• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Say hello
Rethink Real Estate. For Good.

Rethink Real Estate. For Good.

  • Podcast
  • Posts
  • In the news
  • Speaking and media
    • About Eve
    • Speaking requests
    • Speaking engagements
    • Press kit
  • Investment opportunities

Community

Share the wealth.

July 15, 2019

Brian Beckon believes we should share the wealth. Brian is an attorney with over twenty-five years of experience working for nonprofits, start-ups, and publicly-traded companies. When he was starting out as a young attorney, he wanted to find a way to make the world better. Now, as principal at Cutting Edge Capital, he focuses on strategies for raising capital for communities to help build a more equitable economy.

Brian has served as General Counsel for RSF Social Finance and Clean Power Finance; and before that as Corporate Counsel for Sybase and Catellus Development Corporation. He earned his J.D. from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and started his legal career with the North Bay law firm of Gaw Van Male. Brian is a member of the California Bar and serves on the boards of the National Coalition for Community Capital, the Mount Diablo Music Education Foundation, and the Neto Community Network.

Together, on this podcast, Eve and Brian explore what it means to share the wealth.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Share the wealth.
  • The conventional wisdom is that you can only fund projects with private equity, but Brian has funded projects through entire communities.
  • Everyone deserves to invest and get a return. Good opportunities should not be exclusive to the wealthy.
  • Community capital can break the cycle of the rich getting richer …

Information and Links

  • Brian works at Cutting Edge Capital
  • He’s also a founding member of NC3 an organization which envisions vibrant, equitable, and resilient local economies built on the strategies of community capital.
  • Brian is particularly proud of some of his successful community capital campaigns such as the $400,000 raised for Sonoma West Publishers and the over $1M raised for the PV Grows Investment Fund.
  • For some really provocative thought pieces he heads to The Next System.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: Hey, everyone, this is Eve Picker, and if you listen to this podcast series, you’re going to learn how to make some change. Thanks so much for joining us on this podcast. I’m Eve Picker, and my life revolves around cities, real estate, and crowdfunding. In this podcast series, we’ll be digging deep to discover how we can build better cities by building better buildings.

Eve Picker: Brian Beckon is my guest today. Brian is an attorney with over 25 years of experience working for nonprofits, startups, and publicly traded companies. Now he owns Cutting Edge Counsel, which focuses on strategies, and raising capital for communities to help build a more equitable economy.

Eve Picker: If you want to know more about Brian, after you’ve listened to this podcast, please visit EvePicker.com, where you’ll find links, and other goodies on the show notes page, and where you can subscribe to my newsletter on all things real-estate impact.

Eve Picker: Brian, let’s talk a little bit about you. I’m just wondering how your background as an attorney led you to where you are today?

Brian Beckon: Well, first of all, thanks, Eve. This is really an honor to be on your podcast, so I really appreciate it. Let’s see, it’s a long journey … There were a lot of steps along the way that led me to where I am now, with Cutting Edge Counsel.

Brian Beckon: I guess the short version of that is I went to law school back in the ’80s, with the idea, a rather vague idea, that I wanted to do something to make the world a better place, and didn’t have a very clear idea of what that would mean; just that I figured studying law was the way to get there.

Brian Beckon: After law school, I did a lot of different things, trying to find my way, and into the kind of work that would allow me to make the world a better place. It took a few years, because I landed in a law firm that was just sort of a traditional law firm.

Brian Beckon: Then, I was in-house counsel for a couple of different companies; one of which was a large publicly traded real-estate-development company, called Catellus Development Corporation, so I got some early background into the whole real-estate world.

Brian Beckon: I found myself at RSF Social Finance, a nonprofit-finance organization based in San Francisco, which was really a transformative experience, because that’s where I came to see that there were ways of democratizing [inaudible] providing finance. That got me thinking about all the possible ways of doing things in a more impactful way, not just based on what you do with the money, but on how you raise it.

Brian Beckon: Then, after leaving RSF, about- well, I guess it was about 10 years ago, I started working on a couple of crowdfunding projects, that is to say crowdfunding portals, that were in some stage of development. One of which, again, was a real-estate-crowdfunding company. Again, I kind of had … There’s always been this sort of gravity that brought me back around to real estate, in some way.

Brian Beckon: Even though that portal didn’t get off the ground, in my work, now, at Cutting Edge Counsel, where I’ve been for about five years, there are ways … There are things that we’re exploring that you can do that are fairly innovative, and really allow everybody to participate in real-estate investing. Anyway, perhaps too long an answer to your question, but hopefully that gives you some flavor for how I got here.

Eve Picker: Well, that’s kind of interesting … I’d actually really like to hear about those things that let everyone participate. Do you want to tell us about those, the things that you’re exploring?

Brian Beckon: Well, sure. In the conventional wisdom … Eve, you, and probably a lot of your listeners on the podcast already know a lot of this, but in the conventional wisdom, a venture that wants to raise capital needs to do so privately.

Brian Beckon: You have to go out and find angel investors, those rich folks that have a lot of money, or the institutions, or the private equity, or venture capital, whatever it is. You’ve got to find those people with a lot of money; those deep pockets, and persuade them to invest in your project. That’s really the only option available to you. That’s the way students are taught in law school, and I assume that’s the same way students are taught in the business school.

Brian Beckon: That’s really your only option, up until you get big enough to do a full-blown IPO, until you get big enough to go public, which, you know, these days, with the cost of going public, we’re talking about something in the perhaps hundreds of millions before it makes sense to do that.

Brian Beckon: In that space between startup, and going public, you’re stuck raising capital privately from wealthy investors. Well, what happens? If that’s the paradigm that everybody follows, and that means all the good investment opportunities [inaudible] course, because it’s the folks who get in on investments before they go public; those are the really profitable investments.

Brian Beckon: In that paradigm, all the good opportunities are exclusively available to the folks who are already wealthy. The wealthy can grow their money rapidly, but non-wealthy are relegated to those publicly traded stocks, where the companies have already experienced their high growth, or the projects have already- they’ve already generated the fat returns for the wealthy investors. Then, once they go public, the returns are just not that good.

Brian Beckon: You have this dichotomy, where the wealthy get the good, high-margin, or I should say high-return investment opportunities, but the non-wealthy get stuck with the low-return investment opportunities. Naturally, what happens? The rich get richer, and everyone else can barely keep up with inflation. It’s a formula that contributes to a greater wealth gap. That’s part of the problem, and I won’t go into detail about that … A lot’s been written about the destabilizing effect of that.

Brian Beckon: The solution, or I should say a solution, one of the solutions to create a more equitable society, is to make sure that everybody can invest. What we want to do is turn that paradigm upside down, and say, “No, everybody should be able to invest in something that’s in their community, and something that’s meaningful to them, personally, and something that they believe in.” Those good investment opportunities should not be available only to the wealthy.

Brian Beckon: Then, the challenge is what are those strategies that allow you to raise what we now call community capital – through community capital, meaning from anybody in the community? Community can be a broad concept. It can be more than just a geographic community; it can mean a community of interest, or something that pulls people together.

Brian Beckon: The point is, bringing it back around to your question, there are a number of ways that you can defy the conventional wisdom, and raise capital in what would be a truly public way, without doing the traditional IPO.

Brian Beckon: That’s where sites like Small Change come in, and other crowdfunding sites. There are other strategies, too – direct public offerings, and so on – that you can use to raise capital from your community that a lot of folks don’t know about.

Brian Beckon: In some cases, they have been around for a long time, but haven’t gotten much attention. I think we’re seeing a major shift now in the level of consciousness about these strategies. Small Change is certainly a big part of that shift.

Eve Picker: Be sure to go to EvePicker.com, and sign up for my free educational newsletter about impact real-estate investing. You’ll be among the first to hear about new projects you can invest in. That’s EvePicker.com. Thanks so much.

Eve Picker: Well, thank you, but I’m as excited as you are about the potential that it holds. Do you think people are really aware of these opportunities yet? I feel like investor education is really not there. It is a very small segment of the world that understand that they can invest in this way, and even know about what is happening.

Brian Beckon: Yeah, you’re right, because what we’re trying to do, really, is change the culture in a profound way. Yes, education is key, and education, in a very broad, and deep way. I mean, consider that most people do not think of themselves as investors. For decades, people have been told that if you’re not wealthy, you’re not qualified to invest, so people just don’t even see themselves as investors.

