1. Introduction

In August and September of 2022, federal inspectors from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted reviews of Strategic Properties, LLC’s compliance with lead-based paint regulations across multiple residential complexes in Florida and Georgia. According to the EPA, the company allegedly failed to provide the mandatory lead-hazard disclosures to tenants at more than a dozen properties—units that were built prior to 1978, thus qualifying as “target housing” under federal law. Even more troubling, the EPA determined that Strategic Properties repeatedly did not obtain proper federal certification before conducting renovations that potentially disturbed lead-based paint in aging buildings. The agency further cited the company’s omission to give tenants critical educational pamphlets entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home and Renovate Right, as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and its associated regulations.

Taken together, these alleged regulatory breaches expose a pattern: a corporate landlord operating in the cost-competitive real estate market of Florida and Georgia, apparently sidestepping critical safety rules designed to protect the public—especially children—from lead poisoning. By failing to disclose known or suspected lead hazards, not providing the requisite pamphlets, and conducting (or offering to conduct) unlicensed renovations, Strategic Properties is accused of endangering tenants and ignoring their right to know about potential lead-based paint hazards.

The seriousness of these alleged violations cannot be overstated. Lead poisoning is a silent crisis, particularly harmful to developing children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals. Even small exposures to lead have been linked to neurological damage, learning disabilities, and other lasting health issues. This is precisely why federal law mandates full disclosure and strict procedures when working around lead-based paint. Given the critical public health concerns, the allegations against Strategic Properties present a telling case study of how profit-driven real estate companies might exploit regulatory gaps, minimize compliance costs, and ultimately undercut tenants’ health—all while operating under the banner of “business as usual.”

Neoliberal Capitalism and the Real Estate Sector

In a broader sense, the allegations against Strategic Properties represent a microcosm of systemic problems often linked to neoliberal capitalism. Under this system, the pursuit of shareholder gains sometimes takes precedence over corporate social responsibility, as evidenced when companies bypass or minimize compliance obligations. This dynamic can erode corporate accountability and contribute to wealth disparity, particularly in the rental housing market, where residents may have little recourse and suffer the brunt of health and economic fallout from a landlord’s misconduct.

These alleged failings reflect questions that critics of corporate ethics continually raise: Does the incentive to reduce overhead—especially in an environment of deregulation or minimal enforcement—encourage corporations to cut corners, even at the expense of public health? In many instances, corporations’ dangers to public health extend well beyond lead-based paint. Nevertheless, lead paint compliance is among the more transparent tests of corporate ethics because it features concrete requirements (disclosures, pamphlets, training, licensure). When these are not followed, it is typically not due to ambiguity in the law; the rules are quite explicit.

This multi-thousand-word investigative report will examine not just the alleged violations themselves, but also the broader structural incentives, the economic fallout, and the social dimensions that arise when corporate greed edges out community well-being. We will also delve into whether regulatory capture, inadequate oversight, or the profit-driven orientation of neoliberal capitalism create an environment where such alleged misconduct can proliferate.

Ultimately, the allegations point to a stark reality: When corporate accountability is diluted and profit maximization reigns supreme, local communities—especially low-income renters—become vulnerable to predatory and hazardous living conditions. The deeper story is not just about a single landlord’s failure to follow rules; it is about a pattern in which entire populations can be systematically exposed to health hazards while corporations weigh the costs of noncompliance against the bottom line.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

The EPA’s Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) centers on multiple allegations that reveal a troubling corporate mindset. The heart of the complaint details how Strategic Properties entered into lease agreements for pre-1978 rental units without providing the legally mandated lead disclosures and educational materials. According to the legal complaint, Strategic Properties:

1. Did not attach or provide disclosures about known or potential lead-based paint hazards in the lease paperwork.
2. Failed to ensure tenants received the federally approved pamphlet Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home.
3. Omitted the required “Lead Warning Statement” from lease contracts.
4. Failed to inform agents and lessees of the presence or possibility of lead-based paint hazards, despite the properties’ age.
5. Undertook or offered to undertake renovations at certain properties without proper training or certification and without providing tenants with the “Renovate Right” pamphlet.

