Clarity Blog

It was the strangest sort of victory.

Last night’s last-hour squeaker of a vote to delay Proposition 18, the $11 billion California water bond, could be seen as an admission of defeat … well, future defeat anyway.  Had there been confidence campaign funds would roll in and the California electorate would vote “yes” in droves, Sacramento would have been busy with other things yesterday.  Important stuff no doubt, like regulating pet insurance.

But the vote was also a victory, because those who prefer the status quo – an odd mix of environmentalists, Delta residents and fiscal conservatives – were geared up to keep the bond on the November ballot, because they sensed they might be able to stop the state’s biggest step forward on water resource management in decades … if they could force the vote in year when Californians are (finally!) getting concerned about the state’s finances.

So, 2012 now will be the year of the water bond.  In California politics, 2012 is about as far in the future as white-wigged Whigs are in the past.  Who knows what mischief will transpire between now and then?  Well, we have a few ideas:

• Chances are very good that at least one citizen initiative countering the bond will be on the ballot.  It will likely be a greener alternative, but it could also be a more gung-ho one, calling for the fast-tracked construction of more storage and a new  canal. It just depends on who raises enough money to send out the signature-gathering armies.
• Forces will be tearing at the water bond itself.  Expect bills by the boatload in the next legislative sessions, each pushing one constituency’s position forward and another’s back.  So far, the rather miraculous coalition supporting the bond has held together, but can it last two more years?
• Expect wet winters … or dry ones. Who knows? Either way, weather will influence the electorate.
• And oh yeah, expect there to be a presidential race on the 2012 ballot, with all the attention and emotion it will bring.

We are supporters of the bond.  We think “meaty” describes it much better than “porky,” particularly if it’s compared to previous water bonds. We think the state’s water infrastructure has deteriorated to the point where big steps are needed.  We understand that in California, you’re not going to be able to get anything through the legislature that solves everything and does it without some sweeteners thrown in and some necessities thrown out.

In short, we’re willing to settle for the miraculous, even if it’s not the perfect.

Restore the Delta, a rabidly anti-bond group that puts the Delta “sense of place” above the state’s economic vitality, just said, “The problems with the bond will only grow more glaring in time.”

That’s what they fervently hope. Supporters of the bond need to counter this by showing – clearly, conclusively and forcefully – that it’s the problems with the state’s water infrastructure, not the problems with the bond, that are growing more glaring, and at an alarming rate of speed.

The recent State Water Resources Control Board staff report calling for an end-of-life-as-we-know-it level of cuts in water exports from the Delta, bad as it is, is a step in that direction.  Here’s hoping the water bond campaign has the resources, courage and capability to build a solid messaging lead in the next two years, and that the best bond wins.

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…)

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…)

I remember those blissful days a decade or so ago before the Sacramento Delta settled like a cold, wet blanket over my consciousness.  The bliss!

Now not a day goes by when the Delta (Twitter hashtag #SacDelta) isn’t talked about, thought about, flown over or toured.  It is at the crux of whatever solution we attain for California’s water problems, so it touches policy discussions we have with our water district, land development and municipal clients. It’s simply become the most important place in all of California.

And coming up next Tuesday is an important hearing at the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee (9:30 a.m., State Capitol, room 437) into how things are going with the Delta Stewardship Council and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. These two entities are critical to the answer to one of the most significant policy discussions of our times:  Will California be able to maintain a reliable water supply?  For those of you as interested in the topic as we are, here’s the agenda for the meeting:

A G E N D A

I. Opening Comments

II. Panel 1 – Agency Perspectives

• Lester Snow, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency
• Phil Isenberg, Chair, Delta Stewardship Council

Panel 2 – BDCP Steering Committee Stakeholders’ Perspectives

• Laura King Moon, State Water Contractors
• Ann Hayden, Environmental Defense Fund
• Melinda Terry, North Delta Water Agency

Panel 3 – Perspectives on Integration: BDCP & Delta Counties’ HCP/NCCPs

• Don Nottoli, Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Protection Commission, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
• Jim Provenza, Yolo County Board of Supervisors
• Kim Delfino, Defenders of Wildlife

Panel 4 – Other Interested Stakeholders’ Perspectives

• Barry Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Osha Meserve, Reclamation District 999, Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Association

III. Public Comment

The Water Policy Oracles will be reading the tea leaves on this hearing for some time to come.  We’ll keep you posted on what we hear, mostly via our LPAWater Twitter page.

As featured by the Orange County chapter of the Building Industry Association

Jobs, jobs, jobs – It’s a winning message for developers and builders right now. We are seeing this message resonate with all of the industry’s key target audiences more than ever, from decision-makers and city staffs to the general public and media. But how can you emphasize jobs when a full economic impact analysis isn’t part of your budget?

Enter the Center for Strategic Economic Research – or CSER.

The Center’s study on the economic “ripple effect” of homebuilding is quantitative confirmation of what we’ve always known: New homes mean more jobs.

Specifically:

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

These are terrific metrics. They are also being used by builders across the state as confirmation of their project’s economic benefit. In fact, the CSER’s Deputy Director, Helen Schaubmayer recently told us that the study could be an immensely valuable tool for builders.

“As a result of this study being updated and published for several years, we are seeing builders leverage jobs-creation messages that they were previously unable to quantify. But builders also need to realize how to package and present these findings to the right audience. If they do, it could go a long way.”

We agree. Even the best jobs message can get cluttered with industry jargon. And having clarity to your message – especially one as important as jobs – is critical to a successful project.

Take a moment to review the study. We’ve also been told by the research director that a 2010 study is in the works and may be available this summer, so we’ll be sure to keep you posted.

Amidst a recent hectic afternoon, one of our clients called to pick our brain about what LP&A sees as the latest trends in water agency communications.  Although it admittedly caught us off guard, it’s a great question that couldn’t have been posed at a better time, given the uncertainty of California’s water future and the swirling dynamics of public sentiment.  We share our answer below, but the bottom line is that the old ways of doing business no longer work in today’s changing environment.  Here’s why:

1. Water is no longer an issue that flies under the radar. These days water providers are asking a lot from their customers: Use less, pay more, vote for this (within the advocacy laws), don’t mind that sinkhole or pipe break.  Agencies that foster trusting relationships with their customers through proactive communications will reap the most benefits.

(more…)

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.

If America’s greenest metro areas are in California, why do environmentalists make it so hard to build here?

The answer may benefit your project.

It may come as a surprise to you, but you’ve probably been indoctrinated by the environmental movement. Don’t think so? Well, just answer this question: Is LA – sprawling, smoggy, freeway crisscrossed LA – a “green” city or a “brown” city?

If you answered “brown,” you’re wrong. It turns out that Los Angeles is the fourth greenest metropolitan area in the country. Why’s that? Because the climate here is temperate, so LA’s carbon footprint for air conditioning is less than Atlanta’s or Houston’s, and its footprint for heating is smaller than that of Minneapolis or Chicago. So says a study by Edward Glaeser and Matthew Kahn, UCLA and Harvard profs respectively.

(more…)