Step 10: Executing a Big Idea for Lead Safety

I thought I was done writing about lead until I read Our Sherwin-Williams Dilemma, the Cleveland.com series led by editor Chris Quinn.

If you care about lead safety in Cleveland, read it. The series is clear, easy to follow and gives important history about how we got here. If you would rather listen, there is also a podcast, which is where I started.

What I appreciated most was that Quinn did not stop at explaining the problem. He offered a solution. And because I build programs and design systems for a living, that is where he really got my attention.

Step 10: Execution

Quinn lays out a nine-step plan that touches housing, transportation, workforce development, manufacturing, public safety, health care and more. I appreciate the plan. His nine steps immediately led me to think about Step 10: execution.

Quinn says, “It’s that simple.” His plan gives us something concrete to react to and build from. But we need executors, people who can take a big idea and turn it into something that works.

That point feels especially important because Quinn also writes about something many people in Cleveland have seen before: big ideas generate excitement but do not always make it to implementation.

A vision this large would require an implementation framework that connects funding, workforce, contractors, property owners, inspections, regulations, data and accountability. Someone has to define the roles, build the processes, manage the handoffs and keep all of those pieces moving toward the same goal.

So his nine steps left me with another question:

What system would we need to build to turn an idea this ambitious into thousands of lead-safe properties?

That’s the part that interests me.

I would make the conversation a little bigger.

As I thought about Quinn's proposal, three things kept coming to mind.

First, Greater Cleveland.

I have made the same mistake in my own writing that much of our public conversation makes: focusing almost entirely on Cleveland proper. Lead doesn't stop at the city limits. Our long-term thinking shouldn't either.

Second, higher education.

Greater Cleveland has universities with deep expertise in housing, public health, urban policy and community development. We would not be starting from scratch. Case Western Reserve University's Center on Poverty and Community Development has conducted lead-safety research in Cuyahoga County since 2018 and has supported the Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition with research and data since its launch in 2019.

We do not need to study the problem before we start solving it. Much of that work has already been done. The opportunity now is to put what we already know to work, while using our universities to evaluate what we implement, identify what is working and help us improve along the way.

Third, Congress.

This conversation is already moving beyond Cleveland. U.S. Reps. Shontel Brown and Rashida Tlaib recently introduced federal legislation aimed at expanding resources for removing lead hazards from housing, including a proposed new HUD grant program.

That raises another question for me:

What could Greater Cleveland build now that would position us to make the best use of future federal resources if they become available?

What comes next?

I appreciate that Quinn took the time to develop a big idea and put it out there. Now I want those of us who care about this issue to think about what it would take to execute something like it.

What already exists? What needs to be connected? Who needs to be involved? And how do we build something that can last beyond one grant, administration or initiative? Those are the questions I plan to keep asking.

Apparently, my lead series isn't over after all. Maybe that's a good thing. Because a series like Our Sherwin-Williams Dilemma should do more than give us something to read and discuss. It should be a catalyst to get something done.