To start this post, I want to thank Rick Fedrizzi , CEO of the United States Green Building Council. On February 12, I attended a breakfast hosted by Bisnow at which Mr. Fedrizzi was the guest speaker. I really appreciated his speech - he did not ignore the current economic climate but talked about the opportunities that will emerge from the green building industry.
Even more important, at least for me, was the positive tone of his presentation. Right after attending the breakfast, I was scheduled to speak to members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments regarding suretyship. You can see the slideshow presentation I used below. After I left Mr. Fedrizzi's presentation, I thought about how I wanted to sound as positive as he did about the green building industry.
Instead of focusing on problematic language in the D.C. Green Building Act surrounding the use of the word "performance bond" (a type of surety bond), I instead tried to emphasize how the Act could be corrected.
Guess what? It worked. One of the members thanked me for providing a positive presentation instead of harping on the problematic language. Another member told me that I had made learning about suretyship fun (or at least bearable).
So Mr. Fedrizzi, thank you.
But wait, there is a post-script for all of the Green Building Law Update readers. You all have the opportunity to help draft new language for the D.C. Green Building Act. I am seeking input on what enforcement mechanism should be used instead of a "performance bond." I have ideas, but I want to hear what you think.
What do you think? Here are some resources to get started:
- D.C. Green Building Act
- SFAA and SBP Letter Regarding "Performance Bond" Requirement
- Related GBLU "Bond" Posts