Talk:Lennar Corporation

San Francisco Board of Education

The fact that this board passed a resolution and posted a notice on it's website is not really relevant to the article. If this fact were important, it would be picked up by a reliable, secondary source (such as CNN or the New York Times). In addition, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires us to report facts according to predominance. I am sure there are many facts about this company. It is wrong to cherry pick just a few negative facts and turn this article into a bash-piece. There is a strong appearance that critics of this company are attempting to use this article as a soapbox, which is not allowed. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, no matter how noble your cause. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like CNN is an unbiased source. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since when does the corporate owned media get to decide what is true and what is not true? Or what is newsworthy and what is not? Or is it truth only that which money can buy? Does Wikipedia believe in that principle?--David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts on this. First off, I have to disagree with the assertion that the link does not constitute a "reliable source". The San Francisco school board is a notable organization, one with considerable standing within its community. As such, a link to the board's own site is suitable for referencing a resolution passed by that organization. However, the bigger issue is whether or not the text should be there to begin with. Given the overall size of the article, we have to consider WP:UNDUE and the possibility that mentioning it places too much emphasis on the motion without any context. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but I said, "reliable, secondary source". This is a reliable, primary source. In this article is not appropriate to use a political organization, even a notable one, as a primary source and to assert (without any external confirmation) that the information is relevant. I agree with you completely that this fact (the resolution against Lennar Corporation) is being given undue weight. Cherry picking has been going on here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of DT's response regarding WP:UNDUE moved to DT's user page under Epistimology.

So, given the above critique, I really don't understand how one can say whether the fact that the Board of Education passed a particular resolution that directly related and commented on Lennar, whether the fact of its approval, makes it a "majority" opinion or a "minority" opinion. Also, I believe all the Board approved it, so does that make it a "majority" opinion, or are there other voices--unknown at this time--that must also be counted. Whose opinions on Lennar count or don't count? Do customers opinions count? Do workers opinions count? How about management? Or can we only trust CNN and the New York Times--they are after all the "experts", they can be trusted to "get it right." How is it objectively possible to determine whether it is a majority opinion or not? I don't see it.

To me it's simply a fact about a judgment or conclusion that the Board agreed to and it is RELEVANT to Lennar, it comes from a prominent institution with a substantial amount of power and influence, and it is an undeniable fact that this conclusion was reached. That to me makes it worthy of inclusion. There may be other opinions by other major institutions or entities, experts or the the like, and I welcome those differing, opposing similar or disparate views, without trying to judge them as part of a "majority" or "minority" view. I base it on the quality of the evidence and the quality of the argument put forth in that view and the effect that entity's view has (even if the entity is clearly wrong)...--David Tornheim (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is also discussed on Jehochman's talk page.

In case there is any question, I'm not satisfied with the status quo, where my deleted text remains deleted. Although reasons were given for the deletion, I don't really see any of them as valid or convincing, which I explained in detail here and at Jehochman's talk page. The Board's decision (regardless of whether the Board's opinion is biased or based on false information, reached through questionable processes, etc.) is a documented fact and, for better or for worse, has some affect on the company and people's impression of the company.

I'm stating my dissatisfaction with the status quo of having that text deleted, because according to the rules, during a discussion of opposing views "consensus" is to be reached. Also, according to the policy, the goal is "that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively." (quoted from NPOV section). No consensus of the parties has been reached. Assuming I'm a "major player" in the debate about the deletion of the text I added, I do not believe the view/fact I presented is "sympathetically" and definitely not "comprehensively" presented. It has simply been erased ENTIRELY. No compromise has been proposed or offered by those who have deleted the well sourced text other than to leave it deleted--certainly that's not a compromise.

I offer this compromise: I'm not at all opposed to someone with some alternative perspective attempting to incorporate it into the article, hopefully backing up that view with evidence, sources (if available), and good, high quality, concise and to the point writing. That seems like a reasonable solution to me. And of course, that would require that the deleted text be restored. Agreed? [copied from Jehochman's talk page]--David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is STILL AT-ISSUE Three Days have passed and the issue remains unresolved. If I don't hear back, I assume those who deleted the material regarding the San Francisco Board of Education have lost interest and/or do not want to negotiate in good faith. However, I don't know what the deadline for a response is and/or counter-proposal. If there is Wikipedia policy on deadlines regarding responses to disputes, please point me to the code.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm preparing some stuff here to expand the article, but today I had other stuff to do. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I struck out the vandalism warning. I misunderstood the rules. I thought the deletion of my well-referenced sentence was vandalism. I felt that the arguments made were superficial and I have discussed at length at the the Lennar site why I continue to believe the statement should be restored. I do not claim "ownership" of the site any more than the company, its employees, customers, competitors, owners, stock-holders, CEOs, legislators, commentators, stock analysts, magazine writers, historians, neighbors, regulators, disinterested parties, etc., etc. do, etc. I do think there are many voices and room should be made for them. I do not understand why factual statements are stricken. I did not write a long diatribe against the company. I simply stated ONE FACT, a fact I think the company wants to hide and CENSOR. (I have no objection to having an alternative interpretation of that fact presented--no alternative has been presented.) Is that what Wikipedia is about, censoring certain truths? Letting CNN and the New York Times decide what is true and what is not? I'll keep my ears open.

