This picture says 1,000 words … not so good if you are the blasting contractor on a project.  Well, believe it or not, there are always a wealth of emails and other documents produced in litigation that help "make the case" for the other side. 

Take, for the example, the e-mail I found in the files of one superintendent entitled "PROJECT DELAYS" … the words could not have been clearer … "I think we need to begin to tell management that we are late.  We also need to consult the claims team to determine how late we really are." 

On another case, I found this nugget: "Although we should give them notice of this claim, let’s wait until our equipment has left the port on their vessel before telling them."

Best Practices advises that you should have a written document management policy in place.  This policy should define and describe the role of the following:

  • Critical project documentation, such as correspondence, meeting minutes, daily reports and logs, calendars and diaries, accounting records, submittals, schedules, photographs, etc.
  • Non-critical documentation, such as personal emails, instant messages, text logs, blog trails, website traffic logs, etc.

The advent of project management software packages (i.e., Prolog Manager, Expedition, plansandspecs, Microsoft Project), as well as other web based platforms, enhances document control by allowing the user to track revisions, store master files, and streamline the review process.  However, the human element is still involved.  Any policy must set appropriate boundaries and guidelines for the following:

  • Personal use of email (…a good place to find "mismanagement" emails…)
  • Use of profanity (…I always search for the juicy four-letter words…good emails…)
  • Risks of informal communications (…see emails above…)
  • And, of course, a document retention policy (…don’t shred right after lawsuit is filed…)

Failure to formulate a policy that addresses these simple areas almost guarantees that the bad little email will get created and produced.

Today’s post was written by François Lévy, an architect, author and professor. Lévy maintains a blog, Sustainable Architecture, which he describes as a collection of short and thought-provoking essays on sustainability and architecture. Lévy resides in Austin, Texas with his wife and three children.

As an architect and a concerned citizen, I am frequently required to evaluate the cost of a particular technology or artifact, and then voice my opinion or advise a client as to its value. Cost accounting is typically framed within the context of manufacturing or production. In this model, all contributing costs are determined (by one of several competing methods) only up to the moment a manufactured item is produced. Thus contributing expenditures are the sole determinant of value; cost accounting is hence inherently historical. Furthermore, it is inherently consumerist: in its particular analysis of the cost of production it implicitly treats the artifact as relevant only through the production process; afterwards consideration for the artifact is discarded in effect by neglect. At no time are the costs of the consequences of the artifact considered. In order to shed some light on some of the implicit difficulties in measuring cost, let’s look at a couple of seemingly innocuous commonplace technologies.

When we think about the environmental impact of an automobile, we tend to think of the car alone, as an object. But there are in fact two technologies at play: the technology of the artifact itself (the car qua particular machine), and the technology of the “ecosystem of carhood.” By the latter inelegant term I mean its embodied energy (the extraction, processing, and manufacturing of natural resources) and the consequences of its utility (in the form of hydrocarbon consumption, roads and the complex economic infrastructure, including sprawl, which support this particular form of mechanized personal transportation). The individual may enter a power relationship with the particular artifact, but is de facto helpless against this “ecosystem of carhood,” as that system controls, or at the very least heavily influences, her regardless of whether or not she individually owns a car.

As another common example of the limitations of cost accounting, consider weighing the merits of maintaining existing overhead power lines as opposed to running them underground (the grammatically unpalatable “undergrounding”). Such an analysis would inevitably point to some of the difficulties with calculating true costs, such as accounting for an artifact’s embodied energy and consequences. One can compare overhead and underground electrical distribution system’s relative reliability, but it becomes difficult to calculate relative lost productivity attributed to outages, not to mention lost billing opportunities to the utility company, and emergency repair costs. But where cost accounting fails utterly is in valuating qualitative factors like aesthetics, because these dimensions are social. In some cases individual utility consumers are unwilling to pay reasonable but significant sums for underground service, but in others communities regularly pay on the order of $1M per mile for conversion to such service. Collectively consumers seem willing to pay what individually they reject, even if the cost per distance is the same or similar.

In the end, cost accounting is only about, well, cost, and is not concerned with an artifact’s value. Any method for evaluating cost that relies solely on historical production data, rather than a community consensus of an artifact’s phenomenological context, will tell an incomplete story. An analysis of cost treats artifacts as objects (as in, “objectification”), pigeon-holing them as phenomena disassociated from their use, whereas considerations of value postulate that artifacts are meaningful as experiences in their broader social and environmental context. Cost is therefore not sustainable because it alienates artifacts from the environment; value is sustainable because it contextualizes artifacts as having agency within the larger environment.

