Suggestions
Leo Watts
Private Sector Engagement, Corporate Affairs at Winrock International
Leo Watts is an Officer of Private Sector Engagement in the Corporate Affairs department at Winrock International.23 Based on the available information:
Professional Role
- Leo Watts works for Winrock International, a nonprofit organization focused on agricultural development and environmental sustainability.1
- His specific role is Officer of Private Sector Engagement within the Corporate Affairs team.24
Responsibilities
While specific details about Leo's day-to-day responsibilities are not provided, his role likely involves:
- Developing and implementing private sector engagement strategies for Winrock International
- Creating and managing strategic partnerships with businesses and corporations
- Supporting Winrock's mission through corporate collaborations and private sector initiatives
Recent Work
Leo recently worked on a private sector engagement strategy for a multi-year USAID project aimed at addressing and mitigating certain issues, though specifics of the project are not mentioned.1
Location
Leo is based in North Little Rock, Arkansas, according to one source.3 However, another source indicates he may be located in the District of Columbia.5
While more detailed information about Leo Watts' background, education, or career history is not available in the provided search results, his role at Winrock International appears to focus on bridging the gap between the nonprofit sector and private businesses to support agricultural and environmental initiatives.
Highlights
A good podcast breaks down a complex topic into entertaining, informative bites.
NYTimes's The Daily put out a great one this morning, detailing a White House report that examines how the federal government, through laws and incentives, subsidizes risky behavior, seen through the lens of climate change.
It looks at federal backstopping of home insurance, which incentives building in flood prone areas, examines federal programs to bail out crops lost to drought, which keeps farmers from switching to more resilient, climate-appropriate crops, and analyzes the growing risks to popular but expensive liabilities like Medicaid and Medicare, increasingly financially vulnerable to worsening health outcomes linked to climate.
Such an analysis is attractive to folks across the political spectrum; few see subsidizing (and bailing out) risky personal choices as a good use of government spending or oversight. Addressing pressing national concerns requires a collaborative approach, and there's a clear political overlap in wanting smart regulation that encourages and enables personal choices that don't need to be onerously bailed out by tax dollars.
Most notions around regulation, if you strip away the talking points, transcend partisanship, as highlighted by the recent banking crisis. Few lawmakers believe the current regulatory environment, which allowed Silicon Valley Bank and others to make risky, poorly supervised choices that put investor capital, consumer deposits, and the global financial system at risk, is tenable. Looking at regulations in a sterile binary, you're either for or against, is a false paradigm, as most citizens want a government that encourages strong and sustainable economic activity, while avoiding a see-sawing macro-economic landscape enabled by inappropriate (or inappropriately applied) laws and oversight.
I'm amazed at how often choices are presented as binary, in a variety of fields and contexts.
I got thinking down this path again recently as I take in the swirling controversy around Missing Middle upzoning in Arlington, Virgina, across the Potomac from Washington, DC, where I just moved.
Proponents for the upzoning point to the need for more housing in one of the more expensive real estate markets in the country. Opponents point to the potential chaos of dropping 6 or 8 unit buildings into established neighborhoods, overwhelming parking and utilites, and disrupting the character of desirable communities.
After weighing the topic and diving into the details, I think both sides are correct. Indeed, either initiative, taken to its logical extreme (the complete abolotion of zoning or, the immutable codification of single-family zoning in a rapidly growing streetcar suburb), could promote chaos, in one direction or the other.
What's the solution? A sensible middle ground.
A short walk around the neighborhood features a diversity of housing types coexisting beautifully. Within a half-mile stand stately century-old Victorians, new Scandinavian ultra-moderns, scrappy but utilitarian post war duplexes, a sold eight-story condo building, and even a basic but charming cottage court (the ultimate darling of missing middle housing types).
This diversity in style, age, and density promotes walkability and accessibility, and solidifies character rather than detracting from it.
Still, one could imagine that, should the more extreme sounding provisions of a by-right 8-unit upzoning take place, that land values could shoot up precipitously, raising the tax burden on existing residents, and putting in place market conditions that could see the neighborhood slowly overwhelmed by the hulking, modernist boxes that categorize post-recession infill four-to-eight-plexes.
What do?
Is there not a sensible and measured incrementalism that can satisfy the mandates of the opposing parties, maintaining the character and feel of the neighborhood, while laying the groundwork for sustainable, denser, but human scale growth?
Indeed, perhaps the politically tenable solution sees the #NIMBYS and the #YIMBYS coming together to raise their glasses of locally sourced kombucha at the farmers market.
Or, perhaps, both end up thinking that the other got the long end of the stick. (Which, in my opinion, is the hallmark of any truly fair dealmaking.)
