All posts by admin

Commercial Real Estate, Real Estate

Springfield Ties Future to Gaming

Leave a comment

Former Manufacturing Center Still Bets on MGM Casino

 

Massachusetts law defines “Gate­way Municipali­ties” as those having pop­ulations between 35,000 and 250,000, where me­dian household incomes and percentages of resi­dents with bachelor’s de­grees are below the state average.

Situated in western Massachusetts on the Connecticut River, Springfield has more than 150,000 residents, making it the fourth-largest city in New England after Boston, Worcester and Providence.

The city once hosted manufacturing sites for motorcycles, railway cars and automo­biles, including Rolls-Royce luxury vehicles. Springfield still has a Smith & Wesson fire­arms factory, although that manufacturer’s headquarters and much of its manufacturing capacity recently relocated to Tennessee. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Com­pany and Meriam-Webster continue to call Springfield home.

Springfield has also made noteworthy cul­tural contributions. It is the birthplace of bas­ketball and Theodor “Dr. Seuss” Geisel, and it offers museums honoring both of them. The American Hockey League, a minor league that develops players for the National Hockey League, is headquartered in Springfield.

Also, since 2018, Springfield has been the home of the MGM Springfield resort casino.

Stiff Upfront Payments for State License

Legalized casino gambling is a recent phe­nomenon in Massachusetts. The common­wealth passed legislation in 2011 allowing up to three destination resort casinos and one slot parlor in Massachusetts.

This legislation did not legalize casino gambling outright. Instead, it created a regu­latory environment where a few well-fi­nanced applicants could secure casino li­censes after prevailing in a demanding bidding process and paying hefty sums to state and local governments.

As a result, Massachusetts is now home to MGM Springfield and Encore Boston Har­bor in Everett, both of which offer full ca­sino gambling, as well as Plainridge Park Casino, a slot parlor in Plainville.

A downtown casino project is one of the most significant developments in Massachusetts’ second-largest Gateway City, Springfield.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is the state agency responsible for regulat­ing the gaming industry. It awarded a resort- casino license in 2014 to Blue Tarp Redevel­opment LLC, an MGM affiliate. At the time, MGM was already actively acquiring prop­erty in Springfield.

The award of the western Massachusetts casino license to MGM accelerated its acqui­sition of a 14-acre site surrounded by State Street, Main Street, Union Street and Inter­state 91 in Springfield. This site had been heavily damaged by a rare Massachusetts tornado in 2011.

After assembling the casino site, Blue Tarp transferred it to MGM Springfield Re­development LLC, a limited liability com­pany established under Massachusetts Gen­eral Laws Chapter 121A. That statute offers developers who invest in blighted areas ex­emptions from real estate tax assessments, in exchange for fixed alternative payments.

MGM paid dearly for its casino gambling license. Its licensing fee was $85 million, and it committed to a $500 million capital in­vestment in its casino-hotel. The common­wealth receives 25 percent of gross gaming revenues from the casino.

MGM Springfield also entered into a host agreement with the city of Springfield, requir­ing an advance payment of over $15 million, plus annual community impact payments, de­velopment grants, Chapter 121A payments and other commitments totaling some $26 million per year. The host agreement re­quired MGM Springfield to create at least 2,000 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent jobs, with positions reserved for local resi­dents, minorities, women, and veterans.

Beyond Slots, Resort and Convention Space

The completed project includes a 251- room hotel and 125,000 square feet of gam­ing space with over 1,500 slot machines, a poker room and table games. The facility also includes ample retail and convention space, and a parking garage.

In 2023, MGM Springfield opened a sports book after paying the commonwealth another $5 million for a five-year sports wagering li­cense, for which the casino pays a 15 percent tax on gross sports wagering revenue. Bet­MGM also obtained a sports wagering license tethered to the casino, under which it pays a 20 percent tax on gross wagering revenue.

