Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />At this point it was April, at least five months since our toddler received his positive lead <br />screening. <br /> <br />Despite all our efforts, patience, and good faith, the Commission voted to deny our request for <br />approval to replace these six windows. Simply put, their comments accompanying their <br />decision are incorrect. They suggest that we have not been diligent in exploring other options, <br />yet we clearly have: we contacted a number of contractors, secured two bids, went with the bid <br />proposing the fewest replacements, met with their consultant, adapted our bid, and contacted <br />window restorers. Their suggestion that we haven't shown diligence or that our judgement is <br />clouded is insulting and incorrect. <br /> <br />Moreover, the commission seems to care very little about the central fact of this entire story: <br />our child screened with elevated lead levels. We are thus working under a county mandate to <br />abate this lead, and must work with appropriately licensed contractors, after which the house <br />will be inspected again. The techniques proposed in the bid are in line with the County lead <br />inspector's report. <br /> <br />The Historical Preservation Commission's remarks are dismissive of the health of our child and <br />by extension of the children of the city of South Bend. South Bend's lead problem and the way <br />it's harming children was at the center of a feature article in the New York Times (3/29/22). This <br />is an urgent problem. <br />