99.99% of the time there is zero cost reduction due to the presence of lead paint in a normally maintained home. All old homes have it or are assumed to have it.

Stripping is uncommon and can't remove all lead paint from porous surfaces anyway -- like concrete blocks, walls, or ledges.

Landlords use a special lead blocker paint if required to pass inspections. Otherwise -- who knows.

That doesn’t explain it though because lead paint covered by regular paint is quite safe unless your children eat chunks of the wall (quite possible).

Eating chunks of intact wall is unlikely, but surfaces like window sills are very risky because they constantly flake. That’s the nuance of lead mitigation. You can be completely compliant and safe for children with some lead paint on intact walls.

Any tenant can force their landlord to remove lead in those high risk areas (at landlords expense!) if there’s a young child but few renters know about this option.

Not true. Abatement is required. That is not the same as removal. Lead blocker paint or otherwise taking the surface out of contact is usual solution.

I don’t see what was untrue. Abatement still leaves lead paint on the walls. It’s a misconception that lead compliance means “no lead in house”.

Most realtors in Boston don’t bring up lead. There’s a big culture of don’t ask don’t tell.