How to get clients for an advertising agency well first Let me tell you what not to do the biggest mistakes people make is number one Focusing on the services they provide number two focusing on their hourly rate and billing hourly number three Offering to do anything the client wants Number four not specializing and Number five not consistently doing anything at all to bring in new clients Let's break down how to actually go out there and get new clients When it comes to getting clients you want to dig before the well is dry that means most free lancers Go from feast of famine. So they'll work really hard in getting new clients.  Well number one is you need to specialize Not only in a market, but in a result So I mentioned that a big mistake people make is they pitch their clients and they tell them all about the services That they can provide for them and they do whatever the client wants to do now if you actually want to get clients and charge a lot of money for it and Become well-known in your niche. You have to be the expert. You have to be the trusted advisor Which means you don't ask your clients what they want you tell them What they need based on the problems they're describing to you? So first you have to listen to them You have to figure out their problems and then you have to give them the solution don't ask them for the solution That's what they're paying you for and that brings me back to the other point You don't want to sell them services. You want to sell them solutions results in outcomes So your client doesn't care how many backlinks you're going to use They don't care how many hours it's going to take they don't care about your sophisticated strategy Until you've proven that you can get the results that they want now after you prove This is the solution. Maybe they want to hear about the method, but honestly if you book a trip To Bali to go relax on the beach with your husband or wife. Do you want to hear all about how many legs of the flight? It's going to take do you want to hear all about the airline food and how it's going to take you 40 hours to get there No, and if you're a travel agent tried to sell you the trip By describing those things you would tell them to get lost and your clients going to do the same thing to you So stop talking about yourself Stop talking about what services you're going to provide and focus on providing solutions to problems for a very specific market This is how you become the trusted advisor And this might seem intangible right now. You want to know Christian? How do I actually go out there and get clients for my advertising agency though? Well You're going to use what's called the case study method All you have to do is put together a detailed case study of one of your past successes and Lay out where your client was when you started working with them describe their situation describe how they felt describe what else they had tried and then the After result what happened after they started working with you what results were you able to provide? What beliefs did you break for your clients? What do they believe before they worked with you and after they work with you and what is their life like now? That you've gotten rid of this problem for them and provided a solution So this is the case study method what you want to do is write this up in a short email Send that out to other people in your market and say hey I got this result for this person and your business is very similar to that So I think we could get the same results for you. Are you interested in having a chat about that? So you just want to scrape a big list mail that out to everyone in your market and the people that reply. Yes, you can Help on a phone call talk about the results. They want and then pitch them the solution That's how you get clients now you can take this to other marketing channels You can go on Facebook ads and you can advertise this case study or you can turn it into a full-length webinar Which describes? How you changed your clients lives and then provides proof in the form of a case study Well, what it comes down to is can you provide a solution to the problem and you have proof in the form of a case study? And you can pretty much get unlimited amounts of clients this way Now if you don't have any results for your clients yet, and you're wondering how to get clients There is a method called the springboard method so when I started my agency I went out there and I worked with one trial client for free and they got her amazing results and I asked for a case study a Testimonial on three referrals in exchange now this client immediately turned into three more paying clients and $6,000 worth of revenue that month and then I took that case study and was able to promote it Advertise it use it as proof of concept and go out there and get more and more and more clients and each time you bring On new clients you get those testimonials you get the case studies and then you just literally provide Overwhelming proof to your market that you will get them the results Remember it's not about hours worked. It's not about these services provided. It's about the result You provide overwhelming proof that you can do that and you're never going to have trouble getting clients Now remember you want to have this be a consistent ongoing thing so every single day you want to spend 30 minutes prospecting every single day 30 minutes reaching out to your market with these case studies and That way you're always going to have new clients in the pipeline. You're not going to have to work with people You don't want to work with because you have enough demand for your services and your solutions and You're never going to run out of clients if you want to learn more about how to Get your first case study and results and how to turn that into more and more clients and how to build a scalable Advertising agency and put together a free training for you at Christian Martin dot org backslash free I'm going to break down this whole process and I'm going to simplify this make it really easy for you to go out there I'll show you how to get scripts templates for all of this and it's going to help you go out there and get more clients Go check that out Christian Martin dot org backslash free and I will see you next time


ríaid gyda'r gaelig mwy o'r cystafell honna? Mae'r nghymru yn ddylinnol i'r huil hwn. Dw i, rydw i, gwyllte archiol eich cyfan fe wnaith cymaint i gaelig y gallu cymaint oedd y cyfansiwyr. Roeddaf yn ddim yn cyfiawg. Mor iawn ar y lliwbeth am yr edrych yn cyfansiwyr. Roeddaf yn cyfansiwyr edrych yn cyfansiwyr y ddybataeth i 11697 yn rysgol Martin Ruskell i'r cyiyn. caseg. Gwethaf i chi i gaf i hanfodder yn eich mynd i'r dwylo i'r ddiogel i'r ddarllen a完 i'r dwylo i'r confirm . Mwyaf i chi yn ddiogel i'r dwylo i'r dwylo i'r ddylo i'r pardon i'r dddiogel i'r ddiogel i'r dwiwl. Ieiddo i chi gael i'r ddwylo i'r ddylch chi i chi i ei ddw i fod o phnod ysgrifennu mewn i'r ddaf. yw oedden nhw'n ysgolwydd yn y cwmwysgol i'r ddigon i'r gweithio ar Ymwys Moran Pettwchemul ysgolwyd. Felly, ysgolwydd yn ysgolwydd yn ysgolwydd yn 2016, oedden nhw'n ffocwsio'r llwyso fwyaf o'u gweithio ar y rheswm bwysig, os ymddangos, am ychydig cymdeithio'r cyfrifolau. Felly, mae'n gweithio'r ffordd i'r wneud i'r risg safi, oedden nhw, a'r ffordd o'u meddwl â'r iawn i'r cyfrifolau aethau. constituency MSP. Y mai gael i gaeliant mewn cyfnodol yn Practice Oil and Gas, yll wraith gyfnodau a'r gwybod yn gallu gystafol ganלusio o bach ei ddechrau. Yle ddweud yn ffosllol rysg ymddill ariningo, ac mae kefydig i wneud ymddill gweld maes y cyfnodol o ffordd a sg mirrors wrth yr ysgol a'r ddiolch yn gydag a ffoddi'r perysg bach, rydych chi'n gweld bod hynny, a oedden nhw cael cael gwneud â'r gyferwadgyrchu yn cael ei rhan o'r cyfrwadau in both renewables and industrial decarbonisation. Now, as UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated, we need climate action on all fronts, everything everywhere, all at once. We don't have the luxury of focusing on just one region or just one industrial site. Workers across Scotland, including at Mossmorran, deserve the assurance that their jobs too will be safeguarded in our transition to net zero. So any credible plan for industrial decarbonisation in Scotland must tackle emissions at Mossmorran. The two plants directly employ approximately 250 workers, and many other workers are employed on a short-term basis from other parts of Scotland and overseas. The UK Climate Change Committee reported that the industry is the second highest-emitting sector in Scotland, with Mossmorran's site operated by Shell and ExxonMobil being responsible for nearly 10 per cent of Scotland's total climate change emissions. Now, in 2022, I commissioned the group Transition Economics to produce a report on Mossmorran, which looked at decarbonisation pathways for the site. These included carbon capture and storage, blue hydrogen and bi-ethanol, and all decarbonisation options had risks and trade-offs. But it was clear that a fairer greener future was possible for Mossmorran, its workers and the local community. The report concluded that planning the net-zero future of the site needs to begin as quickly as possible, with operators, workers, unions and governments all brought together around the table. So, in October last year, I organised a summit facilitated by Dr Dario Shepovalova, who is the coordinator of the Just Transition Lab at Aberdeen University. That summit brought together workers, unions, NGOs and the Just Transition Commissioners to gather in Lochgelley to start the conversation. I wanted to understand what their priorities were for that Just Transition plan at Mossmorran. All the participants called for a meaningful transition for the site that is first and foremost