Category Archives: Environment

Where Did All the Parking Go?

Posted on by
1


The city-owned Winthrop Square Parking Garage, at 240 Devonshire Street, recently closed due to serious structural problems. Built in the 1960s, this Boston garage accommodated 550 cars at discounted rates from the much higher priced private facilities.

This now further exacerbates the commuter parking problem, already destabilized by the continuing loss of surface parking spaces due to the heated development activities in the Seaport area. Employers may soon start to hear the complaints, as workers begin to personally absorb these increased costs.

The “dirty secret” is that the only reason the Financial District’s parking freeze has worked for so long was that there was a large surplus of low-cost parking nearby.  The same goes for the Seaport’s parking freeze.  As more buildings eat up the surface lots, fewer spaces will remain – as demand increases substantially.

Commercial parking freezes are an ineffective means of providing cleaner air, especially when they are targeted exclusively at a particular municipality.  An unintentional result of a parking freeze is its negative effect on economic development, limiting the ability of new businesses to create jobs, existing businesses to expand, and leading, in many cases, to shifting growth to areas without such restrictions.

Maybe now is the time to rethink this outdated method of controlling auto emissions.

 

Hurricane Sandy’s Message for Boston

Posted on by
Reply

A recent Boston Globe Editorial, “After a near-miss with Sandy, more preparations are needed,” advocated for policy makers to focus on climate adaptation measures to protect Boston from future storms and flooding.  NAIOP wholeheartedly supports convening public and private interests to discuss short-term and long-term solutions that are practical and feasible.

An important first step would be to create incentives for building owners and developers that would make climate change planning part of their design process.  Focusing on carrots instead of sticks will be an important first step in changing the way some in the industry view this issue.  As an example, we should be encouraging, not penalizing, the relocation of utility spaces to upper floors.  This relatively simple step would have preserved many of the systems that were destroyed in New York and New Jersey.  However, current codes do not exempt these areas from the allowable building envelope, causing landlords to worry about losing rentable space to mechanical equipment.  A change should be made that would provide additional square footage for those developers that commit to doing this.

The Globe editorial suggested that restrictions be put on ground-floor uses in areas that will be prone to flooding.  However, as with the scenario above, it is critical that the impact of decreased rental income and increased construction costs be mitigated.   Furthermore, some of our current laws would prevent such a policy.  As an example, our Chapter 91 statute mandates the use of the first floor space for public access.

Yes, we need to find ways to efficiently prepare our coastal cities for the increased frequency of powerful storms, but we should also be ready to adjust our policies to incentivize the public and private sectors to make appropriate infrastructure and building redesigns, not penalize them with red tape and unnecessary costs.

Out front on climate change

Posted on by
Reply

This article appeared in the Summer 2012 issue of Commonwealth Magazine.

Massinc’s recent research report, Rising to the Challenge: Assessing the Massachusetts Response to Climate Change, was billed as “the first independent assessment of state action on climate change.” We, at NAIOP Massachusetts, believe that it missed an opportunity to provide a more complete, non-partisan account. Although it is acceptable to inquire into the progress that the state is making to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by statute, this report is by no means a sufficient analysis of the issue.

The Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act, passed in 2008, required the state’s secretary of energy and environmental affairs to set a greenhouse gas reduction goal of between 18 and 25 percent for the year 2020 (one of the most ambitious in the nation). Ian Bowles, who was the secretary at the time, chose to set that target at 25 percent. The secretary was required to submit an action plan to the Legislature that could assist in meeting this goal; however, there was no requirement that the plan be followed or that other means could not be used to achieve this target.

We have no argument with the statute’s basic premise that climate change is a serious global problem and there need to be international and national plans in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a timely manner. But we feel that questions need to be raised regarding the practical challenges of emissions reductions—where and how they can best be achieved, at what cost, and over what period of time?

Climate change is not a local issue. One state’s reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will have little impact on how that state will be affected by global climate change. Any other expectation is un­realistic. However, pursuing policies that could unintentionally hinder growth will most definitely put the Commonwealth at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting or retaining jobs.

MassINC’s stated goal was to uncover the facts and reach independent conclusions based on evidence. Its approach was developed from the perspective that the state has committed to achieving ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals, and that there should be a dialogue about the best way to do so. Unfortunately, the report comes up somewhat short. Rather than offering a dialogue, the report simply checks off which measures in the plan have or have not been completed to date. It accepts these recommended measures as the only path to achieving the required reductions and lacks any qualitative critique of these mitigation methods.

