Clarity Blog

Filthy parasites?

In case you missed the news, three people at the Discovery Channel headquarters were held hostage today by James Lee, a madman who had “beef” with the network. Unlike the typical disgruntled former employee hostage-taker, Lee was a crazed uber-environmentalist who felt the Discovery Channel isn’t living up to what he saw as its responsibility to save the planet.

It’s getting pretty extreme when an environmentalist takes hostages at one of the most (if not the most) environmentally-friendly cable networks.  But then, Lee’s manifesto is an exercise in extremism, ranting about the need to end to a particularly “filthy” and “parasitic” problem:  human infants. Lee demanded Discovery run programs that encourage people to stop breeding, save the environment and stop wars — not because wars kill people, but because they kill animals.

If you tune in to the opinions being voiced on social media about this episode, you will find most people disagree with Lee (phew!), but the wave of anti-people sentiment is pronounced and continued to grow with each passing hour. We see milder evidence of this with our land development clients, as some of our more radical opponents cry that there are too many people, that we need to stop new development in order to stop population growth, and that any impact at all is too much for the poor planet to survive. Never mind that people had discovered sex and kept at it, even long before there were master bedrooms with spiffy bathrooms and massive walk-in closets.

The Center for Biological Diversity, the environmental organization we most like to poke, has an entire campaign fighting overpopulation. They are more articulate than Lee and never go as far as to call humans parasites, but the sentiment is there, as the CBD states, “Discussion of overpopulation has become somewhat taboo in the environmental movement,” and to change that, “more than 200 conservationists and scientists, including the Center for Biological Diversity, pledged during the February 2009 Global Population Speak Out to promote awareness of the problem — and we pledged again in 2010.”

As growth returns to the economy (hopefully soon) we fear we’ll see more people like Lee.  We’ll certainly see many of the tamer version.  Should we just ignore them?  Or should he put the spotlight on them and actually win more support for new developments?  Interesting options, eh?

In any case, even if James Lee was no Boy Scout, it pays to always remember the Boy Scout Motto:  Be prepared.

August 9, 2010

What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development?  You’ll find them right here each Monday, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis.  This week:

1. Will the Drought Contingency Plan squeeze future land uses?

The California Department of Water Resources didn’t go so far as to blame your picket-fenced bit of the ‘burbs for causing the state’s ongoing water crisis, but it is looking at limiting future land uses as part of the solution.  According to its newly released Drought Contingency Plan, “development intensity has a direct relationship to water supply,” and since the state’s thirst for water outstrips available resources, that means builders best prepare for more regulation and limits on what they can do with their property.

>> Read the Full Report

(more…)

August 2, 2010

What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development?  You’ll find them right here each Monday, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis.  This week:

What could you do with this raw land?

1. Builders beginning to buy raw land with eye on market turnaround.

Standard Pacific CEO Ken Campbell made the news recently when he predicted a 2014 housing comeback and said he’s buying raw land in a big way.  That’s a sure sign the supply of already-approved lots is drying up … and it also means there will be a new wave of activism from the environmentalist/NIMBY cabal.  New legislation and policy have prioritized infill development and attempted to make greenfield development neighborhood non grata in California.  That will make entitlement a challenge … but one with great potential financial upsides for those who purchase wisely.

>> Read More

(more…)

We are big fans of the Public Policy Institute and its surveys of public opinion in California.  We like that its executive director, Mark Baldassare, came out of Chapman University here in OC, and we like even more that it presents a largely unpartisan take on what Californians are thinking.  But we’re disappointed in PPICs handling of AB32 and Proposition 23 – California’s “save the planet” global warming law, and the Nov. 2010 proposition to delay its implementation.

In a news release announcing the results of the institute’s annual Californians and the Environment survey, PPIC said:

… Californians’ views on another contentious environmental policy issue have held steady since last year. Two-thirds (67% today, 66% in 2009) favor the state law (AB 32) that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 is the focus of renewed debate because Proposition 23 on the November ballot asks whether the law should be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5% or below for a minimum of one year.

Because the ballot language has not been finalized, we posed a more general question about timing: Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53%) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait.

