Tag Archives: NAIOP Massachusetts

NAIOP Massachusetts Installs 2020 Leadership Team: Leslie Cohen to Serve as 2020 Chapter President, Sara Cassidy Moves to Board Chair; Special Awards Given

Posted on by
Reply

At its Annual Meeting on November 20, NAIOP Massachusetts, The Commercial Real Estate Development Association, elected a new President and Board members, along with a new Leadership Council. The Board includes the principals of many of the region’s leading commercial real estate firms.

Leslie Cohen, Chief Operating Officer and Head of Asset Management at Samuels & Associates, was elected President of NAIOP Massachusetts for 2020.  In this capacity, she will work closely with NAIOP staff and Chapter leadership to guide the organization. Sara Cassidy of AEW, who served as the 2019 President, will serve as Board Chair; Tom Andrews of Alexandria Real Estate Equites becomes President-Elect; Jessica Hughes of Tishman Speyer will serve as Treasurer; and Patrick McMahon of Federal Realty Investment Trust becomes Secretary.

“NAIOP is the voice for an industry that plays a critical role in the region’s economy and competitiveness. Our members are innovative, engaged in their communities and focused on ensuring that Massachusetts is a great place to work and live,” said Cohen.  “At the same time, we have a great opportunity to foster diversity across the field.  I look forward to collaborating with other senior NAIOP leaders to implement new initiatives that will cultivate a broader pipeline of talent interested in all aspects of the commercial real estate industry.”

Cohen has been part of the Samuels team for more than 17 years. She previously served as the President of CREW Boston (formerly NEWiRE) and has served on the Board of Trustees and the Building Committee at the West End House in Allston, on the Building and Grounds Committee at Tufts University, and, for the second time, will co-chair Heading Home’s Housewarming event. In 2013, Cohen was selected as a Boston Business Journal’s 40 under 40 honoree. In 2014 and 2018 she was honored as one of Bisnow’s Power Women in Commercial Real Estate.

“NAIOP’s volunteer leaders represent the best of this industry. NAIOP’s Executive Director Reesa Fischer and I are honored to work with professionals like Leslie in our efforts to advance and grow the industry,” said Tamara Small, CEO of NAIOP. “Their creativity and energy will allow our organization to address the needs of commercial real estate professionals while focusing on advocacy, education and professional development.”

The 2020 Leadership Council members include:

Chapter Affairs Chair: Michael Wilcox, The Bulfinch Companies, Inc.

Developing Leaders Chair: Alex Schultz, Davis Companies

Developing Leaders Vice Chair: Sam Campbell, JLL

Diversity Equity & Inclusion Chair: Taidgh McClory, TH McClory, LLP

Diversity Equity & Inclusion Vice Chair: Amanda Strong, MITIMCo

Government Affairs Chair: Carolyn Desmond, Skanska Commercial Development

Government Affairs Vice Chair: Matthew Snell, Nutter McClennen & Fish

Membership& Marketing Chair: Tina Snyder, DivcoWest

Membership& Marketing Vice Chair: Katherine Shoss, The Bulfinch Companies, Inc.

Program & Education Chair: Robert Borden, CBRE

Program& Education Vice Chair: Michael Buckley, Avison Young

Awards Chair: Allen Breed, MITIMCo

Golf Tournament Co-Chairs: Andrew Gallinaro, National Development and Sarah Lagosh, Eastdil Secured

Developing Leaders Board Liaison: Abby Mondani, Oxford Properties

Communications Chair: Wendy Pierce, Goldstein Pierce PR

Strategic Development Co-Chairs: Kerry Hawkins, JLL; Derrick Goodwin, Lee Kennedy Company; Dan McGrath, Berkeley Investments; Kathy McMahon, National Development and Adam Weisenberg, Sullivan & Worcester LLP

In addition, the following industry leaders joined the NAIOP Board for three-year terms:

