Recently, David Birdsall, Chief Development Officer for Phillips Edison, spoke to a group of real estate industry executives about the state of the retail industry and its impact on retail real estate.  Dave believes we are at the dawn of a new/old retail era.  Dave showed how the internet is changing how consumers shop and will continue to evolve to present easier and perhaps more desirable shopping experiences for consumers. We have already seen retailers changing their strategy to have one or two stores in a market at the top locations with the internet covering the rest, instead of trying to "store" the entire market. Dave says successful retail will instead  be "experience" driven. Shoppers will come to a retailer or a shopping center for the experience.  Thus, restaurants may become the new anchor. Authentic, local, family owned retailers may have a new special appeal.  Retailers will not be looking at mass openings but will concentrate on improving existing operations. New developments will be scarce. Existing "distressed" centers may need to be redeveloped for other uses. And successful retailers and landlords will be those who are really good operators – not just good financiers. 

 

Our good friend, Abe Schear, Chairman of the Leasing Practice Group at Arnall Golden Gregory in Atlanta, pens a newsletter called Baseball Digest(able).    Abe’s January issue is a powerful piece of insightful writing which merits all of our attention.   Since many of the deals in the real estate industry occur as a result of the reputation and faith we all have in each other based upon mutual experience, we are all put in the position of being an "enabler" at some time or another.  Therefor, it is in all of our best interest to head the lessons which Abe so aptly points out.   Abe has graciously given us permission to reprint the newsletter below.   Thank you Abe.

 

New Year’s Musings

Having just returned from Berlin where Linda and I spent four nights over the year end holidays, numerous reflections come to mind.  First, and somewhat surprising to me, there is so much to see I’d like to go back in the summer when the weather is more temperate and there is more than eight hours of day light.  Second, what is it about us Americans that wholly rejects timely and clean bus and train service?  The public transportation in Berlin was beyond wonderful – clean, efficient, affordable and it went most everywhere we wanted to go.  Third, most of Berlin appears to have come to grips with its history, good and bad, and the city is full of contemplative art and youthful energy. 

There is, in fact, a sculpture in a small park near the original site of an old synagogue where Jewish men were separated from their mostly non-Jewish wives and children near the end of World War II.  Their wives and their families protested night after night, blocking streets and creating a stir the Nazis neither expected nor wished to see gather wider support.  While these courageous women were not successful in completely stemming the tragic transport of these men and others to the concentration camps, their voices were heard, and the transport was slowed.  The part of the sculpture which comes to mind sits directly across the park from the memorial to these heroic women.  It depicts a man sitting idly on a park bench looking away from the other pieces, a man who wants to appear to know nothing, will do nothing, feels nothing, and cares for nothing and no one but  himself.  Our guide referred to him as the “ambivalent stranger”.
           
This “know nothing – do nothing” concern affects all of us around the world.  As we look at the tabloid-friendly Tiger Woods situation (or the never-ending baseball steroid matter for that regard), regardless of what Tiger did, what Tiger took, where Tiger took it and who he got it from, does anyone seriously believe that there was not a bevy of enablers, people as self serving and cold as the statue, who knew better but said nothing and did less?

For instance, is it remotely possible that Tiger’s caddy, his agent, his so called friends and representatives of his sponsors, did not know what was going on which led to this very sad fall from grace?  Under what pretense did they think that they were being Tiger’s friend?  Were these people simply protecting their own meal ticket?  Is there no circumstance when doing right is more important than making money?

Business, naturally enough, raises this quandary every day in the ethics and morals of our work. What is right and what is not?  When do we lend a hand and when do we turn our backs?  When do we take a moment to comfort and when do we fail to be a friend?

These issues are particularly important as we enter a new year.  Sport is, of course, a daily lesson about rules and teamwork and fair play.  Sport is a reflection on our society and on us – we follow sports that we care about and, as we do, we often learn a lot about ourselves.  As we set our goals for the new year, we routinely look at our productivity – hours worked, time billed, money earned – or whatever our productivity measures may be. We set goals to be better parents and better children, to go to our houses of worship more often, to do more volunteer work.  Perhaps we should ask ourselves what we would have done had we been in Tiger’s inner circle.  Would we have had the courage to try to correct the situation?  Would we have lied about not knowing anything?  Would we have done all we could to save our paycheck?

