Landlords have to pay up in lead paint cases, why not the Housing Authority?

I read in Sunday's paper that city officials in the Housing Authority outright refuse to pay financial damages to plaintiffs who have won financial awards against due to damages their children endured while residing in public housing ("Baltimore housing authority says it won't pay millions in lead poisoning judgments," April 3). It was noted chipped paint containing lead was all over the window sills in the public housing units.

How is it acceptable that the city will not pay financial damages when they hold city landlords to a totally different standard?

Landlords must register their properties and take every precaution possible so pregnant women and children residing in homes/apartments built prior to 1978 are not exposed to lead.

Landlords are fined if they do not adhere to these laws.

I would like someone to explain the double standard that exists.

C.S. Billian