Last month, I wrote about how Building Information Modeling (BIM) helped a project meet its time and money goals when local legislation requiring LEED certification was enacted in Wasington, D.C.  The original article that appeared in McGraw Hill Construction provided an excellent overview of BIM uses and strategies for all construction projects, including green ones.  The question that keeps running through my mind is: When … not if … will BIM become mainstream?  

Already, industry contract documents contain BIM provisions.  In June 2008, ConsensusDOCS issued its new BIM-baby called the 301 BIM Addendum.  In October 2008, American Institute of Architects (AIA) issued the the 3.5 Release, a collective group of documents that included a BIM exhibit, as well as two new Integrated Project Delivery agreements, two new Design-Build agreements and a Scope of Services document.  The BIM protocol exhibit called the E202–2008 BIM Protocol is available online for free!

Not only is the private industry demanding ways to integrate BIM into projects, so too is the public industry.  Earlier this month, Wisconsin (through its Division of State Facilities) became the first state to require BIM on the following types of projects:

  • all projects (new or additions/alterations) with a total budget of $5 million or more
  • all new construction with a budget of $2.5 million or more
  • all addition/alteration construction with total project funding of $2.5 million or greater that includes new addition costs of 50% or more of total

In addition, BIM is "encouraged but not required" on all other projects. Public comments are now being taken on the new BIM standards and guidelines at the DFS website.

What do I think?  I imagine most of the players in the large Wisconsin projects know, understand and fully appreciate the utility of BIM as an enhancement to the construction process.  More important, however, is the affect that that, if these projects are successful, Wisconsin and its mandated use of BIM will have on the use of BIM by other states and localities.  If unsuccessful (by standards of cost, delay, or litigation), then it may simply stall … and not derail … the timing of the mainstream acceptance of BIM.

Mom always said I was a late bloomer (… Wonder what she meant? …)  Well, you can call me late to this game, but hopefully not too late.

Perhaps the best summary of the new LEED 2009 Minimum Program Requirements (MPR) can be found on Stephen Del Percio’s Green Real Estate Law Journal.  Last week, Chris Cheatham’s Green Building Law Update caught on fire with comments about his post on LEED Decertification.  The match that lit the fire turned out to be the following language found on USGBC’s website about the MPRs:

NOTE: CERTIFICATION MAY BE REVOKED FROM ANY LEED PROJECT UPON GAINING KNOWLEDGE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE MPR.  IF SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE OCCURS, REGISTRATION AND/OR CERTIFICATION FEES WILL NOT BE REFUNDED.

A couple of observations from my neck of the woods.  First, I am not sure that the fact USGBC has wielded this revocation stick is as noteworthy as its ramifications. Indeed, verification requirements and revocation/de-certification processes appear in various substantive areas of law (i.e., union and labor, banking, minority business, etc.). What is noteworthy, again, is the fact that the revocation stick will have undetermined consequences.

In other words, the authority to revoke LEED certification from a project raises legal concerns beyond the scope of LEED’s stated intent—that is, to provide “building owners and operators a concise framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions.” Now we are talking about issues like: third party standing to initiate decertification proceedings, time elapsed certification, regulation enforcement and insurance coverage questions.

Next, would you be surprised to learn that the concept of “permit revocation” has been adopted by a local municipality for green projects that fail to provide proof of LEED certification? That’s right, last fall the City of Gaithersberg, Maryland adopted the “Green Building Requirements” to amend its building code, which included the following revocation provision:

3110.2.4 Verification. Within eighteen (18) months after the receipt of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy, the applicant shall provide proof to that the required LEED-level rating was obtained. Failure to submit the required proof shall be grounds for revocation of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy.

This code was passed almost one year ago. I’m looking into whether any revocations have occurred yet under this new Gaithersberg ordinance.

 Finally … and here’s the kicker … apparently, a LEED revocation is underway or has already occurred somewhere out there. According to the literature for the Green Buildings Seminars in September 2009, there is one reported instance of decertification proceedings. Lawrence Spielvogel, an independent consulting engineer, is scheduled to “discuss why this non-compliance typically occurs, and will describe the actions of the designers that led to the first ever decertification of and plaque removal from a LEED Certified project.”

