|Today Governor Charlie Baker extended his emergency order to close non-essential businesses and his stay-at-home advisory until May 4. It requires all businesses and organizations that do not provide “COVID-19 Essential Services” to close their physical workplaces and facilities to workers, customers and the public. In addition, the Administration also updated the “COVID-19 Essential Services” categories. Of interest to NAIOP members, the list of “essential” construction related activities was modified so that only construction related to housing (including mixed use with housing) and critical infrastructure are now considered “essential.” |
The revised construction-related activities list is as follows:
-Workers performing housing construction related activities, including construction of mixed-use projects that include housing, to ensure additional units can be made available to combat the Commonwealth’s existing housing supply shortage.
–Workers supporting the construction of housing, including those supporting government functions related to the building and development process, such as inspections, permitting and plan review services that can be modified to protect the public health, including allowing qualified private third-party inspections accountable to government agencies.
-Workers such as plumbers, electricians, exterminators, builders, contractors, HVAC Technicians, landscapers, inspectors and other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintaining the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences, businesses and buildings such as hospitals, health care facilities, senior living facilities, and any temporary construction required to support COVID-19 response.
-Workers – including contracted vendors – who support the operation, inspection, maintenance and repair of essential public works facilities and operations, including roads and bridges, water and sewer, laboratories, fleet maintenance personnel, construction of critical or strategic infrastructure, traffic signal maintenance, emergency location services for buried utilities, and maintenance of digital systems infrastructure supporting public works operations. Critical or strategic infrastructure includes public works construction including construction of public schools, colleges and universities and construction of state facilities, including leased space, managed by the Division of Capital Asset Management; airport operations; water and sewer; gas, electrical, nuclear, oil refining and other critical energy services; roads and highways; public transportation; steam; solid waste and recycling collection and removal; and internet and telecommunications systems (including the provision of essential global, national, and local infrastructure for computing services).
-Workers who support infrastructure, such as by road and line clearing and utility relocation, to ensure the availability of and access to needed facilities, transportation, energy and communications. The previous definition of construction workers was as follows: “
Construction Workers who support the construction, operation, inspection and maintenance of construction sites and construction projects (including housing construction)”.
By: Tamara Small, CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts
The following first appeared in Banker & Tradesman on December 29, 2019.
The end of 2019 marks more than 10 years in the current real estate cycle. As we enter a new decade, now is a good time to take stock of current market conditions and make predictions for 2020.
Experts are predicting continued, moderate, growth for 2020. Nationally, investor appetite for real estate remains strong and active in all sectors – retail, industrial, lab, office and housing. National vacancy rates are not showing signs of oversupply, and banks are remaining disciplined and conservative in their lending practices.
While slow and steady job growth is expected, trade wars, political uncertainty and a labor shortage pose the biggest threats to continued economic growth. Market fundamentals remain strong, but such threats should be monitored closely given their potential to dramatically impact the market.
Access to Talent Drives Market
The Greater Boston market had an exceptionally strong year in 2019 with record rent growth and tenant demand. Boston remains one of the top markets for foreign investment. However, while continued growth in 2020 is expected, threats exist.
Construction and land costs continue to soar, weakening returns and potentially threatening the feasibility of new projects. In the third quarter of 2019, Massachusetts real gross domestic product declined 0.2 percent according to MassBenchmarks, while U.S. real gross domestic product grew by 1.9 percent. A labor shortage, which is only expected to continue, is viewed as the single largest threat to the Massachusetts economy.
At the recent NAIOP/SIOR Annual Market Forecast, which featured leading real estate experts who provided an analysis of the 2019 statistics and predictions for 2020, the need for access to a talented workforce – and what this means for real estate – was a major theme.
Historically, tenant space was viewed as a cost center by employers, but it is now being used to attract and retain talent. While WeWork’s business model may have been flawed, it did have a dramatic impact on tenant expectations. Whether it’s beer on tap, game rooms or state-of-the-art fitness centers, employers are now using their space to gain a competitive edge when it comes to getting the best talent. This can be seen in the suburbs as well as Cambridge, Boston and surrounding markets, and it will continue in 2020. This all translates into a rising need for new or renovated space and an average tenant improvement allowance average of $5 per square foot.
