If you are in any way connected to the home building industry, you are directly affected by the stated policies and advocacy efforts of prominent trade associations and other organizations that lobby on behalf of their various constituents to secure favorable market conditions and regulatory environments in which to operate, whether or not you are a member of these groups.
In mid-August, after weeks of public debate around national healthcare reform, one such organization, the National Association of Home Builders, weighed in by sending an email message to selected members outlining the current status of proposed healthcare legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate as well as an explanation of the possibility of the use of a mechanism known as "reconciliation" by members in those legislative bodies to expedite passage of the reform bills. In the case of the Senate, it would only require a simple majority (51 votes) to bring about passage of the final bill.
The message assured recipients that the trade group will "stand firm against employer mandates, as well as changes to the current treatment of housing incentives in tax code to help pay for healthcare reform." This was followed by a declaration that the association "supports reforms that improve quality and lower costs, introduce fair regulation of the insurance market, and build a robust marketplace for consumers through market-based approaches, not government mandates."
That sounds like they are putting words in the mouths of everyone in the home building sector. They are asserting that we are all for healthcare reform as long as it helps improve conditions for us to do business, focuses any additional regulation on other stakeholders, doesn't cost the members of the industry anything or force them to participate in something they have not endorsed, and most important, won't dare trample the sacred ground of mortgage tax credits and other government programs aimed at encouraging home ownership.
Let me get this straight, more government regulations are alright as long as they are aimed at other industries, and government financial incentives are encouraged, even jealously protected, as long as they benefit our industry and our bottom lines. We support better healthcare for our citizens, maybe even for our employees, but we will oppose anything that would require us to put more skin in the game.
The message reiterates association policy that has been on the books since the last time national healthcare reform was making headlines in the 1990s. That policy has periodically been reaffirmed, most recently in 2006. To hear the industry tell it, apparently nothing about the nation's healthcare system or the coverage needs of our fellow citizens has changed in the last decade and a half. This is certainly not an accurate portrayal of my position.
Curiously, this also comes at a time when the industry is enthusiastically calling on Congress to extend the $8,000 housing tax credit for first-time buyers, a federal government program designed to boost home sales across the country, which is currently set to expire on December 1. The industry is also lobbying hard for expanded Net Operating Loss provisions now that we have fallen on harder times, which would broaden the ability of builders and developers to recoup taxes that were paid on sometimes gaudy profits in recent years when the gravy train was overflowing.
Is anyone else a little bothered by these mixed messages? For as long as I have been active in the industry and an association member I have heard over and over again that all we are looking for is fairness in the development and enforcement of regulations and a level playing field on which to operate. It might be hard to say that with a straight face while delivering this current set of signals.
By pure coincidence, last week I heard from a former colleague who told me that she is feeling much better after finally undergoing much-dreaded back surgery to insert a rod and fuse multiple discs to relieve chronic pain that had dominated her waking hours for years. She explained that the procedure and her two-day hospital stay came to more than $100,000 and went on to write, "If I didn't have good insurance, or had no insurance, I would have ended up crippled and living on pain killers. 'Public option' anyone?"
Hearing her story, I couldn't help thinking about a former employee whom I hired back in the late 1990s. This man had worked in home building all of his adult life and until he came to work for me had never received a single day of paid vacation or health care coverage provided through an employer. He was in his early fifties at the time and was not only a remarkable craftsman but a competent, experienced superintendent as well.
Armed with health coverage that my company paid for as part of his compensation package he underwent his first physical examination in decades. He learned that he suffered from high cholesterol that was almost off the charts. Within days of beginning a regimen of prescription medication and a strict diet, he began to feel like a new person. He later confided in me that he had been wandering around for years "in a clouded daze" believing that he was feeling normal because he simply didn't know the difference. He also relayed the message from his doctor that his life expectancy had most likely just been extended by fifteen years or more.
So, after receiving the policy message from the association I wrote back to the President and CEO as well as the Chairman of the Board asking why the communication was strictly one-way with no convenient mechanism for sharing an opinion on this matter, and I asserted that the existing policy does not necessarily represent the position of all members, perhaps not even a majority, and certainly not the industry at large. I did not hear back from the Chairman but the President/CEO did respond, explaining that the message was in response to inquiries from several members and was simply intended to serve as an analysis of pending legislation in comparison to the current policy on this subject.
For too long the majority of professionals in the home building industry have taken the path of least resistance and allowed others to voice opinions on their behalf. I believe that a level playing field and a fair set of evenly applied rules are all that the average building professional is asking for, not a chance to beat the system, or to eat their cake and have it too.
Year after year, surveys of the industry have indicated that the continuing erosion of a quality workforce is among the top five concerns of building companies across the country, and yet competitive compensation and benefits like healthcare insurance, which would undoubtedly attract employees with better skills and greater potential to careers in the industry, are casualties to the desire for cost avoidance.
Is it possible that all trade associations would better serve their members by applying their efforts toward finding ways to make it possible for business owners to provide better employment opportunities, including compensation packages with common benefits such as affordable group healthcare insurance, to the workforce to ensure that we can attract quality employees who will help us to deliver quality homes to our customers, rather than continuing to defend the status quo?
I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is not a contentious issue or that the federal government has offered a perfect solution. Nor do I believe that a one-size-fits-all approach will solve the problem. Many professionals in the industry, whether they are trade association members or not, will undoubtedly feel differently about how to deal with this topic, but it is definitely time for all of us to put the issue on the table and update our position regardless of where we stand rather than continuing to allow others to speak on our behalf.