A comprehensive assessment of this issue would include a serious discussion of the economic and financial impacts that will result from recommendations of the state plan. This includes a cost/benefit analysis of any presumed impacts on businesses and residents. However, the only mention of cost impact in MassINC’s report is general statements from environmental advocacy groups indicating that these measures are fully balanced by the savings they will produce. The groups also imply that the costs would be less detrimental as valued against the cost of building a new power plant, which is a very unsuitable standard by which to judge individual policies. In addition, many of the policies outlined in the plan would have dramatic impacts on the economic development goals of the Commonwealth and should be questioned accordingly

The report is also lacking more substantive examination of the controversial decision to fund many of the alternative energy and efficiency programs with increased electricity costs for ratepayers. What are the impacts of the plan’s recommendations? What are the associated costs to those existing businesses that are dependent on high energy consumption? Are these investments the right ones for the Commonwealth? Does the growth of new jobs created by the grants and incentives justify the jobs lost due to high energy costs?  Besides the anecdotal evidence, what are the firm data regarding these investments and the return in terms of jobs, tax revenue, and economic development?

Also overlooked is the question of whether the aggressive greenhouse gas target for Massachusetts will significantly alter the projected impacts of climate change in the Commonwealth. The report describes projected climate change threats that include a rise in sea level, more frequent severe storms, and temperature spikes in the summers. If the Commonwealth is successful in meeting (and even exceeding) its greenhouse gas reductions at a substantial cost to the public, does anyone credibly believe such reductions would meaningfully reduce potential climate change impacts?

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources needs to be more open and transparent with its decisions to pursue mitigation plans. These should be grounded in sound economic cost-benefit analyses using data from its regulated industry stakeholders. Advancing policies without reliable data and analysis of their impact could cause the state to make decisions that have unintended negative consequences on our future economic growth.

Critical first steps would be to educate the marketplace, provide additional support to make these methods financially attractive, and recognize that the state of the economy is an important determinant of when to require greater efficiency measures. We should be researching whether there are more cost effective ways to get to the appropriate goals before we accept and mandate the most expensive solutions.

Increased energy efficiency in new development and existing buildings is a prime target for achieving the 2020 target goals. But it is important to keep in mind that not all markets around the Common­wealth are created equal. Statewide energy mandates for all building types will create a disincentive to develop new properties in areas where the markets cannot absorb the increased costs. Unfortunately, many of the “one-size-fits-all” government proposals do not account for varied building types or tenant energy requirements, and they rarely take into account actual investment/payback ratios.

The more stringent energy efficiency requirements disregard the mismatches between who pays the cost of an option (owner) and who gains the benefit (tenant), making it difficult to justify economically the investment in the first place. There is also too much emphasis being put on regulating the energy efficiency of the building shell. Much of a building’s energy use actually falls within the tenant spaces and therefore is not directly influenced by mandates for increased energy code efficiency. However, with appropriately scaled tax incentives, owners could receive financial benefits for the upfront investment and tenants could see reductions in their operating costs.

On a national basis, rather than using regulatory mandates, President Obama has announced the Better Buildings Initiative, an innovative economic development program using tax incentives to make existing buildings more energy efficient through retrofit projects. The amount of the incentive would grow with increased energy savings, encouraging ambitious projects and also rewarding more moderate retrofits that achieve meaningful levels of energy savings.

Since Massachusetts has among the highest energy costs in the nation, it makes good business sense to reduce a property’s controllable operating costs, especially if it can help to also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Becoming more energy efficient is an important consideration in today’s commercial real estate industry. Many developers, owners, and tenants understand that it makes economic sense to find ways to increase initial capital investments for energy efficient technology and design elements that will result in a reasonable payback of energy savings.

As a result, the market is becoming more responsive to the need for energy efficiency, especially with volatility in energy costs, and a more educated and demanding tenant base. We have already seen that, without regulatory requirements, more buildings are now built as LEED-certified “green buildings.” Before the state moves toward aggressive mandates, policy makers should consider incentive-based solutions. Doing so could leverage and support private investments in order to help businesses reach higher levels of energy efficiency. MassINC should follow-up its report with a more critical look at the existing, proposed mitigation measures, as well as other alternatives, which could lead the Commonwealth down the right path to our greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Massachusetts Leads the Country in Regulatory Reform

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this week, Governor Patrick announced a massive, top-to-bottom regulatory reevaluation for all state agencies.  By the end of 2012, the Administration will have reviewed 1,000 of the regulations that were first put into place prior to 2000, with another 1,000 by the end of 2013. The goal is to determine which regulations should be rescinded, which should be modified, and which could be made more consistent with a national model or standard.

This announcement may be surprising to some since Massachusetts, rightly or not, has not always had a business friendly reputation. With this new sweeping policy, the Governor has taken a hands-on, direct approach to ensure that there will be real results with immediate impacts.