I have some idea how I would have reacted had I been in that inner circle, but there is no doubt that many of these people wish or will wish that they had taken the nobler path and will ask themselves why they didn’t act when there was opportunity.  I know that none of us want to be memorialized as a “know nothing, do nothing” person – not for ourselves nor for our families.   

 

 

 

Vacancy rates are up; occupancy rates are down.  This spells opportunity for tenants and challenges for landlords.   The instinct which once prevailed in the real estate industry was to "go for the jugular" and cut the best deal you possibly can.  But real estate professionals know that today’s "tenant market" will become tomorrow’s "landlord market."  So, savvy real estate professionals are approaching the present  "soft" market with a creative approach which has the intention to make everyone a winner.  

Consider surplus space give backs; move-up to better space for the tenant with better terms for the landlord; percentage rent structured office leases for certain types of revenue generating space users (such as micro-office suites).  The options and opportunities are endless.   So, before you slit the throat of your adversary remember, what goes around comes around !

The federal government recently announced several changes to U.S. immigration legislation. Two key topics involve increased enforcement efforts of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and changes in request for prevailing wage procedures. 

Preparing for an I-9 Audit or Inspection
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has significantly increased its enforcement
efforts with respect to undocumented workers and Form I-9 recordkeeping. Employers must be prepared to quickly and effectively respond to an ICE-issued Notice of Inspection (NOI). ICE may review the employer’s files in as few as three days from the time the NOI is issued. Often enough, a prompt and complete response to the ICE office handling the investigation will end or significantly curtail their inquiry. In any event, a cooperative employer is far less likely to face fines or sanctioning. With that in mind, employers can prepare themselves for responding to a NOI by ensuring the availability of the following records:

Continue Reading Yes, The U.S. Immigration Laws Apply to the Real Estate Industry

The Cleveland Plain Dealer has reported that Fannie Mae, a player in the national secondary mortgage market and unwitting owner of numerous abandoned properties in the Greater Cleveland area, has reached a deal with the newly formed Cuyahoga County Land Reutilization Corporation to sell properties to it for $1 each.

Compared with our last report here, the deal represents a significant step forward for the Landbank which until now had acquired approximately 20 properties with 60 more under evaluation. The first set of transfers from Fannie Mae will consist of 25 properties, 24 of which have homes on them that will likely need to be demolished. Fannie Mae has agreed to pay up to $3500 of demolition costs on each property.  

Going forward, Fannie will essentially provide the Landbank with a purchase option on any foreclosed properties valued at under $25,000. The Landbank will have 30 days to evaluate the properties for acquisition prior to them being listed on the wider market. 

 

In other Landbank developments, the Board of Directors will consider authorizing a line of credit with KeyBank at its December 18, 2009 meeting. The credit line would go up to $7.5 million and would be a significant portion of the $15 million in financing the Landbank is looking to generate in 2010. 

 

Both the Fannie Mae deal and the Landbank’s new financing options demonstrate that the bank has substantive long-term plans to redevelop established Cleveland neighborhoods. The Landbank has already been cited by experts as a national model for addressing lingering problems from the foreclosure crisis. In the near future, once the influx of abandoned properties have gone through the demolition and cleanup process, there should be a substantial opportunity for investors and nonprofit organizations to take the lead in transforming once-residential space into new neighborhood uses.

On October 30, a coalition of federal regulators issued the Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts. The Statement is designed to give greater flexibility to lenders in renegotiating or restructuring loans secured by commercial real estate, and should aid the flow of financing to credit-worthy borrowers. 

The first purpose of the Statement is to shield institutions from criticism for restructuring loans if an adequate review of the borrower’s financial condition has been performed. A review of the borrower’s condition is adequate if the management has:

 

            (1)        Put in place a workout policy establishing loan terms and amortization schedules and that allows for modification of terms in the event there is a default in repayment;

 

           (2)        An individual credit plan that analyzes current information on the borrower and guarantors and supports ultimate repayment, including (i) updated financial information; (ii) current valuations of the collateral; (iii) analysis and determination of loan structure; and (iv) appropriate legal documentation;

 

            (3)        A global analysis of the borrower’s debt service;

 

            (4)        The ability to monitor ongoing performance;

           

            (5)        An internal loan grading system that accurately reflects risk; and

 

            (6)        An Allowance for Loan & Lease Losses (ALLL) methodology that recognizes credit losses.

