Builders Wary of Impact of Environment Laws

“They’re terrorists, holding our land and economy hostage,” said the builder from New Jersey as he took the microphone.

“You’ve said we should go to bed with the environmentalists,” he continued, glaring at the young congressman from Oregon who had just suggested that it might behoove all the builders at the conference to participate in Earth Day.

“I’d rather go to bed with a prickly cactus.”

Unfortunately, that sort of sums up the usual feelings from both sides of the fence--the developers and the environmentalists. Common ground is hard to reach.

But finding common ground is important because today, as the nation celebrates the 20th anniversary of Earth Day, environmentalists are a political and policy force to be reckoned with. Federal legislation affecting the environment is being strengthened, and more than 800 new laws have been proposed on state and local levels.

So it was no surprise that the environment was one of the hottest issues at the recent legislative conference sponsored by the National Assn. of Home Builders when hundreds of builders gathered in Washington to listen to congressmen address issues from thrift reform to what to do with a possible peace dividend.

Builders from across the country cheered and clapped in agreement as Sen. Larry Craig (R-Ida.) announced:

“I’ve been asked to talk about environmental legislation and what it means. It means housing construction costs will go up, land development costs will go up, infrastructure costs will go up and, in some places, there may be a prohibition against housing development altogether.”

Developers and home builders are concerned about the impact the wave of environmental reform will have upon their industry. They wonder at what cost we will get clean air and water and preserve bio-diversity.

Builders are worried that environmental groups may invoke the Endangered Species Act to stop development wherever they like, and that steps such as timber-cutting restrictions in the Pacific Northwest to protect the endangered spotted mountain owl will contribute further to the housing affordability crisis.

They are concerned as the new owners of land found to be a hazardous waste dumping ground, that they will have to pay for cleaning it up under the Superfund Act, even though they were not responsible for, or even aware of, the pollution.

They worry that the “wetland” designation will prohibit development of huge tracts of land altogether. They are troubled by the provisions of the Senate version of the new Clean Air Act that may cause sanctions to be invoked in cities not making significant progress in air quality control, banning housing construction altogether in those areas. Today, most major cities are in violation of the proposed new regulations.

“When you talk about endangered species, the first-time home buyer will be the next,” said Robert Bannister, senior vice president of NAHB.

“If you look at the trend lines, the percentage of first-time buyers edged up continuously from World War II to 1978. And since then, they have dropped over 8%. That translates to 2 million first-time buyers who have been priced out of the market because the cost of housing is increasing faster than their ability to pay.

“The environment is not the only reason,” he said. “Absolutely not. But every time you delay a builder over a wetland designation or endangered species it adds to the cost of housing. Even local ordinances saying the street has to be so wide add to the cost.

“In some areas, like California, front-end costs for infrastructure improvements have added as much as $20,000 per house.”

Yet, for the most part, builders support environmental legislation, Bannister said in an interview in which he reminisced about his own participation in the first Earth Day in 1970.

Twenty years ago, Bannister helped close down his college campus and spent the day listening to Canadian Indians talk about living in concert with nature and went to a Pete Seeger concert.

“Builders see themselves as environmentalists,” Bannister said. “They probably plant more trees, shrubs and grass than anyone else in the country.”

A recent report by the Cambridge Energy Research Associates described the public opinion that developers face:

“The public sees no inconsistency between environmental improvement and economic growth, but if forced to choose, it favors by a four-to-one margin, accepting slower economic growth in order to clean up the environment.”

Profits and protecting the environment can be balanced. Bill Hauf, general partner of San Miguel Partners, which is building homes on 2,600 acres near San Diego, has just spent $35,000 to study a little gray perching bird called the gnatcatcher.

He did it voluntarily, according to local planners and biologists who are still surprised by his altruism. The bird is not listed yet as an endangered species.

“There are extremists on both sides--environmentalists and developers,” Hauf said. “We have had a clouding of where the balance is between being sensitive to the environment and the human condition with its needs for more housing, jobs and roads.”

So why did Hauf hire a biologist to tag the 100 gnatcatcher pairs to determine if the birds are monogamous and how far they and their fledgings range from the nesting territory? And why did Hauf set aside about half the 2,600 acres for the gnatcatchers and sow barren ground with their favorite vegetation to allow for an increase in the birds’ population?

“It was the right thing to do,” he said. “It was good for the environment and more acceptable to society. There is no reason not to be pro-active. And it often doesn’t cost that much either.”

Others also feel that the conflict is not insurmountable.

“Our society does a terrible job of cooperating,” said Lindell Marsh, an environmental and land use attorney in Irvine. “As we see the world business climate change, the United States can’t afford the luxury it has had in the past of all these conflicting interests.

“You have to search for a balance and a way where the cost to each party will be the lowest. One way to do that with development is to address concerns early so that in terms of planning the developer knows five or 10 years ahead which lands should be avoided. Historically, we have relied on the private sector to do land planning. Today we are seeing the public sector becoming more involved.”

More and more builders have discovered that it is to their advantage to include environmental protection in their work, said David Salveson, senior associate at the Urban Land Institute. “They can avoid a drawn-out and acrimonious permit-approval process. And two, people are willing to pay a premium to live on an environmentally sensitive site.”

No Place Like Home

More elderly Americans prefer to remain in their own homes than move elsewhere, found a recent survey of senior citizens.

The survey, conducted by the American Assn. of Retired Persons, found that 86% of those at least 60 years old want to “age in place,” up from 78% in a similar survey conducted in 1986.

For developers in the previously booming business of building retirement centers, the trend could mean bad news. However, Lovola Burgess, AARP vice president, said, “The good news is that new opportunities will open up for home maintenance, repair, chore and remodeling services.”

More older people anticipate needing help around the house, particularly with the strenuous jobs such as snow shoveling, lawn mowing and washing windows. About 65% expect to need help with outdoor maintenance for their homes, up from 40% in the previous survey. And 55% foresee needing help with heavy housework, up from 33% in the earlier survey.