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

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.

ViewPoint: A new stretch energy code is not justified

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!

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

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

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.

Event Recap: Leadership Lunch + Learn at 101 Seaport

The following blog post was written by Chloe Louise Bouscaren, Marketing and Business Development at CBT Architects.

“An Inventive Setting to Spark Inventive Thinking”

IMG_20151111_122627151On Wednesday, Nov 9th NAIOP hosted a Members-Only Leadership Luncheon at 101 Seaport Boulevard, the new home for PricewaterhouseCoopers, a multinational professional services network. PwC relocated 3000 employees from 125 High Street to Boston’s Seaport District. Shawn Hurley, the Executive Vice President and Regional Manager of SKANSKA USA Commercial Development hosted NAIOP on the building’s 7th floor, the only space that has yet to be leased. Shawn was joined by Charley Leatherbee, VP of Development; Levi Reilly, Director of Development; and Patrick Sousa, Manager of Development, who all played important roles in the success of this high-profile project.

IMG_20151111_121118778The newly constructed 17-story, 440,000 RSF, LEED Platinum state-of-the-art office building was developed by SKANKSA USA Commercial Development Team in Boston. Highlights included a chilled beam mechanical system, triple glazing curtain wall, 300 underground parking spaces, world class retail by WS Development, expansive views of the harbor and Seaport, conference and training centers, and virtually column free floorplates. 82% of the building is occupied by PwC, tenants Red Thread and Skanska will be joining them soon. NKGF’s Dave Martel and Bill Anderson are responsible for the leasing and deal negotiation.IMG_20151111_120951643_TOP

Located on what will be the new Seaport Square Green, 101 Seaport connects directly to Fan Pier Park, creating a continuous public space that reaches Boston Harbor and connects to the Harborwalk Grand civic lawn to support active recreation and public events.CBT2

SKANSKA is also currently working a neighboring 17-story office tower, 121 Seaport, as well as Watermark Seaport, a 300-unit residential complex both on neighboring parcels.CTjJnD2VAAAiuyx.jpg large

For those who have yet to hear Shawn’s presentations on SKANKSA’s developments in the Seaport and beyond, his confidence and presence is unparalleled. Shawn has an innate way of making an audience feel comfortable and that day, we all felt we were part of something big. SKANSKA is clearly making development history in Boston and Shawn and his group are leading that charge the titans of the real estate industry. Hats off gents.

Quick Project Stats
Project Cost: $290M
Project Duration: 26 months
PwC Employees: 3000 (20% more people in 12% less space)
Designer / Design Firm: Jonathan McGuiness, Jacobs Engineering Group

NAIOP’s on-going Leadership Lunch and Learn series is open only to Members and offers unparalleled access to top local real estate leaders. Attendees get an inside look at the area’s most active CRE companies and hear about their latest developments, recent activity, upcoming projects, and more. Not yet a NAIOP Member? Join today!

Ridesharing May be Saved by Technology

RideshareThe Clean Air Act was created to respond to the ever-increasing air pollution that has come from industrial expansion and a reliance on fossil fuels for energy and transportation. Automobiles are a major source of air pollution (e.g. hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide). It is estimated that road traffic accounts for about 40 percent of the pollution that contributes to ground-level ozone (the main ingredient in smog).

Single occupancy vehicles have long dominated the roadways, especially for commuters. In an effort to reduce pollution, states, like Massachusetts, have adopted Rideshare Programs. Ridesharing is the sharing of vehicles by passengers to reduce vehicle trips, traffic congestion and automobile emissions. Ridesharing (carpooling, vanpooling, public transport), as well as bicycle commuting and walking, are all goals of these programs.

Locally, the idea has been for Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to work with large employers (with more than 1,000 employees) to promote commuting options. The program depends on corporate surveys of worker commuter patterns, providing a menu of commuting options, offering incentives, and documenting the resulting annual changes in patterns, hopefully to successfully meet a specific performance goal of reducing by 25 percent the number of times commuters drive alone to work.

Unfortunately, for various reasons, these programs have had limited success, but continue to burden the employer with annual compliance costs. Part of the problem has always been the difficulty of organizing car-pooling and the uncertainties due to the drivers’ and passengers’ daily schedules.

We are all getting accustomed to technology searching for logistical problems to solve. The ridesharing conundrum is one of those problems and “real-time ridesharing” are the solutions beginning to be provided by Transportation Network Companies, such as LyftUber and Sidecar. These companies, with their mobile apps, arrange one-time rides on an on-demand basis.

Both Lyft (Lyft Line) and Uber have now introduced a carpooling service in Boston. Passengers along a route get in the car at a price cheaper than the ride-for-hire alternative. The trip has to maintain its original route as it picks up other customers, who have to be ready immediately to get in the car when it arrives for them.

