The blogs have been crackling for several weeks with reports and analysis of the LEED “challenge” process.  Chris Cheatham devoted a multiple part series to analyzing the challenge filed and ultimately rejected to the LEED Gold certification awarded to the Northland Pines High School in Wisconsin.  Shari Shapiro has discussed the same and included an interesting interview with the challengers discussing their reasoning for the protest.

Without getting too bogged down in the technical details of the Northland Pines case that are covered elsewhere, I would highlight a couple important takeaways from what we have learned from the Northland Pines challenge case:

1. Currently, anyone can file a challenge – there are no standing requirements whatsoever.  If anyone can file a challenge, the threat to projects, and to LEED, is that anyone will file a challenge.
2. There are very loose/limited guidelines or rules on procedure, hearings, document and information exchange and the like in the challenge process.  Look for a future revamping adding more clarity in the challenge process rules.
3. It appears that USGBC permitted Northland Pines to correct, amplify and update its submittals during the challenge process to demonstrate compliance with the prerequisites.  USGBC needs to make clear whether certification requires bright line compliance based on initial submittals and information, or whether they are more interested in allowing some wiggle room as long as the project meets the standards at the end of the finish line.  Failing to make this basic philosophical tenet clear is not fair to project participants, opens the process to future inconsistency during later challenges, and ultimately threatens the credibility (and thus potentially the viability) of the USGBC process.
4. Last point, which may be the biggest and has not really percolated as a point of focus: as currently conceived, the LEED challenge process adds another completely unpredictable line item expense to the process.  The challenge process may also add another angle of attack on projects for unhappy losers in bidding, neighborhood NIMBY uprisings, and competitors that may want at low cost and effort to financially damage their opponents.  At least courts have a theoretical sanctions approach to address complaints filed in bad faith.  USGBC should strongly consider adopting rules that require a USGBC member to certify the challenge as being in good faith, along with membership penalties or sanctions for individuals signing off on complaints that have zero merit.

The challenge process in theory may add an important element of credibility, verification and transparency to LEED certifications.  As it stands though, there are loose rules, no standing requirements, and one can easily file challenges even in bad faith without facing any impact.  If we start seeing a rash of such challenges, we may start also seeing a growing movement away from LEED certification due to increased unpredictability.  The current challenge structure presents some serious risks and issues moving forward and needs to be the subject of significant thought and retooling to avoid future problems.

It’s a beautiful, warm spring day here in Richmond, VA.  The sprinklers were going in neighborhood yards as I left for work this morning and the clouds are moving lightly on the breeze.  With the sun shining and the birds chirping outside of my office window, even I and my old pal Eeyore could smile and see some optimism for the future.

Activity abounds in the sustainable building world.  California is implementing the first state wide “green”  building code and, according to my friend Imad Naffa (@imadnaffa on Twitter), that state will be pressing builders and developers to build in a sustainable manner.  Governmental units, both small and large, are seeking to add zoning or other incentives to build in a sustainable manner.   More and more developers are seeking LEED certification (though this certification is sometimes subject to challenge).  All of these signs point toward the desire for a more energy efficient and responsible built environment.

The dad in me wants this badly and quickly.  Better air quality, less energy use, and a more predictable weather pattern (to the extent that weather is predictable) can only lead to a better future for my kids.  However (and this is where you should get the “here he goes again” look on your face as you read this), the sad little donkey on my other shoulder is always reminding me to step back and take a quick look at the big picture.

The enthusiasm for the sustainable construction paradigm is laudable but should not overtake some sensible discussion of risks and costs.  Questions (several of which I have discussed at Construction Law Musings) that should be considered during the policy phase of this enterprise are as follows:

• What are the costs to a private developer of forced “green” building that cannot be tailored to a particular project?  Will these costs preclude certain development?
• Can the insurance industry catch up with the regulators?  Without proper insurance coverage, contractors may not be able to justify construction.
• How does the use of LEED (a laudable private rating system that can change without the usual legislative process) in certain zoning and building requirements create risks for the owners, architects and builders?
• What about simple time horizon risks?