As for blocking the company, I agree that's not an acceptable route either. I think they should also have an opportunity for comment. I would like you all to use the PROCESS described in the rules--dispute resolution and consensus forming rather than muffling and censorship. I don't see that happening yet. I look forward to it. It just seems like who ever edited last and has the most power administrative gets the final say. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of both these admins that are involved. I assure you their edits are in good faith, and that they have the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind. To be perfectly honest, I don't have any real interest in this article. I try and stay as far away from content disputes as I can. If you haven't noticed, my only edits to this article are reverting vandalism. You misunderstood me on what constitutes vandalism; deleting large swaths of text, without using the edit summary to provide a good reason for doing so (one which pertains to our policies or guidelines) is vandalism. The admins you are referring to are making good faith edits. These editors being admins is completely irrelevant, they are not using their tools to gain an upper hand, their not using their tools at all. Administrators do not any more "power" than you or I. Administrators are more like janitors than anything, their opinion carries no more weight than ours in situations like these. You need to ask for a third opinion, or seek dispute resolution. I think you were given instructions on how to do both, right? If not tell me and I'll help you. Landon1980 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said the edits were "not in good faith". I'm not sure what definition of "good faith edits" Wikipedia uses. If there is one, please point to it. In fact, I have confidence that both Jechnochman and Kneakie1 made their edits in "good faith", trying to follow what they believed were the more appropriate rule(s) regarding the content and trying to delete the material that the company finds offensive. I actually see little difference, between the two edits (one called vandalism the other not)--I have confidence the reasons were the same and that Keakie1 simply didn't know an explanation was required. (That's why I mistakenly mislabeled the second "vandalism.")

I simply said the factual content is effectively being censored. I don't want to bring in other parties at this point. I believe the Wikipedia process is consensus, and that the PARTIES are to resolve the dispute amongst THEMSELVES first, as in mediation. I would prefer to resolve this with all the INTERESTED parties first. When I asked for a response from Jechochman, what the deadline for responding was he gave me template saying "there are NO Deadlines" and asked me to bring in more parties. Why can't we work this out amongst ourselves? Also giving "no deadline", that seems inappropriate and not a good faith effort to compromise either. No compromise can be reached if one of the parties refuses to respond and states no intention to do so. I think the "no deadline" rule ignores the fact that while one person is waiting, the status quo edit is what is displayed to the public. The last editor has the upper hand in the dispute. Saying no response will be provided says he will retain said advantage in the dispute. He has power to block me, so I wouldn't dare undo his edit while he makes me wait interminably for a good faith response to my request for a consensus compromise. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to claim to be an independent observer here. Full disclosure that Lennar is one of my clients.

David Tornheim is clearly using WikiPedia as a tool to advocated his political agenda with regards to Lennar. David is a neighborhood activist with a history of opposing Lennar's Hunters Point development. He was a vocal proponent of the bill the San Francisco Board of Education passed a resolution concerning a proposed development by Lennar in the Hunters Point area of San Francisco. He actually created the fact that his is so enraged has been removed from the article.

I applaud David's commitment to what he believes in and his advocacy. I am impressed by his tactics, including trying for historic status for a 12 unit building and trying to block parking permits to prevent the Lennar project. Abrogating the Wikipedia listing about a company to spin it to his own world view, using the wikipedia listing concerning Lennar to advocate his political position and punishing a company who has actually already won a voter initiative to move forward with this project, is blatantly dishonest. Much more dishonest than a Lennar employee attempting to delete ("censor") "facts" they regard as inflammatory and prejudicial. This type of information no more belongs in WikiPedia than blatantly commercial messages from Lennar about their values, their financial data or even the number of house they have build in the last 10 years.

For the record, I have advised Lennar NOT to attempt to make edits to the wikipedia page, although they are more than ready to provide information to any neutral editor who decides to settle this matter.(talk) Jonahstein 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Jonahstein, Welcome to the discussion. I'm glad you can speak on behalf of Lennar so that Lennar's view of itself can have a voice in the article and the editing of the article. I think that is great that they have given you that authority so we can hear from the company, but sad you are discouraging members of the company from having any voice in the article. (Does Wikipedia have any policies about who is or is not allowed to comment on a company? Can employees comment for example? What's the policy? I certainly think they should.). I do hope you advocate for a balanced view that supports more than one perspective, both Lennar's views and other's views of the company, rather than promote censorship or an ostrich approach.

