Clarity Blog

(Ed. Note: This post summarizes commentary written by Laer for the June 2010 issue of Builder News Magazine. You can read the full version here.)

The filing date for city council candidates across Southern California is fast approaching and campaign contribution requests will come just as fast.

As a public affairs consultant who has been involved in the approval of more than 400,000 homes, I’ve participated in many strategy sessions during election seasons, and have identified four fundamental ways our clients approach corporate campaign contributions:

• The pragmatists, who contribute to those considered most likely to get elected, so only “winning” investments are made
• The idealists, who contribute only to those who are likely to support building, even if it’s unlikely they’ll win
• The navel-gazers, who balance electability against support for the industry, and make highly nuanced contributions
• The deniers, who don’t make any campaign contributions at all, ever.

We’ve had clients take each of these approaches and subsequently get projects approved.  So which approach is best?  You can click here to read our full story on this topic featured in Builder News.

But the bottom line is campaign contributions are just a form of communications.  You are communicating through your money, and you are hoping your money will lead to access – the opportunity to communicate – after the election.  Consequently, the same rules apply to contributions as apply to all communications:

• Prepare your messages, and update them as circumstances change
• Seek to listen, not just to talk
• Act only after you’re fully prepared to respond to negative questions.

Lastly, be sure to make a contribution to the building industry PAC – even if you’re contributing separately, because the industry’s voice needs to be heard, too.

The Orange County BIA Advocate – the chapter’s bi-weekly e-newsletter – will distribute our article on honing in your economic benefits message. The crux of our point is a fantastic study from the California Center for Strategic Economic Research (CSER) that quantifies the “ripple effect” of homebuilding. It’s a great tool that allows builders to put numbers to the positive economic impact their projects will have.

Some of the key findings:

• Every home produces more than $360,000 in economic activity, excluding the sale of the home
• For every $1 spent building a home, $0.9 is generated in additional economic activity
• Each home built generates 2.4 jobs

We encourage you to read the Advocate article as well as the study. Then take a moment to visit our new new Web site.

Laer Pearce & Associates helped its client, Tejon Mountain Village, win unanimous approval from the Kern County Board of Supervisors after a five-year entitlement effort. One County supervisor called the plan, “the best…most responsible development that’s ever occurred in Kern County, the state and perhaps the nation.” Congrats to Tejon for their major milestone. We were honored to be part of this terrific team.

80 percent of TMV's land will remain open.

That was our campaign theme for S&S homes, when we turned back an anti-growth initiative and got their Yorba Linda new home development approved, all based on the promise that S&S would provide land for a Yorba Linda High School, YLHS. It was exciting to win that one for S&S, but it’s even more exciting to the school finally become reality. Go YLHS Mustangs!