 Did I read that correctly?  Let’s ask Larry …  ring … ring … [conversation] … hang up phone … Yes, I read that correctly! Looks like we have to wait for the presentation in September 2009 to report on the whole scoop.  Perhaps Shari will go for me?

 And now … what I promised in the title of this post … here is what some the industry experts have said about the revocation issue:

Who they are? What they said?
Michael Anschel, Verified Green

 

“Ultimately we need to acknowledge that LEED, Green Globes, and other building certification programs are only certifying the process of constructing a building, and were not designed to do anything more. Certification cannot be revoked for poor operations since the process under which it was created and subsequently certified has not been altered and there was no commitment or mechanism in place to govern or instruct operations.” [GBLU Comment]
James Bedell, Build2Sustain

 

“I think this … points out yet another flaw in thinking of LEED as a regulation. It’s nothing more than a rating system and until certification is built into [a] real building code it is totally unenforceable.” [GBLU Comment]
David Bourbon, Texas Sustainability

 

“As long as LEED Certification remains fairly subjective, there are no grounds upon which to enforce it. Governments can rely on the intent (built to comply with LEED standards,) but mandating certification is unrealistic until the standards are incorporated in the building codes.” [GBLU Comment]

Rich Cartlidge, Green Building & Environmental Trends

 

“With the new potential for a building to lose its status as LEED certified if it fails to properly perform, a green lease is more important than ever. Tradititonal commercial leases are simply put not properly drafted to deal with the unique challenges that green buildings can present . . . .” [GBET Post]
Chris Cheatham, Green Building Law Update

“(1) De-certification makes regulations tied to LEED certification very difficult to enforce. . . . (2) Insurers and sureties are going to be extremely concerned about coverage issues after design and construction work is complete. . . . (3) For you owners out there, the commitment to provide energy data must carry forward if a building or space changes ownership or lessee.” [GBLU Post]

“In order to institute requirements to address the performance gap, the USGBC had to have an enforcement mechanism. The only “stick” the USGBC has is the certification it gave out. So they threaten to take away certification if the requirements are not met.” [GBLU Post]

“[O]ne important piece of information . . . . The LEED 2009 Minimum Project Requirements (MPR) require, among other things, that projects report energy performance data.  If projects do not report energy data, then LEED certification may be revoked (i.e. de-certification).  The USGBC has not stated that LEED certification will be revoked for poor energy performance itself.” [GBLU Post]
Will Clark, Multi-Family Guide

“From a lender’s perspective, if data sharing is the only MPR at risk, then it probably will not be a problem. Underwriters will likely treat it like a conditional tax abatement or other annual reporting requirement and make adjustments in proceeds or the loan docs.” [GBLU Comment]

Stephen Del Percio, Green Real Estate Law Journal and greenbuildingsNYC

“…USGBC/GBCI is not obligated to revoke certification upon learning of non-compliance, but it is not restricted from receiving information regarding non-compliance from any third party. The question then becomes what, if any, obligations USGBC/GBCI may have to use that information and pursue a decertification proceeding, either conferred elsewhere in the LEED rating system itself or otherwise imposed by law.” [GRELJ Post]
Michael English, Horizon Engineering Associates LLP

“I am a huge fan of decertifying a building when appropriate. . . . The sad part is that some of these buildings don’t function properly due to poor design, coordination, construction and/or commissioning. I’m all for doing whatever it takes to uphold the value of these certifications and making certain they reflect true building performance.” [GRELJ Comment]

Ed Gentilcore, Duane Morris LLP

“Owners weighing whether to pursue a LEED-rated project will have to consider the potential that the achievement of the rating may be a Pyrrhic victory because decertification may be the ultimate legacy.” [ENR]

Christopher Hill, Construction Law Musings

“Why the fuss? When you get right down to it, LEED is just a private rating system originally designed to give a snapshot of “green”-ness of a building when built that is now seeking to provide a rating for energy performance over a longer time frame.” [CLM Post]

“[W]hat makes the debate regarding the liability and enforceablity both interesting and necessary is not LEED itself. What makes the debate necessary is the public’s use of LEED as the standard for building codes, tax incentives, zoning rules, and private contractually created energy performance benchmarks.” [CLM Post]

Scot Horst, Senior VP, USGBC

 

