said...
Sorry i am a little late on this coment page. But i too live in the Affected area and i am pretty mifffed that i have to pay for them to fix the pipes. As for all the people that are writing that "LEAD PIPES" are part of buy an old house and need the address this like a leaky foundation or old roof. Come and give me a call when 50 years after your house has been there and then the environmental people say that PVC or copper piping is not good for you. Then i bet you will be looking for a han
May 01, 2007 - 8:13 AM
said...
The city owes us! I live in this "affected area", my kids were raised in the "affected area". They better pay up or they may be looking out for something like the creatures in "The Hills Have Eyes". Then what will they do?????
Apr 26, 2007 - 9:13 PM
said...
the mayor says the city has budgeted an extra 100 000 dollars in the budget to help fix the problem, however at an estimated cost to the city of 5000 dollars per house that will only fix 20 homes...Today lead is the issue, however how long before awareness levels rise to the adverse affects of chlorine or fluoride in our water...do yourself a favour and drink reverse osmosis filtered water as lead is not the only thing in our city's "perfect" water.
Apr 26, 2007 - 8:05 PM
said...
NO WAY should the City Pay. These lead pipes are on older houses. You buy or live in a old house and you have to expect to pay for upgrades like Roof, Windows, Leaky foundations, outdoor fences, internal plumbing, etc. You own to your property line. If you find Asbestos insulation in your house, do you think the City Building Department should pay to replace it?!? What if you find black mold in your house due to moisture, maybe the mold police should fix it. People are starting to
Apr 26, 2007 - 8:33 AM
said...
I think the idea of the city just covering the cost up to the houses is fine. We pay enough taxes already and if we had to pay to fix up all the homes with ghetto lead plumbing in London we'd be in trouble... Plumbing is part of the house, so its not unreasonable to get the home owner to cough up the costs to fix it, just like anything else in a house that would need to be fixed. Thats the joy *curse* of being a home owner, expensive fixer-upper projects.
Apr 25, 2007 - 8:21 PM
said...
Maybe the city should stop paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to put flouride in our water (which is toxic to us as well) and use that money to clean up the BIGGER LEAD problem that they should have cleaned up decades ago. This way we can kill two birds with one stone... Make sense to me.
Apr 25, 2007 - 9:27 AM
said...
Did some research and it looks as if most cities pass the buck onto homeowners.
I don't live in London so I don't know if they have already started replacing the lines. But there is a method of coating the lead pipes instead of replacing them. Other options seem to be the cheaper alternatives. Maybe they should be made an option to the homeowner instead of just digging up their yard.
There are alternative methods.
Moling, pull-through, slip lining, pipe coating.
Apr 24, 2007 - 3:56 PM