COVID 19 Update: Governor Limits Essential Construction to Housing & Infrastructure, Extends Non-Essential Business Closures

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)”.

COVID-19 UPDATE: MAYOR WALSH EXTENDS ORDER PAUSING NON-ESSENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WORK IN THE CITY OF BOSTON

The following is a press release from the Office of Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh (March 25, 2020)

BOSTON – Wednesday, March 25, 2020 – Due to the public health emergency caused by the spread of COVID-19 (coronavirus) Mayor Martin J. Walsh today announced he is affirmatively extending the City of Boston’s order to pause non-essential construction for City of Boston permitted sites. Mayor Walsh first announced this order on March 16, 2020, and sites should have been locked down for safety by March 23. Due to the public health emergency in Boston and across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this pause is still in effect until further notice.   

“The safety and health of construction workers and all residents of Boston is my first priority, and I am not willing to put that at risk as the virus spreads throughout our communities,” said Mayor Walsh. “Large gatherings such as those at construction sites have been proven to escalate the spread of the virus, and Boston must do everything in its power to flatten the curve, and stop the spread of coronavirus.”   

Mayor Walsh is working with various partners including construction firms and the building trades to determine protocols that would allow these sites to safely re-open in Boston.    This policy only applies to projects permitted by the City of Boston. The City will still allow work that is essential to the safety and well-being of Boston’s residents at this time, particularly work related to the COVID-19 public health crisis.  

In addition to these construction projects, the City will, on a case-by-case basis, review requests for exemptions to the temporary construction moratorium. These may be granted by the Commissioner of Inspectional Services (ISDCommissioner@boston.gov) for building-related work or the Commissioner of Public Works for street-related work. These will be granted if they support increased public health and safety and precautions are taken to mitigate the risk of exposure to COVID-19 among workers.    

Additional details about the order can be found on boston.gov. The guidance order is available online.  

###

Tackling Congestion: Lessons Learned from London and Stockholm

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:  

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. 
  4. 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.  

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirms decision in favor of BPDA

Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the Superior Court’s decision in favor of the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA), formerly known as the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), in the case of Joseph P. Marchese vs. Boston Redevelopment Authority. The Court determined that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the BPDA’s actions in this case.

In April, NAIOP submitted an amicus brief in support of the BPDA, drafted by law firm WilmerHale. NAIOP chose to pursue this opportunity because the case addresses the “demonstrations clause” of the urban renewal statute, which is a critical economic development tool, often used for artistic, cultural and historical preservation in the City of Boston.

“We are pleased with today’s decision,” said Tamara Small, CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts. “This case was closely watched by the industry and the decision will allow the BPDA to continue to leverage important public-private partnerships to positively impact the City’s communities and public spaces.”

NAIOP files amicus briefs from time to time in cases that may have far reaching implications for real estate development in the Commonwealth.

Very special thanks to the team at WilmerHale including Michael Bongiorno, Julia Harvey, Arjun Jaikumar, Matthew Costello, and Keith Barnett. Additional thanks to the NAIOP Amicus Brief Advisory Committee  for their in-depth review and input on this issue.

NAIOP Files Amicus Brief in Marchese v. BRA: Brief Urges SJC to Uphold Superior Court’s Decision in Favor of BPDA

Law firm WilmerHale recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of NAIOP Massachusetts, The Commercial Real Estate Development Association, in the case of Joseph Marchese vs. BRA.  The amicus brief urged the Supreme Judicial Court to affirm the Superior Court’s decision in favor of the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA), formerly known as the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).

NAIOP chose to pursue this opportunity because the case addresses the “demonstrations clause” of the urban renewal statute, a critical economic development tool, which is often used for artistic, cultural and historical preservation in the City of Boston.  NAIOP believes that if the BPDA and similar agencies cannot use their statutorily granted powers of eminent domain to carry out demonstration projects and plans, it could chill development throughout the Commonwealth.

“We are grateful to the incredible team at WilmerHale for their work,” said Tamara Small, CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts. “Joseph Marchese vs. BRA has wide reaching implications for our industry and all of Boston. The BPDA’s success in this matter will benefit Boston’s continued economic development, as well as positively impact the City’s communities and public spaces alike.”

The WilmerHale team involved in the matter was led by Partners Keith Barnett and Michael Bongiorno and included Senior Associate Arjun Jaikumar and Associates Matthew Costello and Julia Harvey.

Oral arguments began on Thursday, May 9.

My Top Ten Predictions for 2019

2019Here are my last predictions as CEO of NAIOP (but not my last predictions)!

  1. Wayfair will double their occupancy in Boston.
  2. Boston and Cambridge Office rental rates will rise to record levels for new space surpassing $120 psf.
  3. Apartment rental rates will be flat.
  4. WeWork will make a move to the suburbs.
  5. Electric bikes & scooters will be allowed in Boston (and then regretted).
  6. Bitcoin value will fall, other Cryptocurrencies will rise.
  7. Foreign investment in commercial real estate will drop.
  8. The stock market will hit an all time low and an all time high.
  9. The Fed will raise rates ¼% only once during the next year.
  10. Tiger Woods will win a major.