There may not be an adage more ripe with truth than: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." I find myself remembering that phrase with sadness because I have been reflecting on the fact that our society continues to engage in an endless war of words, and civility seems to be the first casualty of every battle.
Unfortunately for all of us, hostility has become the starting point for our discussions as we debate the issues of our time. We are so accustomed to the elevated volumes and agitations that we consider them normal communication. Watch the television coverage of the various town hall meetings about the highly publicized health care proposals if you want a quick example, or read the blistering litany of accusations, insults, charges, and countercharges that almost instantly fill the blogs beneath just about any news article that foolishly (deliberately?) includes terms like "global warming," "climate change," "race relations," or whether this or that pro athlete should be barred from competition for substance abuse or some other "criminal" act.
One of the enduring ironies related to this is that the same guy who will flip you the finger from behind the wheel of his car will usually mutter a timid "excuse me" after being bumped in an elevator. Perhaps it has just become too easy for us to leap to the role of judge, jury, and executioner from the comfort of our home office chairs and from behind the skirts of the safe anonymity of our login identities and passwords.
With the whole wide world as our potential audience and the bright screens of our computers shining the light of righteousness to illuminate our path, we have become emboldened. Suddenly, we are all experts.
I'm pretty angry myself after hearing the revelation that yet another member of Congress got sweetheart deals from a giant mortgage lender and that, worse yet, he happens to have the authority to refuse to respond to a subpoena intended to shed light on the whole dirty affair. I'm also not too pleased to hear that the Administration has reportedly cut backroom deals with the major drug companies to protect their profits by throwing seniors who depend on prescriptions under the bus in exchange for support from these companies for the proposed national health plan. Somehow this is not the "change" that I was envisioning.
But I don't assume that this gives me the right to scream at anybody. More important, I'm not convinced that the screaming will make a difference anyway. In fact, I think a good argument can be made that such a response often results in the exact opposite of the desired effect. The act of venting may be positive in some ways, but it is a poor substitute for actually finding ways to bring about change to things we're not pleased with.
I've observed folks from both ends of the spectrum get worked up as they soak up every word from their favorite broadcaster while belting out hymns and "amens" like front pew believers at a tent revival, only to turn their attention elsewhere until the next day's episode is teed up to slake their collective feeding frenzy.
Meanwhile, the carpetbaggers and special interests go methodically and quietly about the business of skimming the cream off the top of every milk pail, leaving the polarized—and paralyzed—rest of us to figure out what just happened, how we are going to pay for it, and who to point the finger at next.
I'm not sure why human nature makes us feel more secure at the edge than in the middle. It seems counterintuitive, but we seem to want to dwell among the exceptions rather than in the company of those things we can agree on. I am convinced of this, though: We must work out our differences sooner rather than later if we hope to leave behind more than a legacy of extinction.
I think it is fair to say that people generally approach their endeavors with good intentions. I don't believe I have ever been involved with any project that started out less than well intentioned. The problem is that there is more than one definition of what is "good", and outcomes often result from a series of adjustments, usually compromises, in order to get to the best option, as imperfect as it might be.
As we pursue a model for more sustainable development and construction we have arrived at the point where the discussion has evolved from the creation of rating systems and voluntary programs to actual code development and ordinance. Municipalities and even whole states are now adopting mandatory regulations aimed at ratcheting up green building requirements, reflecting a global trend that has entire countries enacting mandatory measures of sustainability.
As always, the devil is in the details, and no matter what stage of discussion we are engaged in there are some commonly recurring sticking points that reflect the desires and needs of those who represent a variety of special interests. In fairness, we are all motivated by special interests of one kind or another, even if they are simply based on our own values and/or passions, but on these kinds of deliberations it becomes quickly apparent when a participant is advocating on behalf of a particular material type, product suite, trade association, or labor group.
Representatives for building products are often great examples of the point I'm trying to make. A category of material may be noncombustible, structurally reliable, universally available and virtually "infinitely" recyclable and those who promote the products made from that basic material will enthusiastically extol their virtues and the benefits of specifying them. But they are not so eager to engage in an in-depth discussion of the embodied energy, sound and thermal transmissivity, or other less positive characteristics.
Another family of materials may be promoted as a naturally occurring, renewable resource that provides a familiar, easy to use, economical choice for structural and non-structural applications in a variety of building types and which does not require a highly trained workforce to utilize. Again, the pros and cons elicit different levels of response from the proponents of these products. When it comes to environmental concerns related to overharvesting and the resulting issues of erosion, habitat loss, atmosphere degradation as well as susceptibility to structure fires and the potential for mold and/or termite damage the fact are a little tougher to extract in the normal course of conversation.
In the case of yet a third common building materials group, we are regularly reminded of its plasticity, durability, versatility and structural predictability, and yet, when discussions turn to the high level of emissions of greenhouse gases that take place during extraction and production processes, and the considerable embodied energy and water in these products, those supporters of these materials are often reticent to elaborate on the details.
I'm simply using these examples to illustrate the larger problem that we have when we attempt to engage in honest, transparent discussions in hopes of raising the bar and developing better solutions for the built environment. Too many stakeholders are handcuffed by their need to defend their products or services and protect their market share, perpetuating minimum performance levels keeping the industry mired in outdated strategies and technologies rather than helping to bring the business of building into the present and, in fact, advance it into the future through constructive dialogue.
My hope is that our conversations can evolve to a higher level where we can evaluate our options in a way that lays all the cards on the table, face up, and allows us to aggressively pursue building solutions that are superior to anything we have exercised before. It is the only way we will have a chance to follow through on all those good intentions.