Lucas, Edge, Romney: Celebrity Developers Spice Up Land Use Disputes
By Paul Mindus, The Saint Consulting Group
Land use disputes often provide reporters with front page bylines because the conflicts invariably bring everyone out of the woodwork to have their say. Throw in a celebrity, and the dispute can unleash a tabloid frenzy of news coverage.
When George Lucas and Lucasfilms pulled the plug last month on plans to expand his film production studios in toney San Rafael, in the heart of Marin County, other cities like Richmond and Walnut Creek quickly sought his attention to relocate elsewhere in Northern California.
Citing continued community opposition to the expansion of Grady Ranch, Lucas raised hackles with Marin neighbors with an offer to sell the land to a developer to build low income housing there. The uproar recalls other land use battles, particularly in but by no means confined to California, that have pitted proposals by wealthy celebrities that are vehemently opposed in local communities: 
- U2 guitarist The Edge lost a California Coastal Commission vote on his plan to build five luxury homes of up to 12,785 square feet on a 156 acre tract in Malibu;
- Steven Spielberg’s SKG (Dreamworks) withdrew its bid to build a 47-acre campus studio, including an eight-acre lake, in Marina del Rey on the site of the old Hughes aircraft factory;
- Donald Trump first won his uphill battle for a $1.6 billion seaside golf resort in Scotland, then went on the warpath himself to try to halt a
wind farm of 11 giant turbines that would spoil the view from his hotel, fairways and clubhouse. - Mitt Romney has hired a lobbyist to help ease planning approval for to renovate his La Jolla beachfront home in San Diego, replete with a car-lift for his four on-site cars.
The Arch Daily, a noteworthy architecture site, described how the Empire strikes back in a post headlined, “George Lucas’s Development Woes: When Nimby Goes Bananas”.
Land use disputes are passionate, particularly for opponents who want to protect their property and to speak up about their community concerns. Add a celebrity, and the entire scenario becomes inflamed.
Advice for such occasions comes from a source particularly experienced in California land use disputes, John Watson, CEO of Chevron. He was asked recently what lessons he had learned from environmentalists on how to manage controversial projects like the Keystone XL pipeline. His reply was: “Get out there, be early, be factual and address peoples’ concerns fully.”
Paul Mindus is on the business development team of The Saint Consulting Group, email mindus@tscg.biz
Winning Support for Rail Projects – Jesse McKnight in American Infrastructure
Gaining the support of local communities should be the vital first step in guaranteeing the success of transportation projects, writes Jesse McKnight of The Saint Consulting Group in the Spring 2012 issue of American Infrastructure magazine.
First, California voters approved a $10 billion high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Then, the state found no buyers for the newly authorized rail bonds, thanks to the credit crunch. Now Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) and environmental forces that oppose wind farm transmission lines are moving to block 200-mph bullet trains from the West Coast.
Transportation projects can be among the most controversial land use issues because they not only involve NIMBYs, but they also usually require some form of public financing or subsidies. Further, these projects become harder to justify when public resources are strained in difficult economic times. It is imperative that private sector interests seeking to develop large scale transportation projects do their political homework.
For the full article, click here.
Jesse McKnight is executive vice president of The Saint Consulting Group, email mcknight@tscg.biz
The War on Coal – The People Will Find Out
By Christopher Hopkins, The Saint Consulting Group
There is a classic line from the political thriller True Colors spoken by the late Richard Widmark, “God help you when the people find out. And they
always do.” The political leaders in Washington should take heed to those words as we move forward with our current energy policies, or lack thereof.
Consumers are coming to the point when they will feel the effects of environmentalists’ and EPA’s war on the coal industry. A recent article by Phil Kerpen outlines the upcoming dramatic price increase for electricity.
PJM Interconnection, which operates the electric grid for 13 states and the District of Columbia, recently held its 2015 capacity auction, setting real electricity prices for the coming years, and the results were staggering.
First regarding capacity, during the first quarter of 2012, coal-fired power plants were generating 36 percent of United States’ electricity needs, compared to 44.6 percent during the same period of 2011. This is a direct result of two ongoing occurrences — the campaign by environmental organizations to prevent approvals for state-of-the-art coal fired power plants, and the ongoing campaign to close existing power plants throughout the Midwest and other regions of the country.
