Posts Tagged ‘Development’
Communications Lessons from Kim Jong Il
Our sympathies go to the North Koreans we’ve seen on YouTube bawling inconsolably at the passing of Kim Jong Il, their “Dear Leader.” We truly hope some day they will have a chance to understand how duped they were by the man who drank $700,000 worth of cognac a year while they slaved and starved.
That said, we found out we do owe a debt to ol’ K Jong – he bequeathed the world with ten management secrets, detailed very humorously by Constantine Von Hoffman in Inc. We were particularly amused by the dictator’s second secret:
Communication is overrated. He only made one broadcast to his nation. In 1992, during a military parade in Pyongyang, he said into a microphone at the grandstand: “Glory to the heroic soldiers of the Korean People’s Army!” Even so, North Koreans wept on the streets like Elvis fans when they heard of his death.
As with all things K Jong, this management principle is just a tad extreme. We recommend it only for leaders who own all the media outlets in their entire country and have legions of creative publicists inundating the entire populace with propaganda, like the claim he played a 36-under-par round the first and only time he played golf.
Most of us face a different reality, so it’s not likely our communications will have quite the effect Dear Leader’s had. But still, there is something to be said about holding back the chief, so when he speaks he’s listened to.
We learned the power of this approach while ushering a very controversial project in Moreno Valley through seven Planning Commission and six City Council hearings . The project manager, Steve Eimer, sat throughout nearly all of the 13 hearings without saying a word, always deferring to his consultants – until the last minutes of the last hearing.
Just before voting, the City Council added a new very expensive and utterly unreasonable condition to the project. Eimer stood up, walked up the podium, waited to be recognized, and quietly said, “If you require that, we will not build the project.”
He returned to his seat without saying another word, and the City Council members started thinking about their re-election prospects if all the jobs and money the project would bring the city disappeared. Then they quickly withdrew the provision and voted to approve the project.
So, yes, a few carefully chosen words delivered at just the right time can be very powerful communication tools. K Jong got one thing right. But only one thing.
Crazifornia: Regulating the rockets’ red glare
The following article by Laer appears on today’s Daily Caller website:
It should come as no surprise that the leftist legislators and authoritarian bureaucrats who run California are vehemently opposed to fireworks shows. After all, the shows are always fun and usually patriotic.
And against them they are. The California Coastal Commission has led the charge with a multi-year assault on the Sea World theme park in San Diego, which blasts fireworks over Mission Bay every night. That effort shipwrecked on the rocks of Sea World’s considerable political clout and even more considerable legal budget, so the Commission looked for a more vulnerable, less wealthy target.
Brown Takes on Greens over (Some) Anti-Growth Litigation
Governor Brown almost sounded like a frustrated land developer earlier today when he talked about the impact litigation by environmental activists has on projects that are essential to meeting California’s demographic growth and protecting its frail economy. Unfortunately, he wasn’t talking about the ecos’ endless legal challenges to new housing developments.
From the Sacramento Bee:
“In Oakland, I learned that some kind of opposition you have to crush,” Brown, the city’s former mayor, said at a renewable energy conference in Los Angeles. “Talk a little bit, but at the end of the day you have to move forward, and California needs to move forward with our renewable energy.”
Brown said his office will “act to overcome the opposition,” helping projects overcome permitting and environmental challenges. The Democratic governor announced Friday that he had filed a legal brief urging a federal judge to deny litigation seeking to block a solar energy project in the Mojave Desert.
Yes, the governor is willing to “crush” the very environmentalists who were his strong supporters in the 2010 election – but only as long as it’s over government-subsidized alternative energy schemes. Providing housing for Californians? Rebooting the failed economy? Putting thousands back to work? That’s apparently not worth fighting for.
We’re not sure what we feel about government “crushing” environmental litigators. Having seen them slow so many very well-planned new home communities, driving up costs for consumers and driving down profits for businesses in the process, we confess we’re a bit tickled by the idea.
But two things bother us: First, we can’t deny we’re sticklers for due process and are more than a little concerned when government gets heavy-handed and agenda-driven. And second, we’d like to see an acknowledgment that useless litigation is just as bad when it’s used as a tool against home builders and, ultimately, home buyers.
Excuse Me, Is Your Mission Creeping?
Federal wetland regulators suffered a bad decade in the 2000s with the Rapanos and SWANCC decisions temporarily halting EPA and Corps of Engineers mission creep into the regulation of land no one but a regulator could consider to be “Waters of the US” or wetlands.
But like those nasty spirits in Poltergeist, they’re baaa-aack.
EPA released today a draft guidance it hopes will clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act in light of these decisions and which are not. To our reading, it seems the agency is a bit forgetful of the power the Judicial Branch has over the Executive Branch. For example, borrowing from a summary provided by the Association of California Water Agencies, the guidance would deem the following as protected waters:
- Traditional navigable waters [check]
- Interstate waters [check]
- Wetlands adjacent to either traditional navigable waters or interstate waters [watch out!]
- Non-navigable tributaries to traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent, meaning they contain water at least seasonally [watch out!]
- Wetlands that directly abut relatively permanent waters [watch out!]
How long is a season? When do waters become relatively impermanent? How adjacent is adjacent? For an administration that doesn’t like loopholes when they apply to corporations, these seem like loopholes of a drive-a-truck-through-it scale.
There’s another bunch of possibilities too, like if a “significant nexus” [how significant?] is found, then “wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters” would be under federal jurisdiction, as well as that good ol’ regulatory Pandora’s box, “other waters.”
