Out: Sustainability. In: Resilience.

Dan Slone

by James A. Bacon

If you want to move green initiatives forward in the Richmond region, it’s best not to invoke “sustainability,” a word that quickly gets tangled in the controversy over global warming and inflames the anti-Agenda 21 element of the conservative movement. Instead, advises Daniel K. Slone, focus on concepts in which the interests of environmentalists align with those of business and local government. Talk about “resilience,” “ecodistricts” and “biophilia.”

Other regions are advancing environmental goals under these new headings, said Slone, a McGuire Woods attorney who works nationally with developers on smart-growth projects, serves on the board of the Congress for New Urbanism and is counsel to the U.S. Green Building Council. “You’ll hear those words more,” he told an audience of University of Richmond students as part of a speaking series sponsored by the law school’s Center for Environmental Management.

The idea of resilience came to the fore after Hurricane Sandy showed the vulnerability of New York’s electric power infrastructure and disrupted industrial supply chains. While Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, many could write off the Big Easy as an economic backwater. But when New York experienced cascading disruptions, corporations and urban planners paid notice.

The big insurers are paying bigger claims for business disruption after Sandy than for damaged facilities, said Slone. Some are working on rate structures in which insurance fees vary by how resilient an organization is. Lenders are focusing on the issue, too, reviewing their exposure to the hurricane-vulnerable coast of Florida, for instance. Businesses, already sensitive to supply-chain disruptions caused by the Fukushima earthquake, are paying closer attention as well.

Dropping off the grid with a house powered by solar panels, the dream of some environmentalists, is not resilient — lose your solar panels from a falling tree and you have no electricity. The way to increase resilience, said Slone, is to create redundancy and multiple paths. When corporations think about where to locate, they may want resilient transportation systems. A system entirely dependent upon the automobile is less resilient, he argued, than a system in which employees live within walking distance or can reach the office by bicycle.

Slone pitched the idea of urban eco-districts as a way for enterprises to reduce the cost of water and waste water services. In the past, he worried that the suburbs might supplant the inner city as a locale for green development. After all, it takes less money to develop a green-field project. But densely populated urban areas can turn their drawbacks, such as a high volume of storm water runoff, into assets. Enterprises can spend less money on water and waste-water utilities by harvesting rain water and recycling gray water and run-off. Green roofs can lower HVAC costs and density can create better walking environments. “That has a lot of appeal to folks making decisions now.”

Thirdly, people like green, growing things, and they are willing to pay a premium to be around them. According to the Urban Land Institute, Slone said, properties adjacent to parks enjoy a 10% price premium. He cited the example of Singapore, which has built a walkway on land too hilly to construct buildings upon, lit up the structure at night and integrated solar-generating and water-harvesting structures that have gained international renown as architectural icons.

“Richmond will get there,” Slone said. “We just can’t talk about it in the same terms.” In Virginia, the key words are “competitiveness,” “flexibility” and “entrepreneurial opportunity.” But they can lead to the same place.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

19 responses to “Out: Sustainability. In: Resilience.”

  1. larryg Avatar

    re: ” concepts in which the interests of environmentalists align with those of business and local government. Talk about “resilience,” “ecodistricts” and “biophilia.”

    try peddling that tripe to the right and to the tea party and see what you get.

    😉

    re: ” The way to increase resilience, said Slone, is to create redundancy and multiple paths. When corporations think about where to locate, they may want resilient transportation systems. A system entirely dependent upon the automobile is less resilient, he argued, than a system in which employees live within walking distance or can reach the office by bicycle.
    re: Sandy – believe what you wish – but if GW is real – Sandy gives you a glimpse into the kind of stuff that will become common … not one in 50 or 100 years but every year or two.”

    re: solar – geeze.. you can’t have REDUNDANCY in solar? come on.. guys.

    but really.. we hop from solar to transportation?

    how about a smart grid? as well as “smart growth” – both of which won’t happen without big govt. are we preaching big govt here?

    recycling storm water? whose going to do that? the “free market”? So many things here ..so little time…

    how about ONE article Jim on HOW the free market will deal with storm water in dense urban areas so that big govt does not have to?

    how about it?

    😉

    re: ” In Virginia, the key words are “competitiveness,” “flexibility” and “entrepreneurial opportunity.” But they can lead to the same place.”

    okay.. $64 question time.

    nice words.. but are we talking about non-govt “free market” endeavors to provide these things or …govt?

