Setting the record straight about Linda Sepp’s housing situation

Posted by Susie

May 092010

A recent article in The Toronto Star is full of misinformation and inaccuracies about Linda Sepp’s housing problems. I’d like to clear things up.

Linda Sepp

The Star reports on Linda Sepp’s house hunting and eviction in an article by Theresa Boyle entitled Can Linda Sepp possibly be helped? The article is full of inaccuracies about Linda’s situation that I’d like to clear up.

Before I pick apart the points, I’d like to make clear that I am a friend of Linda’s. No, we have never met, but we have emailed with each other daily for almost two years. We’ve laughed together, cried together, spent New Year’s Eve together, helped many people with MCS together, hunted for informational materials together, and built The Canary Report together into what it is today. She’s been my research assistant, and truth be told, she’s been my mentor as I learned the ropes about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and the problem of toxic chemicals in the marketplace and the environment. Linda is very smart. The information that she shares with others is solid; I never have to worry about checking her sources, she always backs up her claims with data and reports, and she’s thorough with her critical thinking.

But Linda is also very ill and completely disabled by chemical sensitivities, fibromyalgia, and electro hypersensitivity. The old house she was living in prior to eviction on May 5, her home of 19 years, was full of mold, and she also was frequently exposed to toxic fumes wafting in from the outside. She was living in a precarious, unsafe housing situation. And as her eviction date neared, she was becoming more and more ill in my opinion, as her emails became less frequest, less engaged and sometimes merely fragments of thoughts peppered with uncertainty about her future.

The process of house hunting for Linda as her eviction date of April 4 loomed was complicated and fraught with difficulty. She is what is known in the world of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as a universal reactor, meaning she is uber sensitive to toxic chemicals, and the smallest quantity of exposure to VOCs, pesticides, laundry products and modern fragrance (which contains known toxic chemicals), among myriad other chemicals, make her very ill very quickly. Recovery is difficult. This health problem complicates house hunting, complicates finding a safe place to live. Housing opportunities that might seem a godsend to someone who is healthy or has a less serious case of MCS, cannot work for someone as ill as Linda.

So let’s look at the article written in The Star by Ms. Boyle. First up, Ms. Boyle’s description of what Linda was asking for, which the reporter couched in an incredulous tone that says to the reader “Look at what this woman is demanding!”:

The woman, who survives on an Ontario disability cheque, said she would like a “modest” three-bedroom house on three acres of land, surrounded by trees and fresh air. It should include a sauna and a sunroom, porch, patio or gazebo for reading and artwork. There should be a small barn for chicken, goats and an animal rescue. And for guests, a bunkie and detox shower.

Except that is NOT and never was Linda’s criteria for finding safe housing. That was Linda’s dream house list (every person with MCS has a dream house in mind, am I right?), that list was never the working list that her landlord nor her housing team was using as criteria, it never was what Linda was asking for. Basically, Linda was asking for a nontoxic two bedroom with clean water and fresh outside air. Period.

But skeptics question the existence of MCS. They acknowledge that people can have chemical sensitivities and allergies, but wonder if it is a stretch to say these can be a debilitating syndrome. A June 2008 article in the Journal of Environmental Science notes that there is “considerable doubt” about the condition “from the scientific community, political leadership and many in the general public who claim that it is psychological.” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not recognize it, the article notes. But it goes on to say that it would be irresponsible of public health officials not to explore the possibility of MCS.

Who cares what the “the scientific community,” politicians or the general public think about MCS? What kind of reporting is that? Linda has sent Ms. Boyle copies of the current peer reviewed research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which clearly shows that MCS is a physiological illness of toxicological origin. Linda is not pulling that info out of her hat, this is the peer reviewed research of Martin Pall recently published as Chapter 92 in the prestigious international reference work for professional toxicologists, General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley & Sons). Further, and just for the record, here’s a list of research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity compiled by Professor Anne C. Steinemann and Amy L. Davis at University of Washington Seattle; this document lists about 100 citations for peer-reviewed journal articles that support a physiological basis for MCS. And I will note, the Centers for Disease Control just issued a chemical- and fragrance-free policy in all their offices nationwide because of the negative effect of those products on the health of their employees– the very products that make people with MCS ill.