Brian Beckon: We see ourselves as consumers. We see ourselves as workers. Workers, and consumers basically feed the machine. We’re feeding the machine. That machine was designed by, and for investors, and most of us don’t think we’re qualified to get in on the game.

Brian Beckon: There’s really a cultural shift that we need to make. Thinking broadly, it’s about empowerment; to empower everybody to feel like they can be a full participant in the economy; be fully engaged in what’s going on, as investors. It’s such a profound cultural shift, we’ve got a long ways to go. Even though all the legal tools are there, they’re very underutilized.

Brian Beckon: You’re right, not many people – regular folks who aren’t part of this sector we’re in – regular folks just don’t know about these. They may have heard about crowdfunding, but they may be a little skeptical, and they may have heard that that’s really risky. It is, and that is an issue, but the point is they generally … They don’t know what their options are, and if they have heard of some things, they are, perhaps- I wouldn’t say the word ‘scared away,’ but aren’t enthusiastic enough about it [cross talk]  really gotten engaged in it.

Eve Picker: I think they are scared away. I go to [cross talk] some of these crowdfunding platforms … I’m a pretty experienced developer, and investor, and yet I find myself going to some platforms,  looking at the presentations, and feeling a little scared, because they present towards a very, very sophisticated investor who understands a special lingo that’s only for them, right?

Brian Beckon: Yes.

Eve Picker: It is absolutely scary, and that’s, perhaps … You might know, but people listening to this probably don’t, that one of the securities rules that came out of the JOBS Act – Regulation Crowdfunding, which really permits everyone to invest – one of the things I like about that rule is that it requires everything about the offering to be in plain English.

Eve Picker: I think that was a pretty meaningful thing for the SEC to add, because when people like myself are scared at trying to unravel an offering, well, imagine someone who’s never done anything like it before.

Brian Beckon: Yeah, you’re right, and frankly, at the risk of sounding perhaps too skeptical, frankly, I’ve seen a lot of bad deals out there on some crowdfunding sites. By ‘bad deals,’ I mean … It’s not that they’re …

Eve Picker: Yes.

Brian Beckon: I’ve seen deals, where a company is raising money with an assumed valuation that’s just astronomical – $30 million – and if you really dig into it, they don’t hardly have anything. They have some good ideas, but the company probably isn’t worth more than $1 million; maybe even less.  When people invest in a $30-million valuation, they’re buying stock that’s grossly overvalued … Perhaps the reverse way of saying that: they’re not going to get as much back as they think they’re going to get.

Brian Beckon: I see a lot of these deals, and they do make me nervous. I do worry that there are going to be a lot of losses. That makes me nervous, and that’s actually one solid reason why, for those investors who don’t have a lot of sophistication in picking good investments, real estate still remains a pretty solid- I should say relatively safe way to invest, because you’re not going to lose as much. You’re probably not going to lose as much money on a real-estate investment, as you would get a startup company that values itself at $30 million.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I think that’s right. That’s right. You can at least hop on to Zillow, and check out the comps yourself, and really snoop around a little bit, in an everyday manner, and feel comfortable with what you’re investing in. I agree. I personally feel less threatened by investing in real estate than in companies I don’t really understand.

Brian Beckon: Yeah.

Eve Picker: That’s equity investing at large … It becomes even a little more difficult, when we bring impact, and social responsibility into it, doesn’t it? I’m just wondering, I suppose, how you feel about … I don’t even know how to say this. What level of additional difficulty does that add to a real-estate deal? What sort of things are you seeing in community capital-raising that makes it different than going to a crowdfunding platform that lets you invest in a very traditional Walmart, or Target, or something like that?

Brian Beckon: Good question. It raises this whole question about what does it mean to make impact? Much has been said, and written; we’re not going to solve that right now, perhaps. Let me give you my take on this question of impact, starting with the premise that we all want to invest our money in a way that, again, is, in some sense, making the world a better place.

Brian Beckon: How do we do that? I kind of see impact as happening in two broadly speaking, and this is over-generalization, but broadly two ways of making impact. One is by making sure that your money is doing something good in the world, whatever that may be. Housing the poor; building a hospital, or a school, or something like that. The money is being used in a beneficial way.

Brian Beckon: There’s another way of making impact that isn’t often discussed, and that is really by focusing on the process. If you’re raising money for an impactful project, and only the very wealthy can invest in it – and let’s assume that it’s a profitable project …

Brian Beckon: These wealthy people invest, and they make 10-percent return on their investment, and they’re richer, and happier. Yes, the project does have some positive impact; it does some good, whatever it is – you’re building some housing, or something.

Brian Beckon: That’s one kind of impact, but I have to admit, I’m a little skeptical of what often passes for impact, because I think a lot of impact investing, frankly, does more harm than good. Why? Because you’re still concentrating wealth. As long as you’re concentrating the wealth in the hands of the wealthy, how impactful can you be?

Brian Beckon: Yeah, you’re building a hospital, or housing, or whatever it may be, but ultimately, it’s really the wealthy investor who wins. When an investor is making high returns … You can make the argument, and maybe I won’t push that point too far, but you could make the argument that anyone making high returns is extracting wealth from this system. You’re leaving someone else less well-off, because you’re making a higher return.

Brian Beckon: That brings me to the other way of having an impact, which is via the process. If you’re raising money for a profitable project, whatever it may be – and I would argue it almost doesn’t matter what you’re actually doing with the money – but if it’s a profitable project, and you’re raising it in a truly democratic way so that everybody of any wealth can participate fully, now you’re not concentrating wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Now you’re actually sharing the wealth in an equitable and fair way.

Brian Beckon: That process, itself, is impactful because now you’re creating wealth-building opportunities for those that otherwise would not have had wealth-building opportunities. This can help to shrink the wealth gap, and, along the way, when regular folks who haven’t had an opportunity to invest in projects now do, that can contribute to a greater sense of empowerment, and lower community engagement. You can follow out the chain of causation there.

Brian Beckon: I think that has broad implications beyond just profits going into their pockets. I really see that the process of community capital, as I like to call it – this idea that you’re opening up an opportunity for anybody to invest, regardless of their economic status – that process is, itself, more impactful than just about anything you can do with the money, if you see what I’m saying. It’s about the process.

Eve Picker: Definitely do. I do. That’s a really interesting thought, but you know, in real estate, there are still so many hindrances with regards to that process that most people don’t think about.

Eve Picker: I’ll give you just a couple of examples that maybe … I’m sure you have more. One is, in talking to one developer about presenting a side-by-side offering, which is using two securities rules – one in which anyone can invest, and the other which permits accredited investors to invest with large amounts – that developer suggested that the accredited investors get a higher return.

Eve Picker: I was a little shocked by that. I’m thinking, just because you haven’t reached the accredited bar, why does that make your money less valuable to the developer? I really- I don’t understand the thinking behind that. Yet, I think that thinking is pretty prevalent just in the way you described.

Brian Beckon: Yes, I have seen the same phenomenon, and it just- I find it very disturbing. All things being equal, the same degree of risk, but we’re going to give greater reward to the wealthy, than we give the non-wealthy. Somehow, we think they deserve it because they have more money, or maybe they simply demand it, because they have more leverage. Whatever the reason is, it’s fundamentally inequitable-

Eve Picker: It is inequitable.

Brian Beckon: -and I think we need to resist that.

Eve Picker: Further, for someone who has less money, it’s an even bigger risk, so it’s even more inequitable, if you want to think of it that way.

Brian Beckon: Right, right, right.

Eve Picker: I find that very disturbing, but then there are other issues that pop up in real estate. For example, banks always want to have a 20-percent partner, or shareholder, or member of a real-estate project guarantee the project.

Eve Picker: In one crowdfunding offering that we did, the investors actually held 90-percent ownership, and that really confused the bank. They didn’t … I mean the 90-percent ownership was a whole crowd of investors, so they really didn’t know what to do with it. There are some structural problems in the way that we finance things that crowdfunding is kind of bashing up against.

Eve Picker: Another example is the new micro tax credit world, where I have seen, time and time again, really convoluted financial structures, so that those big investors don’t have to invest side by side with the little ones. That’s exactly the way they talk about it.