What does this mean to the ratepayer? According to Mr. Kerpen’s article, the 2015 capacity price was set at $136 per megawatt, up from the 2012 price of $16 per megawatt. That is an 850 percent increase. Northern Ohio, which has seen more coal plant closures than any other state in the region, is facing a 2015 price of $357 per megawatt, a 2,300 percent increase from current electric prices.
Either way, electricity is going to cost more, much more, in the not-too-distant future. Why you may ask? The answer is the reckless growing influence that Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are having on our public policy. Organizations such as the Sierra Club are spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying for plant closures, lobbying against the approval of new, modern coal plants, lobbying against anything coal-related — and without having in place a viable affordable energy alternative.
It is the average American that can least afford it who will ultimately pay for these efforts as Washington caves in to the lobbying. Richard Widmark’s message to Washington politicians seems more applicable today than 20 years ago, “God help you when the people find out. And they always do.”
Click here for Phil Kerpen’s article or go to http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/22/obamas-war-on-coal-hits-your-electric-bill/.
Christopher Hopkins is senior vice president for mining and aggregates for The Saint Consulting Group, email hopkins@tscg.biz
Chevron Chief: Lesson from Keystone Pipeline – Be Early, Be Factual, Address Issues
By Paul Mindus, The Saint Consulting Group
The energy industry should learn from Keystone XL pipeline opponents that “we have to do a better job of educating the community, we have to get out there earlier to identify and address concerns before the environmentalists get started,” Chevron CEO John Watson said today at a forum on the energy economy.
Watson, speaking at Chevron’s world headquarters in San Ramon, CA, said “We do have to get out there, be early, be factual and address peoples’ concerns fully.”
The Obama Administration delayed a decision last November on the 1,660-mile pipeline to evaluation other potential routes until after the 2012 presidential election, following energetic opposition from environmental groups across the country and along the proposed route from Canada through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska.
Pipeline campaigns and other energy issues that are picked up by non-government organizations like Sierra Club are mostly political, Watson said, “and we do have to address the issues, address false misconceptions and educate the communities.”
Opening up access to oil reserves, offshore or on federal lands, is a key challenge to the energy industry, he said. “The obstacles are not how to produce energy. It’s typically the government and politics that govern access.” The Keystone XL pipeline was a largely political battle, and one where the energy industry has to play a more pro-active role to educate the public, he said.
The approval process for energy development should be one that requires vigorous government review, then finality in a decision, then go do the project. “But single constituents can tie up development in courts forever,” Watson said. He cited the approach taken in Australia, “where the government says we’re going to do this project, but with the highest standards.”
Alex Mehran, president and CEO of Sunset Development, which sponsored the Bishop Ranch Forum, added that in California the energy accessibility issues has come down on the side of environmentalists, not the energy industry. He encourageg industry to get engaged in forums where they can counter the opposition to business growth.
For more details on how determined opposition battled the Keystone Pipeline, read Jay Vincent’s post here.
Paul Mindus is part of the business development team at The Saint Consulting Group, email mindus@tscg.biz
TRY THIS NOW! Some Useful Links to the Saint Universe
From Nimby Wars to smart phone apps, here are some useful links about Saint Consulting, starting with our corporate website, tscg.biz:
NIMBY Wars on Amazon.com - our book on land use politics
Saint App for I-Phone - for news, links and tweets from your smart phone
Mike Saint’s Website - blog, bio, articles and video from our CEO and founder
The Saint Report - our global blog on land use politics with over 800 posts
Saint University - for corporate training and professional development seminars
Saint Index - the most up-to-date survey public attitudes towards development
National Real Estate Investor on Battling Regional Mall REITS
In retail markets saturated with fortress malls and lifestyle centers, outlet centers represent one of the last opportunities for ground-up construction. While some rival regional mall REITS compete ferociously for limited space, others are partnering to build a joint development rather than spending money fighting each other, the National Real Estate Investor reports.