Katharine Bachman, Gravestar

Marcella Barriere, Google

Kevin Benedix, Boston Global Investors

Lawrence Curtis, WinnDevelopment
Russell DiMartino, Skanska Commercial Development

Todd Fremont-Smith, Nordblom Company

Richard Galvin, CV Properties

David Goodhue, Colliers International

Taran Grigsby, Fidelity Real Estate

Timothy Guy, Clarion Partners

Andrew Hoar, CBRE

Shawn Hurley, Marcus Partners

Gary Kerr, Greystar

Sarah Lagosh, Eastdil

Charles Leatherbee, Trammel Crow Company

Douglas Manz, HYM Investments

Steve Marsh, MITIMCo

John Myers, Redgate

Tinchuck Ng, Cottonwood Management

Alex Schultz, The Davis Companies

Kirk Sykes, Accordia Partners

Joseph Zink, Atlantic Management

NAIOP Massachusetts also presented several special awards to select members who have made significant contributions to benefit the industry.  Sara Cassidy presented the 2020 President’s Award to Rob Borden of JLL in recognition of his exceptional leadership, strategic direction and vision as Vice-Chair of NAIOP’s Program Committee.  Larry Feldman of GZA was presented with the 2020 NAIOP Government Affairs Champion Award in recognition of his years of work on NAIOP’s Brownfields Redevelopment Committee.  His advocacy has resulted in countless laws and policies that encourage the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites in Massachusetts.

The Annual Meeting was held prior to the start of the NAIOP/SIOR Annual Market Forecast, which included an economic overview by Kelly Whitman, Vice President of Investment Research at PGIM Real Estate, and market updates from Kristin Blount (Downtown), Executive Vice President, Colliers International; Robert Byrne (Suburbs), Managing Director, Cushman & Wakefield; Ben Coffin (Cambridge), Managing Director, JLL; Rick Schuhwerk (Industrial), Executive Managing Director, Newmark Knight Frank; and Chris Skeffington (Capital Markets), Senior Vice President, CBRE.

About NAIOP

NAIOP Massachusetts, which represents 1,650 members, is the leading organization for developers, owners, and investors of office, research & development, industrial, mixed use, multifamily, retail and institutional real estate in the Commonwealth.  NAIOP advocates for policies that advance commercial real estate while providing outstanding education and networking opportunities.

Sudbury Power Line Fight Could Affect Development Deals Statewide

Posted on by
Reply

The following article, written by Jon Chesto, was first published in the October 2 online edition of The Boston Globe

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.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirms decision in favor of BPDA

Posted on by
Reply

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 Mourns the Loss of Frank Wuest

Posted on by
Reply

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 Account #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.

ViewPoint: A new stretch energy code is not justified

Posted on by
Reply

This OpEd appeared in the Boston Business Journal on June 3, 2016.

In March 2015, Governor Charlie Baker signed Executive Order 562, initiating a comprehensive review process for all regulations. Only those regulations which are mandated by law or essential to the health, safety, environment, or welfare of the Commonwealth’s residents would be retained or modified, making Massachusetts a more efficient and competitive place to live and work.

Agencies must demonstrate, in their review, that there is a clearly identified need for governmental intervention; the costs do not exceed the benefits; a regulation does not exceed federal requirements; less restrictive and intrusive alternatives have been considered and found less desirable; and the regulation does not unduly and adversely affect the competitive environment in Massachusetts.

Based on these specific criteria, the business community is concerned that the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) is currently considering a new Stretch Energy Code as it develops the 9th edition of the statewide building code. Besides the fact that this Stretch Code undermines the statutory requirement that there be a uniform State Building/Energy Code, there is no good reason for it. This proposed energy code is unnecessary and fails the regulatory review standards, and the Baker Administration and the BBRS should not advance it.

