Tag Archives: construction

Green Construction Creates More Than a Sustainable Future – It Creates Jobs! (guest post)

Posted on by

usf imageToday, a guest post on green design by the folks at University Alliance, in partnership with the University of San Francisco’s higher education program. They offer an online master certificate in supply chain management, and sustainable supply chain management.

The unemployment rate in the United States is not going to magically decrease. So what can the government and investors do to help create jobs for Americans? Building more energy efficient infrastructures comes with many benefits, including an influx of jobs, energy cost savings, and a more sustainable future. Most people believe in sustaining the environment, but many feel concerned that green building construction is too expensive. Let’s look at some specific facts to analyze green solutions in a realistic way: where has “going green” worked, why has it worked, how does it actually create jobs and who is going green in American right now?

While Americans continue to wrangle over the financial efficacy of green solutions, green power has taken off in Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong.  LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a rating system for the design of green buildings. Taipei 101, the second largest building in the world which is located in Taiwan gained the LEED designation. South Korea plans to grant extensive economic stimulus to green ventures while China will construct 35 million meters of green buildings in Beijing. In answer to both the growing global pressure and the American green movement, President Obama has created a Better Buildings Initiative committed to the idea that green buildings preserve energy and create jobs.

Countries that succeed in creating green buildings have chosen to make the investment. While investing in efficient energy use promotes both job growth and environmental stability, investment options need to be clearer. Solar heating, harvesting of rainwater and natural lighting are just a few practical ideas which can create great savings for each of us.

Change is naturally difficult in a poor economy. Unemployment has doggedly stuck to the 9 percent level. That forces the question: will green buildings truly create jobs or not? Job growth partly depends on the sectors of the economy that create jobs at a medium to high percentage rate.  For instance, the energy sector and the manufacturing sector create jobs at a much lower rate than do the construction sector and the government sector. This means that when we invest in the construction of green buildings or in green renovation, we are putting our resources into a sector which creates a high level of jobs on average. Green building projects do promote reliable job growth.

Many green building initiatives are on the rise in America.  Siemens has announced four hundred positions in green technology across thirty-nine states. In Baltimore, one of the largest roof-mounted solar installations will soon be built.  Projects like these create work, foster innovative thinking and control energy costs for both companies and the government. But above all, they give other companies a viable path to follow. Additionally, the president’s Better Building Initiative will give a tax credit of as much as $1.80 per square foot for buildings that fully utilize green solutions.

So much depends on how we perceive green energy. Is this a standard we want for all buildings or is it a standard that only the wealthiest can achieve? Though U.S. companies are leading the way in green technology including smart lighting, energy management, and efficient heating, we have yet to realize our complete potential in the construction of green buildings. At this time, understanding the jobs that can truly be created through green power could create both amazing and sustained change.

What do you think? Do you believe that green buildings and green renovation can help kick start the U.S. economy?  Share your thoughts in the comments section, below.

Duke’s Power Lines Project & Native American Sacred Mounds (News Note)

Posted on by

Tuckasegee RiverDuke Energy has been cleared to update power lines near the Eastern Band of the Cherokee’s reservation in the western North Carolina mountains.

Late last month, the North Carolina Utilities Commission handed down their ruling, allowing Duke’s project to continue despite protests from the Cherokee tribe and other residents of the Kituwah Valley. The Valley is home to a sacred site for the Cherokee and fear of damage being done prompted their reaction against the plans floated by Duke. The Valley is located along the Tuckaseegee River east of Bryson City.  

The state utilities commission decided that Duke had not acted illegally by beginning construction on a 161-kilovolt transmission line upgrade. The upgrade is intended to help with increased demand in the area, specifically from the Harrah’s Hotel and Casino and surrounding development in Murphy, North Carolina.

The tribe and local citizen groups argued that the construction project would damage property values by destroying the natural beauty of the area. They requested that either the project be stopped entirely or that they be compensated for their predicted loss in property value.

The Commission ruled that the complainants had not met their burden of proof and had failed to show that Duke Energy had acted unreasonably or inappropriately in their planning of the power upgrade. The Commission also said that it was not empowered to order any compensation for loss in property value. “The complainant’s members will need to pursue that remedy in the appropriate court,” the Commission said.

This isn’t the only issue the group has had with Duke’s planned project. The original complaint filed by the Cherokee included an objection to Duke’s plans to locate an electrical tie station in the area. Duke subsequently voluntarily relocated that station. Duke plans to build a tie station, which steps power down from high-voltage transmission to lower levels needed to serve distribution stations for residential and commercial customers, to serve growth in the bustling casino area.

Duke says it has found two alternative sites for a power station so the company can avoid construction near the sacred mound which Michell Hicks, chief for the tribe, says is the home for the tribe’s mother town. One option is 13 acres in the Swain County Industrial park that is almost 4 miles from Kituwah, says Duke Spokesman Jason Walls. That site would cost $400,000. The second site is about 12 acres at Sheppard’s Creek, and would be about 1.4 miles from Kituwah. Because that is private property, Duke is not disclosing the cost.

The necessary improvements should be completed in 2012.

Have you followed this dispute?  Have comments or questions about the decision? Drop me a line in the comments section, below.

Source “Duke Energy cleared to build high voltage line near reservation,” by John Downey.  Photo (c) Kevin Dobo-Hoffman via CC.

NCSU’s Huge New Home (News Note)

Posted on by

the pointWolfpack Chancellor Randy Woodson is likely having a great holiday season as he settles into his new pad at North Carolina State University. Construction was recently completed on the new chancellor’s residence at the school.