In a feature entitled “Clash of the Titans: Regional Mall REITS Fight for Limited Outlet Development Opportunities”, it says large regional mall players, including Simon, Taubman, Macerich Co., CBL & Associates Properties and others, have all made overtures to enter the outlet space. But with limited opportunities for development and an existing group of experienced landlords already competing there, these battles—competing press releases, wars of words and unconventional partnerships—are likely to continue to play out repeatedly throughout the country, writes Elaine Misonzhnik, the magazine’s senior associate editor.
Patrick Fox, president of The Saint Consulting Group, is also quoted in this story. Click here for full details.
Strategic Comms #42: Using SMART Goals for Your Communications Strategy
(This is the 42nd in a continuing series on strategic communications. Click here for earlier segments)
By Owen Eagan, The Saint Consulting Group
In our last segment on the Communications Strategy Map (Strategic Communications Part 41: Using a Communications Strategy Map http://bit.ly/ITibf7), we discussed the need for your goals to include benchmarks to measure your results. To illustrate the process of developing a communications strategy we used the example of building a company’s brand through thought leadership, which we identified as our objective.
Next, we determined that our purpose would be targeting specific audiences with relevant content. For our strategy, we suggested utilizing one of a company’s subject matter experts to host educational events through multi-media channels for current and prospective clients. We then said that the methods or tactics could include a webinar on a topical issue that the company’s clients and prospective clients have been trying to navigate.
This leads us to establishing our goals. In setting your goals, it is helpful to use a framework borrowed from other business disciplines such as organizational behavior called the SMART Goals model. SMART is an acronym which stands for specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.
Strategic Comms, #41: Using a Communications Strategy Map
(This is the 41st in a continuing series on strategic communications. Click here for earlier segments)
By Owen Eagan, The Saint Consulting Group
So, do you have a communications strategy? Are you sure? I only ask because even the best strategists have to ask themselves this question from time to time. For example, if you said yes because one of your strategies is to build thought leadership through social media, you would be wrong. Building thought leadership would be your objective and the use of social media would be one of your tactics.
However, the good news is that you already have an objective and every strategy begins with an objective. In fact, the process for developing your communications strategy is similar to the one used for your business strategy. That is, after you’ve identified your objective you simply need to identify your purpose, strategy, tactics and goals. Developing your business strategy is more complicated than that but there are parallels.
First, your objective can be defined as what you are trying to achieve. Using the business strategy analogy, your objective is comparable to your company’s vision, or what James Collins and Jerry Porras call your BHAG (pronounced bee-hag) – your Big, Hairy Audacious Goal. For instance, Google’s vision is “To build a perfect search engine.” Read More »
Strategic Comms #40: Finding Common Ground Through Mutual Gains Approach
(This is the 40th in a continuing series on strategic communications. Click here for earlier segments)
By Owen Eagan, The Saint Consulting Group
So if your project doesn’t find a warm reception among the public, how do you begin the conversation? First, the way not to do it is by asserting that your project will only benefit the community and parading out your experts to prove it. There’s a time and place to do this such as in a quasi-judicial public hearing but it’s not while negotiating with neighbors.
The MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program offers a great model called the Mutual Gains Approach to use as part of this process. The first step involves acknowledging the concerns of the other side, even if you disagree. Your public statements should reflect this and emphasize that the goal is to make the best decisions in the interest of the community.
Second, you should encourage joint fact finding. For example, if your project involves the development of an energy production facility or the excavation or transportation of mineral resources, you could establish a community advisory group to address health and safety issues through initiatives such as joint monitoring. Next, you should offer contingent commitments to minimize impacts if they occur. This could include alternative site management plans or additional mitigation measures. Also, you should be prepared to accept responsibility if mistakes are made, explaining how you’re going to fix the problem without conceding liability.
Throughout this process, you should always act in a trustworthy fashion. This entails establishing a policy of transparency and sharing information with various publics. Lastly, you should focus on building long-term relationships. This would necessitate maintaining an ongoing dialogue with the community and demonstrating a level of community involvement such as through corporate social responsibility (CSR). Ideally, you should develop a CSR program that will benefit both the community and your value chain (see Strategic Communications Part 4: Corporate Social Responsibility http://bit.ly/iRkUY8).
