Decision Framework
This framework reflects how I approach early stage development decisions in practice. The focus is not on optimizing outcomes but on identifying risk early and eliminating sites that should not move forward.
In early stage development, most value is created by stopping. Once capital, time, and complexity compound, flexibility disappears.
The purpose of this framework is to protect decision making at the point where mistakes are still cheap.
Core premise
Early stage feasibility is not about proving that a site works. It is about understanding whether it should be pursued at all. Zoning compliance alone does not make a site viable. A theoretical development outcome is not the same as a realistic one.
Progression through a development pipeline should be earned through validation, not assumed based on entitlement or market pressure.
Decision principles
Risk comes before return
Projected yield is irrelevant if zoning, envelope, or execution risk is unresolved.
As of right does not mean feasible
Many sites comply with zoning on paper but fail once real world constraints are applied.
Every site needs a clear stop thesis
If a site cannot be clearly rejected, it is not yet fully understood.
Assumptions increase exposure
Each assumption introduced early adds downstream risk and reduces decision clarity.
Complexity early is a warning sign
Sites that require workarounds at the feasibility stage rarely simplify over time.
Clarity is more important than optimism
A conservative conclusion is preferable to a fragile upside driven by assumptions.
Deal elimination logic
The analysis stops when feasibility depends on unresolved assumptions or interpretive zoning arguments rather than clear, defensible constraints. If envelope, parking, or circulation issues require discretionary relief to make the numbers work, the site does not move forward. When execution risk begins to outweigh zoning clarity, or when complexity appears too early for the scale of the opportunity, the analysis ends.
Stopping early is not a failure of analysis. It is the outcome this framework is designed to produce.
What this framework is not
This framework is not intended to optimize yield or replace detailed underwriting. It does not assume entitlement success and does not attempt to resolve issues that belong to later stages of development. Its sole purpose is to determine whether additional analysis is justified.
Relationship to analysis logic
This framework defines how decisions are framed and evaluated. It sets the conditions under which a site is allowed to move forward.
The Analysis Logic page outlines how these principles are applied through a structured feasibility pipeline from screening to execution readiness.