None of these issues are insurmountable and I remain optimistic that we can deal with them in a rational fashion.  While I don’t know the answers to these questions from a legal risk management standpoint, as a construction attorney and father, I feel that I would not be promoting a permanent change without bringing the questions to light so that they don’t surprise us and kill this hard fought momentum.  Once many of these questions are considered carefully, we may decide that some are simply too small to deal with, while others are highly relevant and should be dealt with before the courts make the decisions for us.  Once the questions are in the open and some answer is reached, a more permanent foundation for a brighter, more energy efficient future will arise.

Let me close by saying that because of folks like Yahya Henry and the other contributors here at Aribra, and the many great friends I have met along the way, Eeyore is getting quieter and quieter as time goes on.

From CNN Living | Americans Rebuild for the ‘New Urban Century’

In Charlotte, North Carolina, commuters zip along a sparkling new light rail system into a booming downtown district.

In Sacramento, California, construction workers hammer away at the next generation of green buildings.

And in New York City, rush-hour commuters pedal across popular bike paths that have spread like kudzu across the metropolis.

Those snapshots from cities across America offer a glimpse of the future. Americans are rebuilding their cities and communities to make people, not cars, the center of a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, urban planners and transportation experts say.

“We’re creating infrastructure for human beings, rather than automobiles,” says Michael Smith, CEO of Center City Partners in Charlotte, a group of business leaders that has helped lead a revival of the city’s downtown.

Creating a new infrastructure means new rules, experts say.

What’s on the way out: sprawling interstates, suburban living, long car commutes.

What’s now in: light rail, green space and vibrant downtown districts.

“As you look at the cities that are going to thrive in the next century, there’s a belief that we’re entering the urban century,” Smith says. “There’s a new urbanism that’s not about cul-de-sacs or expressways. It’s sidewalks, bike paths and parks.”

Where America is rebuilding

Smith points to downtown Charlotte as a prime example. During the past decade, downtown Charlotte has added new restaurants, art centers, the soon-to-be-opened NASCAR Hall of Fame and nightspots, Smith says.

Charlotte’s downtown growth was the result of good planning, Smith says. Thirty years ago, the city’s business and political leaders decided that Charlotte couldn’t sustain its suburban growth. So they began rebuilding downtown and eventually won public support to install a light rail system, he says.

Even the Great Recession couldn’t stop Charlotte’s downtown revival because the rebuilding projects had so much momentum, Smith says.

“We were fortunate to have 30 cranes swinging in our city center as we moved into the teeth of the recession,” Smith says.

What’s happening in Charlotte is happening across the country, says Kathleen Hughes, executive producer of “Blueprint America,” an ongoing PBS series that looks at the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure.

During her research, Hughes says she encountered plenty of communities that are using stimulus money for embracing light rail projects and pushing the revitalization of downtown districts.

“There’s a sense that America has been built out and spread out too far, and many of us live too far from our neighbors,” Hughes says.

Americans aren’t just rebuilding their transportation grid; they’re also embracing alternate forms of travel, others say.

Bike lanes are popping up in American cities, says Aaron Naparstek, founder of Streetsblog. It’s an online community for the Livable Streets movement, a coalition that seeks to transform cities by improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.

In cities such as Portland, Oregon, or New York, it’s common now to see commuters biking to work, Naparstek says. In New York City alone, 300 miles of bike lanes have been added in the past four years, he says.

Naparstek says he can remember the moment when he thinks Americans’ attitude to cars shifted.

“I’m old enough to remember my dad waiting in the gas lines during the first OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] gas crisis,” he says. “To me, that was the beginning of the end for the American romance with the automobile.”

Rebuilding values as well as roads

As America rebuilds, new industries arise as well.

Oscar Ortega was a construction company foreman who made about $70,000 a year before he was laid off at the end of 2007. With a wife and four daughters, he performed odd jobs to stay afloat.

“I tried not to let it affect me,” he says. “If I walked around the home moping, it would affect my family. I tried to be as strong as I could.”

Then Ortega read about job openings at ZETA Communities, a green construction company in Sacramento, California. ZETA builds “net-zero” energy homes (homes that produce as much energy as they consume by using devices such as solar panels).

Ortega applied and got a call back. Two years later, he’s working as a green builder.

“I feel reborn,” he says. “That’s what the future is all about: staying green and saving the environment. This new construction is the wave of the future. I’m really excited to be a part of it.”

Americans are not only rebuilding their cities and homes, they’re also rebuilding their sense of community.