Federal law is unambiguous in this area: any company or individual renting out “target housing”—defined as pre-1978 residential units—must fully disclose lead-based paint hazards. In addition, any renovation or repair activities that disturb painted surfaces in such properties must be done either by or under the supervision of a certified lead-safe renovator, and tenants must be furnished with informational pamphlets on lead hazards. These steps are not mere “red tape” but essential public-health measures.

The complaint does not directly attribute a singular “smoking gun” piece of evidence—like an internal memo explicitly urging staff to violate the law—but the repeated nature of the alleged infractions indicates a systematic disregard for federal regulations that are well known in the real estate community. Indeed, the EPA states that Strategic Properties entered multiple lease transactions across Georgia and Florida without fulfilling these basic requirements—despite the fact that each new lease was a fresh opportunity to comply.

Indicators of Corporate Willfulness

While the CAFO itself stops short of alleging that Strategic Properties acted with specific malice or deliberate intention to harm, the pattern described suggests more than mere oversight:

• Multiple Properties, Different States
  The alleged noncompliance was uncovered at sites in both Florida and Georgia. This multi-state presence underlines a corporate structure that either lacked robust compliance mechanisms or elected not to implement them.
• Same Violations, Repeated
  The complaint enumerates multiple lease agreements—each presumably handled separately—yet showing the same categories of deficiencies. A single oversight can happen, but repeated failures across numerous leases typically point to a deeper systemic or corporate-level decision-making approach.
• Renovation Certification Gaps
  Allegedly ignoring the requirement to obtain firm certification under the EPA’s lead-safe rules for renovation, repair, and painting indicates either a lack of corporate diligence or the deliberate sidestepping of a perceived “burden.” If a company invests in multiple properties that require frequent repairs—especially older buildings—then failing to become properly certified or to train workers signals an apparent disregard for the law’s clear demands.

In the broader context of neoliberal capitalism, these repeated alleged violations reflect how corporate landlords might factor potential fines or enforcement actions into the cost of doing business. In the real estate market, older buildings are often cheaper to acquire, so the return on investment can be higher—if one can avoid or reduce compliance expenses. This tension between corporate social responsibility and profit maximization lies at the core of the alleged misconduct.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

Low-Visibility Violations

Among the most pernicious aspects of lead-based paint noncompliance is its low visibility to consumers and, at times, even regulators. Many tenants are unaware that they have the right to receive the pamphlet, let alone that it is a federal requirement. Moreover, the practicalities of enforcement—especially in states like Florida and Georgia with sprawling rental markets—mean that understaffed agencies must rely on spot inspections and complaints. This environment potentially emboldens corporations that might conclude the odds of an EPA inspection are relatively low.

Thus, a typical “corporate playbook” for avoiding robust compliance in the real estate sector involves:

1. Skipping Disclosure Forms
   Tenants often do not demand them because they are unaware of their existence. By the time they discover a lead problem, it might already be too late.
2. Failing to Provide Pamphlets
   Even if a tenant does know of the pamphlet requirement, they may assume it was “unnecessary paperwork.” Companies could hide behind the complexity of real estate transactions, counting on the fact that many tenants are reluctant to push back or face eviction.
3. Not Seeking Certification
   The process to become a certified renovation firm under the EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule (RRP) requires training, fees, and compliance checks. Corporations that weigh these costs against the likelihood of enforcement might gamble that noncompliance is cheaper in the short term.

Minimizing the Chance of Regulatory Scrutiny

Strategic Properties operated in multiple cities—College Park, Riverdale, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Wilton Manors, Oakland Park, and North Miami—where local housing codes and staffing vary. If a corporation’s operational structure is opaque, and if it subcontracts renovations to smaller outfits, accountability can be muddled. Tenants may not know who to contact when something goes awry—whether it is the property manager, a holding company, or an outsourced renovation firm.

Historically, corporations in similar lawsuits across the U.S. have also relied on local political networks or property management associations, effectively shielding themselves from intense scrutiny. This dynamic could be seen as a form of “soft” regulatory capture, wherein the local enforcement agencies lack the resources or political will to investigate deeply. The allegations in the Strategic Properties complaint do not explicitly reference such tactics; however, the repeated nature of the alleged violations does highlight how a company might exploit an environment where oversight often lags behind real-time violations.