Although this service is currently limited to the Boston/Cambridge market, there is no question that an expansion of this service into the suburban market is inevitable.

It is also not very difficult to foresee an app that allows single occupancy drivers to easily connect with fellow commuters heading in the same direction, on a ride by ride basis. With no long-term commitments and many scheduling alternatives available, it seems like an easy fix. Yeah, we’ve got an app for that!

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

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.

Business Coalition Urges Governor and Legislature to Create World-Class Transit System

A broad coalition of 25 business associations representing large and small employers from a wide range of industries today issued the following statement urging the Governor and the Legislature to adopt the recent recommendations made by the Special Panel to Review the MBTA and to swiftly begin the task of fixing the state’s public transit system:

Business Coalition Statement in Support of a World-Class Transit System

The Challenge
The winter of 2015 highlighted the Commonwealth’s transportation vulnerabilities, particularly for the MBTA. While school and business cancellations, a dramatic drop in retail sales, and an increase in public safety risks result from many major winter storms, the complete shutdown of the MBTA followed by a prolonged reduction in services for the subways and commuter rails are not the norm.
The unreliability of our public transit system caused many businesses to lose substantial revenues from the loss of productivity due to delays and/or the inability of workers to get to work. Many hourly workers forfeited wages; many retailers forfeited sales; many restaurants forfeited patrons; and the Commonwealth forfeited the income, sales and meals tax associated therewith. A sub-optimal public transit system also caused roadways to be more congested than usual and commuting times to grow to unreasonable lengths for those who opted to drive or were transporting goods. The adverse financial impacts totaled in the billions of dollars. This is unacceptable and must not be repeated.

The Framework
Due to the urgency of fixing the MBTA and the need for the public transit system to be reliable and fully functional, the undersigned business organizations are requesting policy makers to address the following issues:
• Make the T a customer-focused organization that provides first-rate service and clear communication while instilling confidence in its ridership.
• Provide greater accountability and transparency for the T’s governance and management practices to ensure the entity is efficiently and effectively run while employing a productive workforce.
• Develop a long-term strategic and capital plan for the T that efficiently uses its resources to enhance the current capabilities and future needs of the T, businesses and workers, while providing sufficient funding to cover the costs.
• Overhaul the T’s procurement and maintenance practices so that the system is safe, reliable and in a state of good repair.
• Establish metrics, milestones and regular reporting to ensure proper implementation of the T reforms within a reasonable period of time.
• Ensure that the T balances its operating budget without the need for ever-increasing state assistance each year.

The Solution
The undersigned support this position and urge the Governor and the Legislature to act swiftly so we can begin the arduous task of fixing the state’s public transit system.

Following a thorough analysis of the various recommendations from the Governor’s Special Panel to Review the MBTA, and measured against the principles outlined above, we endorse the Panel’s proposal and urge the Legislature to adopt the plan immediately.

The following business organizations support this statement:
495/MetroWest Partnership
Affiliated Chambers of Commerce of Greater Springfield
American Council of Engineering Companies of Massachusetts
Associated Industries of Massachusetts
Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts
Construction Industries of Massachusetts
Environmental Business Council
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
Greater Boston Real Estate Board
Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
Massachusetts Chemistry & Technology Alliance
Massachusetts High Tech Council
Massachusetts Lodging Association
Massachusetts Petroleum Council
Massachusetts Restaurant Association
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council
Massachusetts Business Roundtable
Metro South Chamber of Commerce
NAIOP Massachusetts, The Commercial Real Estate Development Association
National Federation of Independent Businesses
Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce
North Shore Chamber of Commerce
Retailers Association of Massachusetts
South Shore Chamber of Commerce

Quotes from Business Coalition Members:
“The unreliability of the public transit system has caused many businesses to lose substantial revenues from the loss of productivity due to delays and the inability of workers to get to work,” said Richard Lord, President and Chief Executive Officer of Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM).

Eileen McAnneny, President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said, “Now that the breadth and severity of the problems confronting the MBTA have been revealed and the price of inaction is evident, we have a real opportunity to move forward with a plan for transforming the MBTA into a modern, world-class public transit system.”

“The transit system experienced a ‘stress test’ and failed. The time is right to not only fix today’s MBTA, but ensure that it will meet future demands,” said David Begelfer, CEO of NAIOP Massachusetts, The Commercial Real Estate Development Association.

“The MBTA is critical to Greater Boston’s economy. Workers, customers, patients, students and tourists depend on it every day. We need to take the T to the next level right away,” said Paul Guzzi, President and CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.

Making the Olympic Argument with NAIOP: 2024 and Beyond

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.