Clarity Blog

Here are this week’s top three water stories, as compiled by the media-addicted water wonks at Laer Pearce & Associates.  You’ll find the Big Three here every Thursday, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis or subscribe to our e-blasts to receive the Weekly 3 directly.

1. There’s Nothing Retiring About This

Public Records Act requests are hitting water districts like Delta smelt hitting the diversion gates at Tracy.  Ever since the LA Times used Robert “the Rat” Rizzo to break the public employ compensation story, reporters are asking how much administrators and board members receive in salaries, benefits and retirement.  The big story this week is that the big story is coming soon, and we’ve been helping districts prep for upcoming interviews.  Here is a bit of the chum that has the sharks swirling:

(more…)

What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development?  You’ll find them right here, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis.  You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:

1. Don’t Worry, I’m a Doctor

Surprise, surprise.  Residents of a north San Diego community got more than they bargained for when they decided to manage future growth in their neighborhood.  A 1998 ballot-box zoning measure constricted the proposed Pacific Highlands Ranch to 1,900 units until a controversial new freeway interchange gets built.  Go figure, that interchange has been held up by red tape, and now the Ranch’s residents flood surrounding parks and shops because the facilities in their neighborhood aren’t planned until later, ballot-box-stalled phases.  Efforts to unwind the 1998 measure are currently underway.

(more…)

What were the three biggest California water stories of the past seven days?  Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here.  You’ll find the Big Three here every Thursday, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here.

1.  Something rotten in the water?

Public attention is sharply focused on governmental mismanagement thanks to Robert Rizzo and the Bell city council, so when the FBI and DA raided the City of Oxnard’s offices this week and hauled out hard drives and files, you could almost hear the next shoe falling. Ken Ortega, the former Public Works Director who ran Oxnard’s Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment program, is the probable target.

(more…)

The media-scouring folks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled the three biggest California water stories of the week – well, the one really, really big story and a couple of interesting also-rans.  You’ll find the Big Three here every Thursday, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up for our e-blasts here.

1. The 2012 Water Bond

All the forces that came together to cajole, arm-twist and horse-trade the historic Nov. 2009 water package through a reluctant legislature apparently were nowhere to be found when it came to contributing the dollars needed to run a successful campaign – if a successful campaign for an $11 billion bond could be had at any price during the state’s current fiscal melt-down.  So now it’s the 2012 water bond, which means two more years to build support … and two more years to tear it down.  We hope the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta won’t collapse while we’re bickering.

(more…)

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…)

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…)

(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.

Did you follow Measure N on the June 8 primary ballot up in Sutter Creek? No? Well we did track it, because it was one of the only referenda in the primary challenging the approval of a housing project. At the polls, 586 residents of the Amador County town voted “yes,” and 594 voted “no,” meaning the City Council’s earlier approval of the proposed Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort has been overturned – by eight votes.

[Update: Absentee ballots turned the election around, swinging the results to a 12-vote victory for Gold Rush Ranch's advocates.]

Closer to our home in Orange County – and closer to our client list – was Mission Viejo’s Measure D. The ballot-box planning initiative grew out of public opposition to an assisted-living facility project we worked on – a project that died in the economic downturn long before Measure D was placed on the ballot. After a spirited campaign, 62.4 percent of Mission Viejo voters emphatically said “no” to ballot-box planning.

In other conflicting election results:

• Voters in the City of Brentwood denied an initiative making it possible to develop about 750 acres, but…
• Voters in Santa Clara paved the way for a new San Francisco 49ers stadium.

So what can the builder/developer community take away from these results?

On the surface, not much. Very different towns voted very differently on very different ballot measures. But the fact they were even on the ballot is a great example of the public’s current low regard for both government and private companies – and their growing desire to have more say in the development process.

Need more proof? Just look at PG&E’s Proposition 16. PG&E spent nearly $25 for each of the votes it got in favor of the company’s self-serving proposition. Opponents spent less than a nickel for each of the votes they gathered, successfully playing David to PG&E’s Goliath. Mercury Insurance suffered a similar, less costly, defeat on its corporate venture into propositions.

Neither proposition was particularly reprehensible, so the vote shows that Californians don’t like it when corporations try to make laws. The folks with Gold Rush Ranch may have suffered from a similar dislike and distrust of corporations.

Lack of Public Trust May Lead to More Referenda

So, if you’re a big corporation and there are laws you’d like passed, go through the legislature – voters can be too unpredictable.

And if you must launch or fight a referendum, know that it’s definitely winnable, but prepare for a tough slog because voters up and down the state have little trust in either government or big business, and are clamoring for more input in anything affecting their quality of life. Our approach has always been to get more than 50 percent of the community behind a project as we go through the city or county approval process, so our client is well prepared, should a referendum be in the cards. In today’s environment, planning for a referendum from the beginning will make it much easier to accomplish your goals in the end.

The Field Poll recently asked a scientifically valid number of Californians (who, we’re sure, feel just great about having been scientifically validated) a pretty important question as primary season rolls around:

Thinking of the November election for Governor, how important will the candidates’ position on each of the following issues be to you in deciding whom you would support?

The issues were asked in random order; here they are alphabetically: crime/prisons, education, environmental protection, gasoline prices/energy, global warming, health care, illegal immigration, jobs/economy, state budget deficit, taxes and water.

Only those living in a time warp would be surprised that economic issues rocked the vote … and rocked it hard.  Jobs and the economy was ranked most important by almost 60 percent, followed closely by the state’s budget, a few decimal points behind.  At the other end of a scale, in near-lockstep for the last two positions were environmental protection and global warming.  A scant 23 percent of those polled ranked the imminent destruction of the planet by greenhouse gases as the top priority in their decision-making.

We wonder why, given these results, politicians throughout the state, from Sacramento to local city councils, remain so deferential to environmental interests when these greater environmental protections (as if the laws on the books don’t go far enough already!) come at the cost of jobs.