While lead in the water in many public schools has highlighted the continuing struggle with hazardous materials management and less-than-stellar reaction by many public officials, progress on responsible demolitions remains painfully slow. Nonetheless, enactment of legislation remains the key to reducing the potential harmful impacts of housing demolitions on nearby neighbors.
In an effort to keep hazardous materials (HazMat) accountability in the public discourse, the civic activist group United Neighborhoods for Reform (UNR), with roots in the B-W neighborhood, successfully initiated state legislation—SB705—requiring asbestos surveys for single-family home demolitions. However, to the frustration of SB705 supporters, when it came time for Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to implement the new law last June, contractors were not required to submit a documented asbestos survey prior to the issuing of the demolition permit, effectively taking the teeth out of enforcement. The hope is that when DEQ performs its 2017 planned review of all asbestos rules, this obvious loophole will be closed. In addition, it has been reported that there is legislative action in the works to address lead-based paint in demolitions; however, working meetings to move this legislative effort forward have yet to materialize.
A review of the Bureau of Developmental Services (BDS) demolition notification rules and delay appeals reveals shortcomings that negatively affect the anticipated impacts of these recently enacted rules. Many developers continue to act in poor faith during appeals and perform partial internal demolitions in accordance with state rules allowing owners to perform so-called “interior alterations” (ostensibly “home improvement” projects), even when destruction of the entire home is pending. So far, of eleven delay appeals, only one house has been saved, and that only after a healthy sum had been paid to the developer to purchase the house.
A relatively bright spot in efforts to bring accountability to this issue was the recent passing in Portland of the requirement to deconstruct structures in residential zones when being issued a demolition permit. (Note: “deconstruction” is the recycling of usable materials from demolitions.) The ordinance applies only to demolition of homes built prior to 1917, which is approximately one-third of the yearly demolitions in Portland. Efforts now focus on encouraging expansion of deconstruction companies to make the eventual extension of the deconstruction requirement to all demolitions in Portland residential zones feasible. Full deconstruction has been shown to uncover hazardous materials missed during earlier abatement activities and continues to be the most effective way to protect nearby neighbors during removal of a structure. Not surprisingly, more Portland residents are demanding that responsible residential demolition become the norm rather than the exception in mitigating incidents of potential long-term harm to the community.