A Culture of Cost-Cutting

While the complaint does not directly quote any internal memos or e-mails, the very nature of repeated TSCA violations implies a cost-cutting mentality. In today’s neoliberal real estate environment, profit-maximizing landlords may consider compliance with environmental rules a drag on short-term profits. If each renovation, for instance, requires specialized contractors, additional training, high-quality containment materials, and compliance documentation, the overhead can be significant—especially when multiplied across dozens of units.

From an operational standpoint, if top managers do not prioritize compliance, property managers might find themselves in a gray zone: the boss wants cheaper repairs done quickly, but the law requires more extensive steps. Over time, a corporate culture of “just get it done cheaply” seeps into every level. Ultimately, Strategic Properties’ alleged failure to provide lead-based paint pamphlets or to ensure certified renovators oversaw the work underscores a broader corporate strategy: push the boundaries of the law in pursuit of higher margins.

---

4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation

The Alleged Violations’ Financial Dimension

In the consent agreement, the EPA imposed a penalty totaling $41,200, payable in installments over six months (with a small amount of accrued interest reaching $41,561.24). On the face of it, this seems like a substantial sum. However, when viewed in the context of typical real estate holdings, such a penalty might be considered relatively low—a fraction of what a large property management operation might earn in monthly rents across numerous units. One might speculate that certain business models effectively treat such fines as a manageable operating expense.

Indeed, if an organization is managing dozens or even hundreds of rental units, compliance with lead-based paint rules—inspections, tests, certified contractors—could cost far more over the years than the occasional penalty. In the worldview of unbridled corporate greed, the short-term math is simple: if the economic fallout of a noncompliance penalty is smaller than the cost of ongoing compliance, some companies may take their chances.

Impact on Local Communities and Workers

This cost-benefit mindset has tangible economic and social repercussions for the communities in which these properties are situated. Properties with lead paint are often located in older, lower-income neighborhoods, where wealth disparity already compounds residents’ vulnerability. Tenants forced to deal with potential lead exposure may suffer long-term health complications—particularly children with developing bodies. This can lead to ripple effects:

1. Higher Healthcare Costs
   Families dealing with lead poisoning face medical expenses—doctor visits, medications, therapies for neurological issues.
2. Lower Educational Outcomes
   Children exposed to lead often show learning difficulties, contributing to broader societal costs like special education services and reduced lifetime earnings.
3. Economic Strain on Local Services
   If a child’s health deteriorates due to lead exposure, local health agencies and social services bear the burden. Community clinics spend resources on avoidable treatments, overburdening an already underfunded public health infrastructure.
4. Workers’ Rights & Safety
   Renovation crews—often low-wage workers—may not be informed about lead safety protocols if the firm is not certified and does not train them. They risk occupational hazards, bringing lead dust home to their families.

Viewed through the lens of corporate social responsibility, none of these outcomes are acceptable. Yet, from a purely profit-driven vantage point, ignoring them can appear appealing if the fines are smaller than the net cost of compliance. In theory, a robust corporate ethics framework would prevent such a scenario. In practice, the alleged violations suggest that Strategic Properties may have put its profit margins above tenant well-being—a story echoing throughout the real estate industry and emblematic of corporate corruption in a broader sense.

Why Crime Might Pay—Until It Does Not

The problem arises when an eventual enforcement action, particularly if accompanied by negative publicity, becomes more costly than the price of compliance. Reputational damage can translate into:

• Tenants moving out or avoiding the property, thus increasing vacancy rates.
• Difficulty securing future loans or partnerships if a property developer is seen as high-risk or unethical.
• Heightened scrutiny from state or federal agencies in future inspections.

Still, if regulators are underfunded or hamstrung by administrative processes, the “crime pays” equation may persist. Thus, the Strategic Properties case underscores why organizations must internalize compliance not merely as a legal requirement but as a moral and financial imperative. Had the EPA not intervened, these alleged violations could have continued unabated, further jeopardizing public health and deepening the economic fallout for vulnerable residents.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

The Limits of Enforcement

Although the EPA eventually took action against Strategic Properties, the delay in unearthing these alleged violations—some dating back to leases signed in 2020 and 2021—shows how easily such misconduct can go undetected. There is no single reason for this delay. Historically, multiple factors may drive such systemic regulatory inaction or slowness, including:

