Those of you holding stock in Sherwin-Williams can breathe a little easier. While a six-person jury in Rhode Island Superior Court held three companies, including Sherwin-Williams – liable for creating a public nuisance by making lead paint, the judge in the landmark case has denied a request for punitive damages.
Judge Michael Silverstein’s ruling – while more symbolic than substantive – demonstrates that sound reasoning, not emotional populism, is being used to protect Rhode Island’s children, nearly 2,000 of whom had elevated lead levels in 2004, according to state figures.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
The paint companies involved – Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries and Millenium Holdings LLC – have been ordered to remediate the lead paint in up to 330,000 homes and apartments in Rhode Island. Depending on the method, either removal or sealing, the firms are liable for costs that run anywhere from $330 million to $4.5 billion, according to published estimates. The punitive damages, meanwhile, had been expected to be much lower, if approved. Thus, the paint companies are not out of the woods.
But the markets took the judge’s Feb. 28 decision as a good sign, pushing shares of all three companies up. And we agree with the sentiment.
If the paint companies go out of business, the children of Rhode Island will be no healthier, and it was the health of the children that prompted the state to file suit in the first place.
Block Island asserts itself once again
Rhode Island needs more marina slips, but Block Island is not the appropriate site.
Therefore, we applaud last week’s decision by the Coastal Resources Management Council to reject a proposal to expand Champlin’s Marina in Great Salt Pond.
Ever since the 1974 creation of the Block Island Conservancy, the group’s members have worked tirelessly to cobble together parcels of land that cannot be developed.
The marina – already the largest on the island – would have been expanded by cutting 170 feet farther into the pond. The purpose was not to accommodate residents, but to allow more summer visitors to moor their boats.
In other words, there is no compelling, community-based economic development rationale for the plan. Thus, the will of the people should prevail. And with 40 percent of the island put into conservation trusts since the mid-1970s, is there any doubt about the people’s will?
In the last few decades, tourism has flourished on Block Island, and there is an understandable desire to visit a “hot” destination. The inhabitants no doubt realize that all the attention might destroy the very slow-paced quality that attracted the attention in the first place. Whether that’s true or not, there is little evidence that the people of Block Island want more visitors. Who are we to argue?