Eve Picker: I think we’re pretty far off from everyone … From really getting to the end goal, which is that the money that comes through crowdfunding, or community capital-raising is treated in exactly the same way as everyone else’s money.

Brian Beckon: Yeah, I think you’re right. We are a ways off from that. I think there are some things that we can do to get closer to that goal of a truly level playing field, where it doesn’t matter how much money you have; you should be able to get the same return on investment.

Brian Beckon: I think one of those strategies that we can use to get toward that goal is to use what we might call community investment funds, where … Because part of the problem is the small investors who can put $1,000 or $2,000 into a project really don’t have- probably don’t have the bandwidth to do the kind of due diligence on individual projects that someone putting in large amounts would do on the project.

Brian Beckon: You do have that imbalance of information, when you have investors who aren’t doing the due diligence. They’re more likely to make the wrong choice than those who have more time, and resources to put it into the diligence.

Brian Beckon: I think the way to get around that is to set up an intermediary fund that can do the due diligence, but aggregate capital from many, many investors; and then is careful to do the kind of due diligence on every investor- on every investment that anyone with deeper pockets might do.

Brian Beckon: I’m a big fan of community investment funds, in general. Real estate, again, is one of those areas where a community investment fund can be particularly impactful. There are a variety of different kinds of community investment funds that can be built.

Eve Picker: Well, I’m going to shift the conversation a bit to real estate, and I’m wondering whether you think socially responsible real estate is necessary in today’s development landscape, and if you do, why?

Brian Beckon: Well, yes, I do. We can talk about what constitutes socially responsible real estate, but, yes, you definitely can see where projects are rather extractive, and are designed to maximize profits for investors, versus projects that are really designed to serve communities. We don’t need the former; we do need the latter, so I do think that’s an important distinction.

Brian Beckon: For example, I live in the city of Concord, here in California. There are projects being proposed to build all these, what are euphemistically referred to as market-rate housing projects; what really are the top-dollar, more luxury apartment complexes.

Brian Beckon: Does the city need those? No. No, we don’t need those, but that’s what developers want to build, because they know that there are high profit margins, and that’s what investors want to invest in, even though that’s not what the city needs. What the city need is more moderate-income housing, but that’s not as profitable, and no one’s interested in building that, except for one or two nonprofit developers.

Brian Beckon: We do have the problem that the wrong kind of development is going into, particularly, lower-income communities that cause gentrification. What we need is more community driven real estate, where the communities can say, “Here’s what we want; here’s what meets our needs.” I think that would- that probably fits into that category of socially responsible investment, perhaps, among other things.

Eve Picker: Right. Have you noticed any trends, or projects out there that you think can solve those sorts of problems?

Brian Beckon: Well, yeah … Let’s take Opportunity Funds, for example. Opportunity Funds, as a lot of folks know by now, because it’s been in the news a lot in the last year or two, are a type of fund created to encourage investment into low-income communities. That encouragement comes in the form of a tax break for investors.

Brian Beckon: The conventional wisdom, and, as you probably can tell, I tend to be cynical about conventional wisdom, but-

Eve Picker: I’m going to join you on that.

Brian Beckon: -but the conventional wisdom says that only wealthy investors can get those tax benefits, because they have to do it with rolled-over capital gains, and who has all the rolled-over capital gains? Well, the wealthy.

Brian Beckon: These Opportunity Funds are basically almost always set up for the wealthy to invest. Just as I suggested a moment ago, when it’s the wealthy who are investing in real estate, in low-income communities, what do they want to do? They want to build high-end housing, which …

Brian Beckon: Does that serve the community’s needs? No, it doesn’t. It drives out the local residents. It forces them to move to some other more affordable community. It increases the prices.

Brian Beckon: In fact, since the Opportunity Fund law came into existence about a year and a half ago, some studies have shown that a house- that housing costs in Opportunity Zones have risen 20 percent, compared to comparable low-income communities that were not designated as Opportunity Zones.

Brian Beckon: You have a 20-percent increase in prices, just because it was designated as an Opportunity Zone, which means that gentrification is happening in these communities, because of this investment, or at least potential for investment by, again, typically wealthy people seeking to reduce their taxes.

Brian Beckon: That’s the problem, but that’s not really what you’re asking. You’re asking what’s the solution? The solution is to take this idea, and make it a true community investment fund.

Brian Beckon: Contrary to the conventional wisdom, if anybody, including non-wealthy folks, can get tax benefits from investing in an Opportunity Fund, and when you have an Opportunity Fund that is open for investment by the community, and reflects the voices of the community – so it’s one that’s somewhat democratically governed – now you’ll have a very different kind of thing.

Brian Beckon: Now you have a true community driven investment fund, where they’re going to build the kind of housing – if it’s a housing fund, or whatever it may be. They’re going to do the kind of projects, or development, or housing that the community wants, and needs.

Brian Beckon: When it is profitable, those profits will circulate within the community. If that’s where your investors are, that’s where your profits are going. That’s an important point that people sometimes forget.

Brian Beckon: Again [inaudible] wherever your investment comes from, that’s where your profits are going. If you want capital to stay in a community, you’ve got to raise capital from the community. That’s the way to solve that problem, I think.

Eve Picker: Yeah, it is, but often these communities, the communities you’re talking about, and that we’re interested in, are slightly depressed, and they certainly don’t have strong market values. Perhaps, the people in them … It’s difficult to raise enough capital to do large, and meaningful projects.

Eve Picker: It’s difficult to even finance projects, because banks don’t see the value in those communities either. You’re left with these yawning financing gaps that you have to fill in a number of ways, and, actually, it becomes very difficult to project any return for investors.

Eve Picker: While I agree that communities should benefit from improvements in their own communities, it’s very tricky finding a community that can really happen in, I think.

Brian Beckon: Yeah, no, you’re absolutely right. I don’t want to minimize the challenge it is to raise significant amounts of money from a lower-income community.

Brian Beckon: Let me say a couple things there. One, almost every community has resources, even if it’s a lower-income community. If the data shows that 50 percent of a community is below the poverty line, well then, that means 50 percent isn’t. There is money in every community, even low-income communities.

Brian Beckon: That brings us back to the cultural challenge that we started talking about earlier, which is that the folks in that community who do have some money … We’re not talking about millionaires; what we’re talking about is people who have some money to invest.

Brian Beckon: They may have- they may be able to write, not a $50,000 check, but they might be able to write a $1,000, or a $5,000 check. Yet, those people will tend to just put their money on Wall Street, because that’s all they know.

Brian Beckon: It brings us back to this cultural challenge, and this educational challenge … If you want to raise money from within a lower-income community, you’ve really got to do some outreach, and to talk to people about the fact that it is possible; that they are qualified; that they can invest in their local community. They don’t have to send their money to Wall Street.

Brian Beckon: It is a challenge, but it can be done. We’ve seen examples of where it has been done. This, while not exactly a real-estate project, I think it’s relevant.

Brian Beckon: We have a client at our firm called Community Foods Market, which is building a grocery store in West Oakland – a low-income, disinvested part of Oakland California. They specifically wanted to raise capital from the community, and we help them do that through a direct public offering.

Brian Beckon: The outcome was, yes, they did raise about $2.2 million dollars in this direct public offering. Now, that’s just part of the capital stack [cross talk]

Eve Picker: Fantastic.

Brian Beckon: -more than that to build a grocery store. The point here is that they raised capital from about … I think they have about 500 investors; most of them are, in fact, residents of this low-income community. Most of them, in terms of the number of investors …

Brian Beckon: Now, to be sure, the biggest dollars came from the wealthier investors, and many of those, probably most of those wealthier investors, and institutions worked inside that community. It is true, you still probably need to raise some of your money, if not most of it, from outside the community.

Brian Beckon: The important thing is that by specifically focusing the capital-raising campaign on the community, that had a lot of benefit. The community is invested; the community is engaged in the project; they’re excited about the project. When there are profits, at least a portion of those profits will go back to the residents of that community, which is exactly what he wanted to do.

Eve Picker: You know, going to have to be a little bit mercenary, because one of my frustrations with what we’re trying to do is the return that most people want. I’m not yet convinced that they’ll take a lesser return for impactful real estate.

