CHRISTINE DIEMER REED: Executive Director, Building Industry Assn., Orange County region

When the state denied the gnatcatcher special protection as an endangered bird on Friday, the decision was music to the ears of the Building Industry Assn. To protect the songbird, environmentalists said thousands of acres of Southern California real estate should be off-limits to developers. Christine Diemer Reed and the BIA have been arguing against that type of species-by-species approach to wildlife protection. Reed, also a presidential appointee to the board of Fannie Mae, spoke with free-lance writer Anne Michaud.

Will the state’s decision bolster your case for changing the way we protect wildlife?

Absolutely. Now we can go forward. We are not by any means going to walk away from the issue.

We’re very interested in what’s called NCCP, natural community conservation planning. We say you can’t do this case-by-case, you have to have a multispecies ecosystem. Protecting one species at a time, well, it doesn’t work that way in real life.

(The NCCP proposal) is in draft form, and many people are talking to the (state) secretary of resources. We have a little breathing room now. The (gnatcatcher) decision eliminated that “ticking clock” feeling.

Does the gnatcatcher decision mean that the Building Industry Assn. is a power to be reckoned with?

There were so many players on that. We were certainly one of the players. We hired a biologist, and we testified with other landowners. But the evidentiary hearing was really based on scientific evidence.

Are you as powerful a lobby as you would like to be in Sacramento?

We have a really good lobbying arm up there. We have strong people who are very well received by everybody--the legislature and executive branch. There has been a real effort by the statewide BIA.

Is the Building Industry Assn. in Orange County having financial trouble?

Yes, all the BIAs are, actually. We’ve had a drop in membership revenue. People don’t have the discretionary money they once had. We’ve lost some of the little guys at this point. We’ve cut back on some of our activities and special events. But our work with local governments, monitoring public hearings and participation in the community will still be retained as a priority.

Why can’t people find a home they can afford in Orange County?

Well, Orange County in particular, and various coastal parts of the state, have high housing costs. People want to live close to the beach. Right away, when you have so many people competing for the same product in a free market, that drives up prices.

Also, land costs are high here and in other parts of California because there are so many requirements put on the land. Infrastructure improvements are required, such as sewage, streets and lighting. All of that becomes part of the raw, upfront cost of land.

What is your association doing to promote affordable housing?

We have HomeAid projects--we’ve had several in the last year that are targeting the homeless. (HomeAid is a program started in 1989 by the builders’ association that has helped provide shelters for the homeless.)

Our role has not been in the management of the property or who qualifies to live there. Our role has been rehabilitating or constructing the units and providing the free labor or the reduced subcontractor rates. That’s really largely what the building industry has been doing. Especially in a recession, it’s great to still have people motivated to help out.

Is it anybody’s job to make sure that there is enough housing for people?

Housing is no one entity’s responsibility to enforce. There is something called the housing element, where (housing) jurisdictions have to draft a plan for how they’re going to fill the housing needs in their communities for the next five years.

When I was with the state (as director of the California Department of Housing and Community Development), what I saw were 450 local jurisdiction housing plans. They were all filed, but the point was that they were just filed. There was no enforcement requirement. Basically, any jurisdiction could file a plan and then proceed differently if they wanted, unless they got sued. The only remedy was in the lawsuit.

So, who is responsible? The answer seems to be people who care, people who are activists.

Are businesses here complaining to you that their employees can’t afford to live here?

That really dovetails into the stories that you’ve all been reporting about businesses relocating out of the state. There are various reasons, and one of them seems to be retaining employees. So yes, we’re starting to hear it, and we’re working with the business community and with the state government and local governments.

I would refer you to the Kemp Commission Report (issued in July) because it is crying out for coalition-building, including the business people.

Can you tell me more about the Kemp report?

The theme of it is, how can we start over, clean the slate and provide housing--in particular affordable housing?

It directly addresses “barriers” to building housing. That’s a buzz word for a lot of things, such as zoning and fees and the not-in-my-back-yard attitude, which is the attitude of many people with respect to affordable housing.

For example, what’s obvious in many instances is that communities have large-lot zoning for single-family housing. It works as a disincentive to other types of housing.

And how does it suggest changing the not-in-my-back-yard attitude?

Its recommendation is to make employers aware that affordable housing is necessary. The term affordable is not something that should invoke some sort of discrimination. It’s really a name for less-than-fair, market-value housing. It’s housing that’s needed, and it could be their employees who need it.