Looking Ahead to 2020
As we enter a new decade, the Boston market remains strong with opportunities opening up beyond the urban core. Limited supply and high demand for lab space are fueling growth. With East Cambridge lab vacancy rates now at 0.8 percent, life science projects are moving forward in Watertown, Alewife, Allston/Brighton and Somerville, as well as Dorchester, the Seaport and South Boston. Cambridge’s success will also create opportunities for well-located suburban assets, particularly transit oriented development projects with the right amenity base.
Unprecedented growth is expected to continue in the industrial sector. According to Rick Schuhwerk, executive managing director at Newmark Knight Frank, every $1 billion in online sales translates to 1.25 million square feet of new warehouse demand. The demand for “last-mile” facilities near high-density urban centers is driving up values. In the last five years, rents in core urban industrial space have more than doubled. In 2020, with online sales only expected to increase, vacancies will drop and rents will continue to rise. Spec developments are expected as well as a western migration of industrial space.
On the housing front, according to Kelly Whitman, vice president of investment research at PGIM Real Estate, opportunities exist to upgrade and develop larger suburban apartments. Suburban apartment annual rent growth continues to outperform the urban, and, given changing demographics, a shift away from small units in the suburbs is expected. As the housing crunch continues, these areas outside of Boston’s core are vital to easing the pressure and providing middle income housing.
On Tap on Beacon Hill
Finally, while national economic and market indicators tell us that continued growth is expected next year, legislative and regulatory proposals at the state and local levels have the potential to significantly impact the market and should be watched closely.
Housing: More housing production is needed to keep up with increased population growth. H.3507, An Act to Promote Housing Choices, is targeted at lowering voting thresholds in key zoning votes, allowing for increased production of housing. If it is not passed before the end of the legislative session, anticipate a continued tightening of the housing market, statewide.
Transportation: NAIOP believes that a functional, accessible transportation system is key to continued development and investment. As area residents and business owners know, congestion has gotten worse in Greater Boston. The Baker-Polito Administration recently filed the Transportation Bond Bill, (H.4002), outlining a capital plan for addressing gaps in transportation infrastructure statewide. Other legislative proposals to address transportation are expected in 2020.
Fossil Fuel Bans: A number of communities are considering bans on natural gas connections in all new construction, which will likely halt development entirely. While addressing climate change must be a priority, it is critical that policymakers employ achievable measures that are grounded in the reality of today’s technologies, without blocking housing production.
Other Cities Show Greater Boston Needs Both Carrots and Sticks
The below column, written by NAIOP CEO Tamara Small, first appeared in Banker and Tradesman on December 15, 2019.
Whether it’s in a board room, on a soccer field, or at the doctor’s office, the conversation invariably touches on traffic. Our daily commutes have become personal battles and the details are shared like war stories.
As area residents know, and as multiple reports have confirmed, congestion has gotten worse in Greater Boston. Boston’s economy is booming – with nearly 100,000 new jobs created in the last year alone. There are 300,000 more vehicles on the road than five years ago, which is only projected to grow with the on-demand economy. The result? Bottlenecks on highways and local roads throughout the region. It’s clear that creative solutions, big and small, are needed to address congestion.
Boston is not alone. Other cities across the nation are struggling to address traffic, air pollution, unsafe roads and emissions. Recognizing that the U.S. benefits by learning how other nations have tackled this issue the Bloomberg American Cities Climate Challenge, along with the Barr Foundation, brought a study group to London and Stockholm to see firsthand how these cities have used one specific tool: congestion pricing.
How Other Cities Tackle Traffic
The group, of which I was a part, included elected officials, environmental advocates, and business representatives from San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Washington, D.C., Honolulu, Boston and Philadelphia. We met with government officials, transit industry experts, and local community members who shared how London and Stockholm implemented congestion pricing and how it has evolved over the years.
London launched congestion pricing in 2003 after Ken Livingstone’s mayoral campaign included a pledge to reduce the number of vehicles entering the city. In advance of the launch of the program, London focused on making public transit and other alternatives to car travel easier, cheaper, faster and more reliable. It expanded its already robust public transit options by adding 300 buses, froze fare increases, created discounts for residents in the district and upgraded trains and subways heading into the zone.