Known as “The Point,” the Chancellor’s new home is an 8,500 square feet behemoth. Though it sounds hulking, 5,500 of those square feet will serve as public use space, accommodating receptions as well as events for alumni and students. The downstairs area will also serve as a place for the chancellor to host events, as often as once a week, and to build relationships. It can hold up to 200 people inside or on the back patio. The remaining 3,000 square feet, all of the second floor, will be used as living quarters for the chancellor and his family.  [Still a pretty roomy living quarters, in my opinion!]

No expense was spared during the 18 month construction. Green features like geothermal heating and cooling, sustainable materials, and LED lighting were installed throughout The Point.  The house is located on North Carolina State’s Centennial Campus, near Lake Raleigh and the Park Alumni Center and is fittingly made of Wolfpack-red brick.

The Point came with a  $3.5 million price tag, which was funded entirely by private donations. When asked how the university justifies spending that much money on a house when the school is cutting jobs and eliminating courses, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Kevin MacNaughton said the house will be a hub for the university’s efforts to build relationships with private donors.

Chancellor Randy Woodson and his wife moved in Oct. 28. The first fundraiser they hosted in the new home was Nov. 16. Since, they have hosted about a half-dozen fundraising events, officials said.

The original chancellor’s residence for NC State was constructed in 1928. Back then the school had a grand total of 1,500 students in attendance. Today that number has risen to more than 34,000. With such a huge change in the student body it was about time for the chancellor himself to be movin’ on up to appropriately grand digs. Thankfully, the original residence won’t be torn down. Instead, plans have been drawn to convert it into the future home of the university’s Gregg Museum.

If you’d like to drool over photos of Woodson’s new home click here.  Be warned, however, that doing so could cause you to turn green with envy.

Source: “Construction complete on NCSU chancellor’s residence,” by Jason deBruyn.  Photo:  NCSUnewsdept via Creative Commons license.

What do you think of the new residence?  Thoughts, comments, or questions?  Post in the comment section, below.

Construction Law in NC is two years old today!

Posted on by

Construction Law in North Carolina is two years old today!  Hard to believe that another year has gone by.  When I first started this blog, I worried that I might run out of things to say.  Not only has that not proven true, but it seems the more I write, the more topics present themselves.  Part of this has to do with my loyal readers, many of whom have taken time to drop me a note with a question or comment, suggest a topic, or participate in my surveys & contests. 

If I haven’t gotten to your suggestions yet, rest assured they are in my “blog pile” and I’ll be broaching them in the next few months.  In the meantime, thanks for reading!

Photo: (c) Leo Reynolds via Creative Commons license.

Developers Rejoice Over Impact Fees Decision (news note)

Posted on by

Today I’m unveiling a new column here at Construction Law in North Carolina called “News Notes”.  News notes will be postings of current news items relating to the design (and construction) community.  [This means that sometimes I must be a tad drier than my usual festive self.  Consider yourself warned.]  If you have an idea for a News Note, drop me a line.

Much to the delight of developers and realtors across the state, the North Carolina Supreme Court recently affirmed a decision which struck down local school impact fees. The fees had been assessed to fund construction of new schools in the Cary portion of the Wake County schools to help with the Town ofCary’s  rapid growth.

Impact fees are usually enacted by local boards and town councils as Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFO).  In 1999, the Town of Cary began assessing school impact fees on developers in certain portions of the town which faced overcrowding.  The revenue brought in by the fees was earmarked to pay for expansion of existing school facilities.  Notably, the Town of Cary has no separate school system from the rest of Wake County, and did not have the legal authority to control the provision of school facilities within the district. 

Last month, the state Supreme Court, in a tight 3-3 tie decision (with one abstention) left the Court of Appeals decision in place, rejecting the Town’s attempt to collect school facilities fees and declaring the fees illegal.  [As an aside, my firm represented another developer who intervened in the lawsuit; however, the facts were somewhat different and we were not involved in this appeal.]

The Cary case is not the first time the issue has arisen in the state.  Currituck County once proposed a similar APFO to fund school construction during the real estate boom as out-of-state residents from Virginia crossed into North Carolina in an attempt to flee the taxes and dismal school system in Chesapeake,Virginia.

The Currituck proposal was widely criticized by both local and state homebuilder’s associations. Across North Carolina, homebuilders and realtor groups worked together to stop attempts at passing such impact fees. These organizations have run into problems as cash-strapped local governments see impact fees as one method of paying for increasingly expensive public school construction.

The theory is that developers of new homes pass the impact fees along to new home buyers by raising the price of homes or lots. Existing residents are spared the tax increases caused by a rapid influx of new residents with school-aged children. Thus, the people responsible for the increased strain on the school system – the new residents – bear the burden of the tax increase.

school

Over the past decade, Durham, Union County, and Cabarrus County have instituted similar impact fees. All three such attempts were disallowed by various courts. Thus far, virtually all attempts at imposing such fees have been struck down, although there appears to be wiggle room in the case law. For example, impact fees collected for improvements that directly run to the property (such as water or sewer lines) are typically allowed. Additionally, other municipal governments impose fees related to schools that have not (yet) been decided in the state court system, and those may be broad enough to pass judicial scrutiny.

In this case, Cary’s ordinance assessed residential developments a mitigation fee if they did not first obtain a certificate from Wake County certifying classroom availability. Over $4 million was ultimately collected since the ordinance was first passed in 1999. Cary is now faced with the prospect of returning these fees, plus over $300,000 in attorney fees awarded to the developers who filed suit.  Ouch!!!

Comments or questions?  Post in the comment section, below.

Photo (c) Ivy Dawned via Creative Commons license.