I just want to build an ark!

I was recently sent a humorous story about what it would be like for Noah to attempt to build the ark in 2013.  You can read it here.

While this story is humorous it does have many of the “hard facts of life” for builders at its core.  I have worked with many city building officials and inspectors - most of the time they have been very pleasant and helpful.  They often get a bad reputation as “government workers just trying to make everyone’s life difficult.”  I have found the opposite to be true.  As long as I, a builder, come in prepared and having made my best, honest effort to do things correctly, they are often very accommodating.  Northfield (my home town), for instance, has always been a pleasure to work with.

Still, there are other cities and areas that do seem to have so many regulations and require so many permits that you can only scratch your head and wonder why.  Why, when all I want to do is build a simple garage, must I get approval from a Planning Department, submit drawings and get a permit from a Building Department, get a permit from the Public Works Department, pay for a soil sample, hire a surveyor to survey a lot that was surveyed less than 10 years ago (as if the property has moved!), and on it goes…

As a builder I see the value and wisdom in having standard building codes.  It helps to ensure that homes are built in a safe and durable manner.  As I wrote in a previous blog, I appreciate having an inspector look at my work.  Having an objective and trained pair of eyes looking over my project gives me reassurance that I have done my work correctly.

On the flip side I find myself defensive of the impositions that governmental bodies have put forth.  Why should anyone care what I build on my property and where, so long as it does not hurt another person or their property?  I’m already spending a bunch of money on the project, why should I pay more to the city so they can tell me where and how to build it? 

Those are the two forces that I as a builder must keep in tension, without letting it tear a project apart.  Many homeowners feel inconvenienced by city ordinances, while many cities are trying to keep their community and citizens safe.  And I the builder am stuck in the middle, trying to keep both sides happy.  You may not need a degree in construction to be a builder, but a degree in communication and counseling sure wouldn't hurt!

A Letter to My Congressmen

You don't have to watch the news or listen to the radio for more than a minute to know that there is plenty of turmoil with regards to our state and federal financial situations.  This week I took the opportunity to write my state senator and representative to express my concerns with the budget proposed by Governor Dayton. Since this budget has direct implications for my business and therefore my clients, I thought I would share my thoughts with you:

I am a self-employed building and remodeling contractor that lives and works in the district that you represent.  I am writing to you asking you to reject the budget put forth by Governor Mark Dayton.  The budget that he has proposed is not good for the State of Minnesota, and it certainly is not good for the middle class, as he claims. 

Speaking with regards to the construction industry, we are one that is an already heavily regulated and governmentally burdened industry.  We face increasingly restrictive measures that hinder the way we are able to perform our work, run our businesses, and make it nearly impossible for us in the private sector to develop new and better methods with which we can serve our clients.  Many of us in the construction industry strive to do our work with excellence, keeping the safety and well being of our clients and their families as our top priority.  It is our clients and prospects who should be the ones deciding which companies succeed and which ones fail based on the level of excellence that we provide, not who can afford to pay all of the fees, keep up with all of the changing regulations, and keep from being heavily fined for minor details that have no bearing on the quality of services performed. 

Governor Dayton’s proposed budget will make it even more difficult for those of us who own businesses in this already highly taxed and regulated state.  He claims that his budget proposals  “will yield returns in new jobs, private investments, vibrant communities and additional state and local tax revenues; and they will help keep our economy moving forward. They represent my best judgment about what Minnesota needs to grow our economy, expand our middle class, improve our quality of life and take care of those most in need.”  Yet these proposals include businesses like mine having to pay a “business to business” tax.  In an already competitive market with tight margins, the last thing we need is to have to raise our rates to absorb the added tax.  Many of us will already be forced to pay steep fines with the Affordable Care Act because we will not be able to provide health insurance to our workers.  Now Governor Dayton wants to tax us even more under the false pretense that it will help the middle class.

