I had a dream … it turned into a nightmare.
About a year and a half ago I wrote Designing and Implementing a Deconstruction Ordinance, spelling out the benefits and challenges of deconstruction and building-materials reuse, and pointing out the benefits and problems of devising such ordinances. I emphasized the need for written surveys, photographs of the materials targeted for salvage and reuse (not recycling), and the engagement of expert surveyors knowledgeable in the varieties of materials demanded by the market.
My dream was that sizable, growing, and well managed cities would implement deconstruction ordinances that required residential, commercial and government buildings to be deconstructed, rather than demolished. In order to accomplish this simple, circular, market-based idea, municipalities would provide, at reduced rent, underutilized space to a pre-qualified reuse operator. The materials accepted would 1) be diverted from overburdened landfills, 2) help budget-minded families improve their living conditions, 3) save enough embodied energy to heat and cool an entire neighborhood, and 4) effectuate the city’s climate action plan by reducing the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere.
I recently woke up and discovered that, while several cities are considering such ordinances, there are no plans to assist reuse operators with space requirements. Plus, cities plan to have the material surveys conducted by one of their own surveyors or by an appointed local citizen, and I’m wondering who is going to vet this person to ensure they know what they’re doing?
Here is my nightmare list of things that could go wrong:
• Materials are selected based on the surveyor’s likes and personal taste, not industry expertise.
• It’s vacation time for the surveyor so nothing is accomplished for weeks on end.
• Only dual glazed windows are approved, yet single glazed can be reused as Title 24 permits.
• The surveyor is related in some way to reseller A, so equally qualified resellers B & C are shunned.
• The surveyor recommends deconstruction contractor Z, though contractors W, X and Y are known to salvage more.
• Unqualified appraisers produce wildly inflated valuations intended to earn their clients unwarranted tax-deductions for donated materials.
Ok, I realize that city surveyors would somehow be trained and would probably agree not to make recommendations on reuse facilities, contractors or appraisers, but …
Having a non-practitioner tell building owners what materials are reusable is both a fantasy and an added problem for the homeowner, contractor, receiving organization and appraiser, because the reuse distribution facility will still conduct its own owner survey, adding additional bureaucratic hoops for everyone involved. I also believe there is a high probability of financial risk to the city. Further, the focus should be on accountability – on the weight of diverted materials.
All governments, federal, state and local, plus a myriad of national community groups and businesses track weight diversion. However, reuse is rarely a measure, and when it is there is no accountability for failing to achieve diversion goals. Any organization that declares itself a receiver of reused materials should be required to measure the inbound materials and outbound disposals (recycled or otherwise).
Weight measurements are required for waste haulers, landfills and transfer stations. Why aren’t reuse receivers also required to document the weight of salvaged materials?
If it’s because governments hesitate to overburden reuse companies with additional requirements they should disabuse themselves of that concern. Accountability improves performance. And as Peter Drucker famously stated: “If it can’t be measured it can’t be managed.”
If you wish to receive the paper “Designing and Implementing a Deconstruction Ordinance,” to which this article serves as an addendum, email your request to TedReiff@TheReUsePeople.org.