Eve Picker: The question is: is that community- does that project compete for return with many of the real-estate projects we’re seeing on crowdfunding platforms, which boast 20-, to 25-percent internal rate of return, or is that community project likely to return something lesser, but the people in that community get some other less-tangible return – having a supermarket in their  community, for example?

Brian Beckon: Yeah, right. You do have that challenge. All things being equal, if I’m looking at two opportunities, and neither of them is in my community, and one promises a five-percent return, and the other promises a 10-percent return, I am more likely to invest in the one that offers a 10-percent return.

Brian Beckon: Now, if you tell me that the five-percent-return project is going to be more beneficial to the community, that may affect my decision, and maybe I’ll go with the five-percent, because after all, that’s still better than I can get on a bank CD. It’s still better than the stock market is doing. Five percent is still a good return on investment.

Brian Beckon: Now, if you change that hypothetical, and say that five-percent project is in my community, and actually can benefit my community, and contribute to local tax base; the owners have kids in the same schools that my kids go to, and they’re going to contribute some of their profits to local causes, well, that that makes it a very different scenario.

Brian Beckon: Because, just as I’ll donate my time, and sometimes donate my money to local things in my own community, why wouldn’t I invest locally at five-percent investment, instead of 10-percent, if you have all these other things that happen that benefit my own community; that make my life, in some way, better?

Brian Beckon: I think that’s part of the power of true community investment. If you can reach someone, really, in their backyard … These are people that want projects in their backyard to succeed, so I think you have … That can help you raise capital for projects that maybe don’t promise the highest return.

Eve Picker: Yeah.

Brian Beckon: I also acknowledge that, to some degree, this is theoretical, because we haven’t seen enough of these kinds of deals, perhaps, to be able to say with real evidence that people will invest for a lower rate of return, as long as it’s in their community. I have not seen specific evidence of that. Intuitively ,I believe that’s the case, but, have you seen that in your work at Small Change? 

Eve Picker: No, not yet. Maybe a little bit. We’ve certainly seen on some projects that more people locally have invested, but I think … I’m sort of interested in understanding what community engagement tools you think work, because I think we have to get better at it. It’s difficult finding people in communities..

Eve Picker: Often, real-estate developers, this is not what they do. They don’t market in that way. They put a deal together, and build a building. Now, you’re telling them, “Well, you gotta go reach out to all these people in the community,” and that’s not part of their wheelhouse, right?

Brian Beckon: Yeah.

Eve Picker: I think community engagement, and finding the right tools is probably a big part of this. Do you agree?

Brian Beckon: Yeah, I totally do. For years, we have been helping organizations with various strategies of community capital. Now, with the JOBS Act, Regulation Crowdfunding, that opened up a whole new avenue for ways of raising capital from a broad cross-section of one community.

Brian Beckon: Even before that law came into being, direct public offerings have always been out there. We’ve been doing this for a number of years, and we have consistently found that those- the key differentiator between those that succeed in raising the capital, and those that don’t succeed in raising the capital they need really boils down to marketing. It becomes a marketing campaign, when you’re doing something that involves a public offering.

Brian Beckon: I think even crowdfunding portals, and I assume this is probably true of Small Change,  you can’t just … It’s not one of those ‘Build it and they will come’ kind of thing. You still have to market the offering. The project manager, or promoter, they still need to pound the pavement, and get the word out to their network, and they need to reach out to their community. Really, it takes some effort.

Brian Beckon: Having seen some of these – over the years – seeing some of these offerings not succeed, we definitely, nowadays, almost always recommend to our clients that they get good marketing help. That may mean actually hiring a marketing and communications firm of professionals that can help in a number of ways.

Brian Beckon: Fundamentally, they do several things. One, they help you refine your message, and help you tell your story in a compelling way. Then, two, they can help you figure out who is the ideal audience – whether that is in your geographic community, or other communities of interest that maybe more dispersed. Then, three, how do you find them? How do you put the message up where they’re reading, or where they are?

Brian Beckon: A marketing fir can be really invaluable for that. I would say, again, of the folks that we’ve helped with community capital offerings that have not succeeded, almost always, it’s because of a lack of marketing, so, [cross talk] I think that it is really important.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I completely agree with you. I completely agree with you. This has been really interesting, but I’ve got three sign-off questions I want to ask you. The first one is what’s the key factor that makes a real-estate project impactful to you?

Brian Beckon: Well, number one, as I kind of suggested earlier, is I want to see something that is offered openly on a level playing field. I want to make sure that it doesn’t serve to concentrate wealth by being only available to the wealthy. I like to see projects that are open to the crowd.

Brian Beckon: Two, it’s got to be non-extractive. It’s got to serve the community. As someone from outside a community – let’s say the project is in some town that I don’t know very well – I may not have a good sense of what that community needs.

Brian Beckon: Hopefully, it’ll be clear in the disclosure materials – what kind of community it is – and we’ll be able to make some assessment of whether this sounds like it’s actually meeting the needs of the community, or is it just an opportunistic way to extract more profits from the community? I don’t want to invest in anything that’s extractive. I really want to invest in something that meets the needs.

Eve Picker: Sure.

Brian Beckon: Yeah, I don’t know, does that help?

Eve Picker: Yep, it does. Then, I think we know the answer to this, too, but I’m going to ask you again: other than by raising money, in what ways could involving investors through crowdfunding benefit the impact real-estate developer?

Brian Beckon: Well, yeah, one thing about raising capital from your community is – from a broad number of people – you now have a lot of people who are invested in you, and that means … Again, it has a number of implications. They’re going to be on your side. They want you to succeed, now, because they’re financially invested in your success.

Brian Beckon: That really helps to build community engagement, which can be really valuable if you have projects that, say, need local government approval, or what have you. If it’s the sort of project that is going to be a customer-facing project, let’s say someone …

Brian Beckon: Use a non-real-estate example, and there probably are some good real-estate examples, too, but one sort of obvious non-real-estate example is someone builds a brewery, and they raise capital from a community of people.

Brian Beckon: Now, what happens? Those investors in the brewery, if they want to find a beer, where are they going to go? They’re going to go to the brewery where they’re a co-owner. Of course they will. That’s where they’re going to send their friends.

Brian Beckon: Your investors can be your best customers. They can also be your best ambassadors. I think that also translates, or can translate into the real-estate world, too. It just helps having dozens, or perhaps even hundreds of advocates in a community that can help you be successful.

Eve Picker: That’s a great answer. Finally, this is a really big one – how do you think we can improve real estate development in the United States so that it’s better for everyone? Cities [cross talk]

Brian Beckon: I think we need to have real-estate development more community driven. Right now, I think the big problem is real-estate development is almost always driven … The agenda for real-estate development is almost always driven by the wealthy investor. What do wealthy investors want? They want to increase their wealth at the highest rate possible.

Brian Beckon: Most real-estate development is not done with a view to what the community needs; it’s done with a view to how can profits be most efficiently extracted out of the community, and placed into the hands of the investor?

Brian Beckon: I really think the number-one thing that we need is to change that paradigm, and have real-estate investment done in a more community driven way. The only way to do that, frankly, is the things we’ve been talking about – by having the community be investors; by building real-estate funds that are community driven.

Brian Beckon: Then we can talk about governance of a fund, and if a fund actually reflects the voices of the community that it’s serving, then it will probably do the things that the community needs; not the things that some rich investor somewhere else wants. I think that’s maybe the biggest paradigm shift that we need, in order to achieve a more equitable, and fair, and resilient society.

Eve Picker: Well, thank you very much, Brian. Thank you for having this conversation with me. We’re signing off now, but I hope everyone listened all the way to the end.

Brian Beckon: Well, thank you very much, Eve. It’s been a real pleasure chatting with you.

Eve Picker: That was Brian Beckon. I hope you enjoyed listening to him as much as I enjoyed talking to him. Brian gave me three great takeaways. First, that we need to share the wealth. Second, that it’s possible to fund projects through communities, not just private equity, and third, that everyone deserves to invest, and get a return. What did you learn?

Eve Picker: You can read more about Brian on the show notes page for this podcast at EvePicker.com. While you’re there, please consider signing up for my newsletter to find out more about how to make money in real estate, while making some change.

Eve Picker: Thank you so much for spending your time with Brian, and I today. We’ll talk again soon, but for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Brian Beckon, Cutting Edge Capital

Let’s change our mindset.