Within the first year of the program, the number of cars in the congestion pricing zone dropped, eventually creeping back up somewhat as the population increased and road capacity was reduced by allocating space to cyclists, pedestrians, and buses. Today, the number of people riding buses is up 40 percent and twice as many people commute by bicycle than in the year 2000. Overall, traffic in London has decreased by 20 percent.
In Stockholm, congestion pricing was implemented in 2007 after a six-month pilot program. Again, in preparation for the program, major investments in public transit were made, including 14 new bus lines, more high frequency trains, and 2,500 new park and ride spots. People experienced a decrease in traffic congestion starting on day one of the program, which has continued with a permanent reduction of 20 percent less traffic.
Four Key Takeaways
In some ways, comparing Boston to Stockholm or London is not an apples–to–apples comparison. These cities have very different public transit systems. However, as the Greater Boston area attempts to address congestion through a variety of mechanisms, the following are the key takeaways from the study trip:
- Pilot programs work. In Stockholm, public support for congestion pricing was extremely low until a pilot program allowed people to experience it firsthand. It demonstrated the significant impact congestion pricing could have on traffic. A pilot program also provides critical data that could shape and fine–tune a more comprehensive program.
- People will not get out of their cars if alternative mobility options do not exist. Whether it’s new protected bike lanes, expanded bus routes or increased frequency of commuter rail and subways, investments and expansion must be made before a comprehensive congestion pricing program can succeed. Importantly, the revenue generated by congestion pricing in Stockholm and London was used to further expand these options. In addition, riders must be confident that the public transit system is reliable.
- A successful congestion pricing program must consider equity – whether it is the impact on certain populations or regions. Outreach to key community stakeholders along with data collection on exactly who would be impacted and in what ways are critical in the development of congestion pricing programs.
- Congestion pricing is an effective tool. Cordon and area pricing have generally reduced driving by 15-20 percent and congestion by 30 percent or more. Importantly, in Stockholm, even after investments were made to expand public transit options, ridership did not increase until after congestion pricing was implemented. This is proof that a carrot and stick approach is needed to effectively reduce congestion.
One thing is clear, there is no one silver bullet that will reduce congestion throughout Greater Boston. A wide range of investments and actions is needed. MassDOT recently issued recommendations on how they plan to tackle congestion including, among other things, addressing local and regional bottlenecks where feasible; reinventing bus transit at both the MBTA and at regional transit authorities; increasing MBTA ridership and capacity; and creating infrastructure to support shared travel modes.
Changes of all sizes will make a difference and NAIOP looks forward to working with MassDOT and key stakeholders as discussions around addressing congestion continue.
At first glance, it might seem like a simple courtroom showdown between the MBTA and the Town of Sudbury over an underground power line.
But to the state’s major commercial real estate trade group, the fight that played out at the Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday is about much more.
NAIOP Massachusetts isn’t a party to the case. But it did weigh in — on the side of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and utility company Eversource — through a friend-of-the-court brief.
The reason? Should the state’s highest court side with the town, NAOIP worries that transfers of publicly owned properties across the state could grind to a halt.
To get this far in its appeal, the town homed in on the state’s “prior public use doctrine” — a common-law understanding that land already devoted to one public use can’t be changed to a different one without state legislation. A Land Court judge ruled in 2018 that the doctrine didn’t apply in the Sudbury case, because the land would be leased for a private use. The town appealed, and the SJC decided to take up the issue.
George Pucci, a lawyer for Sudbury, argued Tuesday that this is an unusual case, one that would not open the floodgates. He noted that much of the right-of-way had once been acquired by eminent domain for transportation purposes.
But the potential broader impact was on the minds of the justices, as their line of questioning made evident.
NAIOP got involved after the SJC put out a call for input in May. Of particular concern to the trade group: The judges said they wanted to review whether the public-use doctrine should be in effect for transfers of property that would lead to private uses.
That request didn’t come out of left field. Pucci, in his initial appeals brief, argued it wouldn’t make sense to prohibit the transfer to an inconsistent public use while allowing the sale for an inconsistent private use. This, he wrote, would defeat the purpose of the doctrine: to protect public land from being converted to a different use without legislative approval.
Words like those can strike fear in the heart of any developer. Tamara Small, NAIOP’s chief executive, says a mandatory trip to the Legislature would open up a whole new layer of uncertainty and expense for public-private partnerships. Begging on Beacon Hill would bog down the development process, the mere prospect preventing many deals from happening in the first place.