Furthermore, by raising taxes on the top 2% income earners in the state, the proposed budget is putting an increased burden on those who have the greatest ability to hire contractors, such as myself, to build and remodel their homes.  By taxing them at a rate higher than the already high rate that they currently pay, they will have less available funds and will likely have to choose not to invest in many job-creating activities, including building and remodeling their homes.

The construction and housing industry have been the hardest hit by the recession, caused specifically by the collapse of the housing bubble – a bubble made possible by government-mandated sub-prime loans.  We have sacrificed and worked hard to keep our businesses going.  Yet those of you in government insist on taking every opportunity to add more taxes and regulations to those of us who are the real job creators, who build the vibrant communities, and who keep the economy moving forward.  It is in spite of proposals such as Governor Dayton’s budget that we continue to work and provide for our families and communities.  I am asking you as my representative in government to do what is in the best interests of those you represent and reject the proposal put forth by Governor Dayton.

Sincerely,

Nate Basinger

Northfield, MN

Sustainable buildings cannot be sustained by subsidies

A lot of good things have been done to improve the quality of living and sustainability of the resources that we use to build our homes.  Homes are becoming increasingly energy efficient - reducing both their consumption of energy resources and the harmful effects of poor air quality (allergens, mold, rot, etc).  Green building is heading in the right direction, but it's important to make sure that it is not being propelled by a superficial force.

As a believer in free market economic principals, I am leery of any program or initiative that is dependent on public funding for any significant part of its sustenance.  This is for two reasons – 1) I don’t think people should have to pay for other people’s homes and, 2) public funding is very unpredictable.  The two are co-dependent, but the second is my point of emphasis.  For green building to be sustainable it needs to be able to operate and continue independent of political agendas.  As the political biases of government change, so too do the programs that they support.  A person’s reason for wanting an energy efficient home – either new or remodeled – should be for health of occupants, the cost savings on energy consumption, and a desire for environmental stewardship.  It should not be because someone else is going to pay for it in part or in whole.

I am not opposed to public funds being designated for assisting green building initiatives in the community.  Green building is a relatively expensive practice, at least for the initial investment, and many people cannot afford the upfront costs to enjoy the long-term benefits.  But we are not doing any favors by subsidizing the industry.  What incentive is there for companies to make their practices and products more affordable when they are already being guaranteed by public funds?  Newer, smaller companies struggle to bring their cheaper and often better products to market against government contracts.  It is also impractical to demand that builders conform to standards set by many who have never participated in the building of homes, or even studied building science.  What sounds good in a meeting and what looks good on paper is often impractical in the field.  If regulations are not practical in the field, they will get altered or skipped altogether and we are no better off than we were at the beginning.  The more we draw from private firms and businesses with building experience the better the solutions will be.

Economic theories and political persuasions aside, I want to see the green building industry succeed.  Not primarily to make money off of it or use it as a marketing gimmick as many do, but because I have seen the harmful effects of poor building practices on families, particularly resulting in poor air quality.  And I have seen the health and wellness benefits that green building offers to all those who dwell in its actualization.  Add to that the additional benefits of lower energy consumption and good stewardship of the environment and I don’t think that there is a better way to go.

Proper Priorities for Sustainable Green Building

As we look further into the sustainability of green building then a discussion of priorities is in order.  First a point of clarification: when I use the term “green building” I am referring to the practice of building and remodeling homes with products that are sustainable/renewable, and that are as efficient as possible to reduce the consumption of energy and maximize the quality of the indoor air. 

In last week’s blog I suggested that the priorities of most that are pursuing a “green” lifestyle are backwards – particularly when it comes to building and maintaining an energy efficient home.  The priorities of most seem to be 1) environment, 2) money, 3) people.  Let’s look at why that is problematic.