The Great Recession has also forced some to rediscover the value of community. Some of this has been done by establishing time banks, where members trade services that are tracked by hours rather than dollar value.

For example, one member of a time bank may provide an hour of tax advice to another. Another may weed a person’s garden for an hour. Each hour-long act receives a “time dollar” that can be used to purchase someone else’s labor.

Time banks are designed to build community, its founders say. It teaches people that everyone has value, even if they don’t have a job. Thirty-five states have time banks, group founders say.

“The idea is that nobody’s labor is worth more than anybody else’s labor. We’re all in this together,” says Judith Lasker, a time bank member and a sociology professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who is writing a book about time bank organizations.

Some Americans are rebuilding their sense of values as well.

Matt Fredenberg of Alpharetta, Georgia, seems like a rarity in the Great Recession; he’s working in a thriving industry.

Fredenberg helps his mother and sister run a Senior Helpers franchise. The national franchise sends workers to homes to help family members take care of aging relatives. Their services range from light housekeeping to running errands.

Fredenberg, 26, says his family franchise has 120 employees after four years of operation. Business has been so good that he says “we’re hiring like crazy.”

But Fredenberg is not talking about parlaying his success into buying bigger and shinier toys. He says he wants to learn from the mistakes of his parents’ generation.

Fredenberg says he doesn’t own a credit card, uses coupons to eat out and shuns buying more than he needs. His friends do the same.

“Even with cars and houses, we realize that you don’t have to have the best,” he says. “It doesn’t have to be brand new and huge.”

Though times are now tough, Fredenberg says his generation is confident. Better days are ahead.

“People are willing to sacrifice some luxuries to be more practical,” he says. “We’ll come out of this. People are willing to do what it takes.”

A recent article at the Ahead of Schedule Blog brings up a project owner’s perspective on “green” building.

The article starts by stating that:

Despite the explosion of articles, seminars and webinars on green building and development during the last year or so, there is a dearth of information in the development world regarding what project owners and developers who do want to build a green project should actually put in their design and construction contracts.

The post then lists several good points regarding what a construction project owner should look for and request in its contracts, particularly with a design professional.

My blog, Construction Law Musings generally discusses these issues from a contractor, sub-contractor or construction attorney’s perspective and the potential liability inherent in constructing such projects and this article has much to recommend it, and not just from an owner standpoint.  The fact remains that owners will be seeking sustainable building, whether through LEED or some other energy efficiency or environmental measure.  Project Owners will either chose sustainable building for economic or moral reasons, or through government mandate.

Knowing the other side’s playbook is one way that a football team can prepare, the same holds true in pre-construction negotiation of contracts. Knowledge of the types of contractual provisions an owner will seek to include in a construction contract can and will go a long way toward a general contractor’s ability to negotiate a proper contract, both with the owner and its subcontractors.  A working knowledge of the possible issues between owners and architects will inform a contractor’s working knowledge of the benefits and potential liabilities inherent in “green” building and keep it ahead of the curve.  Such knowledge will also go a long way toward dealing with these issues of human action and the long time horizons inherent in sustainability.

In short, just like a football coach who would love to know the other teams next play, contractors should be sure to check out this article and it’s insight into an owner’s “playbook.”

For more on this check out fellow Aribra contributor Tim Hughes’ post at the Virginia Real Estate, Land Use and Construction Law blog.

From NY Times | Making History In a Brooklyn Neighborhood

When Habitat for Humanity New York City consulted an architecture firm on its new site in the Ocean Hill section of Brownsville, Brooklyn, it received a response that switched on a light bulb. The firm, Dattner Architects, said that Habitat could proceed with its plan to build 12 town houses on the trash-strewn vacant lot, but that the site was actually capable of supporting many more units in apartment form — 41, to be exact.

The result, nearly three years and one entirely new development model later, is the largest creation in Habitat’s history, an $11.6 million three-building complex on Atlantic Avenue, complete with LEED Gold certification. About 10,000 requests were received for the 41 slots; the applicants eventually selected were required to make down payments of 1 percent on the building’s condominiums, which ranged in price from $75,000 to $200,000. They were also required to invest 300 hours of work, which Habitat, a nonprofit organization, calls “sweat equity,” in the development.