Before forcing her out, W.J. [Linda's landlord] made the unheard of offer of buying a $200,000 house anywhere in the province and renting it to her for $500 a month. Her wish-list to the landlord was more reasonable than what she had provided to the city. She asked for wood floors, few stairs and access to a source of organic food. A house fitting the bill was found in Lindsay in February 2008, but after visiting it Sepp turned it down. It smelled of baby powder and made her feel sick.

W.J. proposed other homes, one in Huntsville and another in Lanark. The landlord offered to buy a Solo home, a prefabricated building that could be adapted to someone with allergies. All offers were nixed.

Although such an offer can seem above and beyond anything due Linda by her landlord, and although it can seem that Linda was unreasonable in refusing all offers, anyone with MCS knows that this deal is fraught with peril. At the most basic of levels, we all know the perils involved with a house that has been contaminated with products made from toxic chemicals like air fresheners and personal care products. I know dozens of cases of people with MCS renting homes that they thought they could decontaminate, only to be made sick for a year or longer until their lease ran out.

But Linda’s situation is more complicated than even people with MCS seem to understand. Linda was living in Toronto, unable to leave her house, and had people to shop for her. Part of her decision on taking the houses offered by the landlord was that she had to gamble that she would be able to move to the house and recover enough very quickly to be able to drive at least once a week, perhaps an hour away, to do her own shopping at organic markets. If she moved to a rural place in Ontario, not only would she have to be able to shop for herself, but also she would have to be able to handle the winters in Ontario alone in a rural setting. These are both huge responsibilities to take on if you are housebound and have been depending on people doing your errands for you. You can’t just “get it delivered.” The truth is that Linda had to take under consideration whether or not she could manage living alone rurally. That is a legitimate concern. Who knows if there would have been people locally that could help her after the move?

Friends and staff from the city’s shelter support office pored over real estate listings and thought they found the perfect solution: a $200,000 home in Bobcaygeon that had been built for someone with MCS. But Sepp turned it down because W.J. refused to pay an extra $45,000 to have a couple of extra walls installed. Besides, it had bad feng shui, she said.

This is by far the most egregious of errors in the article because it makes Linda look very bad when in fact Linda did no such thing as stated. The landlord refused to purchase that house based on it being LISTED at $245,000, which was over the landlord’s cap of $200,000. The extra $45,000 had NOTHING to do with Linda asking for any walls to be built. The comment about the “bad feng shui” had NOTHING to do with Linda refusing an offer; at the most it was an off-handed remark made by Linda way after this house was discussed and rejected BY THE LANDLORD. In fact, had the landlord said okay to buying that house, Linda would have accepted it– I have the emails from her saying that she was ready to accept that house before she heard the landlord’s refusal to buy it.

I have received many negative emails and comments on both my blog and Linda’s blog (for which I am the admin) from people who think Linda is acting unreasonable. All the comments were generated because of this article by Theresa Boyle. I have not released any of them because I can’t see how they add anything valuable to the discussion, given that they were generated by misinformation.

To Ms. Boyle: Please be very careful about how you report on this story. Check your facts. Be open to exploring current research on MCS. Cross reference your information on Linda’s situation from two primary sources, as is your responsibility. This is a drama playing out in public about a woman whose housing problem represents the housing problems of thousands of people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Please do not add to the din of misinformation that hurts our community and adds to our struggle for full recognition, full health care, and full social services.

And to those of you getting mad at Linda for her not accepting so many offers of housing: Please try to use this as an opportunity for practicing love and compassion. Judge not lest you be judged. Linda is a member of our community, a valuable member, and this is a time when we can open our hearts and do nothing but love each other. Anger serves no purpose whatsoever. Our job, as human beings on this blessed Earth, is to be kind and to love. Just do it.