I love the outdoors.  Camping, hiking, fishing, skiing, biking… you name it.  I am a firm believer in environmental stewardship and protecting our natural resources.  That being said, I also believe that the earth was given to us for our use – to make our lives safer, better, and yes, more convenient.  Does our use of the earth and its resources get abused, absolutely.  Far too many things are done without considering their long-term effects on the environment, leading to deforestation, water and soil contamination, endangering various species, etc.  Unfortunately as these abuses have become acknowledged they have caused many to put the earth and its resources ahead of their families and themselves in terms of value.  In short, the philosophies of individuals and policy makers alike have become more concerned about the earth than the people who live on it. 

When the groups and individuals that regulate the building trades care more about the earth than its inhabitants, then the regulations that get put into place cannot be sustained for very long.  When the earth is the number one priority then the assumption is that it should be protected whatever the cost.  Yet, just as the earth has limited resources, so, too, do those who live, work, and play on it.  Most people already want to do what is right for the environment - who doesn’t want to lower their energy bill?!?  But when their resources – monetary, intellectual, physical – are being disproportionately levied for the sake of the environment, then there will be a point in which they no longer care about it, for nothing they do, no amount that they pay, will ever be perceived as enough to help the environment.

As we consider how to make homes more energy efficient and how to build them in a renewable manner, we need to do so with people as the number one priority.  And as we consider people we need to consider their personal, hard-earned resources.  Many are already willing to pay a premium for anything labeled “green,” “organic,” or “eco-friendly.”  They want to do what is best for their families and also good for the environment.  But in order for green building to be sustainable, it must be practical and affordable (without subsidies – next week’s topic!) 

I would suggest that if we have the first two priorities, people and money, in their proper order then the environmental benefits will naturally follow, and do so in a way that can be sustained.  

How sustainable is green building?

If you are at all familiar with the "going green" culture, then you probably recognize the subtle play on words in the title.  The green industry has done a great job of inundating us with buzz words such as, green, renewable, sustainable, efficient, eco-friendly.  But I fear that these buzz words are just becoming a form of socio-political name-dropping, a popular way to brand yourself, instead of what they were/are intended to be: a description of products and practices used to simultaneously 1) make our homes and lifestyles healthier for us and our families and, 2) better manage our natural resources.

As a remodeler I have seen the significant, sometimes drastic changes made to the way homes are designed and built in order to promote energy efficiency and sustainability.  And while many of these changes are well-intended, they themselves can often add to the problem and make it worse instead of making it better.  In order for the green building movement to be successful in making homes healthier for families while also consuming less energy, then there needs to be both a realistic approach and a sustainable method of implementation.

To be realistic, green building practices must be taken on with the right priorities.  Right now too many people in the industry have their priorities as follows: 1) the environment, 2) the savings, 3) the family (inhabitants).  I suggest that these priorities, while correct, are backwards, and we will look at why in another post.  Another aspect to being realistic is keeping the proper perspective and not becoming so narcissistic that we, for example, think that making everyone change the type of light bulb that they use is going to save the planet.  We should have a healthy respect for the size and power of this planet, and remember that it has been here long before us, and will be here long after we’re gone.  We simply need to be good stewards of it while we are here.  More on this later…

Finally, to be sustainable, green building practices need to be able to exist on their own, apart from laws, mandates, and subsidies.  This is not intended to be a political discussion, as politics, like in so many other areas, just makes things worse.  The more we can keep politics out of the green building industry, the better I believe it will progress.  Many of the advances in the industry have come from companies willing to compete to make better, more efficient products that consumers want and can afford.  Consumers want to have energy efficient homes for a number of reasons, but one reason should never be because they have to.  When governmentally mandated practices are put into effect, it becomes more about meeting the mandates than doing what is best.  And when these practices and products are subsidized there is no incentive to reduce costs and develop better and cheaper products and more efficient practices – eventually the whole industry collapses because it is unsustainable.  And that is where I fear we may be heading if we stay on this current approach.  In the next several weeks we will look at a few of these topics more in-depth and I will share my opinions on how we can make the green building movement sustainable.