led by workers and properly funded by both industry and government. They cautioned against Just Transition being used as an empty slogan and warned us of what might happen if there is a further delay to real, tangible actions. The workers and unions highlighted the urgency of engaging with operators to collaborate on the development and the delivery of a plan for the site. Now, the operator of the Mossmorran plant Shell and Exxon are amongst the world's largest oil and gas operators, reporting profits in the billions just last month. But we've not yet seen the level of commitment needed by the operators to make a genuine transition at Mossmorran happen. Now, the operators have signed up to the Acorn Carbon Capture and Storage cluster and we're waiting for progress on the bid in track two that could allow Grangemouth and Mossmorran to feed in. Now, questions remain about the effectiveness of CCS, but if this project can meet the highest standards for capture, then it could provide a major part of the decarbonisation pathway. But in a meeting that I held with both operators shortly after that first summit, it was clear that there is a lack of communication between them and the workforce on these matters. Where does Mossmorran sit in their global portfolio of sites awaiting CCS and other investments? What opportunities would there be for the workforce around skills development or retraining under such a plan? So many questions remain unanswered and the operators still need to convince the workforce and the community that decarbonisation will actually happen. Now, just this week, Exxon's chief executive blamed the public for the failure to tackle the climate emergency, claiming Exxon and other oil and gas giants, I quote, have opportunities to make fuels with lower carbon in it, but people aren't willing to spend the money to do that. But it's painfully obvious to me that it's those who make the mega profits of oil and gas who are unwilling to spend enough of this profit on the transition that they have to make to a greener future. Now, we had plans to host the second summit tomorrow, which would welcome all the participants from our initial summit as well as the site operators, five council national governments. But despite the welcome interest from the minister and government officials to attend the summit, the site operators, Exxon and Shell, have declined our invitation. Now, their decision not to come to the table is disappointing. How can we have faith that private companies will invest in a just transition that we so desperately need if they fail to do the bare minimum and join the conversation? What we've seen recently at Grangemouth should be enough of a warning to us all. We can't just sit in our hands. The future of Mossmorran cannot be decided behind closed doors. It needs to be planned early and it needs to be planned openly. And earlier this week, we agreed that we will keep going ahead with another summit later this year. We'll keep working with Unite, JMB, Just Transition Commissioners and the STUC to ensure that everyone is around the table.  The government's transition work at Grangemouth has been welcome, but it must be accelerated to other sites across Scotland where emissions are vast, where the single steps towards a net zero, the biggest single steps towards a net zero must be made. We have no time to waste. It is our duty to map out the alternative future for sites like Mossmorran and we must do so in a fair and just manner that leaves no workers and local communities behind. Inaction is not an option. I will continue to take this duty seriously. And I hope that many joining me in this chamber today will do the same. Thank you, Mr Ruskell. I now call David Torrance to be followed by Douglas Lumsden. Mr Torrance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Mark Ruskell for bringing this motion to the chamber today to discuss an issue that is paramount importance to our country, our environment and our future. Mossmorran petrochemical site is a significant contributor to Scotland's industrial emissions, accounting for nearly 10 per cent of our national total. This figure is just not a statistic. It is a call for urgent action and our journey towards a sustainable and resilient Scotland. The Paris agreement aims to limit global temperatures increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius and well above only 2 degrees Celsius. It is merely an international obligation to a moral imperative for Scotland to meet these ambitious goals, rapid and sustained reductions in emissions across all sectors, including the industry, are non-negotiable. As the second highest emitter sector in our country, industry sector transformation is not just necessary, it is inevitable. At the heart of the transformation is a Mossmorran site, located just outside my constituency. The site embodies both our industrial strengths and our environmental challenges. The path forward is clear. We must identify a decarbonised pathway for Mossmorran, one that develops, collaborates with operators, workers, unions and local and national government. This pathway is just not about reducing emissions. It is about setting a precedent of how industry in Scotland adapts to realities of climate emergency. The concept of just transition is central to its discussion. It is a principle that ensures the shift towards a low-carbon economy that is fair, inclusive and leaves no one behind. For the workers at Mossmorran and indeed across Fife and Scotland's industrial sector, this transition is not just a challenge but an opportunity, an opportunity to sustain jobs for innovation and for a healthier environment and communities. The Mossmorran site, with its 250 direct employees and many more engaged through short-term maintenance contracts, stand as a microsism of a border of challenges facing our industrial workforce in the face of decarbonisation. These workers are not just mere cogs in the industrial machine. We are skilled, dedicated individuals whose knowledge and expertise are invaluable assets to our journey towards net zero. This is why I very much welcome announcement that the Scottish Government will be boosting the just transition fund by an extra £25 million to ensure a fair and just transition for the energy sector. As many will know, my constituents in Cercodi and surrounding areas in Fife have seen great industrial, economic and societal changes over the last century. The history of this area is deeply interwoven with the coal mining industry and for better or worse, we are familiar with the challenges and the inevitable arises which changes on the energy landscape. The legacy of the closure of the mines in Cercodi in Scotland is very well known and it is just not an economic blow. It is a cultural, a social one. It left behind the legacy of unemployment, social challenges and a community grappling with its identity and future. Therefore, the process of transition must mourn and indeed all Scotland's industrial sites to low-carbon operations must be led by those who know it best, the workers themselves. A worker-led transition is the only way to ensure that the move to green jobs is done in a way that respects the dignity, expertise and the needs of our workforce. That transition will not be easy. It requires substantial investment, not just in technology in people. As a former mechanical engineer in the oil and gas industry, I am acro-aware of the importance of training and reskilling programmes which must be at the heart of our just transition strategy, ensuring that Scotland's workforce is ready to meet the demands of a low-carbon economy. Additionally, we must ensure that there's new green jobs are secured, well-paid and accessible to all, particularly those currently employed in high-emission industries. The role of car collaborate in this process cannot be overstated. The decarbonisation of Mossmorran and the industrial sector more broadly must be a joint effort between government, industry, workers and the community. Each stakeholder brings unique insights and resources to the table, making our collective actions stronger and more effective. It is also crucial to remember the communities living in the shadow of Mossmorran. Fife with its rich history and vibrant community finds itself at the forefront of Scotland's journey towards a greener future. Any transition plans must include measures to protect these communities from environmental and health impacts, ensuring that they do benefit from Scotland's green transformation. In conclusion, the journey towards net zero, Scotland by 2045, is filled with challenges, but also unparalled opportunities. The decarbonisation of Mossmorran represents a crucial step in that journey, serving as a blueprint for how we can transform Scotland's industry and landscape in a way that is sustainable, equitable and just. Thank you, Mr Torrance. I call Douglas Lumson to be followed by Amit Riley. Mr Lumson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I first thank Mark Ruskell for bringing this member's debate today? I think it's important that we have this debate because, as we've seen from the announcement that was made on Grangemouth, these facilities are not going to be around forever. The planning process for what next, for the workforce and for the local area needs to be taken place now. So, in theory, we can have a smooth transition from one industry to the next. Can I start by thanking the workforce of Mossmorran? The plant plays a key role in delivering on the existing UK energy needs. With 80 per cent of UK homes still relying on natural gas to keep them warm. Of course, it's not just heating, Presiding Officer. The work at Mossmorran goes towards the production of tyres, deodorants, cooking fuel, car windscreens, fuel