1. Resource Constraints
   The EPA, like many regulatory bodies, has limited personnel to conduct site inspections, especially for lead-based paint. With myriad industries to oversee—chemical plants, wastewater discharges, air quality, and more—EPA inspectors often struggle to cover the vast real estate markets thoroughly.
2. Reliance on Complaints
   Regulators often depend on tenant complaints to initiate investigations. Many tenants, especially those in precarious economic situations, fear retaliation or eviction if they speak out. Language barriers and a lack of legal aid further dissuade individuals from lodging complaints.
3. Fragmented Oversight
   Housing authorities in Florida and Georgia also have responsibilities in ensuring safe living conditions. However, local building or housing departments might not always coordinate effectively with the EPA or other federal agencies. This patchwork oversight means that some real estate operators learn how to exploit the “cracks” between municipal and federal jurisdiction.
4. Regulatory Capture
   In certain regions, local or state authorities can be influenced by property management lobbyists. While not specifically alleged here, the phenomenon is often recognized as a broader feature of neoliberal capitalism. This interplay can result in a lax regulatory climate that prioritizes industry growth and property investment over the immediate health concerns of renters.

Why Action Came When It Did

The official complaint states that in August 2022, an EPA inspector visited Strategic Properties’ Miami office, requesting records to determine compliance. Over the following month, the company submitted those documents, revealing the alleged deficiencies. It is notable that the impetus for inspection is not described in the CAFO—so we do not know if it was spurred by a tenant complaint, a random inspection schedule, or some other tip-off. Regardless, the official record suggests that it was not until the EPA examined those specific leasing documents that the gravity of the alleged violations emerged.

In a broader historical sense, regulators often gear up enforcement drives in response to acute triggers—such as public outcry over lead-poisoning incidents in older buildings, or a wave of local journalism uncovering unsafe housing conditions. If no such triggers occur, many violations remain “under the radar.” While the CAFO does not detail the impetus, we do see a typical pattern: Once an agency does initiate an investigation, it typically uncovers repeated, systemic issues, as happened here.

The Costs of Delay

When regulators do not detect and address noncompliance promptly, communities bear the brunt of it. Lead exposure’s effects on children, for example, can manifest as lower IQ, behavioral issues, and long-term health complications—often irreversible. The social and economic fallout from these health impacts can be staggering, forming a hidden crisis with exponential growth over time. The delay in enforcement perpetuates the cycle of corporate misconduct, enabling unscrupulous actors to continue endangering public health without consequence.

In the grander scheme, this is not just a story of one company. Rather, it symbolizes a broader trend under neoliberal capitalism where deregulation or under-enforcement fosters an environment in which real estate firms might gamble that potential fines will remain lower than the cost of doing business the lawful way. Unless or until regulators ramp up resources, become more efficient, or penalties become proportionally more punitive, system failures will keep letting certain corporate behaviors slide.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Deep-Rooted Incentives

Critics of modern market systems often note how neoliberal capitalism prioritizes profit maximization over social welfare. The allegations against Strategic Properties dovetail with that critique: if a company can increase its margins by ignoring safety regulations—especially when there is a low probability of penalty—then it might do so, unless there is a robust corporate ethics culture or a powerful regulatory framework that strictly enforces compliance.

Historically, real estate has been a prime arena where corporate greed and wealth disparity converge. Low-income tenants, people of color, and immigrant communities are typically the most impacted by substandard housing. They often have limited housing choices and face the stark choice of either accepting a potentially unsafe home or facing homelessness. In this context, unscrupulous property owners or management companies can appear predatory: they place vulnerable tenants in harm’s way while reaping rental income without investing in proper lead abatement or disclosure.

Exacerbating Wealth Disparities

Lead poisoning and subpar housing contribute to a cycle of poverty. Children who grow up with high lead levels often struggle academically, see fewer job prospects, and incur higher medical costs. The associated social services costs—special education, public health interventions—drain local government resources, which in turn means other public services or infrastructure can suffer. Meanwhile, the landlord in question continues collecting rent and building equity. This dynamic underscores how, in a neoliberal context, the system may inherently favor capital accumulation over human health.