“We’re convinced that ongoing monitoring and reporting of data is the single best way to drive higher building performance because it will bring to light external issues such as occupant behavior or unanticipated building usage patterns, all key factors that influence performance.” [USGBC]
Jeff Howell, Fidelity National Title Group

 

“Isn’t it most important to understand the reasons behind buildings not operating at the level expected based on the level of LEED Certification earned?” [GBLU Comment]

Ashley Katz, Communications Manager, USGBC

 

“There’s no certification revocation involved based on performance – we’re merely asking projects that can provide data to do so (there are 3 ways that projects can fulfill this specific MPR …).  If the project refuses, then we won’t certify them (or take their certification away if necessary). [JG Post]
Marc Kleinmann, Environments General Contractors

 

“There needs to be clear differentiation between the process of building a structure and operating a structure. The process of certification covers just that – how a structure is built. Operating a structure has nothing to do with this certification.” [GBLU Comment]
Brendan Owens, VP, LEED Technical Development, USGBC

 

“Building performance will guide LEED’s evolution. This data will show us what strategies work – and which don’t – so we can evolve the credits and prerequisites informed by lessons learned.” [USGBC]
Mark Rabkin, Althans Insurance Agency

 

“What scares me is the fact that local & state governments and federal agencies are not effectively vetting the rating system and its various intricacies prior to incorporating its use within public policy. Rather than understand why they want to implement responsible green building practices and the potential environmental, social and economic benefits, it seems to me that the powers that be equate LEED with better performance.” [CLM Comment]
Shari Shapiro, Green Building Law Blog

“I believe that a green building that does not perform should not be allowed to continue to benefit from the LEED moniker. There are a few things which could make it work better: (1) Create different levels of certification as time elapses . . . This eliminates the issue of “decertification”, while providing ongoing incentive to report and maintain buildings to the LEED standard; (2) Phase it in—This ensures that the reporting requirements can be complied with, and allows utilities and others to come to grips with the concept of releasing to third parties energy data.” [GBLB Post]
Jared Silliker, Silliker + Partners

 

“I think in the long run this will provide more transparency and will get at the real results—measurable reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, for instance.” [SI Post]
Sara Sweeney, EcoVision

 

“I think what USGBC did with respect to instituting requirements which address the performance gap . . . is an excellent and much-needed step. This, however, goes a bit too far too fast in my opinion, and although well-intentioned, could turn off alot of folks real fast.” [GBLU Comment]
Peter Troast, energy circle

 

“As we’ve argued before, the LEED label risks rendering itself meaninglessness when a LEED certified building – which may count among its “green” credentials a bike rack and a bamboo spice cabinet – can continue to guzzle energy like a Hummer with a gas leak. It appears as if this is about to change, which is a good thing.” [energy circle]
Michael Viera, Green Building Law Hawaii

 

“De-certification presents yet another layer of risk and potential liability that should be addressed early in each stakeholder’s contract.” [GBLH Post]

Ujjval Vyas, Alberti Group

“This creates a huge risk and provides standing to any entity whatsoever to injure a building owner or tenant.” [ENR]

If I missed you, send me an email and I will update the list.

I realize that the title to this post may scrunch some “What you talkin’ about, Willis?” eyebrows to the many LEED AP-construction-green-building-attorneys out there. However, the title really conveys the first words that ran through my mind as I read Gary Cole’s post on The Real Green Goblin – Emerging Legal Liability for Green Design Professionals and Contractors on his blog LAW/ARK.

I must admit that I jumped to various conclusions prior to reading Cole’s entire post. Instead, I focused on the following statements:

The bad news is that attorneys, especially those already practicing in construction law, will soon realize that aside from green design and construction’s sometimes specialized and occasionally ill-defined vernacular, there’s no real novelty in the types of claims that might arise.

No new frontiers of jurisprudence need be explored–a leaky green roof is still a leaky roof–whether it also requires regular mowing and landscape maintenance changes little from a legal perspective.

As I continued reading the post, however, I realized that Cole was marching in the right direction, particularly with the following statement: “In non-legal terms, most legal liability associated with green design and construction will arise from one issue–though it’s an issue with many faces–unfulfilled expectations.” Cole even makes a call out to the “fellow attorneys” reading the post with a disclaimer that this is an oversimplified analysis of the legal claims available.