packaging, detergents and anaesthetic for medical procedures. So, we have much to be thankful for. And it's these facts that demonstrate why sites like Mossmorran in our oil and gas industry are so incredibly important. But it's not just about the production of vital goods, but the highly skilled, well-paid jobs that contribute to local economies. Presiding Officer, I think everyone in the chamber agrees that we need to stop burning fossil fuels and that will take time. I think that where we sometimes disagree is how we get there. Mr O'Ruskill takes a hard stance against any new licences in the North Sea, actually a position shared by Labour and the SNP, but I feel that while there's still a demand, we should directly focus on reducing that demand. But also that our consumption of oil and gas products is done in a way that causes least harm to the environment. And that's why I think it's as important to note the work Shell especially has done to decarbonise the yard, but I'm sure they can go further. It will always be a large consumer of energy and emissions, so the more the yard can do to reduce those emissions, will impact significantly Scotland's overall emissions. So Mark Ruskell makes a good point about bringing all the players together to develop a decarbonisation pathway. I personally haven't been to Ms Mordden, but I have been to meet Petrie Ineos at Grangemouth and I was impressed by how much work they were doing in decarbonisation. A huge programme and a huge investment to match maybe Ms Mordden has the same, if so then, great, but then maybe those plans should be shared more widely. So it's strange that Shell and Exxon are not engaging in the process that Mark Ruskell set out. Mr Ruskell is also right to highlight the contract of workforce in his motion. I think too often it's only the direct workforce that is taken into account when planning for a site's future, but we need to consider the wider economic impact of a facility. That goes even further than the contractors. It's those indirectly related jobs in nearby communities. Taxi drivers, hairdressers, bartenders, teachers have to be taken into account when we look at a transition to make sure that no one is left behind. A Unite survey of workers in Grangemouth showed that only 3 per cent of the workers expressed confidence in this Government's just transition plans for oil and gas workers, so there is clearly more that can be done. It will be good to hear from the minister what discussions the Government has had with Shell and Exxon mobile on the future of these facilities. In the case of Grangemouth, it appears that the Government were warned what was coming from Petru Ineos, but failed to get ahead of the game and start the planning process for the workforce earlier. In conclusion, I agree with Mark Ruskell that the future planning of the future of Mossmorran and the community that depend on it must start now. I hope that that can be done in a cross-party consensus way with everyone at the table. I think that we owe it to the community and workers of Mossmorran to ensure a safe economic future. I look forward to hearing from the Government what progress has been made to date. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Lumson, and I now call Alec Riley. Mr Riley. Presiding Officer, I would also congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing this debate today. Ultimately, I believe today's debate should focus less on the specific site of Mossmorran and more on our Scotland and indeed UK-wide approach to decarbonisation and the just transition. Because put simply, we will not achieve the just transition that Scotland needs if we continue to approach this issue on a case-by-case site specific basis without greater effort to take in the big picture. Policy without strategy will lead only to failure. I am afraid that policy without strategy and without action seems to be often the order of the day. What is clear is that if we are to meet our climate targets and in Scotland we need both the Scottish and UK Governments to work together with a joint focus, a joined-up strategy and with clarity and consistency that will secure the investment needed to reach those goals. I also believe there needs to be further clarity on what is meant by a just transition. From the discussions I've had with trade unions and employers, whether that be oil and gas or in the renewable sectors, the greatest challenge they tell me that they face right now is the massive shortage of skilled labour across all these sectors. Only this week I was in Methil where they are hoping to do a lot of work that will come or should come from the renewable sector. Skills and being able to get skilled labour is a massive issue for them.  De-carbonisation and just transition is not being met with much resistance, it seems to me, by many of the companies that I have spoken to. But they are clear that they rely on government to make the just transition happen, whether that's Scottish or UK governments. And where there is resistance, I strongly believe at stems from the concerns that the Scottish and UK governments are not driving the progress necessary to make the just transition feasible despite paying a lot of lip service to the green credentials that they both espouse to. I regularly speak with businesses and trade unions who are involved in the sectors that are crucial to the just transition unless we move away from the current piecemeal approach where bits of policy take the place of long-term strategy and give this the attention and the resources that it demands. Businesses cannot plan for the future. The just transition partnership summarised the issues clearly. Yes, Mark Ruskell. I thank Alec Rowley for giving way and I certainly don't disagree with his argument that we need an industrial strategy that binds the two governments working in Scotland together and works with industry. But would he not accept, though, that for Mossmorran, for that ethylene production site, we do actually need a plan. We do need a plan that decarbonises that particular site as well as a wider industrial strategy that includes Scotland. That has to come from the workers. It has to come from those who have spent their careers operating that site. They understand it intricately. They know what the skills are that are going to be required to fit that transition. They know what the technical solutions might be as well. Alec Rowley, I agree with you. Interestingly, the workers that I have spoken to are really frightened off because if you look at the age range within much of those workforces in the sector, what they are frightened off is that they are going to retire and the skills are going to go with them. What they want is they want to see a clear industrial strategy that will give young people the opportunities to get those skills and take those skills forward. The skills agenda and the industrial strategy for me are absolutely key to that. There has to then be certainty from both the Scottish and UK Government in terms of what investment is going to go in and I will come on to this in terms of your own paper where you set out some of the solutions that could be there. The Government should not start from the assumption that a just transition is just going to happen one way or another. There is much more work that needs to be done before we can start to look at the site-specific plans to do little more than shift responsibility for achieving a just transition away from Government that has to play its part if we are going to succeed. For example, carbon capture and storage in hydrogen as an energy source have not been deployed at a swift enough place and those are two elements that are instrumental, it seems to me, in the report that Mark Ruskell commissioned. Companies across the UK are battling over a smaller pool of skilled labour that would be needed to be in place if we were going to make this just transition actually happen. Then there are the contradictions that ultimately arise when there is no unifying strategy to rely on. Ministers, for example, are currently considering an application for a new gas plant at Peterhead that seems to fly in the face of anything that the Scottish Government has said on achieving net zero by 2045 and was described at the end of last year as a climate disaster. So how does this proposal fit into the just transition that we all say we desire? I am deeply passionate about this issue, Presiding Officer. I do want to avoid a climate disaster so I do believe that we have to take action. For me, if I conclude by saying that if we are serious about achieving our climate goals it is crucial that this Government working with the UK Government gives the subject the time and the attention and the clarity that is needed. Thank you, Mr Raleigh. I now call on Minister Julian Martin to respond to the debate up to seven minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer. I want to thank, as everyone has, by starting by thanking Mark Ruskell for bringing this debate to the chamber today. To him for the insightful and encouraging discussion on musmon industrial site. Not just from Mark Ruskell and the work that he's done on this over the years as he outlined but from all members who have spoken today. I wish that we could have this kind of debate more often where I'm actually finding it very difficult to disagree with anything that anyone has said. I think that we've got a shared goal and I think that the just transition of our industries, our high-carbon industries in Scotland needs that political consensus. It needs us to all get our shoulder behind the wheel in having a shared vision on what we want to achieve because the economic opportunities that are out there for Scotland are vast. The economic peril is also there if we