The Stretch Energy Code was originally adopted in May 2009, despite strong opposition from the business community.  The code required commercial and residential construction in those communities that voted to adopt it to be approximately 20% more energy efficient than the statewide code. The new stretch energy code would require a 15% increase in energy efficiency over the current code. The Stretch Code has caused confusion among local building inspectors and developers.  Due to this and several other reasons, a new version of the Stretch Energy Code has never been adopted, even when the statewide code changed.  In fact, at the close of the Patrick Administration, the BBRS voted not to advance a new draft of the Stretch Energy Code.  However, in April 2015, this decision was reversed.

Massachusetts is already the most energy efficient state in the nation, with the most aggressive energy efficiency targets.  Furthermore, Massachusetts will be one of only a handful of states in the nation to adopt the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) statewide.  Since the Green Communities Act requires the adoption of the latest IECC (every three years), the Commonwealth’s position as a national leader in energy efficiency will be ensured even without a Stretch Code.  Anything beyond that is overly burdensome and creates a significant competitive disadvantage for Massachusetts.

It is important to note that there is no statutory requirement to adopt or update a Stretch Energy Code.  There is no mention of it in any statute, and it is only the Department of Energy Resources’ (DOER) policy that encourages the creation of this code.

According to DOER, the changes to the Stretch Code would take effect automatically in stretch code communities without any local vote.  Many municipalities had no idea they would be subject to an automatic upgrade.

The business community continues to support a uniform statewide building and energy code.  We believe a new Stretch Energy Code is unnecessary, will hinder economic development, and would impose an unfair and difficult burden on local building officials and the construction industry.  We urge the Baker Administration and the BBRS to eliminate the Stretch Energy Code, once and for all, and acknowledge the latest version of the IECC as the only energy code in Massachusetts.

David Begelfer is the CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association.

A Little Late, But Welcome to Massachusetts, Steve!

Posted on by
Reply

WynnEverettIt appears that the lengthy, sometimes contentious, legal battle between Wynn Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh is over. A “surrounding community” agreement was reached by both parties for the development of an Everett casino. The agreement includes:

  • $31 million over 15 years for community impact
  • $25 million over 10 years for Sullivan Square infrastructure improvements
  • $11 million for traffic mitigation in Charlestown
  • $250,000 for a regional working group on a “long-term fix” for Sullivan Square
  • a “good faith effort” to purchase $20 million annually over 15 years from Boston businesses
  • $1 million for reimbursement of Boston’s professional (legal) expenses.

Wynn Resorts Everett will be a $1.7 billion, five-star, premier destination resort with a 600 all-suite room hotel in Everett, located off Lower Broadway, at the site of the heavily contaminated, former Monsanto Chemical plant. Millions of dollars will be invested to clean and remediate the site and to construct infrastructure and traffic betterments.

The Commonwealth will receive a licensing fee of $85 million, along with 25% of gross gaming revenues, which are estimated to be $260 million annually.

There will be 4,000 full time jobs, as well as over 3,600 construction jobs.

For Everett:

  • $30 million in advanced payments for a Community Enhancement Fund payable during the construction period
  • $5 million Community Impact Fee, increasing annually
  • $20 million for real estate taxes, increasing annually (almost 25% of the city’s tax base)
  • $250,000 contribution to Everett Citizens Foundation
  • $50,000 annual payment to purchase vouchers/gift certificates from Everett businesses to be distributed by Wynn as part of its loyalty programs
  • An estimated $2.5 million per year in hotel and restaurant taxes
  • An active waterfront park with a winter garden and harbor walk will be created

That’s quite a financial commitment by an out-of-state company to the Commonwealth. In case you haven’t heard it before, welcome to Massachusetts!

A Great Start for Economic Development Under the Baker/Polito Administration

Posted on by
Reply

BakerGovernor Charlie Baker and Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito just filed the administration’s Economic Development bill with $1 billion to be invested over the next five years into economic development, housing and job training across the Commonwealth.