 

Second, the Statement provides that restructured loans will not be subject to an adverse credit classification solely due to a deterioration in the underlying collateral value, or because the borrower is associated with a particular industry that has been experiencing financial difficulty of late. 

 

As an example of these more favorable classification guidelines, the Statement offers a scenario where a lender refinances a $13.6 million balloon payment at maturation over the next 17 years. The borrower was paying timely up until the maturation date, but has experienced a decrease in cash flow and, per a recent appraisal, the LTV ratio is 104%. Under the Statement, the loan is properly classified as “pass” because the borrower has demonstrated the ability to make continuing payments even with the decline in collateral value and decreased cash flow.

 

This ability to avoid adverse credit classifications will prompt institutions to be more willing to engage in loan workouts where there is a realistic probability of repayment. Borrowers that have a sensible repayment plan going forward may also be more willing to approach lenders about restructuring as they will not be tied to other failures within their industry.

On November 6, 2009, President Obama signed the Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009. The new law extends the first-time homebuyer temporary federal tax credit for qualifying home purchases to April 30, 2010 and expands the eligibility requirements for purchasers.

Under the new law an eligible taxpayer must buy, or enter into a binding contract to buy, a principal residence on or before April 30, 2010 and close on the home by June 30, 2010. The new law also authorizes the credit for long-time homeowners buying a replacement principal residence and raises the income limitations for qualified homeowners claiming the credit.  

Homebuyers who purchased a home in 2008, 2009 or 2010 may be able to take advantage of the first-time homebuyer credit. The credit:

  • Applies only to homes used as a taxpayer’s principal residence.
  • Reduces a taxpayer’s tax bill or increases his or her refund, dollar for dollar.
  • Is fully refundable, meaning the credit will be paid out to eligible taxpayers, even if they owe no tax or the credit is more than the tax owed.

Under the new law, the maximum credit amount remains at $8,000 for a first-time homebuyer (single person or married filing jointly or $4,000 for married persons filing separate returns). A “first-time buyer” is a purchaser who has not owned a primary residence during the three years up to the date of purchase.

The new law also provides a “long-time resident” tax credit of up to $6,500 to others who do not qualify as “first-time homebuyers” (single person or married filing jointly or $3,250 for married persons filing separate returns). To qualify as a “long-time resident,” a buyer must have owned and used the same home as a principal or primary residence for at least five consecutive years of the eight-year period ending on the date of purchase of a new home as a primary residence.

For all qualifying purchases in 2010, taxpayers have the option of claiming the credit on either their 2009 or 2010 tax returns. To claim the credit, a taxpayer must file Form 5405 with the Internal Revenue Service, which you file with your original or amended individual federal income tax return.

Income Limits Increased under New Law

The new law raises the income limits for people who purchase homes after November 6, 2009. The full credit will be available to taxpayers with modified adjusted gross incomes (MAGI) up to $125,000, or $225,000 for joint filers. Those with MAGI between $125,000 and $145,000, or $225,000 and $245,000 for joint filers, are eligible for a reduced credit. Those with higher incomes do not qualify.

For homes purchased prior to Nov. 7, 2009, existing MAGI limits remain in place. The full credit is available to taxpayers with MAGI up to $75,000, or $150,000 for joint filers. Those with MAGI between $75,000 and $95,000, or $150,000 and $170,000 for joint filers, are eligible for a reduced credit. Those with higher incomes do not qualify.

New Requirements under the New Law

The new law contains new restrictions on purchases after Nov. 6, 2009:

  • Dependents are not eligible to claim the credit.
  • The purchase price of the home cannot be more than $800,000.
  • A purchaser must be at least 18 years of age on the date of purchase.

For Members of the Military

Members of the Armed Forces and certain federal employees serving outside the U.S. have an extra year to buy a principal residence in the U.S. and still qualify for the credit. An eligible taxpayer must buy or enter into a binding contract to buy a home by April 30, 2011, and close on the purchase no later June 30, 2011.

 

So by now you’ve been to at least three conferences which tell you the economy has hit the bottom, it’s a U curve, 2010 will still be slow with savings and not consumption being the key characteristic, 2011 is a comeback year, but real estate will never get back to the boom boom days of only a few years ago. So what does it all really mean to the real estate professional?

