by Timothy B. Wheeler, Scott Calvert
| Mar. 1, 2011
Unable to fix up enough homes, city ruled ineligible for new grant
Baltimore, where thousands of buildings contain lead-based paint that can poison young children, has lost federal funding for abatement programs due to mismanagement of its most recent grant, officials said Monday.
Full Story »
An important and well-reported story, but where was the Sun before things reached this disastrous stage?
This is a thorough round-up of reactions, but, obviously, some additional digging must be forthcoming. Surely the people who have been administering this program over the last several years need to offer public explanations.
How many layers of oversight failed here? Hard to regard this as anything but a disaster for the city.
Gant said HUD officials discovered “some other administrative issues” with how the city was spending the federal funds after reviewing ...
This is a relevant investigative story, well-sourced and detailed. There are enough questions still unanswered to merit a follow-up: What is the nature of the "administration issues?" How difficult is it to find a home that fits the guidelines? What is the the city going to do now?
The city was handicapped in finding homes eligible for fix-up because of various HUD restrictions, Farrow said. Lead hazard funds could not be ...
Yes, this is good journalism. It is very informative. It is well-sourced and well-rounded giving a pretty good overview of the topic. It's in-depth, covers a lot of important information. It's well-written, concise, but lacks a little in interest. I would suggest relating it to someone with a personal experience.
This article, although rather lengthy, was well-written and included lots of relevant information. The journalists included lots of facts and good sources to back up their findings, and it is obvious they did a fair amount of research to dig into the Baltimore lead program. It is a shame that such a huge program that would be so beneficial to so many Baltimore residents is now going unfunded, but this article gives great insight as to where the problem lies and how issues regarding ... More »
I wish the reporters had spoken with families who live in homes with lead paint that have yet to be fixed. They are the people who will suffer from administrative incompetence, and their voices deserve to be heard.
Who are the victims? What do the working-class employees of these lead paint programs think?
I would like lay-men sources. But this is an article with strong sources, documentation, and clear context with a strong background.
My arguments for this being a 3.3 as opposed to a 4+ would be the missing victim sources, and the fact that it's not particularly compelling or enjoyable to read.
This story was very factual but many of the facts were missing citations. For example, where did the author get the facts about the effects of led paint on children? Some of the figures the authors mention were also not cited. A few of the sentences were too long and were too complex than they had to be. Overall, the article showed good insight into the problems facing housing in Baltimore.
I think this is good journalism because it thoroughly all of the important bases. Well, all except one. What about the people? I saw a lot of government sources, but I didn't see any quotes from anyone directly affected by this issue. That should be the focus of it. What are these people going to do now? Are they going to keep living in these houses? How will they deal with the lead in their homes? What about their children?
I'd say this article is an example of good journalism because it is very well sourced and balanced with its sources in that it shows an in-depth look at both perspectives. it not only addresses the issue but discusses what is currently being done to resolve it.
I think this story is a good example of watch dog journalism. The city lost a grant because of wasteful spending and the city and its residents are going to suffer from it. It is good to know for those affected to know why the city lost its grant.
Excelllently sourced and a very in depth look at the issue. Still, there are some holes in the story. For example, what were the so-called "administrative issues" that led to the eventual grant loss?
Also, the perspective of some Baltimore residents affected by lead-paint or the loss of the grant could be a compelling addition.
This article is good journalism because it meets and exceeds much of the criteria listed on the rating scale. The story goes into details about the loss of federal lead-paint funding and it is relevant because this recently happened on Monday. Since the story is very well-sourced it shows credibility and the writing is also at a high professional level.
Seems like a reasonably balanced story. It's sad that our city government can't get its act together enough to avoid this type of situation. What's going on with SRB? I feel like I was really excited for her as mayor in 2010. Now I feel like she's trying to fly under the radar or something. Maybe I'm just not paying attention enough.
Certain folks' support for Rolley intrigues me, but so far I haven't been overly excited by him either. I might like to see them work together. We need someone like Corey Booker, but that's probably one in a million.
This story is great but is extremely boring. The story is way too long for the content. It is very much news but needs to be shorter to keep peoples attention. The Sources are great and informative but it is hard to read.