Is that really what Californians said?  We don’t think so, and here’s why:

(more…)

What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development?  You’ll find them right here each Monday, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis.  This week:

1. Is Developing Alameda Point worth the hassle?

Alameda Point - What Could Have Been

The city of Alameda voted last week to terminate an exclusive negotiating agreement with SunCal for development of the city’s former Navy base, which closed 15 years ago.  SunCal invested nearly $15 million during its four-year process, but was stymied by ever-changing political winds, a city staff with personal agendas and a public that’s not happy without a fight on its hands.  SunCal came on board in 2006 after a partnership of Shea and Catellus got fed up and walked away, which begs the question:  Is developing Alameda Point worth the hassle?  >>Read More

(more…)

As PR pros, of course we’ve been thinking a lot about the demise of the Deepwater Horizon and the ensuing performances by BP, the administration and everyone else who’s trying to make a point out of the mess.

We like the fact that BP is letting us watch the crude gush out 24/7 (today we’re watching the Remotely Operated Vehicle) and we think its dedicated website is an example of state-of-the-art transparency, but we certainly don’t think much of a CEO who says he wants to “get his life back” after an environmental disaster of this magnitude.  His subsequent apology, like all apologies following gaffes of this magnitude, was inadequate.

We think the president should have visited the Gulf Coast over the Memorial Day weekend, so he could have spent a lot of time talking to people who are trying to stop the gush, and the people whose livelihoods are threatened by it.

And, of course, we’re appalled that knee-jerk environmentalist nay-saying is holding up needed efforts to protect the environment, like Gov. Bobby Jindall’s proposal to build off-shore berms.  Cynics among us might even think for a moment that they’re trying to make the disaster get worse so they can use it to leverage future regulatory campaigns.  But of course, that’s just from the cynics among us …

What we find most interesting is the media’s failure to put the disaster – bad as it is – in perspective.  Our friends at Briscoe Ivester & Bazel recently did just that:

The blowout at Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico has now surpassed, in volume of oil spilled into the marine environment, the grounding and rupturing 21 years ago of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska. So reported the Wall Street Journal and other news services May 28. The nation’s press has run to its morgues to exhume accounts of the Valdez grounding and spill. Forgotten, though, is a much larger spill … Mexico’s Ixtoc I. Ixtoc I was, like Deepwater Horizon, a drilling rig moored in the Gulf of Mexico, in that case about 600 miles south of the Texas coastline. It exploded June 3, 1979 for reasons similar to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Ixtoc spilled 10 to 30 thousand barrels of oil a day into the Gulf until relief wells permitted the capping of the broken well almost 10 months later. More than five million barrels of oil spewed from the Ixtoc’s broken wellhead into the Gulf during those months. That amount was 20 times the oil spilled in the Valdez incident.

We hope Deepwater Horizon is capped long before it reaches anything even close to the magnitude of the Ixtoc I spill.  That said, when was the last time you read something about the lasting environmental impacts of Ixtoc I?  Have you ever read anything on the subject?  Well, we have. Here’s the final report prepared by the Feds after thoroughly studying the impact of the 11,000 metric tons of Ixtoc I (and Burmah Agate, another spill) oil that hit the Texas coast. The conclusion:

Petroleum residues attributable to the IXTOC and BURMAH AGATE spills were not identified in the surficial sediments of the study area. Analyses of several water column samples did indicate the presence of IXTOC oil in suspended sedimentary material. Shrimp tissue analysis results identified the presence of petroleum in chronic low levels, but only one sample was linked to IXTOC residues.

No direct links, based on fluctuations in benthic community parameters (abundance and diversity) identified in a comparison of 1976-1977 data with 1980 (post-spill) data, could be made with the IXTOC and/or BURMAH AGATE, spills.

In other words, despite all the hue and cry, all the hand-wringing, and all the condemnation of fossil fuel dependency, the long-term effects of a spill 20 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill led to nothing more than life as usual with marine creatures and those of us who like to eat them from time to time.  (It took us about 23 seconds to find the federal study, by the way.)

Facts do have a funny way of overpowering perceptions, don’t they?  Unfortunately, facts can get as lost as a clump of crude in a sea of emotions.

A new, kid-friendly comedy, Furry Vengeance, hits theaters April 30, chronicling a cast of loveable critters as they conspire to make the life of a developer (played with maximum evil buffoonery by Brendan Fraser) a living hell.  But don’t take it from me, here’s how this lovely bit of slam-the-developer is being marketed:

This hilarious film depicts the inventive and clever ways forest animals fight back against thoughtless humans whose development plans encroach on their habitat.

