Lead Paint @ Crestwood Lake Apartments

In a grim exposure of regulatory failure, a federal investigation into a Yonkers apartment complex revealed a near-total breakdown of the system designed to protect families from the permanent neurological damage caused by lead paint.

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspection of the Crestwood Lake Apartments, managed by The Woodner Company, found that in 29 out of 30 sampled leases, the landlord failed to secure a required statement from tenants confirming they had received critical lead hazard information.

Anatomy of a Regulatory Failure

The federal Lead Disclosure Rule be a legal shield for tenants living in housing built before 1978, a period when lead-based paint was common.

The regulations purpose is to ensure residents are fully informed of the dangers before they sign a lease. An EPA inspection on May 12, 2022, revealed how thoroughly that shield was compromised at the Crestwood Lake Apartments.

• The Law: The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 was passed after Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was “widespread among American children,” most often caused by ingesting dust from deteriorating lead-based paint in their own homes.
• The Inspection: The EPA investigated The Woodner Company, which manages the Crestwood Lake Apartments in Yonkers, New York; a property identified as “target housing” due to its pre-1978 construction.
• Systemic Non-Compliance: Investigators examined a sample of 30 apartment lease files and discovered a pattern of violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule.
• Failure to Inform: In 29 of the 30 files, the lease was missing a statement from the lessee affirming they had received the required lead hazard pamphlet and information about any known lead paint at the property. According to the EPA, this statement is the primary mechanism to “ascertain that the lessee has actually been informed of the risks”.
• Failure to Certify: In 13 of the 30 files, the leases were missing the required signatures from the landlord and tenants that “certify to the accuracy of their statements” regarding lead hazards. This step commits the parties to the truthfulness of the disclosure, providing a key tool for compliance and verification.

The Consequences: A Macro View

The Public Health Crisis

The violations are a direct failure to mitigate a known public health crisis.

The entire purpose of the 1992 Act was to prevent childhood lead poisoning by ensuring families are aware of the risks before moving in. Lead exposure can cause irreversible damage to the developing brains and nervous systems of children.

By failing to secure documented proof that tenants received and understood this information, the system of prevention was rendered ineffective, leaving an unknown number of residents, including potentially young children and pregnant women, living without the federally mandated awareness of a toxin in their homes.

The Erosion of Trust

This case demonstrates the fragility of a regulatory system that relies on corporate self-reporting and disclosure. The law’s power lies in the signed documents that prove tenants were warned.

Without those lessee affirmations and certified signatures, the system collapses into an exercise of faith. When a property manager for dozens of apartments systematically fails to complete these steps, it exposes the reality that, for some, tenant safety laws are merely paperwork to be bypassed.

This erodes public trust not only in landlords (which is already severely lacking in public trust tbh) but in the government’s ability to enforce basic housing safety standards through disclosure-based regulations.

The Bottom Line: Accountability Without Admission

The official response was a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO), a settlement to resolve the matter without litigation. The Woodner Company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $59,500. As part of the settlement, the company also agreed to implement a formal compliance plan to adhere to the Lead Disclosure Rule in the future.

However, the punishment comes with a critical caveat that speaks volumes about the nature of corporate accountability. The document explicitly states that The Woodner Company “neither admits nor denies the EPA’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”. Furthermore, the agreement notes that “No formal or adjudicated findings of fact or conclusions of law have been made”.

The evil company pays a fine, but the documented, systemic failure to protect tenants is never formally admitted. This is the crux of the problem: a system where accountability can be purchased for a price, allowing the underlying negligence to be settled without being acknowledged.

Please visit the EPA’s link to see the above PDF on this lead scandal: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/6E33CDBCABE1B1E485258D150042CEDE/$File/Woodner259277CAFO.pdf