Statements about the safety of Synthetic Pre-emergents by board members at an open meeting

Started by RickJ6 • 11 replies • 148 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

RickJ6 (Nevada)
Posts: 31

Posted:

As a retired litigator, I tend to view things from a liability and safety perspective more then most. There is an incident that occurred that I would like some feedback on.
The community is a 55+ community, the issue is the use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides in the community on 100% rock based landscaping.
In particular Synthetic Pre-emergents. Last year a series of emails was sent to the board making the board aware of the toxicity of these products along with the idea that they had no place in a 55+ community.
This did not sit well with the board. Rather then review the issue from an intellectual perspective, they simply went to the landscaper to confirm these products were safe. The view being the landscaper is the expert in these areas.
Since then there is a new board. Its spraying season again, and the issue has come up again.
Since then new information has been discovered. First the property management company is having employees certified by LEEDS. They have become the organization to go to for certification as to Green buildings and as it turns out the use of synthetic chemicals for weed and pest control.
The LEEDS approach is simple. 75% Organic 25% Synthetic and of the 25% the synthetic product can be no higher then tier 3 in the San Francisco environmental tier system. In addition as to Synthetic Preemergents, they are not allowed. As there are alternatives that are safe to humans, animals and are environmentally friendly.
Adopting LEEDS was dismissed out of hand, even though the property management company has some of its employees certified by LEEDS.
Then a study came down connecting the particular chemical as being Genotoxic to humans. This study was peer reviewed and published in many major publications. For those that are interested the name of the study is "The possible cytotoxicity and genotoxicity
assessment of indaziflam on HepG2 cells", you can find the text of the study at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/09603271231183145

The board was made aware of this study. Then the meeting takes place and a member of the board purporting to be a chemical expert made the following statement:
"to get sick from it, you'd have to
sprinkle it on your cereal and eat it. And I'm not trying to be funny."
The statement was also made when the study was brought up, "Liver cancer, anything driving out the door will give you liver cancer"
The lack of seriousness in the discussion, along with moving the issue to the landscape committee from the safety committee, as some on the safety committee were not in agreement with the board on this issue is concerning.

Now, the label of the chemical has a laundry list of precautionary statements, along with detailed first aid instructions one of which is it is imperative to bring the label of the product to the ER, yet, the residents are not given this label nor are they given the first aid instructions. Most likely as it does not fit the narrative of safety they are trying to give.
The question I have is what are the options now to concerned residents? Reason and logic have been exhausted. And the statements made at the board meeting in my judgement are very concerning as they are so over the top for rationale behavior by someone that has a fiduciary responsibility to the community.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 1,334

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RickJ6 on 04/02/2025 5:57 AM
The question I have is what are the options now to concerned residents?

In my experience the best HOA attorneys advise that the most efficient, least costly way of remedying your concerns is to campaign to elect a board majority who feel as you do.

Quote:

Posted By RickJ6 on 04/02/2025 5:57 AM
Reason and logic have been exhausted. And the statements made at the board meeting in my judgement are very concerning as they are so over the top for rationale behavior by someone that has a fiduciary responsibility to the community.

Respectfully, and just offering a different point of view: I can understand why people would disagree with the above. Hopefully they do so with civility.

I have concerns about the use of pre-emergents and other weed killers. But I also feel that the evidence still does not clearly point to these as being carcinogenic, when used as directed.

On the other hand: I am aware that many HOAs are responsive to concerns like yours. Many HOAs try to be accommodating, whether it be switching to a different strategy for weeds, or not spraying owners' LCEs, because the owner requested it and took responsibility for the weeds in the LCE, and so on.

DeanJ
Posts: 1,786

Posted:

The use of herbicides and pesticides have health risks. The immediate health risk is exposure to the applicator who is handling these chemicals and to persons accidentally exposed to high concentrations.

Unless your HOA is using unapproved chemicals or unlicensed applicators, these risks are minimized by the applicator following the label instructions for storage, transportation, and application as well as using proper personal protection equipment.

For the homeowner, exposure that would required first aid or an emergency room visit from the application of a diluted product, while not impossible, is very minimal.

A lot of people have concerns with the long term effects of herbicides and pesticides. That’s why there is an organic options at the grocery, but the majority of society is willing to accept non organic food options. I doubt the owners in your +55 community are different in that regard.

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

What does the HOA's insurer have to say about the subject? May be more persuasive than "hey, board, you're doing things wrong".

There's a bit of an art to getting boards to listen to you. An owner who's perceived as being helpful and part of the team will have more success than one who complaints and criticizes. It's not a sure thing, of course. But being the helpful sort will up your chances of being listened to.

Full disclosure: I hate all the stuff that the lawn care companies use on the common areas. But what's the alternative? Less toxic alternatives may cost more and may work less well. Manually removing weeds and whatnot is definitely more costly, and few companies would be willing to devote that amount of time to a single client. And if the board actually found someone who would be willing to provide other options for weed control, I can pretty much guarantee that the membership would complain about increased assessments. Live with the weeds and crabgrass? The membership will howl. Boards can't win in situations like this.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Rick,

Perhaps one can suggest amending the covenants and make lawn care the responsibility of the member.
This way, each member can make their own choice.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Question:

Are people simply complaining about the use of the pesticides or are they doing the research and offering alternatives with the complaining?

DeanJ
Posts: 1,786

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CathyA3 on 04/02/2025 9:50 AM
What does the HOA's insurer have to say about the subject? May be more persuasive than "hey, board, you're doing things wrong".

There's a bit of an art to getting boards to listen to you. An owner who's perceived as being helpful and part of the team will have more success than one who complaints and criticizes. It's not a sure thing, of course. But being the helpful sort will up your chances of being listened to.