  1. Increased Competition. Whether it be for legal services, brokerage services, or commercial space, there is less demand and thus greater competition. But price is only one component of the decision factor. Service and quality still will be key decision factors. For example, while new centers have issues, retailers will still be looking to get into the established market leading centers and will pay the higher rent to get there. And having or obtaining a good relationship with a customer by providing over the top service is a great hedge against competition.
  1. Marketing is Still Important. We all need to pay attention to expenses, but marketing is not one of the expenses to be cut. In the face of increased competition, it is more important than ever to get the quality message across. However, the marketing budget should be examined to make sure that the budget is allocated wisely. Place an emphasis on direct, active marketing most likely to get face to face with prospective customers.
  1. Be Careful Extending Credit. There will still be higher than normal business failures, even by well established companies.
  1. Do Not Sign Long Term Deals at Today’s Rates. Consider short term deals even where you normally want long term ones. Although no one can say with certainty, there is a good chance that rates will increase in 2012, so signing a long term deal now could tie you up at lower than market rates. Also, a credit tenant may have really good leverage now. Resist the temptation to sign a deal at any price. The balance of power may shift in a couple of years and that credit tenant may not have such great credit in a few years. As a tenant, consider the goodwill you will get, which can translate into tangible benefits, by merely being reasonable and not taking undue advantage of the economic climate.
  1. Consider Other Sources of Income. Can the attorney branch out to other areas? Can the landlord come up with alternative uses for its vacant properties or monetize unused space ? Can the broker branch out to other consulting services?

 

In 2005 the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London upheld the actions of the City of New London, Connecticut (the “City”) in forming a non-profit corporation to redevelop the Fort Trumbull area of the City. In order to capitalize on Pfizer, Inc.’s (“Pfizer”) private development of an adjacent research facility, the New London Development Corporation prepared a detailed development plan which included 115 privately held parcels. The Supreme Court upheld the City’s right to take the privately held properties in order to complete its development plan. 

 

Although the 5 to 4 decision was in line with a long history of Fifth Amendment eminent domain cases, it ignited a backlash throughout the country. 42 states enacted legislation placing further restrictions on the use of eminent domain for economic development. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Horney that the use of eminent domain merely for economic benefit violated the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio legislature also amended Ohio’s eminent domain law to make the “slum” and “blight” standards more stringent. Horney and the legislative changes tie the hands of government and swing the Kelo pendulum too far to the side of private property owners.

Although tax credits given to Pfizer were not a part of the Kelo litigation, Pfizer’s announcement last week that it would pull out of its research facility when its partial tax abatement ends re-ignited the discussion on Kelo. Those opposed to a public entity’s right to take property for private economic development point to the fact that, not only was the City’s plan never enacted, leaving the Fort Trumbull area vacant, but now Pfizer is leaving and taking over a thousand jobs with it. 

However, in urban areas, it is often impossible to complete any project of scale without involving private property owners. Often times these private property owners are able to hold an entire project hostage by demanding excessive values for their properties. Although the development in New London never came to pass, other developments which have civic value should not be permitted to die on the vine due to the self-interest of one property owner.  

The following clause was in a first draft of a lease I recently reviewed for a client in the boilerplate provisions at the end under the heading “Mediation.” It is reproduced here verbatim (not kidding):

 “If a dispute arises out of or relates to this Lease, or the breach thereof, and if the dispute cannot be settled through negotiation, and if the parties so mutually agree, the parties shall first to try in good faith to settle the dispute by mediation administered by the American Arbitration Association under its Commercial Mediation Procedures before resorting to arbitration, litigation, or some other dispute resolution procedure. In the event the parties are unable to settle the dispute through mediation and, if the parties mutually agree, any unresolved disputes regarding this Lease shall be settled by an old-fashioned fistfight or best single card draw five-card poker hand. In the event the parties choose to settle the dispute by pugilism, each party waives any claims for personal injury damages or criminal prosecution against the other party. 

This may be my new favorite alternative dispute resolution clause. I am polling my colleagues to see if we have any golden glove boxing champs here. If so, I may have to insert this clause into my form. I can not decide whether the clause was a light hearted attempt to poke fun at how wordy leases have become and to see if the other party is actually reading it all, or whether it’s a reaction to the economy and an attempt to avoid legal fees, or whether the party drafting the lease (they are from Texas) just thinks they are tougher than us.