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Who gives a shit if “sustainability” is acceptable in Richmond or not?

    1. It depends on whether you want to fulminate or actually get something accomplished.

  3. larryg Avatar

    for Libertarian leaning types and Agenda 21 types and Tea Party – types – not only the descriptive words are antithetical but the concepts are themselves if it involves govt as the guiding force.

    you can take one issues – like storm water management – which clearly is a sustainability and resilience issue and explore it with the authors treatise – specifically with regard to whether or not it would proceed purely as a non-govt initiative and my take is that it clearly has not and will not because humans by their nature will externalize costs if they can – even if those costs get put on others.

    that’s human nature and in some respects – it’s what govt tries to deal with carrying out it’s mission of protecting property rights – for ALL property owners – INCLUDING those whose properties ARE degraded by development that externalizes runoff.

    so.. let’s assume that the author SPECIFICALLY believes that govt needs to have a strong role in carrying out these goals.

    if he does – he automatically puts himself at odds with the aforementioned groups who believe that govt is already too involved in issues like this – e.g. Fairfax and Accokink Creek, et al.

    but assume he is does have a valid point for govt – what should govt do for storm water that it’s not doing now? What things need to be done for storm water to make it more sustainable and resilient?

    this is one of my flaws. I don’t give much credence to theories – even ones that sound good and make sense – unless I see at SOME KIND of real world examples because I assume if an idea is truly really good.. somewhere on our planet – it has taken whole as a human-desired “good”.

    If Mr. Sloan is correct, we should not “need” multi-state, govt-sanctioned “Save the Bay” efforts. We should never have gotten to the point where we need to “save the bay” to start with – and that’s clearly not the case.

    1. Dan didn’t discuss government’s role in making these things happen. But I think it’s clear that government has to create a framework. Thus, if you agree that storm water runoff is a legitimate subject of government regulation (which I do), the question is, what role should government play? Should it enacted detailed prescriptions on exactly how everything should be done — prescriptions that get gamed by developers and start getting outdated by new technology and new techniques as soon as they are put into place? — or should government do something like the City of Richmond actually has done, and create a storm water utility that charges property owners a tax based on the amount of impervious surface on their property (which is a proxy for how much run-off they will generate)? I think Richmond has done the right thing.

      The next thing government will have to do is change building codes that require individual property owners to meet environmental standards individually and enable the creation of block and district solutions for rain harvesting, water recycling, energy generation, energy conservation and the like. So, it’s not a matter of government telling people what to do but creating a legal and regulatory framework that gives them more lattitude and flexibility in devising creative solutions.

      It’s a very different paradigm than the one you’re operating from, Larry.

      1. larryg Avatar

        Jim – do you actually KNOW the paradigm I am operating from? I do not think so. I do NOT defend the status quo but I DO ASK how we’d do things differently and more along the lines of what is advocated.

        in this particular circumstance, you cede the de-facto govt role then blather without real substance about how it would/should be done differently and you heavily rely on the govt using “coercive thuggery” (to use a term we hear these days from anti-govt types) – to achieve the desired goals.

        this is the very same coercive govt that you decry for using bad methods.

        you want the very same govt to stop using bad methods and use good methods – as opposed to getting the govt out of it – as is often argued by those who decry the “bad” way that govt does things.

        so basically what you are saying is that you want the very same thug govt to ‘do better’.

        right?

        come on Jim… this argument has real substance and is a different “paradigm”?

        😉

  4. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Jim’s article and follow on commentary are right on the mark. There is much meat on the bones of his article and commentary.

    Not the least of which is that we need far more lawyers like Dan Slone. Lawyers who bring interested parties to together to find solutions that work for the interests of all parties and society at large are critical to moving us forward in ways that create wealth for all, rather than waste or destroy it .

    We need define wealth very broadly here, to include all the benefits that development, restoration & redevelopment can bestow on our communities.

    Lawyers like Dan Slone are worth their weight in gold.

    1. larryg Avatar

      Reed – do you agree that this is calling for a govt-imposed solution and not a free market solution?