A core principal of this legislation is to take various existing programs and make enhancements to them so that they become more widely used, more effective, recapitalized, and more user-friendly:

  • MassWorks ($500 million proposed capital authorization): Reauthorizes a capital grant program that provides municipalities and other public entities with public infrastructure grants to support economic development and job creation.
  • Brownfields Redevelopment Fund ($75 million proposed capital authorization): Moves funding for the state’s Brownfields Redevelopment Fund to the capital program, providing a reliable long-term funding stream for a fund that is the Commonwealth’s primary tool for facilitating the redevelopment of contaminated properties.
  • Housing-Related Tax Increment Financing: Supports housing production in town centers by reforming a seldom-used local-only smart growth tax incentive program, removing onerous regulations, and allowing communities to set their own affordability requirements.
  • Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP) Reform: Supports the development of market-rate housing in Gateway Cities by allowing credits to support new construction, and by raising the formula that sets housing development incentives.
  • I-Cubed Reform: Reforms the I-Cubed infrastructure program by removing unnecessary program requirements (such as eliminating the per-municipality cap on the number of projects that may participate and raising the aggregate limit of funds from the I-cubed program that may be used in any one municipality from 31% to 50%) building flexibility into the program, and aligning program requirements with the demonstrated project pipeline.
  • Economic Development Incentive Program (EDIP) Reforms: Builds accountability in the state’s primary job-creation incentive program by strengthening the link between the issuance of tax credits, and job creation that would not otherwise occur; adds flexibility to the incentive program by eliminating obsolete formula-driven incentive categories, and by creating a new Extraordinary Development Opportunity designation.

In addition, the bill creates two important provisions:

  • Site Readiness Fund ($25 million proposed capital authorization): Advances regional job creation by creating a new fund for site assembly and pre-development activities (including site assessment and cleanup) that support regionally significant commercial or industrial development opportunities.
  • “Starter Home” Zoning: Incentivizes the creation of smaller, denser, and more affordable single-family homes by creating a new starter home option under the Chapter 40R smart growth housing program. These projects will also allow the municipality to be eligible for school reimbursements under Chapter 40S.
  • Parking Management Districts: Aligns local parking policies with broader economic development priorities by enabling municipalities to opt into creating demand-based parking fees, and allowing parking fees to support capital improvements in designated districts, like downtowns.

In addition, there are new programs with a Massachusetts Innovation Initiative, Workforce Development, and Economic Competitiveness.

We are very supportive of the bill, which contains many of NAIOP’s priorities. This legislation will be one of NAIOP’s top priorities for the remainder of the legislative session.

Housing Costs May Cost Us Our Young Talent

Posted on by
Reply

This post originally appeared in the Boston Business Journal on November 20, 2015.

ApartmentsIn the coming years, the Massachusetts economy may be at serious risk. The Commonwealth’s most valuable resource is its educated, skilled talent. Maintaining that resource is essential for continued economic growth. However, there is a threat which is making that goal harder and harder to achieve. Massachusetts has one of the highest housing costs in the nation – a significant barrier for talent recruitment and retention. Without an adequate supply of workforce housing, Massachusetts may soon lose that talent to other, more affordable, markets.

The UMass Donahue Institute’s Population Estimates Program concluded that the state’s population will increase by nearly 300,000 over a 20-year period. Good news, but the population of Massachusetts grew only by 3.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, while the U.S. population increased by 9.7 percent. Of concern, the study also projects an increasingly older population for the state.

Though a good portion of Massachusetts’ growth is driven by a net natural increase (number of births greater than deaths), a larger share of the growth is attributed to net immigration. Looking more closely, there is a net domestic outflow of residents (more people moved out of Massachusetts than into it from other parts of the U.S.), offset by a large number of international immigrants.

This is occurring during a boom time for the Greater Boston region, while the rest of the country, with a few exceptions, is still working its way out of the recession. Another way of looking at it is that, for the past few years, there have not been many job opportunities attracting our younger workers away from the state.