Full disclosure: I hate all the stuff that the lawn care companies use on the common areas. But what's the alternative? Less toxic alternatives may cost more and may work less well. Manually removing weeds and whatnot is definitely more costly, and few companies would be willing to devote that amount of time to a single client. And if the board actually found someone who would be willing to provide other options for weed control, I can pretty much guarantee that the membership would complain about increased assessments. Live with the weeds and crabgrass? The membership will howl. Boards can't win in situations like this.

Do you REALLY want to submit that question to your insurance provider? Older condos had Chlordane pumped under the slab. What about termite baits ands pesticides currently used for carpenter ants? What is your solution if your insurance company adds a rider stating they will not cover any claims due to pesticides used to stop insect damage to the units?

KellyM3 (North Carolina)
Posts: 2,239

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By DeanJ on 04/02/2025 12:26 PM

Dean,

Your advice is common sense. The people who "worry" about pesticide and herbicide use on common areas usually have a personal opposition to their use and no discernible health risk. It's a passive aggressive way of bullying an HOA board for using certified and approved chemicals that are (or should be) applied by trained professionals as part of grounds maintenance.

WendyM5 (North Carolina)
Posts: 1,522

Posted:

people rarely have the science background to objectively determine if these chemicals are dangerous enough to cause issues.
often it's just a tree hugger arguing with a spider hater scenario.
Get on the board and prevent these idiots from poisoning your environment.

vis ta vie

RickJ6 (Nevada)
Posts: 31

Posted:

The problem with going to the hoa insurer is they could cancel the policy based upon what has transpired. There are cases where homeowners have cancelled and then the homeowners were sued successfully by the HOA for being instrumental in the insurance cancellation. Not many, but enough to not recommend a homeowner go that route.

It has been suggest to the board that they talk this through with the HOA attorney and also they contact their insurance agent to make sure the HOA is covered. But, unfortunately this HOA does not take suggestions well.

So, their approach is to sell the idea these are safe, not give the label or first aid instructions to the residents, and then at board meetings make affirmative statements of safety of these products themselves.

Forgetting the debate as to safety itself, there is no argument that the board has to stay away from giving opinions as to safety. Not only is it a bad practice, but in many instances outside the scope of their authority. They could say the landscaper has told them the product is safe, and get it in writing from the landscaper. But, I doubt the landscaper would do that, and merely refer to the label as being definitive on the product.

BTW, the label itself has a laundry list of precautionary statements, and also a well written disclaimer that the manufacturer is not guaranteeing the safety of the product. And they at least attempt to limit their liability to the purchase price

One thing that stood out to me, is the first aid provisions and the statement that if someone has to go to the ER, it is essential to bring the label with them.

Yet the board refuses to give the first aid provisions to the residents, and in addition refuses to give the label to the residents. So if perchance a resident becomes ill as a result of being exposed to the spraying, they will not have the label to take with them. And the ER will not have any idea what chemical they are dealing with.

Some have suggested how wrong it is for a resident to be concerned about this, or raise it. Even suggested that its a passive aggressive act to bully the board

That is a novel argument to say the least. It says more about the person making this argument then the safety of the product itself. I would never have thought about that approach to argue in favor of spraying these products in a residential community. So I have to hand it to the person to find the most obnoxious comment on the subject to date

The point really is, this board is being dogmatic on the subject. They are not open to debate, as shown by their switching the issue to the landscape committee who will go along with them from the safety committee that has raised concerns.

Most residents are not aware of the risks associated with these products even if they are applied per the label. Which last season there was not one spray that complied with the terms of the label. And since the label is the law, both federal and state, these laws were violated every time they sprayed last season.

But, the solution is a simple one, Just adopt LEEDS. There is a reason this issue has come up across the world. These synthetic products are toxic. And their are safe alternatives. The cost of the alternatives is directly related to the landscaper you use. But, there is a reason that more and more states, counties and countries are banning these products. And its not because they are safe.

Eventually all of these products will be illegal in residential communities. In the meantime its not unreasonable to expect the board to be open minded in this area. And it would help the community property values in Las Vegas. As it would be the only community that could be listed in the list of chemically free zones. If they adopted LEEDS and put out a PR campaign, property values would increase in this community by at least 20% in a month or two.

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

As I said previously, I dislike all the chemicals being used on association grounds. That said, a person who is concerned about such things - or who has chemical sensitivities - should understand that they make come into contact with them if they live in a community association, especially a condominium. That's the nature of communal housing.

It's unrealistic to expect a community association to cater to individual needs or preferences except in situations that fall into "reasonable accommodation" territory. Until the law chooses to include chemical sensitivities as a condition deserving an accommodation, it's foolish to expect that in any communal housing situation. A person with such sensitivities needs to protect themselves first and not assume others will do so - because others won't.

It's particularly unrealistic to expect such knowledge in communities that are run by (sometimes reluctant) volunteers who may not even be up to the basics of their jobs and who often operate with a bare bones "paycheck to paycheck" budget.

As a board member, I would welcome information from an owner about hazardous chemicals - along with recommendations for safer alternatives and rough estimates of the costs of the safer alternatives. Unfortunately, the dangerous stuff is often cheaper. I doubt that the majority of owners would be in favor of switching if it meant higher assessments. In communities where owners can veto budgets or assessment increases, it would be a non-starter. And in communities where owners can't directly impact budgets and assessments, they're still able to remove board members who are "wasting association money" on safer alternatives.

I wish I were less pessimistic, but I never expect people to make wise choices or to take the long view when dumb choices are cheaper and immediately available.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 1,334

Posted:

The thread herein appears to revisit the same issues the OP gave in this March 2024 thread: https://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/view/topic/forumid/1/postid/369533/Default.aspx

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here