don't do that. I'm very pleased with how this debate has gone and I hope that that continues into other discussions around this. It's indeed critical to secure a truly just transition from musmon and working with all the relevant stakeholders to work on that. Everyone has to be in the room. Mark Ruskell is absolutely right. Members are more than familiar with the important role that the musmon on site plays in contributing to the local economy. Douglass-Wamson mentioned that he's never been there. I'm going there at the end of the middle of this month but I have been there in my previous role before politics when I was helping Shell to make some safety videos. So I've been at musmon and working before and I'm aware of how central it is to the local economy. I think that there was a very good point made by Douglass-Wamson about the wider economic impact. It's not just the workers that are there, it's the workers that I pay tribute to but it's the wider community as well and that's a just transition. It's never just about one site, it's about the impact on the wider community. I think that someone mentioned that the musmon has a critical role to play in the Scottish cluster and the CCUS but there are other potential activities that can transition the plant and I am keen to discuss them in detail when I go and meet with ExxonMobile and Shell at the most modern plant later this month. We are committed as a Government to achieving a just transition to net zero emissions by 2045. Members will know that only very recently I was given responsibility for just transition as well as energy and fair work. I was absolutely delighted to see all those things coming together because as energy ministers since March last year just transition has been inextricable from my portfolio there and the fact that they've come together. I'm passionate about that too. I come from the north-east where there has to be a just transition and I recognise that other members across Scotland have got key sites and sectors, high-carbon sectors, that need similar attention to North Sea oil and gas in this respect. I recognise that musmon is responsible for 8.4 per cent of Scotland's industrial emissions and so we have to look at how the emissions are reduced of the plant as operating right now and I think that there's a great deal of work and investment been done on that already. We also have to look into the future. There is less demand for plastic for example. There's less demand for plastic packaging. That is driven by consumers. That will have a knock-on effect on new operations for musmon as well. I imagine that Alec Rowley when he was talking about being a methyl in the Harland and Wolff, I believe, in fact I know that because he told me. I'm not that psychic. A really interesting situation in Harland and Wolff where they are poised ready to make the jackets for turbines out in the North Sea and they actually do a tremendous amount of work in the, they've got a tremendous amount of apprentices working with them but I pay tribute as well for the work of Forth Valley College and Fife College in up-skilling the young workforce and I think it's absolutely right that we utilise the skills and experience of the existing workforce in all our high emitting industrial sites to help up-skill young people when they come in. Yes, I will. David Torris. Thank you minister for taking the intervention. Each 100 in my constituency is a great example of hydrogen and how it's going to be used for heating our homes which is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The partnership between Fife College and Scottish Gas in training the new generation of engineers on hydrogen is that not a great example that should be replicated across Scotland? Minister. Yeah, I thank David Torris for that intervention. I visited each 100 in summer of last year and I think it's a tremendously exciting project. I think that they are really working well with the local community in metal as well. I know that they've had the amount of subscribers to be a part of the project that they hoped for. It's an example of a company working in a community not just to facilitate a just transition but to have the benefits of that transition spread amongst the community. I thank David Torris for mentioning that project. David Torris also pointed to the importance of reducing emissions from our industries but he points to the opportunities. We cannot ignore these opportunities. That's what just transition is about. It sometimes can be talked about in negative terms. I think we've really got to start talking about in positive terms. Everything is there for the taking and that's why both UK Government and Scottish Government have to work together and have to put investment where it's needed. I want to point to some of the investment that we... Today, the Scottish Industrial Energy Transformation Fund offers match funding for targeted projects. To date, 16 million has been offered as grants as part of a £43 million investment across 27 projects. There's more to be done as well. I've got £500 million of just transition money for the North East but we also have to be looking at what we can be doing to spread the learning of what's happening in the North East beyond other sites. I'll take you in just a second. I also want to mention that we need clarity on when the CCUS Scottish cluster project is going to be given the status that is required for people to make these decisions and investment as well. On that note, I'll bring in Douglas Lamston. I thank the minister for taking me into mention. The minister had mentioned the £500 million just transition fund for the North East which is good for a North East MSP. Other people watching this might think, what about my area? What about this morning? What can the Government do to help other areas not just in the North East? Minister. There's a great deal of... The green industrial strategy is going to be rolled out in the summer of this year which will actually address that point as well because we have to recognise it's not just the North East that has opportunities, yes, but faces some difficulties if we don't get just transition for oil and gas workers right. Off the back, when we talk about that wider community, the oil and gas workers in the North East are also the oil and gas workers, are linked to the petrochemical workers in Grangemouth and the most modern as well. They're all part of the same sector so we have to make sure that we actually include them as well. Grangemouth has been mentioned and I want to come on to that in particular. We're currently working with partners across the Grangemouth Future Industry Board to develop a just transition plan for the industrial cluster located there. I want to explain why we are prioritising that in the moment because Grangemouth has a significantly larger cluster and home to multiple industrial operators, a larger support, significant links to the transport sector, and also some decisions are being made as we all know about the future of the refinery there. They will be learning in that process for most modern. We are obviously prioritising Grangemouth at the moment but that doesn't mean to say that we are not looking at what's happening in what most modern. That's part of the reason for my visit there and I am very interested to hear what plans the operators have for the plan particularly in low-carbon technologies. I'm very interested in what they might be doing in the hydrogen space and very interested from their perspective how they might be contributing to CCUS. Our experience from approach taken and developing the Grangemouth Industrial Just Transition Plan has highlighted the importance of comprehensive engagement planning and creating conditions for co-design to succeed. I want to go back to something that David Torrin said about a transition being worker-led. I agree with that 100 per cent that we cannot do this without the engagement and the buy-in of the workers and their associated unions as well. I've had an early conversation with Ross Foyer from the S2UC about the Just Transition element of my portfolio and how I can work more closely with the unions all the unions working in all those areas and how we might do that effectively. We have been clear that trade union and worker representation in all our Just Transition plans is going to be absolutely critical and this is the approach that we've taken in the Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan. I want to assure Alex Rowley that what he's talked about in terms of a high-level strategic plan will be addressed in the Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan which we hope to... We are going to produce early summer. We are already adopting the approach that we have in the draft plan in the Just Transition Plan for Grangemouth but I just want to come back to before I close to something that was said by Douglas Lums and goes back to my initial point about political consensus. Political consensus on this is what the workers want what the public wants. I think we have to sometimes steal ourselves and stop making so many political points because the workers and the stakeholders are watching what we do. We need to work in partnership with our local authorities the unions the workers both Governments have to work hand in hand and that also means both Governments putting in significant investment as well. I would have liked to have seen the 28 billion pledge remain I am sure that my Labour colleagues in those benches would have as well and I'm not making a political point there I'm just saying that if we have a situation where we have a change in UK Government I would urge colleagues in Scotland to make the point that Scotland has to be central to that green any green investment that comes from a new UK Government but I can see that the Presiding Officer would like me to end it and I will leave it there Thank you very much Thank you Minister and that concludes the debate I suspend this meeting until 2.30pm Thank you


