Bioregionalism & Green Finance: “It’s the (sustainable) economy, stupid”

At least, that’s what Luke Lowings seems to be saying, in his review of Pooran Dersai’s new book, One Planet Communities. And he’s not making a bad point. It’s time that a solid discussion of finance accompany visionary development.

Dersai’s new book espouses “practical bioregionalism” — focusing on architectural principles for building a whole community — as opposed to just the sustainability of individual buildings. He argues for applying principles of bioregionalism to create sustainable communities (definition of bioregionalism here).

Lowings’ main complaint about One Planet Communities is that its heavy focus on building sustainable communities ignores the parallel task of creating a sustainable economy to support them.  My brow furrowed as I realized that, if this was Lowings’ chief complaint, then he’s probably very depressed about everything he reads on sustainable buildings. To date, not many have been able to lay out a cohesive set of principles and practice for the kind of finance that truly supports sustainable communities at a regional level. So I feel Lowings’ unfairly picks on Dersai about a general problem in the market, not for any particular failing on Dersai’s part.

Financial Infrastructure Needs to Support Sustainable Communities

Nonetheless, Lowings still has a good point –> the current availability of financial tools and resources for green real estate developers and investors is more of a swap meet than a market. It does not offer the depth and breadth of organized infrastructure that bioregions can rely upon.

• Recently, there have been a glut of new studies and tools dealing with narrowly defined pieces of individual building-related financial problems — green lease clauses, detailing paybacks on specific retrofit measures, and the potential value-add of third party certification to individual green buildings.

• On the funding side, the owner’s discovery and selection process requires trudging through a a swamp of new incentives, stimulus funding plus the byzantine tax and regulatory requirements that accompany them. To come up with a green business case on their own, they have to hopscotch around, stitching together those new green funding sources with their traditional capital relationships. Repeat that whole process again, for every single building they intend to green.

• It’s no wonder that nearly 70% of the participants who attended one of our recent webinars, indicated that they were not applying for or using any sort of incentives whatsoever. Why not? Too confusing to figure out!

The final wrinkle relates back to our post last week on green building valuation. In order for finance to support sustainable communities, the investment real estate community will have to be able to assign a value to amenities such as community farms and more schools. There would have to be a cultural shift towards more long-term economic stability as opposed to above-inflation rental growth. From today’s standpoint, that is a very tall order.

Bioregions don’t fit neatly into industry accepted conventions of primary and secondary real estate markets. Real estate fundamentals are driven by global and national market forces, not just regional ones. Capital markets these days cannot exist exclusively within a fenced-off business territory.

So I think that the sustainability movement has to acknowledge a certain level of hype that is accompanying the bioregion vision and incorporate a sober view of global demographics and economics in their economic planning.

Case Study: The Preserve - an official candidate “One Planet Community”

Can bioregionalism completely address some of the ills we see within our communities? Hmmm…. maybe.

GlobeSt.com has put out the word on A.G. Spanos’ announcement of a $2 billion “environmentally and economically sustainable” community that will generate 12,000 jobs and over $15 million in annual revenue for Stockton, CA”.

This community, called ‘The Preserve’, is also endorsed under review for endorsement by the One Planet Community, which gave is considering the endorsement in exchange for the development subscribing to its ten principles that address public transit, economics,natural habitats, energy and water, jobs, education and well being.

Two things come to mind as I read this announcement:

#1: Stockton, California has a foreclosure rate of 15% vs California’s 9.5% and the US rate of 6.72%.

# 2: The Stockton, CA metropolitan statistical area posts unemployment of 15.5%. It is ranked 359 out of the total 372 MSA’s tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Which leads to my main question:

Can installing a bioregion heal an ailing city?

Seriously.  With stats like those above, can the City of Stockton truly afford to support a brand new 1,800 acre community — whose tax benefits won’t be fully evident for many years to come?

My long career of lending other people’s money into many MSA’s has taught me to be cautious when I hear about multi-billion-dollar new developments going into distressed communities — green or not. The US real estate industry is littered with tales of failed revitalization efforts tied to grand master-planned schemes, which absorbed huge amounts of a suffering town’s resources, but actually took a very long time to return relatively little to the residents who needed the relief.

The complete terms of the Preserve development are not yet known, so the jury’s out on the ways in which Stockton will be impacted. But real estate financing history suggests that these kinds of deals only make sense to the developer if they are getting the land at a very low price (or for free) and the city is contributing advantageous financing terms (big infrastructure bonds, etc).

The city hopes for larger tax revenues from the new businesses and residents in years to come after everything is built. Any rewards for the residents won’t be evident for years — after all, houses don’t make long-term jobs. It works the other way around.

Lots of cities forget that. They also forget that, in 15-20 years when the promised development is fully operational,  the real estate cycle will be in a much different place than when they signed the deal.

Bioregionalism principles can certainly play a key role in stabilizing Stockton’s economic outlook, but I bet that the City of Stockton could probably accelerate healing of its distress with a large scale, pragmatic energy efficiency financing program for its existing building stock as well as existing businesses to reduce cost of operations, spur green collar jobs and prevent further bleeding of existing jobs. Stockton appears to have a deal in the works with utility, PG&E, but I’m talking about a bigger, farther reaching kind of program which would encompass other forms of green finance beyond that supplied by the public utility.

Long-term healthy jobs and an educated workforce are the DNA of every healthy real estate market — not to mention, sustainable communities. With all due respect to The Preserve, I don’t think that every city  needs to necessarily go through the long, expensive process of building big new green communities to get there. And I always have lots of questions when ailing cities start agreeing to these projects, since they are usually in the worst position to really reap the benefits.

The good news is that, “swap meet” aside, there are great green finance options available that, when properly structured, can support cities like Stockton to implement either energy efficiency, new green development, or both. The key is to focus on these options very early in the process and, as Luke Lowings suggested, to make sure that sustainable finance doesn’t take a back seat to sustainable community building.

*  *  *

Things you might want to know:

• We’d love to hear your comments and suggestions.
• You can get Our Green Journey by email.
• You can contact Galley Eco Capital to discuss or initiate a project here.
• Sometimes you can see what we’re doing on Twitter.
• Photo credit: Stockton, CA Boom Town by Joguldi (Flickr).