In its brief, NAIOP offered a smattering of examples to emphasize some of these partnerships’ public benefits: an apartment complex in Chinatown with more than two dozen affordable units, clean energy from solar panels that dot state land along the Massachusetts Turnpike and other highways, the pending Polar Park stadium that will be built on city-owned property for the soon-to-be Worcester Red Sox.
What about Eversource? What public benefits would the electric utility offer with its deal? The company says its 9-mile Sudbury-to-Hudson line, mostly in a rail corridor, would bring nearly $9.4 million in lease payments to the T over 20 years. The line would help improve grid reliability in Greater Boston, with a side benefit of allowing a rail trail to be built along the stretch.
To the Sudbury town officials who authorized the litigation, these benefits don’t seem worth the adverse environmental impacts, such as damage to wetlands and wildlife habitats along the corridor.
Jessica Gray Kelly, NAIOP’s lawyer, says her client is agnostic on the fate of that project. But the association’s members do worry that the effects could ripple far and wide if the court decides legislative approval is needed for any change of use in a public property deal, not just for those in which control would be transferred to another public agency.
It would be a new world for real estate development in the state. Kelly demurs when asked how she thinks the court will react. But NAIOP’s insertion into this seemingly local fight shows the trade group is not taking any chances.
You can find NAIOP’s Amicus Brief and more information about the case by clicking here.
The following column was published in the July 7 edition of Banker & Tradesman.
In June, a group of business leaders, philanthropists and environmental advocates joined Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and his environmental team on a “City to City” trip to New York hosted by the Environmental League of Massachusetts and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. As the CEO of an organization that has made climate change resiliency one of its top policy priorities, I was honored to be part of this distinguished group.
The trip was designed to provide attendees with an inside look at how Lower Manhattan responded to Hurricane Sandy and how the public and private sectors are planning for the future. During the walking tour, it quickly became clear that building owners and developers were the “first responders” post-Sandy. Whether through the installation of flood protection measures, nature-based solutions, the elevation of mechanical systems or innovative design measures, the commercial real estate industry is spending millions of dollars on climate change resiliency.
While these types of investments are critical, having a “climate–proof” building in the middle of a neighborhood without power or transportation provides no real public or private benefit.
During Hurricane Sandy, a 9.5-foot storm surge flooded the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel, which connects Brooklyn and Manhattan, with 60 million gallons of contaminated salt water, causing extensive damage. After the storm, the city installed 50,000-pound steel flood gates to protect against a 500-year flood event. Watertight flood walls were installed around the tunnel’s ventilation shafts. Hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds were spent on the project.
If that was the cost for just one project, then one thing is very clear – addressing climate change through mitigation and adaptation will require massive amounts of funding and collaboration between federal, state, local, private and philanthropic entities.
What Does This Mean Locally?
Boston is taking this issue very seriously.
In October, Walsh released the Resilient Boston Harbor Plan, which is designed to protect the city against the impacts of rising sea level and climate change. The plan includes elevated landscapes, enhanced waterfront parks, flood–resilient buildings and increased access to the waterfront. The city of Boston also became one of the first cities to set a target of carbon neutrality by 2050. Flood overlay zones are being developed, which will affect new construction and existing buildings.
At the state level, aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been set, new energy efficiency codes have been adopted and comprehensive adaptation and mitigation plans are now being implemented. Nearly all of these policies and plans will affect the real estate industry.
For commercial real estate developers in the Boston area, climate change resiliency is a top priority. Extreme weather events, eroding shorelines and sea level rise have the potential to impact properties and tenants. As a result, new development projects are the most climate resilient. They are designed to take on the storms of the future and often include measures that will protect surrounding neighborhoods from the impacts of climate change.
Recognizing that while climate change cannot be ignored, economic realities still apply. If one sector of the market is overly burdened with new regulations and costs, resiliency measures will fail.
What’s the Solution?
As the state and cities move forward with their climate resiliency efforts, flexibility is required so that the real estate industry can effectively address climate change without restricting future housing and economic development, which produce crucial property tax revenue. Regulations should provide owners and developers with the ability to make decisions based on the needs of the individual properties, tenancy and product type. Both costs and risks must be evaluated when considering climate change-related investments or regulatory changes.