For the record, I never claimed to be a "neutral" or disinterested observer/editor. If I didn't care about the article, I probably wouldn't have added anything. I do think Jochochman and some of the others protecting against vandalism can make this claim to some extent--they were not attracted to the content but to someone's deletion without a reason. I mistakenly thought Jechochman was an interested party who regularly edited the site and observed it--and I apologize for the mistake (I am new).

However, I think there is really no such thing as a truly neutral person or neutral text. I believe I understand the Wikipedia goals for what is called "neutral" and "balanced" which tend to be intertwined, but I believe they should be more distinctly separated. I think neutral should be defined as "non-judgmental" tone, focusing on facts, which is exactly the way I phrased the inclusion of the cited material. There is not question, however, that the Board of Ed. did, make a judging statement. I would distinguish "neutral"/"non-judgemental" from "balanced". Balance, unlike non-judgemental, means multiple perspectives, ideally without any side strongly outweighing another. Balance would be particularly important when a judgmental comment or fact is included. Wikipedia does in fact include many judgmental interpretations. In the Lennar article, I think balance should be strived for, instead of wholesale deletion. If Lennar wants to talk about the Proposition the voters approved, I welcome that! Regardless, everyone has biases, preferences, beliefs, etc. so no one is a completely disinterested, independent observer. Anyone who edits a Wikipedia page has a desire for something to be or not be on that page. Wikipedia acknowledges this, observing that all knowledge is subjective. [will add citation later].

As for the material Mr. Jonahstein provided above about me, it is true I advocated to stop a Starbucks and to preserve a building at 900 Innes--that was what was on those to external links. I'm not entirely sure that is relevant here. I have a right to speak my opinion at public Commissions and don't feel I should lose rights to edit on Wikipedia because of past freedom of expression at public forums. I don't know if I spoke against Lennar--it is possible. However, I have absolutely no recollection of Lennar having any parking permit issue with Lennar. I did not have any comment on that. I would appreciate if this false allegation and the other unsubstantiated allegations be removed, unless you have REAL evidence.

I will say that while waiting at the Board of Supervisors for a hearing on another matter, I had to sit through 2-4 hours of testimony from concerned residents upset with Lennar regarding health issues. (I can give a citation for that easily.) I did not speak at that hearing. However, that hearing certainly convinced ME that there was something that the public had a right to know about it. I would be very surprised if that hearing was not covered in the mainstream media. I don't know if the Board of Education hearing was or not--probably. But like I said before, I don't think what is or is not covered by the mainstream media should be the bar that determines what makes facts eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. It has been well established that the mainstream media is biased. If you want sources for that, let me know. Lets continue with a "good faith" discussion and resolution of these issues. Thanks for discussing it.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a point to make, please make it succinctly. Most editors do not have the patience to wade through lengthy comments. The sheer volume of your comments dwarfs the content of the article and tends to discourage participation. You have been directed to dispute resolution. Please use it. Endless circumlocution on this talk page is a form of disruption. Due to your position as a public adversary of the company, you should not edit the article at all. You are welcome to make constructive comments on this talk page. You may point out references or news that could be included in the article. However, you may not endlessly argue for positions that violate Wikipedia policy. Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this article in the mainstream San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.aliotolawoffices.com/hl/articles/031807sfgate.html

Also, Approximately 5-7 articles are cited here too:

http://www.aliotolawoffices.com/hl-mcintyre.html

I am not a "public adversary" of the company. Please see my comments above about the attorney's failure to actually look at the web-sites he referenced. They DO NOT contain what he claims they do. Please see for yourself. I believe he should be required to remove his false allegations.

The reason I was aware about Lennar is that I was at City Hall the day it was heard waiting to speak to another item--I am active in SF City politics. I had to sit through a hearing that was from approximately 3:00pm until 7:32pm (see Board of Supervisors Agenda for July 31, 2007 that shows the beginning and ending times.) The hearing was dominated by the numerous speakers complaining about Lennar (I did not speak on that item).

Sorry to be verbose. I want to be sure I explain myself accurately and thoroughly, as it seems people on Wikipedia often don't listen very well, jump to conclusions and add meaning that is not present (I'll admit I have made said mistake too, sometimes because others have not been clearer about what they are doing and why.). I've already been accused more than once about NOT SAYING ENOUGH about my political work in San Francisco--which I would be happy to write volumes on.  :-) If you wish, I can re-edit my comments above and condense them so that they are more to the point and less repetitive. However, I don't want to get into trouble for violating some other rule for trying to heed your request. People are pretty touchy here--it seems nearly everyone is looking for what everyone else is doing wrong and using ad hominem rather than trying to focus on content per Wikipedia rules. I suggest we do that.