“In the past, they were building single-family dwellings, not a 41-unit complex as they did here on Atlantic Avenue,” said Rosalyn Jolly, a hospital clerical associate who recently moved from a cramped one-bedroom in Bushwick into a two-bedroom in the complex with her 15-year-old daughter. “It’s a wonderful thing.”

Now, perhaps with the notion that it is onto something, Habitat has begun altering its model in New York City. The volunteers so often photographed putting up the walls of a standalone house, sometimes with a smiling Jimmy Carter in tow, are now helping erect larger buildings (alongside future residents). And the city’s branch of Habitat just learned last week that it will receive about $10.5 million in funding from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, part of a $2 billion outlay to help nonprofits and governments expand their services for affordable housing.

In the South Bronx, a 50-unit co-op building on Fox Street is mostly finished, and in February, Habitat will begin taking applications for a development a few blocks away. The 63-unit building on Prospect Avenue at Macy Place, for which final city approval was recently granted, is rising above the neighborhood, visible from the elevated train platform of the 2 and 5 subway lines down the street. Volunteers are to start work there in March.

“New York is a very dense city,” said Ingrid Gould Ellen, a professor of public policy and urban planning at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. “So I think that building to the density levels that fit into the neighborhood landscape makes a lot of sense.” The affordable-homeownership market, she said wryly, “is not a market that is glutted right now.”

Yet Habitat is taking on this new role of low-income condominium developer at a difficult time for such housing in New York. In fiscal year 2009, a 16-unit Habitat development in Bedford-Stuyvesant was the only below-market-rate homeownership deal to close with the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development. (In 2008, the total number was 24; in 2007, 27.) While Habitat works in ownership situations, the rental market is also struggling; the number of affordable units available per 100 extremely low-income households in New York State fell to 36 from 38 in 2008, according to theNational Low Income Housing Coalition.

This situation exists despite Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s $7.5 billion affordable-housing initiative, created in 2003, which seeks to “create or preserve” 165,000 units. With 97,000 units financed thus far, according to the housing agency, the plan is on track to meet its goals by 2014, but demand remains high; the city’s vacancy rate is 2.9 percent.

In this environment, Habitat has tripled its number of units under construction in the past six months — thanks in part, it says, to its sweat-equity ownership model.

“Ideally, in our quest to serve as many families in need as possible, what we want to do is to be as nimble and as entrepreneurial as possible,” said Josh Lockwood, Habitat’s executive director in New York City.

Applicants, 90 percent of whom are typically rejected quickly, must submit to a home visit and interviews as well as maintain a 620 credit score. Under a loan agreement between Habitat and the State of New York Mortgage Agency, buyers putting in 300 hours of work on their buildings receive a 2 percent interest rate, which Habitat buys down to zero percent. In addition to the 1 percent they put down, buyers make monthly payments equal to a third of their incomes.

“We don’t give anything away,” Mr. Lockwood said. “These families have to build their own homes.”

The cost of building for Habitat is reduced further by fund-raising and the large pool of volunteers. Of course, given market conditions and land availability in the city, not every new endeavor can be as ambitious as the Ocean Hill complex.

In the Bronx, Habitat’s two new buildings are partnerships with the Blue Sea Development Company, which has worked with the city on affordable housing in the past. That means about three-quarters of the units will not be sold under the Habitat sweat-equity terms described above — although they will still be sold below market rate, and are therefore considered affordable housing. Indeed, the word “Habitat” isn’t in evidence on the banners on those buildings (the words “Affordable Housing” are); Habitat says it is marketing its share of the units through its normal means.

“The hope is that we can use both models,” Mr. Lockwood said.

Either way, new residents are happy. Taking a group of visitors through her family’s earth-toned two-bedroom at Atlantic Avenue, Mirian Rodriguez spoke with pride, and some surprise, about the construction skills she had learned over the last year.

“I knew what Sheetrock was, but I didn’t know how to put it in,” she said. “You had to be on your knees.” She works part time at Jamaica Hospital; her husband, Miguel Baez, works as a porter in Manhattan.

Their place is filled with new appliances, a gift from her parents (“It was on sale,” she says), along with a big-boy bed for her son, Adrian, and all the Hot Wheels paraphernalia that can fit in one child’s room. It’s a far cry from the tiny one-bedroom they rented in Cypress Hills, Brooklyn, with crime and commotion in the hallways. The new place is quiet and comfortable, and it smells good.