Given the impact of climate change on all residents of the commonwealth, the burden for addressing this issue should be shared equitably. While an increase in the transfer tax has been proposed as a solution, it’s not the right approach. It only targets a subset of the population and may have the unintended consequence of driving up the cost of housing.
Lowell’s Rep. Thomas Golden, with the support of House Speaker Robert DeLeo, recently filed H. 3846, An Act Relative to GreenWorks. This proposal is a $1.3 billion energy and resiliency bill designed to offset climate change, creating a new grant program for cities and towns throughout Massachusetts to fund projects focused on climate resiliency. It is modeled after the successful MassWorks infrastructure program and builds on the Environmental Bond Bill passed in 2018.
Given the magnitude of this issue, no one piece of legislation can fully address climate change, but the GreenWorks legislation will set the commonwealth on a path towards improved resiliency. Its passage, combined with public-private partnerships and innovative solutions, will ensure continued economic growth and quality of life in Massachusetts as we tackle one of the greatest challenges threatening the future of the planet.
Today NAIOP submitted comments in support of Focus40, the 2040 Investment Plan for the MBTA. NAIOP applauds Secretary Pollack and the Baker-Polito Administration for the significant time and thought that went into Focus40. A reliable public transit system is critical for sustained economic growth and NAIOP believes that Focus40, combined with the Administration’s Commission on the Future of Transportation in the Commonwealth, and ongoing initiatives such as Rail Vision, as well as the significant work done by the Fiscal and Management Control Board, create a framework for the future.
By focusing on the three tiers of Doing, Planning and Imagining, Focus40 identifies investments that will make the MBTA a more reliable, robust and resilient public transportation system. Focus40 identifies 12 key programs: Blue Line 2040, Orange Line 2040, Green Line 2040, Silver Line 2040, Red Line 2040, Resiliency, Customer Experience, Paratransit, Commuter Rail 2040, Water Transportation 2040, Bus 2040 and Place Based Service Additions.
NAIOP’s comment letter is very supportive and encourages additional focus in the following areas:
– Water Transportation: In the current draft, an identified program objective for 2040 is “supporting a robust, multi-operator Boston Harbor water transportation system, serving more passengers and destinations and excellent connections to landside MBTA service.” NAIOP believes that water transit has significant potential and that Focus40 provides a unique opportunity to further investigate how waterfront communities, including Boston, could benefit from an expanded system. NAIOP looks forward to serving as a resource on this issue.
– Ride Sharing and Technology: While references to ridesharing are made under the Customer Experience program recommendations, NAIOP suggests that detailed analysis about the current and future impact of ride sharing services, e.g. Uber, Lyft as well as other technologies be included. In addition to offering an alternative or complement to MBTA service, these companies are changing the composition of our streets and the level of congestion in many areas. New and “disruptive” technologies are already impacting transportation and should be considered, making enhanced transportation information sharing through technology an integral part of the Commonwealth’s transportation plan.
– Regional Needs: Considering how the program objectives and recommendations might affect access to other parts of the Commonwealth should be further investigated in Focus40. While we acknowledge that the MBTA is first and foremost the public transportation system for Boston and surrounding communities, we think that it’s necessary to zoom out and look at outside factors that may interact with the MBTA lines.
– Non-Capital Priorities and Human Resources Planning: While it is important to have goals and big ideas to guide large investments, the essentials of good MBTA administration are absolutely critical. The transformational work of the Fiscal and Management Control Board over the past three years illustrates this very clearly. It is imperative that the big ideas in Focus40 do not overshadow the vital day to day needs and expectations of the region. We recommend that Focus40 consider how human resources planning and operational strategies will allow this to continue.
Finally, it’s worth noting that in 2015, at the start of the Baker-Polito Administration, NAIOP issued the report, From Good to Great: Recommendations for the Baker-Polito Administration. The report was based on member feedback and included recommendations on a wide range of policy areas, including transportation. Specifically, NAIOP urged the Administration to develop a “Vision 2040 Transportation Plan,” which “should address tomorrow’s opportunities, focusing on the issues which may arise over the next 25 years, including long term demographic, economic, environmental, technological, cultural and governmental transformations, the potential effects of global climate change on infrastructure, and the development of new modal choices.” It’s great to see that when NAIOP members weigh in, policymakers listen! We look forward to continuing to engage members and working with the MassDOT team on this and other transportation initiatives.