Of course the story line doesn’t mention EIRs, open space dedications with management endowments in perpetuity, or any of that boring stuff.  Instead, it’s another piece from the same folks that brought us An Inconvenient Truth, targeting our kids with an eco-activism message. The movie’s marketing plans include a “Social Action Network” complete with materials and games to teach kids how to vilify development.  No, really.  Its goal is to “educate and engage future environmentalists” and to help kids – your kids – “develop skills and deeper knowledge of habitat and animal protection issues.”

Here at LP&A, we happen to think habitat and animal protection is a stellar idea.  We’ve been involved in the approvals of new communities whose developers have set aside a combined 350 square miles of protected open space – more by far than the producers of Furry Vengeance have protected, we’ll wager.  We just don’t like it when one-sided messages go straight from Hollywood to the next generation, complete with suggested school curricula and Furry Vengeance stuffed animals and lunch boxes.

Kids are Key

While we disagree with their one-sided, anti-development message, the Earth Goddess evangelists of Furry Vengeance got one thing right: Young kids are a powerful audience that shouldn’t be overlooked.  Reaching out to them can spread goodwill, combat rumors, and have a surprisingly positive impact on your approval process.  The alternative is to let a talking squirrel from Hollywood get the last word on your well-balanced proposed project.

The story of “man biting dog” is always more interesting than the ever-pedestrian “dog bites man” headline – the intrigue is inescapable.

So when I saw that the headline from today’s Endangered Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity’s weekly docket newsletter, read “CBD Does Not File Law Suit,” I was genuinely intrigued.

But alas, my optimism was dashed quicker than a West Virginian flying squirrel in a forest fire.  From the CBD’s post…

“The Center for Biological Diversity did not file suit yesterday against any state or federal agency for harming endangered species. Exxon and Walmart also reported no new litigation by the activist group. Asked about the development by The New York Times, Center director Kierán Suckling replied, “Well, we just thought . . . you know . . . it’s spring, let’s chill for day, take the dog for walk.”

The event met with mixed reaction from critics and supporters. Center member John Spark of Albuquerque, New Mexico, requested a return of his membership dues, complaining, “Spring schmring, I don’t contribute money so these guys can sit around on their butts. The world is overpopulationed, overpolluted, and underprotected, and I expect these guys to fix it right now. What are they going to do next, sleep?”

Interior Department spokesperson Hugh Snickery commended the Center. “I wish the Center would more take days off. We’ve got offshore oil leases to get out, BLM lands to overgraze, and species to ignore.”

Suckling declined Snickery’s offer of a world holidays calendar

Somewhere between “…let’s chill for a day…” and “Hugh Snickery” I was reminded to look at the calendar. Yep, it’s April 1.

So the egregious lawsuits will continue, including those against some of the best land-use projects around. The stall tactics and shake-downs will live on, while jobs-producing projects are gummed up by the CBD.

But at least we’re all clear now: for the CBD, everyday is lawsuit day.

City planners in the Bay Area city of Richmond are putting the finishing touches on the town’s new general plan and hope to include a first-in-the-nation “wellness element” in the document, which will guide how new development is processed.  Writes HealthyCal.org:

The new rules would require builders to show that residents have adequate access to healthy foods, medical services, public transit, affordable housing, recreation and open space, economic opportunity, safe neighborhoods, and environmentally sound, sustainable buildings.

Excuse us, but isn’t it the free market’s responsibility to provide residents with services like groceries (healthy or not), doctors and jobs? Isn’t it Richmond’s responsibility to make sure neighborhoods are safe? Aren’t homebuyers still free to choose whether to pay more for a recreation-rich neighborhood or less for one that’s not so well equipped? And ditto for the added price for “environmentally sound, sustainable buildings?” Whatever that means.

Richmond city planners need to realize that starry-eyed idealism comes at a cost.  Unless it dies a welcome death, the “wellness element” of Richmond’s draft general plan will not make Richmond’s economy any healthier. It will make the city less attractive to developers, who are likely to take their business – and the revenue new development generates for cities – elsewhere.

We recently attended the Southern California Water Committee board of directors meeting and were very pleased by that group’s early and unanimous support of the $11 billion water bond that will be on this November’s ballot.

Laer Pearce & Associates played a small but important part in getting the comprehensive water legislation passed last November, pulling together a coalition of important local business organizations and taking their pro-water message to Orange County’s Sacramento delegation. We’re proud that an OC senator, Tom Harmon, was the deciding vote in favor of the bond.
(more…)