, a dangerous substance, it is much easier to abide government regulation.

Ignoring lead paint has consequences that go far beyond wasted money and resentment of the federal government. Lead does not degrade over time. Lead poisoning can lead to lower IQ, behavioral and learning problems, retarded growth, kidney problems and seizures.

Legislators may be on the side of the angels on this one.

Ruhland gets no argument here when he says, “These things are not well thought out to make them fully understand the consequences of the legislation they pass. They’re all well-intended but not well thought out,” he said.

But, we have to part company with him when he said lead paint has been found to be harmful only to infants and pregnant women.

“It’s in the air that we breathe and food that we eat. It’s not generally considered harmful to adults,” he said.

That is an argument that is destined to go nowhere.

It is absolutely valid to question whether government forcing conservation upon us is the best course. The free market usually works much better than the government. But, they need a better argument about lead than it only affects children and pregnant women.

It seems these are two groups the government should protect.