I will start to my left, Catherine Finner. To my right, sorry. Yeah, John Guignard, Davis Whittle, Charar Duvall, and Celia McIntosh on the end. Welcome, y'all. Also, I want to introduce staff that assists us. We have Hope. She's not here today. Erica Hyen. To my right, Deputy Zoning Administrator and Sky Robinson Barnes, the land use board coordinator. The board is charged with hearing applications for special exceptions, variances, and administrative appeals. All testimony is recorded for the record, and anyone wishing to speak will need to be sworn in and come to the podium to speak. No testimony can be taken from the floor, so I guess that's the podium that we'll be speaking from today. When you come to the podium, please state your name and speak clearly into the microphone because this meeting is being recorded. Applicants with cases before the board are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes, and then anybody who's a member of the public is allotted a time of three minutes or five minutes if you're representing an established body of three or more. The applicant then has five minutes for a rebuttal, and that's all the time we're taking. So the board reserves the right to amend these limits on a case-by-case basis. Those of you who plan to speak must be sworn. If you are here as an applicant or are here to speak in any case, please stand at this time and raise your right hand. All right, do y'all affirm or attest that the testimony you will give today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank y'all. At this time, I'm gonna turn it over to Ms. Hyatt. Okay, the first item on the agenda is to review the consent agenda. The only item there is the approval of the July 6, 2023 meeting minutes. It's pretty simple. I wasn't there, so if someone else could do it. Okay, can I make a motion to approve the consent agenda in the minutes? Yeah. Yeah, nothing on the consent agenda. So all right, we have a motion? Second. Second, motion and second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, the motion's approved. Okay, we'll move on to the regular agenda. First case on the regular agenda is the administrative appeal, 2023-0025, 1730 East Buchanan Drive. It's an administrative appeal to the zoning administrator's decision to deny an administrative adjustment to the minimum lot size standard. At this time, I will just give you an overview of the zoning administrator's decision to deny that administrative adjustment. We'll need to speak up. So in May of 2023, the zoning administrator received an application for an administrative adjustment for a potential lot subdivision on East Buchanan Drive. The request was to allow one large lot to be subdivided into two separate lots with lot sizes of 13,064 square feet and the other with 14,232 square feet. Properties owned RSF-1, residential single family large lot district, which does require a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet for all newly created lots. Upon review, the zoning administrator determined that the request did not meet the criteria for an administrative adjustment. Specifically, the administrative adjustment was not consistent with the character of development on surrounding land. GIS data was collected for properties within a 900 foot radius of the property due to the majority of those lots being in the same zoning district, RSF-1 large lot district. Only six out of those 130 had lot sizes below the 15,000 square foot required by the zoning districts. And two of those lots had previously been zoned RSF-2, so they were conforming to that district standards of 8,500 square feet. The zoning administrator determined that the few outlying lots that did not meet the RSF-1 requirements for a lot area should not set a standard for newly created lots in the district. And the zoning administrator respectfully requested that the determination be upheld based on the city of Columbia. Unified development ordinance sections cited above that the lot subdivision does not meet that criteria for administrative adjustment and the facts as presented. And that's the 17-3.2 for the 15,000 square foot minimum lot area and the administrative adjustment decision standards and 17-2.5. Maybe she shuts it off. What's it for? I got some background. Would the applicant like to come to the podium to present their case? Just state your name for the record. Thank you all for having us. My name is Jordan Krabs. This is my wife, Morgan Krabs. We own and live at 1730 East Buchanan. And as mentioned, we're here to discuss the denial of our administrative adjustment request to split our lot at 1730 East Buchanan. That is our home. We live there. We're not developers or anything of that sort. We're looking to split the lot so that we can build a home behind our house. If you can turn to the second page as you are all probably aware, this is the standard for the review today. The zoning administrator made an error in determining whether the standard was met and an error in judgment occurred. We believe that an error did occur in reviewing the denial and preparing for this hearing today. We really do strongly believe that the standards were standard to attain the adjustment was met and we look forward to talking with you all about that today. So the next slide is the communication we received that was read to you guys a few minutes ago. The zoning administrator relied on section R4, a subsection R4, which determined that the adjustment would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. We feel the exact opposite. We actually feel the adjustment would enhance the character of the neighborhood. And we hope to show you guys that today. So the first thing we'd like to note is that the zoning administrator argued that the few outlying lots that did not meet the size requirement should not set the standard for newly created lots in the district. Setting a new standard for these lots in the district was never our intent with requesting an administrative adjustment. In fact, when you look at the definition of the purpose of an administrative adjustment, the purpose is to approve minor deviations from the standard that was set forth in the ordinance. And so we believe that the administrative adjustment process is to provide relief to people like us who are looking for a deviation from the standards that are existing in the ordinance. If we were looking to set a new standard for the development in the neighborhood, we would look to change the ordinance. Instead, we're trying to use the relief that's given to us through this administrative adjustment process to request a very slight deviation from those standards. Under this logic of setting a new standard with this type of adjustment, no adjustment would ever be approved. The purpose of the adjustment is for deviations. And so we see her logic as being flawed in the way that she applied the knowledge of the administrative adjustment and denied our request for this adjustment. So the next slide is just sort of an outline of some additional areas where we believe that an error occurred in the judgment for this appeal. Our request is compliant with the administrative adjustment allowance. And it's not only highly consistent with the character of the surrounding land and the neighborhood as a whole, but in fact, as Jordan mentioned, we believe that it will actually enhance the character of the neighborhood. The request that we've made is consistent with the allowance that the zoning administrator is allowed to make under the administrative approval process. The zoning administrator has the ability to give a deviation of up to 20% in the lot size area when requesting an administrative approval. Our request is only 12.9% and 5.1% deviation. And so we're well within her ability to create this adjustment for our zoning split. So you've turned to this page here. Page seven. Page seven. This is just a GIS image of the property as it sits now. Obviously that blue dot is our house currently which faces East Buchanan, but the property is bordered on one side by a split lot, a lot similar to our size that's already been split. And on the other three sides it is bordered by a road. So flip into the next page. That is the proposed plat that we submitted for the split. As you can tell that the new parcels that we are intending to create are gonna be very similar in orientation and in size to the property next door. And that new house and the house we're leaving behind will perfectly tie into the existing adjoining lots. And with negligible lot size that certainly wouldn't be visible to anyone walking down the street. I'm moving on to the next page. Our property is about a block away from some RS2 zoning which obviously has smaller lot size requirements. And so anyone coming through the neighborhood, the lot split would really be seamless for anyone driving through there. There would not be a noticeable difference as you go through the neighborhood. I think this map that's shown on the screen is actually different than what's shown on the city's GIS. So actually these blocks right here, if you go back. I can try them. Or zoom into RS2, yeah. So these are, you can see that these are much smaller. So this is RS2 zoning starting right here. That's perfect. And so if you go to the next slide, we like to note that there are other non-conforming lots in the neighborhood. The zoning administrator used a 900 foot radius which is shown on our slide there. And it seems either intended to or certainly has the effect of missing some other non-conforming lots