On September 21 and 28, NAIOP Massachusetts University presented Navigating the Permitting Maze: A Crash Course in Environmental Permitting to 40+ students from a range of backgrounds looking to master real estate permitting fundamentals in Massachusetts. This course, led by VHB instructors and complemented by several industry experts and panelists, centered on introducing permitting basics, including development of an early permitting strategy and timeline with colleagues and state and local regulators, as well as more complex issues, such as transportation analyses, historical property concerns, climate resiliency, appeals, and much more.
Not only did this course provide valuable education for new and continuing real estate professionals, it made connections to NAIOP members’ experience with advocacy at the legislative, regulatory, and judicial level.
Basics of Environmental Permitting, and Trends from State and Local Directors
During the first day, students started the morning with sessions led by Kyle Greaves and Lauren DeVoe of VHB, on the Massachusetts Environmental Permitting Act office (MEPA) review process which coordinates public review of a development’s environmental impacts. Next, students received instruction on the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) Article 80 regulations and process. Over the last five years, MEPA has analyzed about 1,300 large developments, with the majority (60%) culminating the review process with an Environmental Notification Form, and the remainder split between needing an Environmental Impact Report or a more in-depth process. For developments in Boston, Jonathan Greeley, Director at BPDA, which has approved over 11 million square feet for development in 2018 alone, emphasized that successful projects start with community outreach early in the process. Jonathan served on a trends in development panel with MEPA Director Deidre Buckley and moderator Greg Peterson of Casner & Edwards LLP during day one of the course.
Jonathan Greeley, Director at Boston Planning & Development Agency
Permit Extension Act Protects Developments During Great Recession
Mary Marshall, Partner at Nutter McClennen & Fish, presented the final session on Day 1 on the Post Entitlement Permitting Stage. Mary made a connection between NAIOP’s legislative advocacy and environmental permitting, stating that during the recession, when many developments stalled due to the economy and financing, NAIOP formulated the Permit Extension Act, which was signed in 2010 by Governor Patrick (and expanded in 2012) to allow projects to maintain permits so that they could be “shovel-ready” when the market improved – avoiding several years spent reapplying for permits. Tamara Small, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, added that a more recent advocacy connection with permitting is that NAIOP successfully changed the railroad-right-of-way statute in the 2018 economic development bill signed by Governor Baker this August. This means that developers will have more clarity about whether and when they must coordinate with MassDOT on building on former railroad rights of way.
Commercial Real Estate Professionals Advocating for Industry
On the second day of the course, individual sessions were designed for “deep-dives” into more technical areas. Jamie Fay, a waterfront planning expert at Fort Point Associates, a TetraTech company, led a session on the Massachusetts waterfront planning Act (Chapter 91) and how it affects development. Jamie is an active member of NAIOP’s government affairs committee and served as an advocate for reasonable regulation of the waterfront when the legislature worked on the issue and passed legislation in 2007 — and in the years following, as the Department of Environmental Protection promulgated regulations. New developments like Clippership Wharf and Encore Boston Harbor are subject to Chapter 91 rules. Stephanie Kruel, a climate resiliency planning expert at VHB, walked through climate resiliency checklists and analysis during the project planning phases. Stephanie serves as co-chair of NAIOP’s climate resiliency committee – a subcommittee of the government affairs committee.
To bring the areas of waterfront issues, historic resources issues, climate resiliency and environmental permitting together in a real-life example, the course ended with a project spotlight and panel presentation by four individuals from the General Electric Innovation Point team: Elizabeth Grob, VHB, Jeff Porter, Mintz Levin, Peter Cavanaugh, GE and Todd Dundon, Gensler.
Jeff Porter (Mintz Levin) moderates Project Spotlight Panel on GE Innovation Point joined by Peter Cavanaugh (GE), Elizabeth Grob (VHB) and Todd Dundon (Gensler)
NAIOP would like to thank all of the many experts whose time and energy made this course such a success. Due to popular demand, the permitting course will return in 2019.
Make sure to check out all of the NAIOP Massachusetts University offerings including the upcoming Real Estate Finance Fundamentals course on October 26, 2018. Have ideas on other courses NAIOP could offer? Let us know!