Dispute Resolution: I am using it. I am trying to work towards a consensus that includes all minority views--except for the Flat Earth view of course--working with the parties rather than seeking even more "neutral" voices to make things even more complicated and waste more people's time on something that should be simple. Can we work together towards a consensus without seeking even more eyes on this?--David Tornheim (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am adding stuff to fill up the article, so that there is more context, and so that adding the criticism does not make it so unbalanced (I haven't still looked at the complaint itself, neither I have compared it with other criticisms of the same or similar projects to see its relative weight on the general criticism of the company). Please excuse my slowness.

As an apart, please keep in mind this company is 54 years old, very big, and appears to be running several multi-million simultaneous projects at the same time, and we are talking about the complaints of neighbours at one of their projects, which spans (I think) its last 5-6 years or so, and I'm not sure of the complaints actually managed to affect the outcome of the project (which would make them quite relevant) or if they had no effect (which would merit a way smaller space on the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the process here is well underway, and will achieve good results. Let me know if anybody would like further help. Feel free to start an article request for comments if you need more editors to help with editorial decisions. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Eric: Thanks for jumping in. I agree with Jehochman that things appear to be moving in the right direction. Hurray! Apparently there was an article in today's San Francisco Bay Guardian about Lennar. main site here I don't know much about Lennar except the project here in SF and what I learned about it from the Wiki article & articles I just posted above. I do know that the project here is HUGE, that's why the entire City had two dueling measures they had to vote on and I believe Lennar put alot of money into to promoting its version (with have to check on that). I don't know how big this project is compared to the others Lennar has done, but it is possible this may be one of their biggest or their biggest--don't know. That will require more research. Perhaps the attorney would like to comment?

Also, I copied some discussion stuff from here to my user page. Let me know if that is a problem.--David Tornheim (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can count three military bases that Lennar has bought to clean them up and build lots of houses on them. Hunter's Point is one of them. The others are Mare Island Naval Shipyard on some californian city called Vallejo, and Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro (no idea where this city is situated exactly). See this article [1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the SF Bay Guardian reference:

reference

I trust your research, Eric. Mare Island is pretty big too--not aware of any controversy re Lennar there. I do know that the closing of the shipyard (no fault of Lennar's of course) has been a disaster on their economy and I believe the City recently was bankrupt, possibly having State officials stepping in to run things. Also, I'm not necessarily opposed to housing development at these old Navy sites, a better use of land than military bases IMHO, although I think I share concerns of others about what the Navy left and think the Navy should pay for the cleanup and do that first. An industrial use might be more appropriate, hard to say. I'm just saying that because I want to be clear I'm not an opponent of the company, it just appears to me there are health concerns. The two battling propositions F & G regarding how much affordable housing would be at Hunters Point is another matter. I'll let someone else worry about explaining that if they choose to! (the attorney did bring it up).

Actually, things don't look so good at Mare Island either, see:

http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/lennar_files_for_bankruptcy_at_1.html

The SF Bay Guardian (www.sfbg.com) has quite a few articles on Lennar in fact. If you go to their web-site & type in Lennar.

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I have my hands full with the sources I already have. I'll try to describe the bases on rough chronological order of development, including the controversies, and then make one final part describing the problems to finish the projects due to the housing slump.

I still want to add some more history to the article, how the company grew and stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. What about the Board of Education resolution and the health issues that came up in S.F? I can't remember for sure, but didn't we establish that this was covered in the mainstream media and that even if it wasn't, it was of significant importance that it be included in the article. I don't think one can make a fair argument that it is a "tiny minority" opinion similar to the "Flat Earth"--David Tornheim (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I made the details for all bases except Hunter Point. Need to fill the details of that one and then add the criticism. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuart A. Miller

I added some sources to the page. I believe he is notable as he presided over the expansion of Lennar Corporation, making it the 3rd largest homebuilder in the USA. In addition, he has made significant charitable contributions including a $100 million donation to the University of Miami.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was this article completely changed by an anonymous user in October 2017?

This article should be restored to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lennar_Corporation&oldid=804343288 A lot of relevant information was cut from it, and because the overall size of the edit was similar to the previous file size is it possible that this massive change was overlooked? Any and all critical information was cut out, and the article is now nothing more than an ugly massive timeline (not formatted correctly) with a bunch of completely irrelevant information that reads like it came straight from Corporate HQ. Nothingbeforeus (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

I didn't know where to source this, since not all listed on this are in the acquisitions section, I ended up putting this in the external links section. Let me know if it's okay, or if I should move/remove it. Thought it could be helpful. https://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/efxapi/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=1531671-257659-266328&SessionID=p4FTevrxjHoIHs7