Alpha-Beta
In 1993, when the Rhode Island Port Authority and the then-Department of Economic Development issued $30 million in bonds and lent the proceeds to Alpha-Beta Technology to build a plant in Smithfield, biotechnology stocks were hot, to say the least. Today, investors, including state officials, better understand the risks. The demise of Alpha-Beta, while on its surface would appear to mean a $25 million plus loss to the state, will likely be far less.
Rhode Island owns the building, which it is likely to sell for a sizable sum. And in the seven years that Alpha Beta was in Rhode Island, it was buying goods, many of its employees were paying taxes here, and generally the company was putting an investment back into the state.
The demise of Alpha-Beta should serve to highlight the risks that biotechnology presents, but that is not to say the industry doesn’t have a bright future in Rhode Island.
The Center for Cellular Medicine at Brown University – which is partially funded by the state – is starting to measure its successes; and the state’s premiere biotechnology company, CytoTherapeutics of Lincoln, is progressing with clinical trials of a potential treatment for chronic pain. The Economic Development Corporation says its courting several pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including the highly successful Pfizer.
Biotechnology as a whole can thrive anywhere there is access to top-notch universities and hospitals. Rhode Island has that. And the loss of Alpha-Beta should not prove a deterrent to the growth of this industry.
Get the lead out
The Senate Commission on Lead Hazards is expected to produce a bill this month to encourage more landlords and property owners to make the state’s housing stock lead-safe.
Data provided by the state Department of Health indicates that children here suffer from lead poisoning and elevated blood-lead levels — which can cause neurological problems such as lower IQs — at a rate higher than children in other parts of the country. An average of 25 children a year wind up in hospitals in Rhode Island suffering from lead poisoning.
One of the commission’s tasks is to determine the future of the state’s “innocent owner provision,” enacted in the early 1990s as part of the first state law addressing the issue. It protects landlords from liability if they were unaware of a property’s lead hazards. It hasn’t been tested in court, but state officials and insurance industry executives contend that it protects a landlord from liability in case of a poisoning – unless that person was cited by the Department of Health for having lead hazards.
DOH has a limited staff – though it just received funding to add six new positions dedicated to lead hazards – and typically only has inspections conducted after blood screenings indicate a child has an unacceptable blood-lead level.
So by the time the inspection is done, a child could have already suffered the detrimental effects of lead poisoning. It’s a Catch 22.
Most property owners and landlords weren’t responsible for lead hazards, which can include old paint and soldering used to install plumbing fixtures, on their property. So there is some justification in cutting them slack. But still, an estimated 30,000 of the state’s 400,000-plus dwellings are in need of abatement work, and kids are getting poisoned.
The law as it stands hasn’t worked to get people to conduct lead abatement programs. Though it could have an impact on property and rental prices, there should be more incentive in the law to clean up properties where young children live. Since it’s an expensive proposition, with estimates in the $7,000 to $15,000 range per unit, it should be cushioned in a way that is palatable for property owners.
The General Assembly needs to move on this bill once it is issued and not drag its feet. Tinker if you will, but get something done in this session. We’ve known about lead hazards since, at the very least, the federal government outlawed the use of lead in residential paint in 1978.