In other words, “This pattern of predation is a feature, not a bug.” The market’s drive for profit, combined with lax or inconsistent enforcement of regulations, ensures that corporate misconduct can persist. Although the law aims to protect tenants, systemic obstacles hamper regulators. The slow, underfunded apparatus of enforcement means that not every violation is investigated, and even proven violations might lead to modest penalties. For large corporate landlords, such enforcement remains an occasional cost of doing business.

The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility

Idealistic proponents of corporate social responsibility argue that real estate companies could voluntarily adopt more stringent compliance and transparency measures. Instead of waiting for an EPA inspection, a proactive approach would see them:

• Conducting formal lead assessments of all pre-1978 units.
• Providing thorough documentation of lead hazards to all tenants.
• Hiring only certified renovation contractors.
• Budgeting for lead-paint abatement measures.

But such best practices have costs. Without external incentives or the threat of meaningful penalties, purely profit-driven firms might see these measures as optional. Thus, the systemic environment fosters a race to the bottom—unless a robust framework of accountability forces all landlords to adopt the same standards. In the Strategic Properties matter, the EPA’s allegations reveal what can happen when a company allegedly chooses the path of minimal compliance until caught.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Typical Corporate Responses

When companies are caught violating federal regulations—especially those concerning public health—they often employ a public relations strategy to mitigate backlash. While the CAFO in this case does not detail any official statements by Strategic Properties, one can infer from similar historical cases how they might respond:

1. Denial or Minimization
   A common PR stance involves framing the violations as “isolated incidents” or mere “paperwork errors.” This technique attempts to reduce the perceived severity of wrongdoing.
2. Settlement Without Admission of Wrongdoing
   In many consent agreements, the accused company neither admits nor denies the allegations but consents to pay a penalty. This approach is precisely what Strategic Properties has done in its settlement, allowing it to distance itself from guilt.
3. Goodwill Gestures
   Companies might announce they are launching new compliance programs, investing in renovations, or offering free lead testing for tenants. While these steps can be beneficial to tenants, they can also serve to deflect blame from systemic failings.
4. Deflection to Subcontractors
   It is not unusual for real estate firms to claim that “third-party contractors” were responsible for ensuring certifications. Yet under federal law, if you hire someone to renovate a pre-1978 building you manage, you remain on the hook for compliance.

Historically, corporations under fire for corporate corruption or greed-related allegations also exploit grey areas in media coverage. They might try to influence local community leaders, provide modest donations to neighborhood groups, and adopt philanthropic postures to overshadow the negative press. However, these PR tactics rarely solve the underlying issues of regulatory noncompliance.

Shaping the Narrative

In the broader context of neoliberal capitalism, large property owners can overshadow the voices of tenants. Some employ specialized crisis PR teams adept at rewriting the narrative around “isolated compliance challenges.” By focusing on their “commitment to safer, more modern housing,” or their philanthropic efforts in the community, the company tries to reframe the conversation from one about corporate accountability to one about “progress and improvement.”

Moreover, corporations can leverage economic arguments, such as claiming that stricter regulations would negatively affect housing affordability. They might argue that the cost of compliance would drive up rents, implying that tenants themselves are better off with minimal oversight. But this rhetorical sleight of hand is classic: it pits basic public health protections against “housing market stability,” without acknowledging that endangering tenants is never a responsible solution.

Balancing Empathy and Skepticism

From a consumer advocacy standpoint, a bit of skepticism is warranted. Companies often promise to do better in press releases. However, the settlement’s structured penalty—$41,200—does not necessarily guarantee a transformation of the business culture. Without robust oversight, the promised changes might never materialize.

Many communities have learned to approach corporate public relations statements with caution, especially in an industry where repeated lead-related lawsuits have occurred for decades. If the underlying driver remains profit above all else, truly meaningful reforms—like thorough lead abatement or zero-tolerance internal policies—are less likely to emerge voluntarily. Indeed, the question remains: Will Strategic Properties genuinely alter its approach, or will it simply absorb the penalty as a cost of doing business and continue with minimal changes? Only time and continued oversight can answer that.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

Where Do We Go from Here?

The allegations against Strategic Properties highlight a crucial tension: the public interest in safe housing and full transparency versus corporate power rooted in asset ownership and profit motives. The TSCA, along with other environmental and housing regulations, was designed to secure the public health by mandating lead safety disclosures and certified renovation processes. Yet the EPA’s enforcement of these regulations in this case demonstrates that significant gaps remain.