      1. False dichotomy. Unless one advocates a utopian, laissez-faire system, the free market can work only within a government-created legal framework. Once the law determines that property owners are held responsible for the externalities caused by their storm water runoff, the question becomes one of whether government prescribes the solutions or it allows the private sector to devise solutions.

        1. larryg Avatar

          but you are relying on the very same govt that you say is incompetent, inefficient, wasteful and has bad breath!

          why would you expect that very same govt to then ” prescribe solutions and/or allow private sector” when you say it does not do so now?

          I would tweak you further in that you say this for storm water but you specifically argue against this same approach for health care.

          right?

        2. larryg Avatar

          re: ” the free market can work only within a government-created legal framework.”

          you mean like ObamaCare? I thought you were opposed to the govt being involved in health care?

  5. Last April, I flew from New York to Phoenix. I sat next to a facilities VP for a large national corporation. He oversees considerable construction and remodeling. We talked quite a bit on the long flight. Among the topics we discussed were green buildings and LEED certification. He was quite open to saving energy and using resources effectively. However, he also criticized the vagueness of the “green process” especially when it came to LEED certification. Everything is mushy. His bottom line, If a company is ready to spend $100 K on the process (consultants, lawyers and architects), the company gets LEED certification, irrespective of the merits. Sounds like Wall Street to me.

    Storm water. Originally, the Tysons Task Force proposed setting world class storm water retention standards. Reality set in – the County and the landowners compromised down to an agreement to retain the first inch of rain water. I’m not belittling that, but it’s a far cry from the idea of eliminating almost all of the runoff. It’s too expensive.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      “I’m not belittling that, but it’s a far cry from the idea of eliminating almost all of the runoff. It’s too expensive.”.

      That’s the first cogent point from the pro-Cuccinelli forces. No more yammering about the EPA and federal over-reach. A question of affordability.

      We’re starting to get somewhere.

  6. larryg Avatar

    re: ” It’s too expensive.” so the Bay is toast?

    BTW – one inch is not the threshold .. it’s 2yr or 10yr storm events that right now – new development has to allow for with storm ponds.

    you say it’s too expensive but every single new development has to pay these costs right now…

    the tougher question is how can you (or should you) try to backfit existing development to meet the same standards as new development.

    would the private sector do that through the free market?

    ha hhhahahhahahhah NOT! Give Richmond credit – for establishing a storm water authority.

    and give Fairfax a banana for being the richest locality in the state – turning it’s back on the problem.

  7. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Jim has suggested that: “it’s not a matter of government telling people what to do but creating a legal and regulatory framework that gives them more latitude and flexibility in devising creative solutions.”

    Larry has said: “Give Richmond credit – for establishing a storm water authority.”

    Arlington County Government sinking under downtown urban blight created “a legal and regulatory framework that gave them more latitude and flexibility in devising creative solutions.” The result created what most consider a world class solution: Arlington’s new downtown.

    I presume Larry agrees given his statement that: “I don’t give much credence to theories – even ones that sound good and make sense – unless I see at SOME KIND of real world examples because I assume if an idea is truly really good.. somewhere on our planet – it has taken (hold) as a human-desired “good”.”

    Are not Arlington’s downtown or Richmond’s storm water authority such “real world examples”? If not, then Larry should tell is why.)

    But if he does agree, then what sort of approaches and attitudes and talents are needed to replicate these success stories? Are not creative and solution and results oriented people (whether lawyer, gov. planner, developer, homeowner,or whatever) working on particular projects within the legal and regulatory framework outlined above needed to make things happen?

    1. larryg Avatar

      I think the Richmond storm water authority is purely a govt top-down exercise… show me otherwise.

      Arglington? talked about a lot but few specifics. How about telling the DIFFERENCE between a top-down govt-directed approach in Arlington (or other places that do smart growth) and what Arlington did different…to set up that “framework” and is that framework what Mr. Slone was talking about?

      specifics, Reed.. not flowery generalities. It looks like top-down to me but maybe it’s not – show me the difference.

      1. reed fawell III Avatar
        reed fawell III

        That answer tells me all I needed to know.

  8. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    I think the drill here is to make smart growth acceptable to the right wing by changing the vocabulary

  9. larryg Avatar

    I think Peter might be on to something. God forbid we mention the UN Agenda 21.. in the same breath as Sustainable much less “resilience”… that would set off a brand new firestorm of government conspiracy talk!

Leave a Reply