Taking this approach will help you find common ground upon which to build support for your project. It will also help you maintain your reputation as a good corporate citizen.
Owen Eagan is a Senior Consultant for Saint Consulting, an international management consulting firm specializing in land use politics. He is also an adjunct faculty member at Emerson College, the nation’s only four-year institution dedicated exclusively to communication and the performing arts. Email Eagan@tscg.biz
Do Personal Agendas Drive Federal Regulators?
EPA OFFICIAL WANTED TO ‘CRUCIFY’ FIRMS
By Christopher M. Hopkins, The Saint Consulting Group
The alarming statements by a high-level federal regulator described below confirm a fear that many in the mining and energy industries have long harbored — that some federal regulatory staff have an agenda against mining and drilling projects, indeed against almost any project that harvests natural resources.
Our firm encountered a similar situation when checking on a client’s project with a federal agency staff person who was handling the mining application. We did not tell the staffer why we were asking about it, and the staffer did not inquire why we were asking. What we were told was that the project would be approved “over my dead body.” That was news to our client, who was being told a completely different story by the agency.
The EPA official in the story below resigned on Sunday, but is there a larger problem? Is this the attitude of countless staff people in federal and state permitting agencies? Do they bring their own political agenda to their job when it should be left at the door?
— Chris Hopkins is Senior Vice President for Aggregates and Mining at The Saint Consulting Group, email: hopkins@tscg.biz.
The Forbes article (with link and video):
EPA Official Not Only Touted ‘Crucifying’ Oil Companies, He Tried It
Confirming what many in the industry long suspected, a video surfaced Wednesday in which Al Armendariz, an official at the Environmental Protection Agency, promotes the idea of crucifying oil companies. Armendariz heads up the EPA’s Region 6 office, which is based in Dallas and responsible for oversight of Texas and surrounding states. The former professor at Southern Methodist University was appointed by President Obama in November 2009.
In a talk to colleagues about methods EPA enforcement, Armendariz can be seen saying, “The Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
And not only has Armendariz talked about crucifying oil companies, he’s tried to do it. In 2010 his office targeted Range Resources, a Fort Worth-based driller that was among the first to discover the potential of the Marcellus Shale gas field of Pennsylvania — the biggest gas field in America and one of the biggest in the world. Armendariz’s office declared in an emergency order that Range’s drilling activity had contaminated groundwater in Parker County, Texas. Armendariz’s office insisted that Range’s hydraulic fracking activity had caused the pollution and ordered Range to remediate the water. The EPA’s case against Range was catnip for the environmental fracktivists who insist with religious zealotry that fracking is evil. Range insisted from the beginning that there was no substance to the allegations.
The Armendriz video (which appears to have been taken off YouTube late late night) was shot around the same time he was preparing the action against Range. Here’s the highlights of what he said.
The Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And, companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up.
And, that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people. So you go out, you look at an industry, you find people violating the law, you go aggressively after them. And we do have some pretty effective enforcement tools. Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly.
That’s what these companies respond to is both their public image but also financial pressure. So you put some financial pressure on a company, you get other people in that industry to clean up very quickly.
The former professor at Southern Methodist University is a diehard environmentalist, having grown up in El Paso near a copper smelter that reportedly belched arsenic-laced clouds into the air. Texas Monthly called him one of the 25 most powerful Texans, while the Houston Chronicle said he’s “the most feared environmentalist in the state.”
Nevermind that he couldn’t prove jack against Range. For a year and a half EPA bickered over the issue, both with Range and with the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas drilling and did its own scientific study of Range’s wells and found no evidence that they polluted anything. In recent months a federal judge slapped the EPA, decreeing that the agency was required to actually do some scientific investigation of wells before penalizing the companies that drilled them. Finally in March the EPA withdrew its emergency order and a federal court dismissed the EPA’s case.
David Porter, a commissioner on the Texas Railroad Commission, wasn’t impressed. “Today the EPA finally made a decision based on science and fact versus playing politics with the Texas economy. The EPA’s withdrawal of the emergency order against Range Resources.