It was not that long ago that most of the country was experiencing stronger job growth than Massachusetts. As documented in a 2003 University of Massachusetts/MassINC report, Mass. Migration, over 200,000 more domestic residents moved out of Massachusetts than moved into the state between 1990 and 2002. And then, between 2002 and 2004, that imbalance became worse.

Fortunately, at that time, foreign immigrants helped to offset these population losses, but they frequently arrived with lower levels of education and skills than those who were leaving. Those departing tended to be younger, better educated, and more likely to be employed in a knowledge-intensive industry.

These trends will have substantial workforce and business implications and should be a call to action. The costs of both rental and for sale housing have been accelerating, reaching record highs. More and more young individuals and families are being priced out of the market. In some cases, the problem is restrictive zoning, other municipalities are shunning any housing that increases the school population, and in some markets, the cost of construction makes workforce housing uneconomical.

The solutions may be difficult, political, and costly, but without action at the state and local levels, the future of the Massachusetts economy is at risk.

MBTA Control Board’s First Report Shows Urgent Need For Change

Posted on by
Reply

The MBTA’s new Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) has just issued its first 60-day report identifying the scope of the challenges facing the T. The GreenLineFMCB has been tasked with identifying and shaping solutions to improve operations and performance. The report is extensive, probing, and extremely candid. The Board members should be congratulated on producing such a clear case for moving from the status quo to a system that is reliable, transparent, and sustainable.

It is no surprise that the some of the underlying problems are even more serious than originally thought. Firstly, the MBTA’s annual operating budget is unsustainable, with expenses increasing at nearly three times the rate of revenue growth. Secondly, annual capital spending on deferred maintenance and capital investment is substantially below the $472 million annual spending needed to prevent the backlog from further increasing. The prolonged under-spending has caused the backlog in capital investment to rise to $7.3 billion. The report states that the management team has committed to ensuring that available capital funds are spent, maintaining the MBTA system at a level that will prevent the backlog from further increasing while improving the overall condition of the system and its facilities as expeditiously as possible.

The FMCB has reported some progress:

• Total Capital spending increased to $740 million in FY2015 and is budgeted to be $1.05 billion in FY2016.
• The MBTA planned, designed, and is executing a Winter Resiliency Plan to better prepare the system to withstand major storms and extended periods of cold.
• The MBTA and Keolis Commuter Services have signed a Performance Improvement Plan and are working to address identified shortfalls in performance.
• The FMCB and MBTA management are developing a strategy to make improvements in the procurement and contracting processes and to review all existing service contracts (e.g., the MBTA issued a Request for Information for the private-sector on some low and moderate ridership bus routes, express bus routes, and late-night bus service).
• The FMCB and MBTA management are focusing on performance metrics to drive improvement in MBTA operational practices and to expand transparency and accountability with the riding public.
• The FMCB and MBTA leadership are also pursuing efforts to increase workforce productivity and to reduce absenteeism among MBTA staff.
• The FMCB is committed to a positive employee engagement program, understanding that morale, sense of mission, clear management and decision-making structures, and workforce investments are all necessary ingredients for any successful organization.

It is very clear to the reader of this report that the work of FMCB has just begun. The goal is to have a transit system that is sustainable and accomplishes its mission. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, the MBTA will be operating efficiently. It will certainly take a lot of work by a dedicated management team and workforce. However, there is no alternative. Businesses, residents, and workers must have an MBTA that is reliable.

Making the Olympic Argument with NAIOP: 2024 and Beyond

Posted on by
Reply

The following blog post was written by T.J Winick, Vice President at Solomon McCown & Company.

