Re: NYTimes.com: Home Not-So-Sweet Home

[Guest guest]

Krugman, an economist who writes for the NY Times, has an op-ed article on

the housing crisis. Since he is a staunch advocate for universal health care, I

thought to write to him linking the issues affecting home ownership, mortgage

defaults and health impairments related to our indoor spaces. You may want to

write him as well on this as it is a major contributing factor to our economic

decline.

Barb Rubin

=======================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1 & th & emc=th & oref=slo\

gin

Re: NY Times Op-Ed, " Home Not-So-Sweet Home by Krugman (6/23/08)

Further astute observations by you, Mr. Krugman, are always welcome but the

title of this piece is far truer than you can know. One investigation of the

defaults on mortgages indicated that half were due to medical expenses. What

most people don't realize is that our only real asset is the health which allows

us to remain productive in an economy that is tremendously demanding of long

hours and multiple jobs to earn the rent and have healthy children (currently

one in six demonstrates learning problems alone).

Our homes and other indoor spaces are not healthy places and we can't

remediate such illnesses unless we address the causes. Industry plays with

single chemical dose-response studies and claims that each item THEY manufacture

couldn't possibly put out sufficient gasses and particulates to harm anyone.

However, our homes reflect multiple pollutants from poor quality materials

necessary to cheaply fuel, maintain, repair, decorate and clean them. Rental

apartments combine fumes from multiple residents, with walls and floors no real

separation of living space. If you doubt that, try living next door to a

smoker. I have personally tested residences for contaminants showing apartments

with more formaldehyde than the Katrina Trailers; hazardous levels of pesticides

(including some banned decades before the homes were even built seeping into

foundations), petroleum hydrocarbons from bad furnaces rivaling fumes to be

found near major highways and fumes from that dumbest habit

of Americans - living with your car inside your house (attached garages). We

really need to be parted from our vehicles by a few more feet, enough to keep

gas and oil fumes out of our bedrooms.

In desperation to maintain value, resell or rent, measures for upkeep of our

living spaces, we seek ever-cheaper 'outs' for materials and labor. The

building of housing in marginal tracts of land is another invitation to

disaster. Types of problems range from flooding (due to high water tables and

proximity to bodies of water), growth of hazardous forms of mold in large

quantities from regions with high heat and humidity; contamination from

agriculture and bad septic systems seeping into wells, toxic fumes from badly

designed construction materials etc.

An increase in the quality of building materials (e.g. eliminting formaldehyde

content), and a closer examination/ratings of land quality and values for

support of structural integrity over time are essential. Product research and

development does not incorporate real human exposure data to mixtures of related

chemicals used indoors largely explaining the explosion of poor health among

adults in their prime as well as so many developmentally disabled children.

Yes, improved building standards will,in turn, increase the proportion of

renters to owners but that would be all to the good if taxes on earnings

reflected this by increasing deductions for all concerned - those paying higher

rents and those proving they can use healthy and possibly more sustainable

products in owning/maintaining those units.

It is a measureable goal in terms of the testing of our complex environments

for indoor pollutants which contribute to our ever increasing health care costs

and disability rates. Let's worry less about ownership of inferior structures

and more about the habitation of healthy ones by renters. The country may come

down with a serious case of increased increased productivity leading to

prosperity followed by higher rates of home ownership.

Barbara Rubin

Norwich, Vt

[Guest guest]

A lot of these buiders and developers make more billions to add to

the billions they already have and they do this by using the

affordable housing tax incentives, grants, special bond money,etc.

then build even cheaper to make more money. Then people get sick from

these cheap buildings. The developers are such powerful corporations,

and in a lot of instances they are in business with all the state and

federal agencies,so they know the average person will not get

anywhere even with evidence and attorneys know it would be a huge

expense to even try so you loose. -

-- In , " B.R. " <agasaya@...> wrote:

>

> Krugman, an economist who writes for the NY Times, has an op-

ed article on the housing crisis. Since he is a staunch advocate for

universal health care, I thought to write to him linking the issues

affecting home ownership, mortgage defaults and health impairments

related to our indoor spaces. You may want to write him as well on

this as it is a major contributing factor to our economic decline.

>

> Barb Rubin

> =======================================================

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23krugman.html?

_r=1 & th & emc=th & oref=slogin

>

> Re: NY Times Op-Ed, " Home Not-So-Sweet Home by Krugman

(6/23/08)

>

> Further astute observations by you, Mr. Krugman, are always

welcome but the title of this piece is far truer than you can know.

One investigation of the defaults on mortgages indicated that half

were due to medical expenses. What most people don't realize is that

our only real asset is the health which allows us to remain

productive in an economy that is tremendously demanding of long hours

and multiple jobs to earn the rent and have healthy children

(currently one in six demonstrates learning problems alone).

>

> Our homes and other indoor spaces are not healthy places and we

can't remediate such illnesses unless we address the causes. Industry

plays with single chemical dose-response studies and claims that each

item THEY manufacture couldn't possibly put out sufficient gasses and

particulates to harm anyone. However, our homes reflect multiple

pollutants from poor quality materials necessary to cheaply fuel,

maintain, repair, decorate and clean them. Rental apartments combine

fumes from multiple residents, with walls and floors no real

separation of living space. If you doubt that, try living next door

to a smoker. I have personally tested residences for contaminants

showing apartments with more formaldehyde than the Katrina Trailers;

hazardous levels of pesticides (including some banned decades before

the homes were even built seeping into foundations), petroleum

hydrocarbons from bad furnaces rivaling fumes to be found near major

highways and fumes from that dumbest habit

> of Americans - living with your car inside your house (attached

garages). We really need to be parted from our vehicles by a few

more feet, enough to keep gas and oil fumes out of our bedrooms.

>

> In desperation to maintain value, resell or rent, measures for

upkeep of our living spaces, we seek ever-cheaper 'outs' for

materials and labor. The building of housing in marginal tracts of

land is another invitation to disaster. Types of problems range from

flooding (due to high water tables and proximity to bodies of water),

growth of hazardous forms of mold in large quantities from regions

with high heat and humidity; contamination from agriculture and bad

septic systems seeping into wells, toxic fumes from badly designed

construction materials etc.

>

> An increase in the quality of building materials (e.g. eliminting

formaldehyde content), and a closer examination/ratings of land

quality and values for support of structural integrity over time are

essential. Product research and development does not incorporate real

human exposure data to mixtures of related chemicals used indoors

largely explaining the explosion of poor health among adults in their

prime as well as so many developmentally disabled children.

>

> Yes, improved building standards will,in turn, increase the

proportion of renters to owners but that would be all to the good if

taxes on earnings reflected this by increasing deductions for all

concerned - those paying higher rents and those proving they can use

healthy and possibly more sustainable products in owning/maintaining

those units.

>

> It is a measureable goal in terms of the testing of our complex

environments for indoor pollutants which contribute to our ever

increasing health care costs and disability rates. Let's worry less

about ownership of inferior structures and more about the habitation

of healthy ones by renters. The country may come down with a serious

case of increased increased productivity leading to prosperity

followed by higher rates of home ownership.

>

> Barbara Rubin

> Norwich, Vt

>

>

>

>

>

>