We are opening staffed branch offices in SF, L.A., NY, and Atlanta. We also hope to soon open offices in Dallas, Chicago, and Miami. This will put us within a short drive and/or flight of everyone in the US. Finally. It's what I've been trying so hard to do for about 12 years. These will take a little time to remodel, equip, staff, license, etc. So we're still many months away, but it's actually happening.
SF: 777 San Bruno Ave E, San Bruno, CA
LA: 13313 S Normandie Ave, Gardena, CA
NY: 454 Meacham Ave, Elmont, NY
Atlanta: 85 W Broad St, Fairburn, GA
New locations
-
jordansparks
- Site Admin
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:59 pm
Re: New locations
I've spent the last few months working on the new locations. I'm going as fast as I can, but I knew it would be a bit slow. One minor problem that I ran into was that there were no ideal properties that exactly matched the parameters I was looking for. I was looking for about 3000 sf in a nice neighborhood with the ability to expand, as well as adequate parking for any expansion, as required by city code. I had to compromise. In Chicago, we ended up with about 10,000 sf and very little parking. Each location required some sort of compromise.
The next issue was a much bigger problem. No city planner had any idea how to classify our use. I also discovered that some cities are very very picky about use. This was unexpected. I've done all my development so far in Salem, where the city planners quickly agreed years ago that we were some sort of light industrial or commercial. Chicago and Dallas planners were similarly agreeable. But the Bay Area was certainly not. Oh my goodness. California is the absolute worst for regulatory environment, with NY not far behind. I can see why businesses move away from California. I spent a few months building a massive data set of the planning code for every single municipality in the Bay Area. I talked with planners in a number of cities. Some were openly hostile to the idea of brain preservation. One planner just flatly stated that we weren't doing any science even though I showed him the front page of our website and pointed out the significant published research. A different city planner said we were doing medical research instead of biological research, so our use wasn't allowed. As another example, SF simply has no zone at all where research is allowed. This is for historical reasons that actually have to do with excluding immigrants. That's why researchers end up in suburbs like Berkeley. In the end, our use was approved in Oakland of all places. That was obviously one of my cities of last resort, but I think it will work. Nobody builds in Oakland because the regulatory environment is intentionally obnoxious. They have many vacant lots with weeds because they intentionally make it too expensive to build on a single lot. The county gets any additional property tax, so the city is highly incentivized to obstruct new development to protect existing residents. They impose high fixed costs and allow environmental reviews that have nothing to do with the environment, but let the city and citizens drag out the process. This creates long timelines that developers normally can't afford to deal with. But that's OK for us. We are obviously on a long term trajectory. Our Oakland property is huge, and with (a lot) of imagination, I can see it looking great in a few years. If you look it up on google maps street view, it's a little shocking. But imagine it surrounded by an 8' black iron fence instead of a graffiti-covered wall. Inside the fence would be nice landscaping.
3000 Market St, Oakland
The next issue was a much bigger problem. No city planner had any idea how to classify our use. I also discovered that some cities are very very picky about use. This was unexpected. I've done all my development so far in Salem, where the city planners quickly agreed years ago that we were some sort of light industrial or commercial. Chicago and Dallas planners were similarly agreeable. But the Bay Area was certainly not. Oh my goodness. California is the absolute worst for regulatory environment, with NY not far behind. I can see why businesses move away from California. I spent a few months building a massive data set of the planning code for every single municipality in the Bay Area. I talked with planners in a number of cities. Some were openly hostile to the idea of brain preservation. One planner just flatly stated that we weren't doing any science even though I showed him the front page of our website and pointed out the significant published research. A different city planner said we were doing medical research instead of biological research, so our use wasn't allowed. As another example, SF simply has no zone at all where research is allowed. This is for historical reasons that actually have to do with excluding immigrants. That's why researchers end up in suburbs like Berkeley. In the end, our use was approved in Oakland of all places. That was obviously one of my cities of last resort, but I think it will work. Nobody builds in Oakland because the regulatory environment is intentionally obnoxious. They have many vacant lots with weeds because they intentionally make it too expensive to build on a single lot. The county gets any additional property tax, so the city is highly incentivized to obstruct new development to protect existing residents. They impose high fixed costs and allow environmental reviews that have nothing to do with the environment, but let the city and citizens drag out the process. This creates long timelines that developers normally can't afford to deal with. But that's OK for us. We are obviously on a long term trajectory. Our Oakland property is huge, and with (a lot) of imagination, I can see it looking great in a few years. If you look it up on google maps street view, it's a little shocking. But imagine it surrounded by an 8' black iron fence instead of a graffiti-covered wall. Inside the fence would be nice landscaping.
3000 Market St, Oakland