July 15, 2019

Sandy Wiggins works at the intersection of three movements – green building, new economies, and thriving resilient communities. His company, Consilience, is a national consultancy with a mission to build environmentally, socially and economically sustainable buildings and communities.

After decades as a traditional and highly successful developer, Sandy reinvented himself as a leader in sustainability in a deep and thoughtful way. He was a pioneer and a central figure in the global green building movement. He’s helped birth sustainable master plans. He’s led the US Green Building Council. His vision and leadership have been responsible for the development of one of the nation’s first Living Building Challenge projects and one of the first Living Community Challenge projects (still in development). And Sandy is responsible for the development of over sixty LEED-rated commercial buildings and the nation’s first LEED gold certified homes, which were also net zero energy consumers. Sandy’s personal  epiphany has and will continue to impact many lives.

Together, on this podcast, Eve and Sandy explore what it means to save the planet, through a developer’s eyes.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Sandy played a huge role in shaping LEED as we know it.
  • Making change takes a long time. It’s been a 25 year journey for Sandy.
  • There are lots of pathways people can follow to build green buildings today including LEED, the Well Being Standard, Net Zero, Passive House and more.
  • We’ve lagged in addressing issues of social equity and that must come next.

Information and Links

  • Sandy is particularly proud of this green building development for the Friends Center and Project Aerzen (wait for the second half).
  • He’s been working on the Antioch College Village co-housing project for a number of years. It’s kicking with a pocket neighborhood pilot project.
  • Other projects that Sandy has had a hand in include the Stroud Water Research Center and the living certified Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation Environmental Center.
  • Sandy thinks you should know about the New Story Hub, the International Future Living Institute, The Great Transition, Future Tide Partners and Science & NonDuality.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: Hey, everyone this is Eve Picker, and if you listen to this podcast series, you’re going to learn how to make some change. Thanks so much for joining us on this podcast. I’m Eve Picker, and my life revolves around cities, real estate, crowdfunding, and change. In this podcast series, we’ll be digging deep to discover how we can build better cities by building better buildings.

Eve Picker: Sandy Wiggins is my guest today. Sandy had an epiphany 25 years ago that has changed all of our lives. Then, he was a big-wig developer, having built millions of square feet of traditional buildings. Life was good, until one day, a friend showed him a small article on the impact that buildings had on the environment – the environment that Sandy loved so much. That conversation forever changed the direction of his life, and ours.

Eve Picker: 25 years later, Sandy has had a hand in building the US Green Building Council, in developing the LEED rating system, in developing over 60 LEED-rated commercial buildings, and the nation’s first Gold-certified homes. Sandy’s personal epiphany has impacted many lives.

Eve Picker: If you want to know more about Sandy after you’ve listened to this podcast, please visit EvePicker.com, where you’ll find links and other goodies on the show notes page, and where you can subscribe to my newsletter on all things real-estate impact.

Eve Picker: Sandy, just tell us a little bit about your background, and what path led you to where you are today.

Sandy Wiggins: Sure. Initially in my career, I followed a pretty traditional path in development, and construction; worked in both residential and commercial sectors; also did some institutional work, and spent the better part of two decades following that path, and actually worked all over the eastern United States on many different kinds of projects.

Sandy Wiggins: Then reached a point where I was the executive vice president of a firm that I helped build into a fairly large firm, and was feeling that something wasn’t right. I was working on a project in Philadelphia, where I lived at the time, and was out to lunch with the architect, who was a friend.

Sandy Wiggins: During our lunch conversation, he shared a tiny little article in an architectural magazine about the environmental impact of building, and buildings. I was kind of stunned by that. I’d been a passionate outdoors person, an environmentalist, my whole life, but had never connected that passion with what I did for a living.

Sandy Wiggins: It became an itch that I just couldn’t stop scratching. I wanted to understand it. On that project, we tried to do the best we could, but there was very little information available to help us.

Sandy Wiggins: I started to bring people together in the Philadelphia community, who were interested in having a conversation about that. We would meet informally once a month. There were a few architects, and other developers, a person from city government. That little group grew to maybe 15 or 20 people.

Sandy Wiggins: Then, I decided that we should actually launch a more formal effort, and started a non-profit in Philadelphia focused on greening the built environment. At the time, it was called the Delaware Valley Green Building Council. Today, it’s called Green Building United.

Sandy Wiggins: Through that platform, began to connect to other people around the country who were also thinking about these issues, which ultimately led me to the very nascent US Green Building Council. I became very involved in that, and the development of the LEED rating systems, and moving those out into the marketplace, and helping to build USGBC.

Eve Picker: That’s pretty spectacular.

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah, well, it was-

Eve Picker: How long did all of that take, from when you first saw the article to …?

Sandy Wiggins: Oh, so, when I first saw that article, I want to say it was 1993. USGBC began to form in the late ’90s. It was a very small community of people. LEED, the very first pilot version of LEED, was launched in 2000.

Sandy Wiggins: By 2007, we’d hit a tipping point, and LEED was becoming the standard for pretty much any what I would call Class-A building in the United States, and it was it was propagating around the world. It’d been adopted in China, and India and other countries. It moved very rapidly.

Eve Picker: Yeah, that is pretty fast.

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah.

Eve Picker: I tried using LEED on a renovation of an historic building in the early 2000s, and I gave up; at that time, it was not … It was really geared towards greenfield developments, which was kind of weird, when you think about this. It was just too hard for a small- not a huge project; a smaller project in an inner city. I think that’s changed, too, right?

It has changed a lot. There are now many versions of LEED that are designed to suit different kinds of projects. There’s LEED for neighborhood developments, and now there’s LEED for cities, and there’s the WELL Building Standard … There’s many other pathways that people can follow to help them develop green buildings, and green communities.

Eve Picker: Do you think those sorts of ratings are the answers, or building the socially responsible way, I suppose?

Sandy Wiggins: Are they the answers? No, they’re just a tool. First of all, from an environmental perspective … I’ve gone on, and become involved with net-zero energy projects, Living Building Challenge, and Living Community Challenge projects.

Sandy Wiggins: From an environmental perspective, LEED has been catalytic in terms of raising awareness in the industry. It certainly has had an incremental impact, in terms of the environmental impact of buildings, but it’s still just doing less bad. We need to do a whole lot better.

Sandy Wiggins: From a socially responsible perspective, LEED has really lacked in terms of addressing any issues of social equity. They’re starting to take pieces of that on. But Living Building Challenge, for example, has a very distinct focus on social equity, and social justice.

Sandy Wiggins: Still, the rating systems are just a tool. We fundamentally need to change the mindset that we’re operating from, in order to really address both the social, and environmental issues that we’re facing right now.

Eve Picker: Be sure to go to EvePicker.com, and sign up for my free educational newsletter about impact real-estate investing. You’ll be among the first to hear about new projects you can invest in. That’s EvePicker.com. Thanks so much.

Sandy Wiggins: One of the things that worries me is that LEED is a tool that’s just for one segment of society, one industry. Most people don’t know about it at all. I suppose they only get to know about it when they use the building.

Eve Picker: I really think for an understanding of what’s going on to filter into everyone’s minds, you have to speak in plain English, and many of these ratings, and words that we use are not plain English for most people. We’re kind of a long way from most people understanding what needs to happen.

Sandy Wiggins: I agree.

Eve Picker: Yeah, so … Well, that’s pretty amazing; that’s been a long time coming. What else do you think might be improved in the world of real-estate impact, even real-estate impact investing?

Sandy Wiggins: Great question. Talking about real-estate impact investing, the availability of capital creates so many possibilities that we aren’t taking advantage of. Frankly, it comes from the economic mindset that drives all of our behavior, which is fundamentally about eking out the maximum profit – financial profit – from every dollar that we invest. When I talk about a mindset shift, that’s really what I’m talking about.

Sandy Wiggins: We really need to- we need to stop externalizing the environmental, and social impacts of our investment decisions, and start looking at those investments in a much more holistic way to understand what are those environmental, and social impacts? How can we start to actually include them in our decision-making process about the return that we’re getting for the capital that we’re putting to work?

Sandy Wiggins: That fundamentally needs to change, and it is changing. There’s a growing community of impact, or mission investors who are thinking about these issues, and who aren’t willing to invest in anything, including real-estate projects, that are moving the needle in the wrong direction.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I’ve heard statistics now of as high as 85 percent of investors want to invest in some sort of socially responsible way in their portfolio. It’s a very big number now.

