There was a recent editorial in The Press Democrat asking for plain talk about jobs. The author, Mr. Golis, wrote a thoughtful piece that asked a lot of good questions as to why jobs are stubbornly eluding us as we try to climb out of the economic recession that’s caused a national shedding of 8 million jobs in a little more than 18 months. Some of his questions focused on social ideology, some focused on political rhetoric and some on regulations that aren’t particularly effective.
Since I’m involved with the construction industry, I wanted to pursue the question of how to create the jobs from my industry perspective. For many years, the construction industry experienced growth and took advantage of fewer regulations. Some corrections were sorely needed for developers, builders and contractors. The regulations came and, with them, came a new phenomenon: social influence in land use decisions like we’ve never seen before. Some would say this is a good thing, some would say this is a bad thing—all would agree it’s here. Like no other time before, when a land owner or an investment group proposes a development for a piece of property, there are major hurdles and obstructions to overcome in seeing that stakeholder succeed in realizing that property’s “best developed use.” In many cases, the property owner has little say anymore as to how long it will take or what the final cost will be of developing that property from a plan to a finished product.
I think we’ve gone too far. I think non-stakeholders who want to dictate how they want a property developed should get a group of like-minded investors together, purchase the property and pursue their own dream rather than obstruct those who attempt a project that fits with the zoning but may not fit with the “social planners” who live in the neighborhood and don’t want it built in their “backyard.” The regulations seem to have morphed from a needed and valuable protective measure into a weapon to be used politically to obstruct, delay and deter businesses that could be adding jobs to our economy.
An informal polling of local businesses asked the question: “Which affects your business more: the competition from national chain stores or the cost of complying with regulations?” Most business owners responded that competition does affect them, but the uncertainty and expense of myriad regulations are the bigger negative to their business. As we all know, when businesses are faced with uncertainty, it makes it far more difficult for them to justify expansion of their facilities without some promise that the reward will be worth the risk of the time and investment that’s not determinable. We need to make things more certain—both in time and in expenses—and, if we can, I believe that will encourage the job creation we so desperately need.
At a time when cities, counties and local chambers of commerce are trying to retain and expand existing businesses as well as attract some new ones, it struck me that we may not have the luxury of being so “choosy” as to which businesses are being supported or opposed these days. I’m not suggesting we cater to and roll back regulations to open another liquor store on a block that already has three. But we read about opposition to having a mix of national stores and local stores in favor of just having local stores in some areas. Instead of not letting any national stores into a community, how about considering a nice mix of national and local stores? This would let the national chain stores know they have an option to come to a community and see success in opening an outlet, while the local stores know the city isn’t trying to force them out of business.
In the same paper as Golis’ editorial, I saw three stories that I felt were reflective of a small segment of the “job creation” problem from the construction standpoint. Each of them had to do with restrictions on businesses that may wish to open in a different city. It struck me as a common theme as to how difficult it is for land use to be controlled by the existing rules and the landowner’s wishes.
The first story was about Sonoma’s proposed banning of chain stores on the basis of them being national chains. The second was about the city of Petaluma having its council vote to appeal a court decision that said a proposed development met the requirements of the environmental review process.
The third was about the city of Sebastopol having a neighborhood group challenge a project that would build CVS pharmacy and a Chase branch on the site of the old Pellini Chevrolet business because it didn’t like the appearance and layout of the proposed project.
In all three of these stories, there’s a business that wishes to open, which would produce an increase in property tax revenue, presumably an increase in sales tax revenue and some (presumably) local construction jobs that would also infuse the local economy with paycheck recirculation within the community.
Businesses need to be able to plan in order to take action. A business that wants to come here should be met with guidelines to conform to, not uncertainty and obstruction. A good mix of all business types is healthy for a community and I think it’s high time for some perspective on how to actually create jobs by becoming more predictable in what we allow to be built. After all, it’s the landowner who’s taking the financial risk in most cases. New and expanded businesses create jobs. Regulations that are too uncertain and costly can certainly kill that job creation.
Let’s take a good look at those businesses that want to open shop and see how we can help them create jobs here rather than send them to a place outside the North Bay where there’s more certainty in getting the project built.
A resident of Sonoma County for more than 50 years, John Bly is executive vice president of the Engineering Contractors Association and has served as president of the North Coast Builders Exchange. You can reach him at john@nceca.org.