When discussing green building claims, perhaps the best point made by Cole is understanding the balance between a project’s “green marketing claims” (or its “form”) and its “real performance (or its “substance”). I view that so-called "balance" at the heart of the issue. While it can be said that green building disputes will arise primarily from parties’ unfulfilled expectations–as do most commercial contract disputes–the form and substance will be an inherent part of any claim, whether pursued in contract, tort or otherwise.

Cole may be right that there is no novelty to the traditional types of claims (contract, tort, statutory, etc.) that may arise in green construction disputes. However, the novelty in the green building industry is the new set of standards that will inevitably become part of the legal dispute. In other words, while “a leaky green roof is still a leaky roof” … there will be new risks to be allocated, different types of damages lost, additional players involved, varied proof required and, yes, perhaps a novel cause of action alleged because that leaky green roof system failed.  Given the relatively uncharted territory, I cannot say that "green building for attorneys is merely hoopla" ( … my words … not Cole’s …)

I know that I am a few hours early, but Governor Phil Bredesen is scheduled to sign the Tennessee Clean Energy Future Act of 2009 today at 1:30pm.  He will be joined by key legislators, as well as members of his Energy Task Force.

Among other provisions, the new law will provide for: (1)  a limited statewide residential building code to promote energy efficiency, (2) new energy usage guidelines for state buildings and vehicles, and (3) an extension of Tennessee’s emerging industry tax credit to the clean-energy technology sector. You can find the bill summary on the General Assembly’s website, along with the full text of the new law.

Under the new law, the State Building Commission has the authority to implement various cost-saving measures. 

The measures may include, but shall not be limited to, maintenance, repair or replacement of lighting and mechanical equipment and related controls. Energy cost saving measures may be implemented through contracts with energy professionals including, but not limited to, energy service companies, commissioning and retro commissioning firms and agencies and energy auditing consultants.

There are no new state-wide LEED certification requirements, though.  In due time … in due time.

Just when you thought it was safe to put up your study books, your on-line prep exams, and your stacks of flash cards … there is a new professional certification available for all you sustainable design players.  Green Roofs for Healthy Cities announced last month its Green Roof Professional (GRP) Accreditation Program at the 7th Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show in Atlanta. The GRP accreditation exam focuses on five key areas, including predesign, design, contract management, quality assurance and support, and maintenance.

While it is informative to learn about a new accredited professional in the green building world, a key issue is understanding the role of "professional accreditation" (whether LEED AP or GRP or other designation) in the green construction process.  According to Green Roofs’ website, becoming a GRP can provide a number of important benefits that are key to the long-term health and growth of the green roof industry, including the following:

  • Enabling professionals to differentiate themselves in the marketplace.
  • Establishing a high-level of professionalism and improved multi-disciplinary collaboration.
  • Increasing customer confidence in green roof technology.
  • Resulting in better green roof design and installation practices.
  • Protecting the industry from the inevitable failures that result from inappropriate design, installation and maintenance practices.

According to the Green Building Certification Institute, the LEED credential "provides employers, policymakers, and other stakeholders with assurances of an individual’s current level of competence and is the mark of the most qualified, educated, and influential green building professionals in the marketplace."

Is that what these AP-ers provide? Customer confidence or assurance? Better green designs and installation practices? Understanding that there will be different levels of consultation—from technical advice on a rainwater pit to legal advice on risk allocation—perhaps GBCI got it right by creating the new multi-faceted credentialing system that seeks to differentiate between accomplishment, knowledge, expertise and longterm success in the industry (Green Associate, LEED AP BD+C, LEED Fellow, etc.). 

What does it take to become a Rockstar of Sustainability in today’s environment?  As reported by Wendy Koch of USA Today, it takes the following:

  • Being an architect in San Francisco with a desire to build your own eco-friendly home

  • Taking 14 months to actually build it

  • Designing a more, affordable alternative

  • Stalking manufacturers to build the prefab home

  • And … winning an innovation award from the National Association of Home Builders for all the work you did!

MkLotus Sustainable Pre-Fab Home by Michelle Kaufman

This Rockstar of Sustainability is … Michelle Kauffman … and she has tapped into a growing market.  The modular homes range in cost from $100,000 to $1 million.  The USA Today article has an interactive home plan that demonstrates the green features.  As far as savings, Kauffman’s own home has a zero-energy bill since the home produces about two times the energy (through solar panels) than the home uses.