We were glad to see swimming pools specifically excluded. More significantly, “erosional features (rills and gullies) … that are not tributaries or wetlands” are excluded. This is significant in the arid West, where these features, no matter how ephemeral, have been subject to regulation as if they were little Mississippi Rivers and Okefenokee Swamps.
On the plus side, the Obama administration has just ensured unemployment insurance claims from attorneys with Clean Water Act expertise will dry up like a Utah rill in August.
The guidance is now undergoing a 60-day comment period.
Happy New Year, You’re the Bane of the World’s Existence
The Center for Biological Depravity…er, Diversity, announced its top 11 priorities for bringing the U.S. economy to a halt in 2011. It was going to go with 12, but making sure Jerry Brown appointed an ultra-enviro to head California’s Resources Agency has already been crossed off the list.
As you’d imagine, this year’s agenda is filled with plans to protect a whole slew of species from various man-made dangers. If you’re a wolf or a bluefin tuna, this just might be your year. Humans…not so much. After taking baby steps last year, the Center hid in the middle of its list a rather Maoist priority to “Challenge the Overpopulation Paradigm.” That’s right Joe Citizen, you and your 2.3 adorable kids (and their future kids) now have big fat target on your back. As if an economic meltdown and global terrorism weren’t enough.
We’ll continue to encourage other groups to tackle overpopulation this year. We’ll distribute hundreds of thousands of condoms and ramp up the overpopulation dialogue through high-profile projects, including a study on the connection between overpopulation and diminishing water supplies in the Lower Colorado River Basin, the Center’s unique newsletter, Pop X, and targeted actions to Congress.
We’ll be interested to see their study on the Colorado River, which is facing challenges. But that’s more so from several years of drought than too many newborns from too many “What Happens in Vegas…” nights.
Maybe the Center is grabbing for headlines to boost its coffers. Maybe it’s tired of fighting on the environmental front lines and has chosen to try the back door. Maybe it just doesn’t care for chubby babies with good short games. Maybe all of the above.
Either way, it’s time to come to grips with the fact that you and your family are the bane of the world’s existence. Happy New Year!
Read the rest of the Center’s 2011 priorities here.
The Land Big Three: Nothing but the truth so help me CARB
What were the three biggest late-breaking California water stories? 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, or you can follow LPALand on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Big 3 via email here. This edition:
CARB Sets a Standard It Can’t Meet
The California Air Resources Board apparently didn’t read the First Amendment before it decided to propose a regulation prohibiting false statements made to its board or staff. Now we don’t condone lying, but if enacted, the new policy would have CARB deciding what’s true and what’s not. Scofflaws could face various “penalties” to be named later…by CARB. And as we’ve seen with CARB’s recent use of phony data and resumes to push its agenda, any dissenting opinion may be fair game for this new carbon-clouded truth Gestapo.
CARB’s public notice on the proposed regulation
Laer to start second year as Builder News columnist
The national homebuilding magazine Builder News has again picked up Laer as a columnist for 2011, following the successful debut of his business column in 2010. His columns will appear in the February, April, June, August, October and December issues and cover regulation, communications and public affairs topics that affect the building and development industries.
Laer’s more than 25 years of experience helping home builders navigate the entitlement process in California has made him an expert on how to get projects approved in California. His column aims to help home builders across the nation better understand the regulatory environment.
“California is the master of over-regulating industry, and there is no industry they like to regulate more than the building industry. The news we share with Builder News about what happens here is a warning sign to the rest of the nation, so they can prepare.”
Laer’s Builder News articles from 2010 are linked below. We will share the new articles with you as they are published, or you can subscribe to receive Builder News personally. Click on the images below for full-size views.
Prop 26 – A New Way To Stop Projects?
Given how deft Sacramento is at hiding taxes as fees in order to avoid the mandatory two-thirds vote for taxes, who didn’t vote for Prop 26, so fees will also be subject to a two-thirds vote? Well, actually 4.3 million Californians didn’t, by current count. Fortunately for wallet-watchers, 4.7 million voted yes.
But California is nothing if not the Land of Unintended Consequences. Now it looks like Prop 26 could be a nifty new way for state regulatory boards like the California Coastal Commission or a Regional Water Quality Control Board, which are subject to its provisions, to delay new development projects.
Development fees are not subject to Prop 26, so if a new project is dinged a nice little bucket of cash to improve signals at some intersections it’s impacting, no special vote is required. That’s fine – the authors of the California Chamber-sponsored proposition anticipated that, and wrote the measure to protect developers.
Land Weekly 3: Friendlier or Snippier Times Ahead?
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 LPALand on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
Friendlier Feds, Snippier State Regulators?
According to political insiders – and pretty much anybody who’s ever dealt with an appointed regulatory body – having more Republicans in office generally is good news for permit-seekers in the housing industry. So the outcome of last week’s election should bring some hopey, changey prospects in the short-term nationwide, as the GOP takes over key committee posts in the House and a slew of new Republican governors take office. Here in California, it’s a whole different story. Tuesday meant at least four more years of Jerry Brown, whose agenda will be topped, said CalWatchdog’s Steven Greenhut at a recent luncheon, by environmental issues and slowing (or stopping!) new development. That’s not exactly change we can believe in.
Local Land-Use Matters Split November Ballot
The San Diego Union Tribune identified 17 key local land-use matters before California voters on Tuesday. After all the votes were cast, nine resulted in positive news for the building industry, while eight weren’t so great. See the rundown below.
Merced County Measure C: Voter Confirmation of Zoning Changes - Failed
Considered a slow growth initiative and known originally as the “Save Farmland Initiative,” Measure C would amend the county’s general plan to require voter approval whenever ten or more acres would be converted from agricultural or open space to residential use.
Yes 43.84%
No 56.16%
