It’s been more than a year and a half since Maurci Jackson’s daughter Maurissa was poisoned by eating lead-based paint. But as far as Jackson knows, her old landlord still hasn’t removed all of the toxic paint from the apartment.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
That criticism is unfair, counter the mayor’s health advisers, who contend that more children are being screened for lead poisoning under the Daley reign than ever before, and that further progress is being hampered by budget restraints. “The mayor and this administration are committed to this fight, but you have to understand the fiscal realities of the world in which we live,” says Richard Sewell, deputy commissioner in the public health department. “We are facing state and federal cutbacks as well as demands for increased funding for everything from fighting AIDS to TB. Of course we would like to hire more people to fight lead poisoning. But considering it all, preserving the status quo is something you celebrate.”
Both sides agree the problem is at a crisis point, particularly in older low-income neighborhoods on the city’s south and west sides, where, according to city statistics, up to 25 poisonings per 1,000 children are recorded each year. The city banned the sale of lead-based paint in the 70s, but thousands of inhabited buildings still need to be stripped of it.
Last month the activists tried to slip around the freeze when their chief legislative ally, 49th Ward Alderman Joe Moore, proposed an amendment that would have added money for the employees to the 1992 budget. But Daley’s aldermanic allies buried Moore’s amendment in committee, refusing to allow it even to come up for a vote. “When I tried to add this amendment to the budget, Mayor Daley ruled that I was out of order,” says Moore. “When I tried to question that ruling, Daley refused to recognize me and had the meeting adjourned. I think it was pretty obvious that the mayor wanted to avoid a public vote on the matter. It would have looked pretty bad for his supporters to be made to vote against this cause.”
“He tried to remove the lead-based paint, but I don’t think he did a very good job,” she says. “He had people scrape the wall while two fans were blowing. That only blew the problem off the walls and into the air. That place has got to be as contaminated as ever. Eventually, we moved out.”
He also points out that many inspectors, frustrated by their inability to force a landlord to remove lead-based paint, will inspect a building several times. “They’re hoping that by being a persistent examiner they will force the landlord to remove the paint. It’s not an ironclad guarantee, but it still offers some hope. In any event it’s a little unfair to criticize us for being persistent with these second or third inspections.”