In addition to the regulatory review, any newly proposed regulation must go through an extensive vetting process, lasting over nine months, that starts with a “small business impact statement” consisting of 25 questions delving into the potential financial and time costs.  Small businesses are defined as those with up to 500 employees (85% of the companies in the state.) All draft regulations will go to the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, and to the new Regulatory Ombudsman for fiscal and business impact review .  They will then go to the Governor’s office, where a case must be made that the agency’s recommendations outweigh the impacts and burdens on business and the public.  Only then will these regulations go on to the Secretary of State’s office for posting and public comment.

April Anderson Lamoureux, Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, was just appointed as the first Regulatory Ombudsman between the Administration and the business community.  She gave a detailed presentation on the regulatory reform initiative at the NAIOP Government Affairs program yesterday, along with Alicia McDevitt, Deputy Commissioner at MassDEP.

At the meeting, Assistant Secretary Lamoureux asked that businesses provide her with their suggestions on regulations that do not make sense, have extensive problems, do not add value, or where alternative solutions may better address the issue.  NAIOP has been appointed to a Business Advisory Committee that will help identify problematic regulations and alternative processes.

MassDEP, under the leadership of Commissioner Ken Kimmell and Deputy Commissioner Alicia McDevitt, has led the way on regulatory reform by establishing a target list of 21 different reforms within the Department.  McDevitt provided an update on the Final DEP Regulatory Reform Plan, which was released on Monday.  Although, the reason for this effort originated with a reduced budget affecting staff permitting and oversight, the effort has moved in the direction of creating general permits, self-certification, and third party reviews. Collectively, these reforms will make a substantial improvement on the cost and time for the regulated community, without diminishing environmental protection.

Kudos to the Governor and his Administration for boldly going where few states have gone! Massachusetts has clearly earned the status of “first in the nation” setting a policy to reform one of the most frustrating aspects of government for most businesses and citizens.  As always, others will follow.

NAIOP Submits Comments on Eastern Box Turtle Conservation Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Last fall, revisions were made to the MESA (Massachusetts Endangered Species Act) regulations affecting countless projects  in all regions of Massachusetts.  The changes, supported by NAIOP, extended the habitat mapping cycle by two years and  provided more flexibility with species of special concern (e.g. Box Turtle), as well as other important changes.

As a result of these changes, the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) recently issued a draft Conservation Plan for the Eastern Box Turtle.  The Eastern Box Turtle has long been a source of frustration for developers who encounter the species in Massachusetts.  Given its prevalence, NAIOP has strongly advocated for delisting the species.

While the Conservation Plan does not delist the species, it sets benchmarks which would allow regions to effectively delist the species once certain habitat thresholds are achieved.  The Draft Plan creates Conservation Protection Zones (CPZs) where projects  would be required to provide greater protection to the species and would require a more intensive permitting process through the Conservation and Management Permit (“CMP”).  Projects outside of the CPZs would have more flexibility.  A major improvement included in the Plan is the establishment of habitat banking as offsite mitigation.

Overall, NAIOP supports the concepts proposed in the Plan, but we believe changes are needed. Specifically, we urge the NHESP to:
•consider a reduction in the area of land protected within CPZs;
•allow property owners within CPZs to realize fair value for their property by allowing them to mitigate project impacts through offsite mitigation contributions;
•notify landowners, in advance, who own property within the CPZs allowing them an opportunity to provide input on the Conservation Plan.

NAIOP applauds the Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, the Department of Fish & Game and the NHESP for drafting the plan and proceeding in the right direction. NAIOP’s full comment letter  provides additional information on the concepts proposed in the plan and our thoughts on how it could be improved.  A final plan is expected this fall.

DEP Funding Essential for Economic Development

Posted on by
Reply

Though the real estate development industry may not always be an outspoken advocate for environmental regulation, there is no question every developer agrees that timely and predictable permitting is critical to the success of any project. 

Unfortunately, if the cuts to MassDEP proposed in the House budget are approved, permitting and economic development in Massachusetts could be the unintended victims. DEP’s budget has already been disproportionately reduced by 40% in less than a decade, devastating a staff that has dropped from 1,200 employees in 2002 to about 745 under the proposed FY ’12 House budget recently passed.  Although all of the other agencies under the Energy & Environmental Affairs Secretariat received an average 1% cut from the last fiscal budget, DEP was cut by 10%.  

In development, time is money.  If developers are unable to get environmental permits within a reasonable timeframe, the resulting delays could  kill a project – especially during this fragile economic recovery.

As the Senate develops its budget (expected to be released next week), it must consider the importance of adequately funding DEP.  Under the House budget, DEP may be forced to close one or more regional offices and eliminate another 20% of its permitting staff.  NAIOP strongly suggests that, at the very least, the Senate apply the same percentage cut to DEP used for sister agencies.

Given the current fiscal crisis, budget cuts are an unfortunate reality.  But we must avoid cuts that are so deep they undermine the very economic growth and job creation essential to our recovery.