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah, it’s another sort of hockey stick.

Eve Picker: It really is, but I have to say, my disappointment with this, and I know that we’ve talked about this before … I have yet to see investors with really deep pockets invest in – let’s say credit investors, not necessarily investors with really deep pockets – but I think people are still quibbling about the return they’re going to get.

Eve Picker: They want a return, and they want social responsibility. They don’t seem yet ready to give up on the return. I think you’re working with, or seeing an elite group of people who are educated enough to understand that they have to give up something. I’m not seeing that yet.

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah … It’s difficult territory, and it’s slow, because the underlying paradigm that we all operate from creates this economic system that … This is very deep, Eve. It’s fundamentally about security, and survival.

Sandy Wiggins: We live in a system driven by these underlying beliefs, or paradigms that see us as separate from each other, separate from the environment, that give rise to – even though these aren’t conscious – the belief that resources are scarce; that I have to look out for myself. One of the fallouts of that is that there’s this hyper-focus on aggregating resources for myself, and maximizing financial return.

Sandy Wiggins: When we talk about investing in socially responsible, or sustainable communities, we need to be thinking about much more than just the built environment; we need to be thinking about the social systems in those communities. The built environment really has a huge impact in framing how those systems operate, so it’s all deeply intertwined.

Sandy Wiggins: Here’s what I see happening in the world, and this is nascent, and it’s going to … Hopefully, more and more people will get to this, but there are many people that are experiencing the perspective that we are deeply interconnected, and inextricably interconnected with each other, and with the natural environment, and that we need to be thinking about how our resources are deployed to support each other, as well as ourselves.

Sandy Wiggins: Things like co-housing is a great example of this. It’s a tiny little part of the development world. Co-housing started in Denmark 60 years ago, and first spread around Europe; now it’s happening in the United States, but it’s still quite …  There’s only maybe 300 co-housing communities in the US. There really it’s a pattern of development that is designed to support community, and connection to each other, and caring for each other. That’s where I think we have to go.

Eve Picker: I think that’s right, but I think that many of us have been let down by communities around us, over racial, and religious issues, and many other issues. It’s difficult to trust, given that, right? I suppose it’s not hard to understand why people feel they need to look after themselves first.

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah, no, it’s not. It’s completely understandable, because it’s just- it is wired into our system, but it’s not an absolute, I guess is what I would say. It’s based on a series of beliefs that have been built up over centuries, and particularly the last two centuries.

Sandy Wiggins: It’s difficult to change, but, honestly, from where I sit, having spent the last 20 years now deeply involved in environmental sustainability, social justice, from the perspective- much of that from the perspective of real-estate development, and impact investing, we have to change, or we’re not going to survive.

Eve Picker: What do you like best about the world of real-estate impact investing? What do you think it can do-  good things it can do?  I mean, I know … My small hope for Small Change is that we can list a project in a neighborhood, and people who live there can invest in it, and benefit not only from seeing that project built where they already own an asset – their own house – but that they can build wealth where they live, as well. That’s kind of my little piece of excitement about real-estate impact investing, but [cross talk]

Sandy Wiggins: -quite frankly, that excites me a lot, and, to me, it’s an important, and beautiful step in the direction that we need to take. When people invest in their own communities, when they …

Sandy Wiggins: In the dominant system that we’re all a part of, people put their money into mutual funds, and public equities. They are completely disconnected from their investment. It’s complex; it’s opaque, and disconnected, and it’s really strictly focused on short-term financial return.

Sandy Wiggins: What is needed is a shift to investment that is direct, transparent, personal, and grounded in a system of relationships. That’s, to me, what Small Change is doing- is creating in the real-estate industry.

Sandy Wiggins: If I put my money into a REIT, and the REIT’s investing in real-estate projects all over the country that I have no connection to, all I care about is the financial return. If I put my money into a building that’s going to house the local grocery store in my community, I drive by that store every day. I care about it.

Sandy Wiggins: It fundamentally changes my relationship to my investment. If that business gets in trouble, yes, I’m worried about my investment, but I also want that business to succeed, because I have a relationship to it. I don’t know if I’m answering your question [cross talk]

Eve Picker: -that’s the way I see to it, too. Are there any other direct-investment opportunities, or investment opportunities emerging that you think can help solve this problem of the relationship of you to the place you’re in, and the people around you?

Sandy Wiggins: Obviously, if you’re an accredited investor, and there are opportunities in your place to directly invest in real-estate projects in a more traditional sense, that’s helpful. That’s impact investing, if you’re working through this lens of local, and sustainable investment, but the system’s kind of wired to prevent us from doing that. Regulation Crowdfunding is like a first giant step into that space; although, as you know, it’s still really hard, and nascent.

Eve Picker: Yeah, it is really hard. I think we need a lot of investor education. I think there’s a lot of mistrust around it. Let’s move on to some other thoughts. I’m just wondering if you think there are any current trends in real-estate development that are important? You mentioned co-housing. We know that co-working has also really taken off as a way for people to share business spaces. I’m wondering what else is out there?

Sandy Wiggins: Co-housing, and co-working are great examples of new trends that I think really should be supported, and that there’s a pent-up demand for. I just find this in many of the different networks that I’m connected to, that there is a demand for product that isn’t being developed, because developers are generally trying to maximize return, or just don’t understand this emergent market.

Sandy Wiggins: Again, I can’t help but come back to the necessity to respond to what are now becoming environmental emergencies that we’re facing. I mean, climate change, or climate crisis – as people are starting to call it now – is Exhibit A. The development community needs to respond to that. Everybody needs to respond to it. Government needs to respond to it. The codes that govern development need to respond to it.

Sandy Wiggins: The development community needs to, and can respond to it … Net-zero energy development; things like the Living Building Challenge, and Living Community Challenge are stakes in the ground that are moving us in the right direction.

Sandy Wiggins: Frankly, I’ve worked on enough net-zero energy projects now to understand that we have all the technology we need to do this.  Not every building can be net-zero energy, independently, particularly in dense urban environments, when you’re dealing with multi-storied structures, but, when you start to look at whole communities, we can build net-zero energy communities. For me, there’s just no excuse for us not to be going there.

Eve Picker: Yeah. That’s actually really interesting. I haven’t been watching what’s been happening in the code world, but I still talk to developers who fuss about how many parking spaces they’re going to have. There are certainly requirements in the city I live in for parking; although they’re reduced in some places.

Eve Picker: I could imagine – build a net-zero-energy building, and provide bike racks for everyone, and is there really a need for parking at all? I think you’d get much better development. It would help the environment. It’ll be friendlier for the city. I just don’t- I don’t see that shift happening in most places yet. It’s a really big shift.

Sandy Wiggins: It is, and you’re right, it’s not happening in most places …  I happen to live in a city that’s really progressive in this regard – Washington DC. The zoning codes are changing; the building codes are changing. There’s a very robust, overarching … They call it the Sustainable DC Plan that’s driving this that is championed both by the Mayor, and City Council.

Sandy Wiggins: It is happening in places, and having been involved in movement building in the past, I see that as a really hopeful sign, because one of the things that needs to happen is that functional exemplars have to emerge, so that other people can say, “Okay, you can actually do this, and we can copy that.”

Eve Picker: Right.

Sandy Wiggins: San Francisco, and DC are two communities where that’s starting to happen-

Eve Picker: Right. Just a really great example: I’m looking at a smallish project in Pittsburgh, which is, we think, going to be 20-, or maybe a 30-unit building. Most of the first floor is going to be taken up with parking, because it’s required in the code.

Eve Picker: It’s an expensive use of the space. The building is very close to downtown. It’s flat. It’s bike-able. I would be thrilled if the city said to me, “Okay, give us a net-zero-energy building,  and we’ll eliminate the parking requirement.”

Sandy Wiggins: Right.

Sandy Wiggins: I don’t actually know the cost, but I’m going to guess that we’d end up maybe in the same place, and that would be- that’s a really good example of what I think ought to happen-

Sandy Wiggins: I agree.

Eve Picker: -but isn’t happening yet.