that are just outside of that radius. There are five non-conforming properties on Parkman itself. This street here, these lots here are non-conforming. And also this lot here on East Buchanan is non-conforming which was created actually a few years ago when this lot here was split into three parcels. So we also didn't note in our slide that the property immediately adjacent to ours has already been split. We think it's a hair under the 15,000 but we didn't note it just to be on the safe side. Moving on to the next slide in our presentation this year. This is how nearly everyone in the neighborhood sees the lot as it sits now. It appears vacant and has some old utility boxes that we hope and attend to move. And so while we're here to discuss a variance in lot size, we do not think a lot size is determinant of character of the neighborhood. The lot is the only corner lot in the neighborhood that's empty. It attracts trash from people driving down the road that we have to pick up on a daily or weekly basis. We think splitting the lot is actually going to improve the character of the neighborhood that's going to fit in perfectly. And we'll be replacing this view that you see before you with what we hope to be a nice new home. And so ultimately we think that by splitting hairs and denying the adjustment, we're really detracting from the character of the neighborhood which is as noted earlier a family home neighborhood. And we're certainly not enhancing it but denying the adjustment. The reason why we're trying to split the lot as we've mentioned previously is to build a new home for our family. We moved into our house about six years ago prior to COVID, prior to having children. And for the past year or two, we've been looking at larger homes and have had absolutely no luck. This is because right now in Columbia, there are inadequate housing options. We have so many friends and colleagues and people that we know who are in the same boat as us who are looking at trying to find larger houses, trying to find new houses with more room and are just not having any luck. There are not enough houses right now in the Columbia market. This has been evidenced through many studies, through conversations with real estate brokers. Many houses are selling before they ever even hit the market. We've run into that time and time again only to be let down over and over. And so we really hope that this will be a great solution for our family. I'll try to get through what is our last slide without crying here. But I recently accepted a job where I work full-time from home. My husband also works from home. We've got a young daughter and we're hoping to grow our family and we just don't feel that we can do that in our current house as we sit today. We're hopeful that not only are we able to get a new home through this zoning split, but also provide an opportunity for another family to move into our current home. And so it would solve our issue and hopefully solve an issue for someone else. And so we hope that you'll recognize what we believe is an error in judgment by the Zoning Administrator and we hope that you'll consider our request. Thank you. Thank you. All right, good presentation. Now we move on to the public. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak in this matter? Okay. Well, actually before I do that, we should have had questions from the board to you guys. So can we get y'all back out there just in case anyone has questions? Sorry. I have a question. Oh, sorry, Catherine then. Have you spoken to your neighbors and what is their opinion on this, on your surrounding immediate neighbors? We've spoken to a few of them. I mean, we think that based on the size house that we would plan to build and then talking with architects and a contractor that we would certainly enhance the value of the homes around us. So I think that our neighbors will be fully supportive. We've got good relationships with our neighbors. But you haven't talked to them. We've talked to a few of them. We haven't talked to all of them. Okay. The ones next door. I'm just kidding. The ones right next door, are there somebody that will be in there? So we've talked to this main one here, the day host. Okay. We have not talked to... This is Mike Ty's house. We haven't talked to him specifically about splitting the lot. This is a rental home. So people kind of turn through there on a yearly basis. Sure. All right. It's a really good presentation by the way. Thank you. It's an important test to be able to do that as you can hopefully tell. Any other questions? Any other questions? Go ahead. Go ahead, sir. Yeah. Did you consider adding on to your current house? I have. So when we purchased our home, I guess it was in 2017, we actually gutted the house and did a full renovation on it at that time.  And so in order to actually expand on our home, we'd have to rip out all of the patio that we put in.  And so some of the most expensive elements of the house that we just renovated, we'd have to basically tear out. So... So we have thought about it. It's actually not our best option. Which lot is the 12.9 and which one is the 5.1? The new lot of the old and polygons. So on the... I don't know from any more. The new lot of the 12.9. The new lot will be 14.2. And I'm sorry, the new lot will be 13. And the old lot will be 14.2. 14 is our house right now. Wait, so the 13 would be smaller. Okay, so what's the deviation from... That's the percentage. So which one is the 12.9 and which one is the 5.1? The 12.9 is the 13. I guess. Okay, I'm sorry. I got to show him. I appreciate it. I understand. There we go. I understand. I understand that. Yeah, so the new lot is the one that is actually deviating more. That would be the larger deviation. The larger deviation. Okay, but still only 12.9. Yes. Yeah, I think it's pretty straightforward. All right, any other questions for the applicant from us? Is the... I can't tell the property line of the new split from this one. I may be just missing it, but is it straight in line with the one with your property next to it? No. So in order to give us much square footage to the new lot... To the 112th foot. ...we did cut it in a little bit. So you can see on the adjoining property that property line comes in. It moves to the eval. It doesn't have a yardage there, but... It's okay, I see what's been... It's not right in line. It's not right in line. This is a utility easement that might be interfering with how much house you can build on the rest of it. Do I understand that bias on the corner? Right. We ought to do some of that. Well, the houses are fenced, and so they've both got, especially Mike Tye has a wooden privacy fence there, and so it would actually... I guess you wouldn't be able to see where that line would be from his house. And so that triangular thing you see there, that is actually a remnant of an old property line. I see, okay. So I don't know when, it's decades ago at this point, but... I see, I see. That triangle piece is actually just an old property. Well, it's a utility pole, so... I do have one question. Like on the new property line, as far as... Have you all thought about fence or vegetation just for a first screening and anything like that? Yes. That's the rear between the new property line. The... In between the two houses? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we would certainly put in a privacy fence in between those two properties. And probably vegetation. And then what we'd be facing the road would just depend on if we can move those utility boxes, whether we need to move those, or if we have to work around them, we'll absolutely adjust as need be. What size house are you looking to put? We talked to an architect, and he'd seen comfortable that we'd be able to build the house we wanted to. Probably 4,000 to 4,500. Okay. With the new house space, Bannock-Bern or Parkman, you know? So when we've been told that once we get this approval, if we get this approval, we would then apply for like a driveway access, and they would kind of tell us, I assume it would be Bannock-Bern, just because that's how the other house sits, but we would have to work with the city on that. Yeah. Yeah, I take it. Yeah, I'm good. All right, cool. Um, thank y'all. Thank you. All right, now do we have anyone from the public that's here then, which is to speak on this matter? Okay. Seeing none, let's, uh, you want to go into board discussion? Yes. Okay. You want us to leave us off? Celia? Sure. Sorry. I'll be, I'll be the bad guy in the room. Um, I'm actually not feeling great about it. It kind of feels like it scrunches the back of what would be their existing house. You know, the parking is sort of tight and having the large lot, so the RSF-1 with the large lot is sort of a unique thing in Columbia. So it's like, you're kind of taking that away from, you know, potentially somebody else. You know, what if, what if somebody wanted a pool? You know, what if, it just seems like there's more options. It seems like a shame to take away this size of a property and to sort of irreparably change what you could do there by taking it and making two smaller ones that are much more constrained. That's kind of what I'm, what I'm struggling with. So I don't know. You know, I'm in the other direction because I'm like, the house next, the houses, the two lots next door are small, small, much, are, are- Small houses. Smaller and have smaller houses. The smaller house thing is the one concern I would have. But I think they're smaller. I think that they're well within the deviation, the 20% deviation. That was, I think, the most compelling story to me is that, you know, I don't know that there was exactly an error in judgment exactly, but I think that certainly it was within hopes of purview to permit this. And I think that from a, from a city perspective, it's really a good idea to, I'd rather see them living here than moving out to, you know, the summit or, or, you know, someplace way far out that's going to just add commuting time and all like that. I mean, I think that, given that they're right next door to a pair of small lots, it's a little bit harder to do that. And plus when you open up the circle and you see that there are plenty of other smaller lots in the area, it's harder to say that they shouldn't be able to do this to me. I guess for me, it was like it's almost, if the lot next to them wasn't split, I would feel better about it because you say, you know, well, it's this unique condition, it's on the end, you know, it's sort of the corner instead of, well, now we have these four lots and, but it looks like if everybody maxes out their footprint, you know, it starts to. Except the, the, the behind them is basically a vacant lot. It looks like a vacant lot because of where the house is, is situated on East Buchanan, the existing house on East Buchanan.  