Would new legislation paint do-it-yourselfers into a corner?
Apr. 8—Dear Answer Man: Have you heard about the bill in the Minnesota Legislature that would limit the amount of paint a person could buy to a gallon or less unless that person is an licensed painter? The bill creates a Paint Contractors Board and licenses painters like electricians and plumbers. The upshot of the bill is the average person could not paint their house — inside or out — because they couldn't buy enough paint to do the job from their local hardware store. What are the pros and cons of this idea? — Paint By Numbers.
Dear Painter,
Your friendly, neighborhood Answer Man is wise, but if you want me to explain the inner workings of state lawmakers' thoughts, that's beyond even my expertise.
Still, ask and, answers, you shall receive.
So, first of all, the restrictions on the quantity of paint you can purchase only applies to solvent-based paints, and then only restricting you from buying paints in containers bigger than a gallon.
It doesn't say you can't buy multiple one-gallon cans of paint.
And it doesn't apply to latex paints, which are the ones commonly used in houses. So, your ability to paint the kitchen is unhindered.
That, though, isn't the problem people have with this proposed new law.
Bruce Struve, owner of Struve Paint and Decorating in Rochester, said he sent a letter to Minnesota Rep. Andy Smith, DFL-Rochester, asking Smith to vote against the House version of the bill,
HF 3633.
Why?
"Our letter was about the licensed painters," Struve said. "We asked him, please vote no. This is a damaging bill for men or women who don't want to pay for a license."
Struve said, if passed, the new law would force painters to get licensed, which would drive up their prices and make it even harder to make a living doing the job.
His own son, he said, has been a painter for about 20 years and has a good reputation in town without needing to pass any state-mandated test and pay a fee to be licensed like a plumber or electrician.
"He could do without more legislation to get a license," Struve said.
Because the quantity rules are surrounding solvent-based paints, that really shouldn't cause any problems for consumers, unless you are buying a solvent-based primer. Regular people, he said, still buy some of those in large quantities.
But other than primers and some trim paint, most household paints have converted away from solvent-based paints because of the VOC — volitile organic compounds — restrictions that began in the 1980s.
So, will this proposed legislation likely become law of the Land of 10,000 Lakes? While he won't be voting for it, state Sen. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, said the bill will probably be attached to one of the omnibus bills, which means even DFLers who might be opposed will end up voting yes because it is part of a larger bill.
"There are a few rural Democrats in the Senate who might not want something like that," Drazkowski said. "But they'll put that in an omnibus bill rather than carry it alone."
Like Struve, Drazkowski said he's not a fan of creating a new government bureaucracy.
Added Drazkowski, who is never a fan of bigger government: "(The Democrats) believe that government needs to be in the middle of decision making, and that the average person can't be trusted."
Again, in either the House bill or the one on the Senate side,
SF 3554,
the new law would test potential professional house painters, charge them a fee for a license and create a new Paint Contractor Board, with board members appointed by the governor.
Which sounds like the new bill would put some politics into painting your house.
You've got questions? Well, color me surprised. Send questions to Answer Man at
.