Sandy Wiggins: Here’s another … Again, for the development community, once you understand the importance of this, it really becomes your responsibility to become an advocate for it.

Sandy Wiggins: I will tell you that having, again, spent many years now working on projects that are kind of pushing the edge of what’s possible, in terms of particularly environmental sustainability, the hardest part is dealing with the regulatory environment.

Sandy Wiggins: I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve spent educating, and advocating with local agencies, state agencies, even the federal government, to enable the kind of development that really should be occurring.

Eve Picker: You don’t have to tell me. First of all, I have a funding portal, so you know what that means, right?

Sandy Wiggins: Yes, right.

Eve Picker: Secondly, I was the first loft developer in downtown Pittsburgh, at a time where, literally, a banker I went to said to me, “Aww, honey, no one’s gonna live there …”

Sandy Wiggins: Right. Yep.

Eve Picker: Yeah, it requires … It’s a lot of work, but it’s also a lot of fun making something change for the better.

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah, absolutely.

Eve Picker: Do you see any particular community engagement tools that could help, or have worked, or work well?

Sandy Wiggins: Another great question. What I’ve come to believe is that the most valuable asset that you have with any capital project is the attention of a large community of stakeholders around that project.

Sandy Wiggins: Whenever there’s development, whether it’s a single home, or a whole neighborhood, or a downtown high-rise building, there are lots of people who are interested in what’s going on. Many of them might be NIMBYs, but that attention is incredibly valuable. Using processes that take advantage of that attention to educate, and enroll, and build consensus about what’s going to happen is critically important.

Sandy Wiggins: Most of the projects that I get involved with, we use something called a dynamic-planning process, where we are really inviting all those stakeholders’ voices into the design, and development, including the people that are the alligators – the ones that want to come up, and kind of bite you in the backside – because their voices are important. You need to hear them, and understand them.

Sandy Wiggins: What I’ve found, consistently, is if they are treated with respect, and invited in, and heard, and you really spend the time to understand what’s driving their concern, or issue, that almost always, you can find a way to turn those alligators into advocates.

Eve Picker: That requires a lot of patience, I think.

Sandy Wiggins: It does, yep.

Eve Picker: What are you working on, today? What’s your project of the moment?

Sandy Wiggins: At the moment, I’ve got a … There’s a cluster of Living Building Challenge projects that I’ve been working on for a number of years, just outside of DC, in Maryland. It’s called the Potomac Watershed Study Center. That’s ongoing. We’re down to the final phase of that project, after almost a decade.

Sandy Wiggins: I am working on a Living Community Challenge project, in Yellow Springs, Ohio, with Antioch College. Again, it’s been many years, but we’ve been through a master-planning process, and if everything goes right, there’ll actually be a pilot phase constructed this year.

Sandy Wiggins: I’m working on some local projects in the DC market that are attempting to be net-zero energy and/or Living Building Challenge projects. Those are the real-estate projects I’m working on. I spend a lot of time working in the mission-investing space, too.

Eve Picker: Yeah, it’s pretty fabulous … I may yet come to you for advice on this little project in Pittsburgh, on how to tackle that idea. I’ve got three sign-off questions for you. What is the key factor that you believe makes a real-estate project impactful, or that makes a real-estate project impactful to you?

Sandy Wiggins: I would say the key factor that makes a real-estate project impactful-

Eve Picker: We’re looking at key factors.

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah, or factors. A number of things come up for me. One, that it really is environmentally responsive, and that is in terms of the kind of environmentally responsive things we talk about with sustainability, energy efficiency, water, things like that – that it’s environmentally responsive to the community that it’s in; that is really additive to the health, and vitality of the community that it’s a part of, and that it has successfully engaged the stakeholders around that project; not just the end users, but everybody is going to be impacted by it in ways that are satisfying, and that are actually building community. Those are the things that rise up for me.

Eve Picker: Okay, that’s a pretty big list, yeah?

Sandy Wiggins: Yes.

Eve Picker: Then, other than by raising money, in what ways can involving investors through crowdfunding benefit the impact real-estate developer?

Sandy Wiggins: Well, again, what comes up for me is this idea of attention. When an investor is investing in a true crowdfunding, in a project that they can see, touch, feel … It’s something that’s in their community, or a community that’s part of their universe, there’s an opportunity to build relationship for deep engagement, for education. That’s what comes up for me there.

Eve Picker: Okay. Then, this is a really big one, but how do you think real-estate development in the US can be improved?

Sandy Wiggins: Oh boy.

Eve Picker: I have ideas.

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah.

Eve Picker: There’s really so much bad real-estate development still going on that … I know that’s a really big question, but …

Sandy Wiggins: Yeah. It’s a huge question. It’s such a big question, I’m not sure how to answer it, other than at a very high level, and say it’s not about the money. It’s about giving people better lives.

Sandy Wiggins: If we approach it from that perspective, that’s the improvement that we need that every development project should be about improving the quality of people’s lives. That includes our relationship with the natural world. That’s how it has to be improved-

Eve Picker: I think that’s a great answer. I think maybe it’s a threatening, and overwhelming thought for a lot of people, but the way I like … When things are really big, I like to think about them in chunks.

Eve Picker: It’s not that a building has to solve everything, but it could tackle one or two things. If you’re just going to focus on making sure that the people who live in the building don’t have huge utility bills, that’s a start, right?

Sandy Wiggins: Right.

Eve Picker: It doesn’t have to solve everything. In any case, I really enjoyed talking to you, and I’m sure we’re going to talk again soon, Sandy.

Sandy Wiggins: All right, Eve, thanks.

Eve Picker: Thank you very much.

Sandy Wiggins: Yep. I’ve enjoyed it, too. Take care.

Eve Picker: Okay, goodbye.

Sandy Wiggins: Bye-bye.

Eve Picker: That was Sandy Wiggins. What a great conversation that was. I feel a little diminished beside Sandy’s extraordinary accomplishments. Sandy gave me three great takeaways.

Eve Picker: First, that the real-estate industry was waiting for guidance on environmental impact, evidenced by the speed with which the LEED rating system was adopted. Second, that there are lots of pathways that you can follow to build sustainably today, including LEED, the well-being standard, net-zero, and Passive House Standard. Third, addressing issues of social equity must come next. What did you learn?

Eve Picker: You can read more about Sandy on the show notes page for this podcast, at EvePicker.com. While you’re there, please consider signing up for my newsletter to find out more about how to make money in real estate, while making some change.

Eve Picker: Thank you so much for spending your time with Sandy, and I, today. We’ll talk again soon, but for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Sandy Wiggins

Looking past the bottom line.

July 13, 2019

The worlds of property development and environmental sustainability are becoming inextricably linked.

Historically, developers and environmental advocates were at odds with each other. They fought (and still fight) over hot-button issues like preserving wildlife habitat, pollution and waste, density, and a whole host of other social, environmental, and political concerns that arise when developing land and property.

Despite this historical animosity between the two groups, concerns about ecological and community sustainability, along with government and nonprofit action has led many forward-thinking developers to embrace partnerships with local communities and environmental advocates.

Growing awareness of the environmental footprint of buildings

Public awareness of the multitude of ecological challenges we face as a society has grown substantially over the last decade. The increasing effects of climate change, pollution, and an ever-rising world population have led to a paradigm shift in how developers, real estate professionals, and governments think about sustainable development. With the assistance of nonprofits like the US Green Building Council and the Energy and Environmental Building Association, community-minded developers are changing the way homes get built, and how they impact our environment.

Fostering an holistic approach to development

The economic mindset of most investors is focused on generating maximum profit from every invested dollar, and little else. This approach has failed many of our communities and led to the endless sprawl and cookie-cutter designs that plague so many of our cities, suburbs, and exurbs. Instead of more of the same, a mindset shift towards sustainable development needs to take place not just in the nonprofit and government sectors but also in the private sector.

What is socially responsible real estate investing?

Defining what “socially responsible” development looks like is harder than it seems. When creating sustainable communities, it is essential to focus on aspects other than the built environment. Social systems in local communities are just as crucial for long-term growth and sustainability, and the built environment helps frame how those forces interact with each other. You cannot solve the problems facing communities with a silver bullet- you need to take an overarching view and realize that everything is connected- and act accordingly.