I know, but it would, silly, it's kind of saying is if the housing market were different and they could go find the house they want and move, then somebody bought that because they saw this beautiful huge lot where they could put in a pool. Yeah. Then that is one of the gorgeous things or the benefits of the RSF-1. I can build a cool garage and a pool and like it just, it's a unique property. I do agree that like at first I thought 12 and a half for 12.9% seemed like a lot, but then I realized the allowable deviation is 20 and they're not, they're not even with them. Yeah. Almost half of that. So that clarified. Davis, what do you think, man? I mean, it would be a great lot as it sits now, but I don't know that there's a huge market of people that are going to be coming in and potentially say, oh, that's a great lot. Let's just raise everything and start from the ground up. I just don't, if you did that in that neighborhood, it would kind of stand out. Like a sort of, that's true. That the character of the neighborhood is almost lots of that size.  Well, I think that's what you're going to see. I mean, that's what like you're seeing more of is like the add-on, you know, the house next to it becomes more. Right. Yeah. I'm okay being the odd man now. All the infill houses are always taller, but I think that infill is a good is a good thing from a planning perspective. True. It certainly would improve the corner and banning by an apartment. Yes, for sure. Yeah. All right. Well, did you mention anything on it specifically? I don't, I don't really have a lot to add that hadn't already been said. I think the only thing I could probably add is I just don't see enough to not uphold the zoning administrators already. I just don't see enough to turn it over. This is my opinion. So what do you mean by that? I'm like to I mean, to approve what they're trying to do. Right. I mean, ultimately, to approve the administrative bill or you don't see that. Ultimately, basically what I saw right here, right, what I see right here in the comments is one, it's the RSF one requirement. Those RSF one requirements, I think like you already said, are there because all of the lots have the RSF one size in that area? So that's part of what they were, that's part of that particular neighborhood's appeal is those, that particular lot size. Two, in the comments specifically states that some of the lots that aren't those lots were given, were kind of given to pass because of the story happened before these were signed, which is what was here in the staff notes. So I don't even know if that's a yeah, if that even matters. Right. And then, I mean, I understand the housing thing and all of that, but I don't know what that has to do with discerning administrative position. You know what I mean? This is more of a, this isn't so much a personal thing. This is more about the rules applied to this neighborhood with this what you're proposing doesn't say that the rules are wrong. It just says, Hey, we're having trouble buying the house. We want to put a house here. Can't we adjust the rule for us? It doesn't necessarily say it's not saying enough to me to say these staff comments are wrong. It's just saying these staff comments are right, but we also want to do this. You know, what's the point? But what's the point of an administrative appeal? I mean, I guess they have, there's a process which is allows for an administrative adjustment allowance. And there, it's clearly well within the that allowance of 20%. I mean, this is, so I think that they came with what I think is a fairly reasonable request. I mean, it's not, they're not looking for 20%.  But I do think that there, there exists an administrative appeal and it was well within Hope's discretion to grant that administrative appeal, but she did not. Yeah. I think it's a small enough deviation to where it's definitely reasonable. Yeah, I think so too. What were you gonna say, John? No, I agree with that. I agree with what Charod saying, like taking the other stuff out of and looking at it on a very specific requirement of the neighborhood. I still believe that it's actually within the I think it's okay, because especially that there's three streets on that one property. You know, if it was one street all facing East, or one piece of property all facing East Buchanan, that's like even more to me, like less likely to subdivide it, but the fact that there's three streets and now we're gonna have two frontages. Two streets on two different lots, like looking at it just from a perspective and if you increase this 900 foot radius to 1200 foot radius, you got even more consideration of smaller lots, I think that there is the opportunity to yeah, to consider allowing the subdivision. I agree. Yeah, that's my yeah. I move that we approve the appeal of the administrative denial. Yeah. Okay. And permit the variance or whatever, I guess it's just we, I move that we, I move that we permit the, what am I trying to do here? I move that you approve the administrative appeal. I move that we approve the administrative appeal for the reasons that we specified. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. All right. So do the five to one. All right. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Thank you all. Next case. Thank you for working with the architect. Yeah. All right. So next case is variance request 2023-26. Does it have the case number on it? I think it does. Yeah, that's it. So it's about 26. Would the applicant please come to the podium and state your name?  Oh, y'all. So you're all in the same head. There's no applicant. Applicant is not here. That's where you're on Blackman. Is he possibly up on the third floor? Is there any chance that he's up there? That'd be kind of odd that the applicant is here. That's kind of a good question. That would be a good question. That would be a good question. Please go ahead. Please go ahead. Please go ahead. Please go ahead. Please set up curiosity. Yeah, I don't know we can. Show. Show. What's the time limit on that? John, we can't do that without the applicant. We can defer it. We have a burr. We can defer it. Yeah. We can defer it. We did. We did. We did. We did. Agreed. Yeah. Harder shot. Harder could we move we be heard and see if that gives you sufficient information to roll? I don't think we can. Well, let's just give it a minute. Thanks, please. This is a new one. You don't have you don't have any contact information for John Blackman. Is there something on the did we I don't have the I can't see the the whole thing that was numbers should be in there because he he'd have to somebody actually jump right over there. We can't. Yeah, we can't call today. He would have to yeah. No, no, I'm just wondering if he's happens. If we have any idea of what's going on. I mean, it's just odd. I don't really really hear it partially. I mean, that's just he has to present his case. Yeah. We don't know what the question is, do we default or do we should defer it? I guess it's got to go up soon or something. Yeah. I'm going to go check and we can just wait till she gets back. You know, it's certainly we could make a decision without an afternoon. Right. I don't think we can hear anything. We don't need personally defer or do anything. Right. Well, I think we got two choices. I mean, we either defer or deny because he failed to fail the failure of prosecute, basically. Let's say we're staff for 100 years. I'll respond to his case. We either need to hear his case or just say, sorry, you failed prosecute. If you have an appeal to anything and you don't show up, you lose. I mean, that's easy.  I mean, what's Krista, what's your viewpoint on that? What do we do? I'm gonna show it up to him. Can I just make a skin here? Yeah. You're gonna ditch someone? Yes. No, they don't have to do it. That's right. Okay. That sounds right. This is not right. Is this? This is not right.  I mean, like he said, you've seen it ditched somewhere you don't yeah yeah yeah especially since it's like on when you would feel like in the profession it's not just like a random corner but doesn't my intense before Alright, let's let's join back in here. Alright, so the applicant's not here. I'd like for someone to make a motion to defer it to next month. Okay, motion in second. Second. Alright, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Alright, thank you all for coming. Alright, can I get a motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Alright, so moved. Is that it? Second. Alright, so I moved. I just said so moved at the end there. So moved. Yeah. Oh, any time I order. Yes. We don't have to go through that again. See you all. Do you want to hang on to me? We've already got them.