“We’re very thankful,” she said. “It’s ours.”

Full | Making History in a Brooklyn Neighborhood

I recently had the opportunity to sit in on an Alcholics Anonymous meeting. Limited Disclosure: Who I was in the meeting for is private, hence the ‘anonymous’ but I will share that I am not in recovery, just an interested, supportive third party.

One lesson from the meeting really stuck in my mind. It’s a simple concept.

“Progress, Not Perfection”

Put simply, the idea is that a recovering alcoholic is going to falter on the road to sobriety. What AA encourages is continual effort toward becoming sober for life, because as they also acknowledge being an alcoholic is something you are not something you “have.” The concept encourages continual improvement, instead of a light-switch, where one turns off their desire for alcohol and never turns it back on.

I left the meeting and that simple phrase kept turning around and around. I wonder if the green movement in total, and the green building movement specifically, could you a dose of this thinking. I often read on professional boards and blogs about the dilemma of asking clients to take sustainability measures when they are not perfect solutions.

“How can we ask them to switch to fluorescent when there is Mercury?”
“How can we ask them to switch to solar, when the waste stream isn’t managed?”
“How can we recommend LEED accreditation when, the NY Times posts articles doubting LEED’s effectiveness?”

It’s not that each of these questions don’t have merit, they do. Solving these kinds of problems through the development of best practices is something Build2Sustain is committed to. That said, the perfect cannot continually be enemy of the good. Apply the “progress, not perfection” mantra and we’ll see forward movement when it comes to increasing efficiency and therefore the sustainability of the built environment.

Does that make a perfect a building stock? No, of course not. To create one would be the life’s work of every design/build professional, but it’s a start.

Progress, Not Perfection.

Let’s get to work. 

An article in a recent issue of Constructor Magazine, the publication of the AGC of America, makes a point that I have been making for a while, namely that sustainable building is here to stay.

The article quotes several contractor members of the AGC and essentially concludes that

Green is the new gold

I agree. Especially in tough economic times such as these, contractors and subcontractors need to distinguish themselves. Owners need to save money through more sustainable and energy efficient practices. Possibly more importantly, government is jumping into the breach to require such building practices, whether through building codes or LEED certification requirements.

Not only is such activity a moral imperative, but it makes good economic sense. For this reason construction professionals must learn how to “talk the talk” of sustainability. To miss this train could mean bankruptcy or worse given current trends.

Of course the risks must be taken into account. Contracts must be drafted in such a way that those performing the work are not held accountable for uncontrollable human interaction with a building so that contractors and subcontractors will be ready to do what is necessary for a sustainable building future. A qualified construction attorney can help.

In short (like that isn’t too late at this point), while construction professionals must learn to build “green” to survive, they also need to make sure they don’t die trying.

As always, I strongly encourage comments below. Also, please check out my Construction Law Musings for other information on sustainable building and other construction topics.

As I thought about my good friend Eeyore, and my prior post (and borderline obsession with children’s characters (a totally different issue)), I realized that many can (and sometimes do) take my attitudes and penchant for baby steps as skepticism toward the whole idea of sustainable construction and its necessity.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I am committed in a very real way toward the idea of sustainability, I just feel that we are rushing headlong into the void without thought of potential consequences of our actions.  In the laudable zeal to make broad sweeping changes to governmental policy and building activity, I see the details being lost.  As I have posted before, here and elsewhere, I am at heart a risk management guy.  I see many issues through the same liability lens and feel that Murphy was an optimist.  For this reason (much to my lovely wife’s chagrin) I always look for the cloud in the silver lining (is that enough mangled cliches for one post?).

While I don’t think everyone in the “green” construction space should be thinking this way, we do need folks who are willing to look at issues as simple as a broken window or the potential for liability due to new technologies that are not time worn and tested as we move forward toward a more sustainable future.  This is not rocket science.  These are not high level policy issues.  We need to make sure that we consider the simple questions even if we don’t have the answers.

Why do I spread this wet blanket (okay I couldn’t resist one more bad metaphor)?  Because if we head into the future without consideration for these questions the whole sustainable enterprise could come crashing down.  One or two big products liability lawsuits or energy performance related lawsuits could chill the market for these buildings by driving contractors and suppliers from the space.  Without the companies that deliver the parts and build the buildings, all of the academic and policy decisions will be for naught.