It’s only been about 50 days since the Elisif_20150224_0962United States Olympic Committee officially named Boston as America’s bid city for the 2024 Summer Olympics. Yet it was quite apparent at Tuesday morning’s NAIOP Massachusetts’ Breakfast Panel that Boston 2024 has settled on its pitch to the public: The quest to host the Games is all about “the future of Boston”. The phrase repeated over and over at the event (entitled 2024 Olympics: Vision, Opportunity and a Catalyst for Change) was “2030 and beyond.” As in, “This isn’t about those 30 days in the summer of 2024, it’s about what we want our city to look like in 2030 and beyond.”

Moderator Tom Alperin, President of National Development, remarked, “We can win by losing,” meaning that Boston will benefit from a fierce debate over infrastructure and sustainably whether we’re awarded the games or not. That sentiment was echoed by panelists Rich Davey, CEO of Boston 2024 and former Mass. Secretary of Transportation; David Manfredi of Elkus-Manfredi Architects; David Nagahiro of CBT Architects and Stephen Thomas of VHB. However, winning, as Manfredi noted, is the name of the game.

This was a coming out party of sorts for Davey, who was only recently named CEO of the effort to submit Boston’s bid to the International Olympic Committee. He’s pledging that ours would be a new type of Olympics: Sustainable, largely privately-financed with no cost overruns, and that leaves a positive legacy. He cited a quarter of a billion dollars in foundation grants that have been handed out by Los Angeles over the past 31 years, financed by their hosting the 1984 games. That’s the type of legacy the Boston Games would leave, Davey insists, not the fraud, waste and abuse the anti-Olympics crowd argues would cripple the region.

It was Manfredi’s presentation that focused on real estate: in this case, potential Olympic venues. One of the reasons Boston was chosen to represent America (over New York, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco) was the viability of hosting the most “walkable” Olympic Games in history, with 28 of the 33 proposed venues within a 10 kilometer radius and an average of 5.3 kilometers between each venue. The Olympic Village, which must house 16,000 individuals, would be built on Columbia Point, which is currently home to UMass Boston. About 5,000-6,000 of those beds would later become UMass student dorms, helping to satisfy the school’s goal of adding student residences. The remainder would be transformed into affordable and workforce housing, helping Mayor Walsh achieve his goal of 53,000 units of new housing by 2030.

David Nagahiro, whose firm CBT is focused on the village, underscored the concept of a sustainable games when he noted that, “UMass students are interchangeable with Olympic athletes” in benefitting from modern dorms and amenities overlooking Boston Harbor and the Harbor Islands. It’s this type of development that would help transform the University, typically thought of as a commuter school, into a more residential campus. Nagahiro, who recently visited London and Barcelona to speak with former Olympic officials there, gushed about long-term benefits enjoyed by the former Olympic hosts. Back in Boston, infrastructure improvements would also mean UMass students would enjoy a new transportation “Superhub” at the JFK-UMass Stop along the MBTA’s Red Line.

Moving 635,000 athletes, media, staff, volunteers and spectators between the city’s two Olympic “Clusters” (A Waterfront Cluster downtown and a University Cluster encompassing M.I.T., Harvard and B.U.) is Thomas’ and VHB’s domain. He insisted that Boston proves its ability to host multiple, massive events annually with the Boston Marathon and a morning Red Sox game every Patriots Day. While the MBTA is currently is crisis mode, everyone on the panel agreed that the T must be a catalyst for moving this bid forward and that public transportation is the key to economic opportunity and growth. While not as “sexy” as new train cars, Davey pointed out that signal and power systems, along with capacity improvements, would benefit Greater Boston long after the games are gone. The numbers being cited by Boston 2024 are $5 billion in transportation investment already underway and an additional $5 billion planned. However, some of those numbers were called into question in a Boston Globe article that came out the same morning as the panel.

In 2017, Boston will find out if its quest to host the games was successful. If it is, it could mean beach volleyball on the Boston Common and Olympic baseball at Fenway Park, not to mention more than 600,000 visitors to our city over a 30 day stretch. But for those looking to make the games a reality, clearly 2024 would be just the beginning.