This is a speech that I'm really, really looking forward to. Man, just to share a story, there's a guy who a lot of you guys are fans of. Eric Von Siedau, Hypnotica. And he said, Steve, you're hosting the 21 convention. You have got to hang out with this guy. And I know him. He's a legend. He's been around way back in the day when we all got those David D'Angelo CDs for $20 a month and a true, true man, awesome guy. And here, let's welcome on to the stage the Brent Smith. Thank you. Man, great to meet you. That's a lot to live up to, actually. I hope I can do it. All right, take it away, man. OK, hello. How are you? Everyone good? OK, I'm super excited to be here today and have this discussion with you. My glasses on here. OK, so today, I'm going to start out by giving you my most important piece of advice. And what I think is the secret to attracting hotter women into your life and having incredibly healthy relationships. And when I was talking to Anthony, I said, what is the most highest leverage concept that you've ever heard from me? And he said, well, by all means, it's this one. Stop chasing women. That's it. And that's all I want to say today. So thank you very much. No, but I could. If you just took this one piece of advice and did nothing else, your life, when it comes to dating women, would be fantastic. Because you'd save a ton of money, a lot of your precious time, a lot of heartache. But I'm going to go in and tell you exactly what I'm talking about. OK, so when you hear me say something like this, stop chasing women.  Why would I want to do that? How does that work? Will women even chase guys? And if I want to get women, how do I? I don't understand. How do I stop chasing them if I'm chasing them? I understand. It can be very confusing. But the reason we're having this conversation is because dating in itself is broken. The whole dating, according procedure, and process that we go through is broken. It hardly works for anyone these days. Even though there are a myriad of experts out there who have books and programs and appear on TV shows and are telling us all how to do it the right way, what they think is the right way, still most relationships end in divorce, most relationships end badly. And it's because we're doing things the traditional way. And so what's happening is men have become very pushy and women have become very passive. OK, so we do it a certain way that we've been taught. So there's the traditional way, which is man chases women and all the things that go into that.  How do I do it? Where do I go to do it? What do I say? How do I ask a woman out? How do I get a phone number? How do I get sex? How do I get a girlfriend? It's all about getting, getting, getting. And what most people teach is just a way to do this. I was trying to draw it kind of like a horse. So we know that this doesn't work really, the traditional way. We all have had experience. I've had tons of experience in the old way of doing things. And it just doesn't end in the results that we all want. But we keep beating this dead horse. And people keep teaching us things that don't necessarily work. But we keep following because we have no other way of doing stuff. No one else tells us anything different. So just a little background about me. I used to go on a lot of traditional dates and chase a lot of women. And I start out like every other guy, basically, which is with no skill set, very socially anxious, not knowing what to say. And I only knew the traditional way. So I didn't even know there was any other way to think about it. So I would go out, try to talk to women, try to get numbers, try to get dates, all the normal stuff. And what happened was I ended up committing a ton of time to it, and I became a master pursuer of women. So I was really good at it. I was a master number collector. That's all I did. But I got to a point where even if I did a massive amount of it, there was very little return. So even if you're really good, you can ask the guys who are really, really good. Even if you have a high quantity of women you talk to and interactions you have and numbers you get, you're only going to convert a certain amount of them into actual dates, even the best guys. And I'm sort of lazy. So one day I was thinking, you know, I'm pretty good at this. And it's happening for me. And I'm converting these things in date. But it's so exhausting. I'm out every night trying to collect numbers. And then, of course, trying to figure out how to leave them a message, what to say, how to respond, how to get them to do this, that, and the other thing. So I decided, I had a crazy idea that maybe I would just do the opposite of what I had been taught.  And I'd go out, talk to people. And instead, when I talked to women of trying to get their phone number and trying to talk them into stuff, I would instead give them my number, have them chase me, ask me out. Pretty crazy way of doing things, except that it started working. OK, so I want to discuss with you why the traditional way of chasing women is not a good thing to be doing, just so for you why guys out there. So doing everything the traditional way sets you up as the provider. When I say provider, women will say, oh, I want someone to provide for me and so on. And that's not what I'm talking about in that traditional context. Because that's true. I do believe that you should provide for your family and so on. But the way that most guys use provider is in that we give women things in order to get them to like us. We do things for them just in order for them to like us, because we think that's the way we have to do it. And I'll tell you something that I forget out along the way is there's absolutely nothing sexy about the provider, the provider I'm talking about. Absolutely nothing sexy about it. We've all seen this scenario of the rich guy who has a ton of money, he's got a nice car, he meets some girl, he asks her out, he takes her to an expensive restaurant. And then at the end of the night, he spends all his money on it, at the end of the night gets a kiss on the cheek and he drops her off. Maybe some of you have done that. I've done it for sure. And then there's the guy, the other guy. He doesn't spend any money on the girl. He's not a great dresser. He doesn't seem to have many skills. But she's addicted to him and can't get enough of him. And this guy doesn't do anything that the other guy does. He's a complete opposite, so he's not the provider. He's more of a friend with benefits type guy. He's more carefree. He's not trying to push her into doing anything. And she's addicted to this guy, always trying to find out where he's at. What is he doing? She's texting him, trying to meet him. Where is he at this certain club or this bar? Going over and hunting him down. And sometimes, this girl goes from the date with the rich guy and texts the friend with benefits guy on the way home, goes over to his house. So which guy do you want to be? It sounds simple to me.  He is. And I know him. He's a legend. He's been around way back in the day when we all got the. And I'm telling you, I see these guys come up to me and they show me all these super long text message threads or instant message.  And I say, hey, so you guys got together? No, but I think I'm going to talk about it soon. We're probably going to maybe get together. I'm like, really? This is your problem. This is over chasing women. This is the old way. And this is exactly why you're not getting together with her. I'm looking at all the stuff you're telling her. And it's the same thing every other guy's saying. It's how it's going. You're trying to teaser. You've gotten into it and you're doing it. Is it possible that women will just switch over immediately? Yeah, it is. Because even though they're programmed just the opposite of the passive way, so women are, of course, unfortunately programmed to be passive. So we become too pushy. They're too passive. So they kind of wait around. They've been taught to wait around, and the right guy will approach you, or he won't. Now some girls are assertive. And I applaud them if they are, but very few. And so maybe in conversation with, you're already sort of chasing the old way, if you want women to chase you, you have to stop chasing them, period. That's it.