In short, it is my commitment to a long term solution, and not skepticism that keeps me working to make sure that we understand the risks.  Without consideration of these very real and very critical (in my view as a construction attorney) issues, the market will not open and we will continue to live in the world of theory without meeting our potential and historical values through a long term and, yes, sustainable movement toward more energy efficient infrastructure.

Okay, that felt good, now back to working on contracts to deal with these issues.

**

Download Build2Sustain’s White Paper “It’s Time To Jump Into Sustainability”.

A recent post by my friend Andrea Goldman raises the interesting question of “why bother with LEED certification”? The post highlights a recent profile on the highly sustainable Hutton Hotel project in Nashville which elected to forego seeking LEED registration and certification. In particular, Hutton Hotel representatives are quoted as saying:

Doing the government documents alone cost $50,000. Also, the paperwork is so complicated you have to hire an expert to do it. They make the certification a little onerous so everyone won’t pile on. You also need engineers that do testing. It’s a whole process.

If the goal truly is to develop more sustainable, energy efficient and better performing buildings, perhaps that is where a project’s generally limited resources should be directed. The question is how less technically savvy owners, developers, and even perhaps government officials are able to evaluate how “green” are these buildings. USGBC has been able to carve out a niche and indeed expand that niche into widespread identification of LEED being synonymous with green building and presenting LEED as the most credible source of third party validation of green design and construction.

The questions raised by Hutton Hotel are not unique. Indeed, last week I had a long conversation with a longtime client who builds very upscale homes. He remarked that their design and building practice had “been what people are calling green now” for years. He added that LEED did not make sense for them because of its lack of teeth regarding energy performance. These comments echo the themes of earlier discussions regarding critiques of LEED and energy performance, its efforts to incorporate post-occupancy energy reporting, and the changes in credit emphasis in LEED 3.0.

In the end, the ability of LEED to succeed relies upon its stance as an accepted source for third party validation is critically dependent on its ability to maintain credibility. It is for this reason that the recent critiques of energy performance of LEED certified buildings and the USGBC’s efforts to address energy performance issues are so important to USGBC’s long term success. It seems to us that in addition, third party validation relies in part on the market necessity to “prove” a project is green rather than having a knowledgeable marketplace already in position to make that evaluation on its own. As marketplace knowledge and information improves, perhaps the need for third party validation begins to erode over time.

Originally published at Virginia Real Estate, Land Use and Construction Blog.

I am sitting here looking out at a wet, dark and windy day here in Richmond, VA.  In many ways I can relate to the clouds.  As an attorney I almost always feel like I am raining on the “sustainable building” parade.  On Build2Sustain conference calls, I always feel like I’m the one saying “whoa” we need to think about the liability.

As I’ve said at Musings before, Eeyore is one of my favorite characters from A. A. Milne.  Eeyore, you may remember, is the donkey on whom it’s always raining.  He is the loveable character that always feels like the sky is falling, but plugs along anyway.

I can relate.  I am firmly committed to sustainable building.  I think that the economic impact, combined with the moral imperative, make such a goal both worthy and required.  However, certain risks are inherent in any new use of technologies and any new mode of thinking, no matter how worthy.   Some of the issues that will need to be dealt with by contractors, architects, owners and, yes, lawyers, are the following:

• Insurance- the insurance industry is still catching up with energy related underwriting
• What standard of care applies due to a green building claim?
• Potential Trademark claims
• Longer time horizons and contractual or government requirements on energy goals

I sometimes feel like we are rushing past these issues without the careful thought that we need to give such risks in our (understandable) enthusiasm.  I tell clients to plan ahead, but it is human nature to be overtaken with excitement at a new venture and the vision of a better, cleaner, world.  However, until these issues are hammered out (hopefully without litigation to have judges tell us what to do), this march to a sustainable future will be a slow one.

The government can only do so much through mandate.  The private sector must be ready to move forward and pour money into sustainability.  Without some assurance and possibility to at least manage these risks, project owners and builders will be justifiably wary.  The sooner the risks are at least out in the open, if not resolved, the sooner the private sector will get fully behind sustainable construction and building management.

Until then, Eeyore and I will keep plugging through the rain.