From a policy perspective, the $41,200 civil penalty could be read as a modest fine compared to the cost of truly comprehensive compliance across dozens of properties—particularly if those properties have chronic lead paint issues. As many social justice advocates point out, only when companies face punitive penalties that exceed the expense of compliance do they systematically change their behavior.

The Broader Systemic Challenge

Deregulation or under-enforcement, pillars often associated with neoliberal capitalism, arguably make it easier for corporations to “get away” with such violations. Renters, who should have robust rights and protections, can fall through the cracks, especially if they are unaware of their legal entitlements or fear retribution. Meanwhile, corporate accountability depends on agencies having the resources to investigate thoroughly and penalize misconduct at a scale that deters future infractions.

Given these challenges, many community organizations, tenant advocacy groups, and ethical corporate leaders are pushing for:

1. Greater Transparency
   Mandatory posting of lead inspection certificates in lobbies or online databases so prospective tenants know if a building meets lead-safe standards.
2. Tenant Empowerment
   Educating tenants on their rights, providing free legal aid, and protecting them from eviction when they report code violations.
3. Enhanced Penalties
   Increasing fines to a level that dwarfs the economic benefit of noncompliance, along with possibilities of criminal charges for severe, repeated violations that cause demonstrable harm.
4. Independent Monitoring
   Building alliances between local public health departments, community-based organizations, and federal agencies to identify patterns of noncompliance early.

Public Health as a Collective Responsibility

Lead poisoning remains a major public health threat, particularly for children in older housing. As the Strategic Properties complaint illustrates, the failure to provide disclosures, pamphlets, and certified renovation services is not simply a bureaucratic slip—it is a potential tragedy for the tenants. Whether or not the company intentionally skirted the rules, the net effect is the same: tenants were kept in the dark about hazards that could alter or even shorten their lives.

Thus, beyond the penalty and the official condemnation, the deeper question is how communities can mobilize to demand better. Relying solely on the goodwill of corporate landlords is often insufficient, particularly when maximizing shareholder profits conflicts with spending resources on thorough environmental compliance. Corporate social responsibility must be reinforced by robust, well-funded oversight, frequent inspections, and stiff consequences for lapses.

Conclusion

The EPA’s settlement with Strategic Properties is more than an individual enforcement action. It is a cautionary tale about the dynamic interplay between corporate greed, wealth disparity, and regulatory capture under neoliberal capitalism. The alleged conduct—systematically failing to inform tenants of potential lead hazards, eschewing mandatory training and certifications, and exposing residents to heightened risks—reveals the raw underside of cost-saving strategies in the real estate market.

The spotlight on Strategic Properties offers both a warning and an opportunity. For similar companies nationwide, it underscores that compliance with lead regulations is not optional. For tenants, it reinforces the need to be vigilant and to know their rights. For regulators, it highlights the necessity for sustained, proactive enforcement to protect families from the dangers to public health. And for the general public, it is a reminder that corporate accountability is not guaranteed—it must be demanded, legally, ethically, and socially.

If there is a silver lining, it is that each new enforcement action signals a wake-up call for other real estate firms. Violations may seem profitable in the short run, but over the long term, corporate ethics eventually intersect with legal compulsion. The question remains: Will companies like Strategic Properties truly learn to adopt safer, more transparent practices—or will the cycle repeat itself, harming more families in the process? The end of this case is not merely the payment of a fine; it is the start of a broader conversation about the economic fallout of corporate pollution, the health of our communities, and the measures needed to ensure that the public interest triumphs over corporate indifference.

Until that conversation yields stronger regulations and consistent enforcement, the Strategic Properties case stands as a reminder that systemic flaws in neoliberal capitalism persist, and only sustained advocacy—coupled with social justice efforts—will truly safeguard vulnerable communities from dangerous corporate practices. It may well be up to tenants, community groups, and public health advocates to keep the pressure on, ensuring that lead paint rules (and other environmental regulations) fulfill their intended purpose: protecting people from harm rather than being reduced to a minor cost of doing business.

Their website can be found here: https://www.strategicproperties.com/