Below were my predictions for 2018. Not too bad!
1. Amazon will pass on Boston for a campus, but leave us with a great consolation prize. [Yes and 1mm sq. ft coming to the Seaport]
2. No Turnpike air rights project will start construction (ditto for 2019). [None, so far]
3. Fed. interest rates will be up 75 basis points by end of year. [50 basis points]
4. In Boston, more condos will be permitted than rental apartments (other than the neighborhoods). [Rental approved by BPDA: 33%/Condo: 67%]
5. An office or lab lease will hit $100 per square foot in Cambridge. [Boeing office, 314 Main St.: $106.63 Net effective rent]
6. Construction costs, on average, will be up 7%. [ to date, 6-7%]
7. More than one million SF of commercial space will commence on spec. [Office: Boston & Cambridge: 1,008,000 SF; Lab: Boston & Cambridge: 1,226,000 SF]
8. The 128 office market will show more transactions (both numbers and SF) than the downtown market. [Downtown wins]
9. Foreign buyers will begin to acquire major CRE property outside of Boston/Cambridge. [No]
10. And, yes, the Patriots will do it again. [Almost!]

NAIOP Mourns the Loss of Frank Wuest

NAIOP, its leadership, and its members all Wuest_Frankmourn the loss of Frank Wuest, a long time friend, past President, and avid supporter of NAIOP. We will miss his friendship, enthusiasm for life, and his upbeat attitude. To his family and friends, we give our deepest sympathies.

Frank Wuest died on Saturday, August 13, while participating in a fundraising swim in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. An avid and skilled swimmer, Frank was 56 years old, a native of Greenwich, CT, graduate of the University of Connecticut and Harvard Business School, and was President of Marcus Partners, having established a successful career in real-estate investment and development.

Passionate about Boston, its people, and its landscape, Frank loved leading the development of vibrant, mixed-income, mixed-use communities. His work included well known developments such as University Park at MIT and Radian in the Leather District of Boston, which he completed while at Forest City Enterprises, where he was for many years president of the Boston office and Head of the Science + Technology Divisions. He served on both the executive committee and board of directors of A Better City as well as the international advisory board of Harvard Business School’s Real Estate Academic Initiative. Mr. Wuest was the Vice Chair of the Advisory Board of the Boston District Council of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and was a past President and long time member of the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Chapter of NAIOP, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association. His kindness, intelligence, generosity, and quick smile will be missed greatly.

Frank became a committed long-distance swimmer in 1998, and was a beloved member of the Cambridge Masters Swim Club at Harvard. He was the recipient of many awards including United States Masters Swimming (USMS) Long Distance All Star, USMS Individual All-American, and many USMS Top-10 swims. Earlier this summer, Frank completed a 10,000M swim for time and was the top male finisher in the annual Charles River Swim.

Frank inspired those around him to do their best. A champion of family and time together, he never let a summer go by without a family reunion. He is survived by his wife, Lyn Duncan; two children, Sam Wuest and Allie Wuest and their mother MJ Vigneau; two stepchildren, Micki Duncan and Elias Duncan; his parents Gail and Frank Wuest of Connecticut, two brothers, Kirk of California and Chris of Connecticut, and his sister Avery Horne of Connecticut.

Funeral Mass and Life Celebration

A funeral mass will be held Saturday, August 20 at 11:00 am at St. Paul Church, 29 Mt. Auburn St., Cambridge, MA. An event celebrating Frank’s life will be held immediately following the mass at the Harvard University Murr Center. Because there is no parking at St. Paul Church, parking will be provided at the Harvard Stadium lot next to the Murr Center at 65 North Harvard St, Boston, MA 02163. Shuttle buses will provide transportation between the Murr Center and St. Paul Church before and after the service.

Immediately following the funeral Mass a luncheon reception and celebration will be held at the Harvard University Murr Center Hall of History, adjacent to the parking noted above.

In lieu of flowers, donations can be made to the Frank C. Wuest Memorial Fund, established through Fidelity’s Charitable Gift Fund. Details can be found below.

——————————————————————————————————————————

Frank C. Wuest Memorial Fund
Make checks payable to:
The Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund
Memo:  The Frank C. Wuest Memorial Fund, Giving Acco
unt #1098999

Checks need to be able to be drawn on a US Bank and should be in US Dollars.
We cannot accept cash like instruments (bank checks, cashier checks, money orders, postal orders, etc.)

Regular Mail Address:                                       Overnight Delivery Address:
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund                        Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund
Mail zone:  KC1D                                               Mail zone KC1D-FCS
P.O. Box 770001                                                100 Crosby Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45277-0053                           Covington, KY 41015-9325

Questions?
If you have any questions about the donation process, please call Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund at 1-800-952-4438 or visit www.FidelityCharitable.org. Please reference “The Frank C. Wuest Memorial Fund”, Giving Account #1098999.

The Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund is a 501c-3 tax-exempt organization. Its federal Tax Identification Number is 110303001.