Housing that follows socially responsible principles

Housing models are popping up all over the globe that embrace sustainability and environmental protection. Co-housing is one such model. This style of cooperative housing first emerged in Denmark in the 1960s and soon spread across the continent to reach every corner of Europe. The movement towards co-housing in the United States is still in its infancy, with roughly 300 communities across the country.

These developments eschew the traditional single-family home model, where every house stands as an island. Instead, co-housing residents live together and share communal responsibilities. Often, there are shared common spaces like kitchens, recreation areas, outdoor spaces and more. These communities often have bottom level shops and restaurants, which are run exclusively by residents. This helps to foster a sense of togetherness and also keeps capital within the community.

The adoption of this model of housing solves many of the problems that plague modern cities. Housing affordability is a significant challenge, and densely-built and shared spaces help drive down the cost per square foot of both rentals and owner-occupied homes. Environmentally, patronizing local businesses and reducing the need for cars is a big help. This has a follow-through effect of reducing car travel, and all of the deleterious effects that come along with it.

_

Developers and investors do not need to be at odds with community groups and environmental advocates. By taking a sustainable approach to development, companies can create neighborhoods that are eminently livable and profitable at the same time.

Image from pxhere licensed CC0

Why community capital matters.

July 13, 2019

When discussing why underserved communities tend to stay that way, insufficient access to capital is the elephant in the room. Traditionally, to secure funding for say, a multifamily apartment building, or a new retail shopping center, one would have to go through conventional lenders, private equity firms, venture capital groups, or independent angel investors.

What all of these groups have in common is their desire to maximize profits, and the fact that they have little to no market incentives to fund sustainable, community-oriented development projects. To get a project off the ground, you need to find a well-moneyed backer to believe in your vision.

This system works well for raising capital for tech firms like Uber and Doordash, but not so well for independent investors who want to help build neighborhoods and communities. Luckily, there is a solution for every problem, and one way that investors and community groups are changing the game is through the use of community capital.

The rich get richer?

When you look at finance as a whole, the best investment opportunities are always available to people who are already wealthy. People who already have the “luxury” of being wealthy can leverage their connections and resources to grow wealth rapidly, while people on the lower end of the totem pole are stuck investing in publicly traded stocks, where companies have already gone through their meteoric growth periods.

Essentially you have a dichotomy where wealthy investors get the best, high-margin/high-return investment opportunities, and the rest of us are left with the scraps- low-return investment opportunities. And so the rich get richer, and the rest of us can barely beat inflation. This isn’t just a theory- the wealth gap in the United States is the highest it’s been since the Roaring ’20s.

Unless we collectively take steps to restore the balance between the wealthy and the rest of us, our cities and communities will continue to suffer from underfunding, crumbling infrastructure, and all of the other social blights that accompany a profoundly unequal system.

Crowdfunding and community capital as a solution

Wealth inequality and neighborhood decay are complex problems and will require a basket of solutions to solve. To create a path towards a more equitable society we need to ensure that everyone can invest. Instead of allowing the upper crust to dominate the investing landscape, lucrative investment opportunities should be opened to those who have been traditionally underserved by capital markets.

So what alternative strategies can we, as investors, use to raise “community capital?” One option is to educate and encourage a broader swath of people to look into real estate crowdfunding as a way to benefit from the economic expansion and to invest directly in their communities. Crowdfunding platforms and direct public offerings can help community leaders and other interested parties to raise development capital without having to go to traditional lenders or venture capitalists.

Crowdfunding + impact investing

Raising money is the hardest part of most projects; doubly so if that project is in an area that traditional investors have overlooked, possibly due to uncertain risk profiles, questions about returns, and all of the other reasons big finance has found to not invest in these areas.

With crowdfunding, we can go “straight to the people” to raise capital, and we have the freedom to develop projects that work best for the community, whether that is a mixed residential/commercial development, micro-homes, low rise apartments, or whatever the community in question needs to get ahead.

_

There is no silver bullet for the multitude of challenges sustainable, community-oriented developers face. With that being said, crowdfunding solves the most significant problem: finding financing. As crowdfunding platforms rise in popularity, it is likely we will continue to see more and more projects that aim to develop a community, instead of just a structure.

Image from Pixabay

Opportunity Zones for everyone.

July 13, 2019

Opportunity Zone funds are a hot topic in the real investment world. These funds appeared as a result of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This legislation included a provision that designated 8,700 census tracts in the United States as Opportunity Zones – areas with less than average direct investment and economic growth.

Investing in these zones offers interested parties a number of tax benefits for both business and real estate investments within the designated Opportunity Zone. These tax benefits are intended to spur investment in those areas, to bring them up to par with national economic growth, or even to exceed the national numbers.

Critics of the program have charged that the legislation only helps the very wealthy since the program allows investors to lessen their tax burden using rolled-over capital gains. If you look at the majority of rolled-over capital gains in the United States, you’ll find that those at the high end of the economic spectrum are the ones who stand to gain the most from Opportunity Zone investments.

How the wealthy use Opportunity Zones to invest

It would not be entirely out of line to assume that Opportunity Zone Funds were set up to benefit wealthy investors. They stand to gain the most from the program, and unfortunately, their priorities are not always in line with the aims of the program- to improve the lives of people who live and work in these areas.

Opportunity Zones are by definition in, or next to, socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Those communities fear that much of the Opportunity Zone investments being planned are in constructing luxury housing which do not necessarily serve the local community’s needs. In fact, it may even force long-time residents out of the area, as their rents and expenses will increase with the completion of new high-end housing and commercial developments.

Early data from the first year of the program, 2018, has shown that home costs have risen by 20% in Opportunity Zones, even when compared to other low-income areas that did not receive the Opportunity Zone designation. What this likely indicates is that gentrification is occurring in these communities, and at least partially driven by wealthy people deploying capital in these areas to receive tax breaks.

A potential solution?

Although the Opportunity Zone provisions were written with ultra-wealthy investors in mind, anybody is potentially eligible to receive Opportunity Zone Fund tax benefits. If you can create an Opportunity Zone Fund that is open for investment by the community, and that accurately represents the voices of the community, you flip the script, and this program becomes a force for good, rather than a detriment.

Community-driven investment through Opportunity Zone Funds

Taking a democratic approach to land usage and community development is possible through the use of an Opportunity Zone Fund with locally minded, neighborhood-oriented investors. A locally funded development, with stakeholders as investors will create the kind of projects, or development, or housing, that the community wants and needs. Additionally, when these funds are profitable, those profits will circulate within that area, since the initial investment capital will have originated in that community.

This isn’t to say that raising capital locally in low-income areas is a walk in the park. As many development projects rely on economies of scale, they often require significant amounts of capital to break ground. It is a challenge to come up with that much capital, but it is not far from impossible. Every community has resources, even if they do fall into the low-income category. Even if 50% of the community is below the federal poverty line, look at it half full- 50% isn’t.

_

Well-meaning government programs like Opportunity Zones can hurt or help local communities. While it may be impossible to stop gentrification and the growing affordability crisis, community-oriented investors can use these same programs to benefit current residents, rather than wealthy elites.

Philadelphia. Image courtesy of Small Change

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

sign up here

APPLY TO BE A PODCAST GUEST

More to See

The Seven

August 29, 2025

Real estate and women.

February 26, 2025

Oculis Domes.

February 25, 2025

FOLLOW

  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Tag Cloud

Affordable housing Climate Community Creative economy Crowdfunding Design Development Environment Equity Finance FinTech Gentrification Impact Investing Mobility Offering Opportunity zones PropTech Technology Visionary Zoning

Footer

©rethinkrealestateforgood.co. The information contained on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this website is intended as investment, legal, tax or accounting strategy or advice, or constitutes an offer to sell, solicit or buy securities.
 
Any projections discussed or made may not be accurate and do not guarantee a specific outcome. All projections or investments are subject to risk due to uncertainty and change, including the risk of loss, and past performance is not indicative of future results. You should make independent decisions and seek independent advice regarding investments or strategies mentioned on this website.

Recent

  • Vacant Upper Floors: Unlocking Downtown Housing
  • Podcast hiatus.
  • Pop City: Changing the Conversation
  • The Mulberry
  • Mount Vernon Plaza

Search

Categories

Climate Community Crowdfunding Development Equity Fintech Investing Mobility Proptech Visionary

 

Copyright © 2026 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in