Another Rockstar of Sustainability is … Warren Buffet … who is being reported as having introduced a line of green prefab homes through a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary called Clayton Homes.  The green features include: well insulated exterior walls, floor and roof; low-e windows; metal roof designed for rainwater collection; No-VOC paint; high efficiency heat pump; and dual-flush toilets.  Other feature options include: 2-4 kilowatts of solar PV panels; bamboo flooring; tankless hot water heaters; Energy Star appliances.

Riddle me this, Batman Green Lantern, AP?  Which LEED credits should the project seek?

You don’t always say what you mean. And you don’t always mean what you say. 

In construction contracts, parties attempt to use plain and ordinary words to describe their respective obligations. For example, when the parties use the word “shall” in their agreement, they generally understand that the obligation specified is mandatory. Or when parties use the word “may” in their contract, performance is permissive or optional given the plain meaning of the word. Consider the following construction contract provisions:

“If the Owner fails to make payment for a period of 30 days, the Contractor may, after seven days written notice, terminate the Contract and recover from the Owner payment for Work performed.”

“The Work may be suspended by the Owner as provided in Article 14 of the General Conditions.”

“Payments may be withheld on account of (1) defective Work not remedied, (2) claims filed by third parties, or (3) failure to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.”

In all of theses examples, it seems clear that the parties agreed to allow—but not require—the specified performance. The word “may” was permissive in nature.

 

According to some courts, however, this traditional line of reasoning is no longer the trend in the context of arbitration provision in construction contracts. For example, in TM Delmarva Power v. NCP of Virginia, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the parties’ use of the word “may” in the dispute resolution provisions of their construction contract required mandatory participation in arbitration at the election of one of the parties. The arbitration agreement provided:

“If any material dispute, disagreement or controversy concerning this Agreement is not settled in accordance with the procedures set for in [previous section] . . . then either Party may commence arbitration hereunder by delivering to the other Party a notice of arbitration.”

The court held that the above provision was mandatory at the election of one of the parties: “The word ‘may’ . . . means that either party may invoke the dispute resolution procedures, but neither party is compelled to invoke the procedures. . . . [But] once a party invokes the arbitration provision, the other party is bound to arbitrate.”  The Delmarva court reasoned that the disputes provision would be “rendered meaningless” if the word "may" was interpreted as permissive because parties to a commercial contract can always choose to submit their disputes to arbitration.  The Fourth Circuit reached the same dcision in United States v. Bankers Ins. Co.

 

Given the trend that the courts have interpreted the term “may” as “shall” in the context of arbitration agreements, parties to a construction contract must be careful in understanding both the plain, ordinary meaning and the legal meaning of the particular words used. In the above examples, if the parties wanted arbitration of disputes to be permissive and non-mandatory, they could have clarified their contract by including more explicit language (i.e., "any and all disputes, upon mutual agreement, may be arbitrated" or "with the consent of the other party, either party may commence arbitration").  It is important in contract drafting that you say what you mean and you mean what you say.

Look around the internet and you are sure to find one of these:

The design team of a 28,000 sq. ft. public school hope to achieve SS Credit 6.2, Stormwater Design: Quality Control, in the LEED-NC Rating System. Incorporating which of the following green building elements into the design would aid the team in achieving this credit? (Choose three)

A. constructed wetland

B. solar hot water system

C. vegetated roof

D. infiltration basin

E. high-albedo concrete

The correct answers are A, C, and D. (Thanks www.intheleeed.com for the sample.)  Well, if you look around Nashville, you are sure to find a real life LEED AP exam question brewing on some property known as Bells Bend.  It’s called the May Town Center … and the development has both supporters and critics.  If you think I’m kidding about the exam question, watch this clip and listen for words like "sustainable site" "light reduction" and "green-washing":

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nRl_k_32OPI%26hl%3Den%26fs%3D1%26rel%3D0%26color1%3D0x006699%26color2%3D0x54abd6%26border%3D1

Following hours of heated open hearings, the Planning Commission voted last week against the proposed land use plan for the development. According to the Nashville Business Journal,

The Metro Nashville City Council has final say on zoning changes and will take up the issue in a public hearing on July 7. However, with a negative recommendation from the planning commission, the zoning measure will need 27 votes from the council, rather than the 21 usually required. . . .The planning staff had recommended approval of a zoning request to allow the development, but that was contingent on the land use plan amendment. The commission then voted down the proposed zoning changes.

There are many of us in Nashville closely watching the May Town Center development and I look forward to reviewing some of the LEED-related issues on the project, as well as reporting back after the July hearings.