A Better Life for My Kids

My last two blogs have been about the idea that working in the trades is a "second place" type of job; they are for people who couldn't get a college degree or find a "better" job.  This mindset manifests itself in a different way, too; a way that I often hear tradespeople talking that betrays this defeatist mindset.  It goes something like this, "I want my kid to go to college so that s/he can get a better job than I have."
Everyone wants their kids to have a better life than their own, we wouldn't be normal parents if we didn't.  But what does that say about the way we approach our occupation?  And why does that always mean going to college?  Certainly some occupations require college-level instruction - but most can be accomplished through apprenticeships.
My last blog ended by stating that apprenticeships opportunities are all but gone.  Studying under a skilled professional with years of experience is sadly becoming an historic practice.  Arguably one of the best ways to learn is by doing - especially under the tutelage of a master of that trade.
I see another angle to this conversation that is usually overlooked; and that is the self-indictment of the statement of "better life."  As someone who both works in the construction trades and owns my own business, shouldn't I think that what I do is a good way of life?  Otherwise, what am I doing in it?  Who wants a miserable contractor who thinks his work is unimportant working on their home?  Shouldn't I be working to perfect my skills and make my work such a precious commodity that there is a constant want, even need, for them?  And as such I can think  of nothing more valuable for my children than to teach them those quality skills, and build a successful, profitable business to train them in and pass on to them.  And even if they choose not to take over that particular business  I can think of nothing more beneficial to their future success than to exemplify a passion for my work and the success that comes through serving others well.

photo credit: Neil. Moralee via photopin cc

Skilled Labor - Part 2

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am a big fan of education. I love to study and ask questions and let my intuitive nature run wild. But as I also mentioned earlier, too much of today's education is merely for education's sake. And while reading, writing and arithmetic are essential, many courses are impractical except for further study in that particular field. I use math and geometric theroms every day as a contractor. I don't use much algebra, functions or statistics, however.
My point being this: education has become geared for more education. It's breadth and scope being much more vague and lacking in practical purpose.  Those of us who would prefer to spend our days in the wood shop or welding room are viewed as slackers, not wanting to apply ourselves by slaving over hours of AP course homework. 
This paradigm doesn't stop at high school.  The same can be said of those who go to tech school, or who choose simply to start working as a skilled laborer right out of high school.  Those of us who have chosen to work in the trades are viewed as having "consolation" jobs.  The mindset of society seems to be that those who work in the trades do so because they are neither intelligent nor ambitious enough to work in a field requiring a college education.  Or perhaps they have a college degree and couldn't find work in their respective field so they work in "second place" jobs.
I, for one, have a 4 year college degree, and have not attempted to find work in my field of study.  I know several other friends and mentors in the trades who also have good degrees from good colleges, but choose to work in the trades because they are good at it, and enjoy it!
Those who know me know that I am big fan Mike Rowe, host of the show "Dirty Jobs" on the Discovery Channel.  I think he is a great host and it's interesting to see the various people and families that do the work featured on that show.  As I was doing some research a while back for this blog, I was thrilled when, perusing through some construction-related discussion forums, I stumbled upon one hosted at mikeroweWORKS  There I found a video of a speech Mr. Rowe gave to a congressional committee on this very topic - skilled trade labor!  It is a phenomenal speech; it was as though he was reading my mind.  Check it out here! (click the TV screen on the center of the page)
As Mike Rowe rightly points out in his speech there is an interesting trend going on right now.  Unemployment has been on the rise, or holding steady, yet there is a large demand for skilled laborers.   Read through any classifieds section in a newspaper and you're sure to find them.  The jobs are out there, but there are fewer and fewer people being trained in how to do them.  These aren't jobs that just anyone can pick up as a consolation job when they aren't able to work in their preferred field.  These are not jobs you can learn how to do with a classroom education.  These are jobs that are learned by doing; by being taught by someone who has done them for years.  Skills that are acquired the good old-fashioned way... apprenticeship!