Give That Lady A Cupie Doll!!

Finally someone who can focus on the important issues. (hint: like Kara said, "...not just Ponte Vista but all of them...")

First of all, thank you for opening my eyes to the entire LEEDs thing. It is much more complicated than I thought at first glance. Of course you are dead-on right in that these incentives are merely incentives. The good thing about this is that they are being encouraged to do something real, versus the smoke-and-mirrors of 1970s developments with just played with "historical" benefits and other such intangibles. It was such an obvious ploy that Congress could not ignore it and in 1986 enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which killed most of the "make-believe" developments.

In contrast, a LEED certification provides a tangible benefit for our local community. Is there anyone who would argue that a reduced need to buy electricity from DWP is NOT a good thing? Or who would argue that re-cycling old building materials doesn't reduce our dependence on landfills by using the material in new and better ways?

It's going to be tough to get around the core of what developers are about. It would be akin to going to a used-car salesman and expecting him to sell you a car which really meets your needs; at a fair price; and dropping the "Have I got a car for you..." line. Probably not going to happen in my lifetime. But many times, just knowing a person's motivation can help you maximize what you can get out of the deal.

What I find intriguing about this situation, is not so much the projects we have heard about, but rather the ones we haven't. As Kara stated, this is going on all over town. But the demographics of the potential owner of a unit in the VUE is different from someone who might buy at the Bank Lofts, or someone looking at Seaport Village. Yet the LEED certification could be used for all of them. Why hasn't it? One step further, is this certification available for non-profits? Specifically I'm interested in the huge expansion Kaiser is going through in their Harbor City facility. They are a non-profit so they don't pay taxes. But couldn't rebates and bonuses be used to reduce their operating cost? And then pass that downstream to reduce patient premiums?

In any event, yes, the developer would make a profit. But we would wind up with something more ecologically-friendly. After all, I take my car down to the carwash and pay them to make it look better. Wouldn't (shouldn't) I be willing to pay someone to give me a building which was more ecologically friendly?

Thoughts?