Public Access – Yes, Vacant Space – No

Posted on by
Reply

I recently testified before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture in support of one of NAIOP’s top legislative priorities, An Act to Revitalize the Commonwealth’s Waterfronts (SB371). The bill would address an issue that waterfront owners in Massachusetts have been grappling with for years – facilities of public accommodation (FPA) requirements under Chapter 91, the state’s program for regulating all activities and development on the Commonwealth’s tidelands and other waterways.

Under existing state regulations, the state Department of Environmental Protection requires the ground floor of many waterfront properties to be leased only for uses allowing full public access. Unfortunately, the FPA requirements do not vary by location and do not take into consideration local land use, density, market demand or proximity to street and pedestrian traffic.

Planning studies, including one completed in 2006 by the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), have shown that the required FPA space in existing and proposed projects greatly exceeds the potential demand for such space.  Many of the ground floor FPA areas within existing projects are vacant or have had trouble attracting successful users, some for as long as ten years.  Except for hotels and restaurants, which are defacto public spaces, very few non-maritime projects in the City of Boston have successfully achieved the FPA requirements.  If such projects cannot be successful in downtown Boston, then they have little chance of succeeding in Boston’s other neighborhoods or in other coastal cities and towns where there are fewer pedestrians, less transit and much less density.

The resulting vacant space represents a significant loss of local property taxes.  In these challenging times, this revenue could make a big difference for our schools and communities.  There is no question that the existing FPA requirements impede investment and economic development in waterfront areas.

On behalf of NAIOP, Senator Anthony Petruccelli of East Boston filed the bill to reform the existing FPA requirements.  He is quite familiar with the many projects in his community that have not been able to move forward due to these onerous requirements.  None of these changes would limit public access to the waterfront.  Furthermore, the bill would allow local zoning to regulate interior ground floor use rather than the arbitrary requirement in place under existing law.  It empowers a community to determine what is best for its waterfront. 

This is not a new issue, but it is something that can no longer be ignored.  Now is the time for the legislature and DEP to make the changes necessary to promote economic development while preserving the public’s access to the waterfront.

NAIOP Comments on Proposed Brownfields Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Today NAIOP submitted an extensive comment letter to DEP on its proposed Vapor Intrusion Guidance. NAIOP has significant concerns with the guidance document and the negative impact it would have on the redevelopment of the Commonwealth’s Gateway Cities and brownfield sites. In addition to providing a thorough analysis and review of the document, the comment letter also asks DEP for a detailed response to our comments and concerns.

Brownfields can only be successfully redeveloped when the health of site occupants is protected, the regulatory path is clear, required response actions can be performed in a timely and cost effective manner, and regulatory closure means just that.  In other words, potential developers must be comfortable that these issues can be addressed with a reasonable degree of predictability.  In many places, the draft Guidance does not accomplish these objectives.  As a result, there is a very real risk that a significant portion of the sites that will be subject to the Guidance will not be redeveloped. 

All of NAIOP’s comments are provided with the objective of improving the Guidance in a manner that is consistent with the goals referenced in recent public comments made by DEP Commissioner Kimmell.  We share the Commissioner’s interest in building upon the past success of the Commonwealth’s risk-based, Licensed Site Professional implemented, cleanup program to protect public health while encouraging the redevelopment of contaminated sites.  Unfortunately, we believe the current draft of the Guidance does not achieve these goals.  However, we very much look forward to working with the Commissioner and the Department to develop a final Guidance document that does.

Very special thanks to the members of NAIOP’s 21E Committee, especially committee co-chair Ned Abelson of Goulston & Storrs, who contributed an enormous amount of time to this issue over the past several years.

Property Owners May Lose Rights to Appeal

Posted on by
Reply

You think that as a property owner you have basic rights and that if there are changes to those rights you must be notified of them.  Not necessarily. If you are a property owner in Milford, Bellingham, or Franklin, you may lose your rights to appeal changes in how you manage stormwater discharges from your property.

Though all affected property owners should have received notice of the comment period for EPA’s Draft General Permit for Residually Designated Discharges, we recently learned that EPA used aerial photos from 2005 to determine what properties hit their two acre threshold. So, any properties that have been developed since that time probably did not receive any notice, but will still be required to comply.

More importantly, only those who participate in this permit process by filing comments on the draft permit or by participating in the public hearing, may appeal a permit decision.  You don’t write a letter, you cannot later appeal!  It does not have to be a technical letter; just go on record that you have concerns about this proposed permit and you want to reserve your rights to appeal.

The deadline to submit comments on is midnight on September 30, 2010.

To view NAIOP’s in-depth comment letter and additional information (links, fact sheets, and presentations) on this regulatory initiative, please visit NAIOP’s new website and click on stormwater (member login required).