According to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s public records, MGM Spring­field generated over $272 million in total gaming revenue and $68 million in Massa­chusetts taxes in each of 2023 and 2024. About three-quarters of this revenue comes from slot machines. Most of the sports book revenue is derived from BetMGM.

In 2024, the first full year that the casino had a sports wagering license and for which figures are available, BetMGM generated over $41 million in taxable revenue and al­most $8 million in taxes.

The tax revenues and impact fees from MGM Springfield and other licensed casinos are dedicated to local aid, education, health­care, transportation and other worthy gov­ernment priorities. This revenue will poten­tially make positive differences throughout the commonwealth.

Still, to some Massachusetts residents, Springfield will always be thought of as the hometown of basketball, Dr. Seuss and the American Hockey League.

Download the article as seen in Banker & Tradesman on January 26, 2026. Learn more about Christopher R. Vaccaro.

Commercial Real Estate, Real Estate

The Patient Capital Behind Many Affordable Housing Projects

Leave a comment

Quasi-Public CEDAC Has Helped Finance 455K Homes

The Community Economic De­velopment Assis­tance Corporation, or CEDAC, was created by the Massachusetts Leg­islature nearly 50 years ago, to expend public money on technical as­sistance for community development corpo­rations and other organizations in economi­cally distressed target areas.

CEDAC’s mission was later expanded to provide both financing and technical assis­tance to eligible organizations committed to preserving and creating affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals. CEDAC’s affiliate, the Children’s Investment Fund, is engaged in improving early child­hood education and out-of-school program facilities for children from low- and moder­ate-income families.

CEDAC can be described as a quasi-gov­ernmental corporation that invests in non­profit organizations committed to promoting a better quality of life for individuals and fam­ilies overlooked by the free-market economy.

CEDAC’s role in preserving and creating affordable and supportive housing is expected to grow over the next few years, in part because of the Affordable Homes Act of 2024.

Source of Pre-Development Funds

Under CEDAC’s enabling legislation, only “eligible organizations” can qualify for its technical and financial assistance. Eligible organizations are defined to include CDCs and nonprofits committed to improving eco­nomic well-being of target areas, stabilizing and expanding employment and investment in those areas and preserving and creating affordable housing.

CEDAC provides those organizations with bridge pre-development and acquisition fi­nancing to support their projects before they close on construction financing. Its programs are also directed toward creation of supportive housing for elders, veterans, homeless individuals and families and dis­abled persons, as well as preservation of af­fordable housing units whose affordability limitations are scheduled to expire.

Working on behalf of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, CEDAC also administers sev­eral sources of “patient” financing – that is, permanent loans with distant maturity dates, typically at 0 percent interest.

 

To obtain such financing, eligible organi­zations are expected to commit to long term affordability restrictions benefiting low- and moderate-income individuals. Some sources also have specific requirements to serve in­dividuals with disabilities, homeless house­holds or other vulnerable populations, while offering supportive services

The results of CEDAC’s efforts are note­worthy. Its financing and technical assis­tance programs have contributed to the pro­duction or preservation of over 455,000 dwelling units in Massachusetts.

Works on Behalf of State

For a typical CEDAC predevelopment or acquisition loan structure, CEDAC can pro­vide an acquisition loan for up to 100 percent of appraised value, with predevelopment fi­nancing to cover other soft costs. These loans often have a two- or three-year term.

CEDAC’s permanent financing sources involve various forms of supportive hous­ing, and must be awarded by EOHLC, usu­ally in one of the several competitive fund­ing rounds held annually.

Permanent loans are non-interest bear­ing, and in most cases are for 30-year terms without periodic principal payments. In ex­change for these benefits, nonprofits agree to sign and record an affordable housing re­striction on their properties with a 30-year term.

In consultation with EOHLC, CEDAC is also willing to extend loan maturity dates beyond the initial 30-year term, as long as the nonprofit continues to comply with pro­gram requirements. On behalf of EOHLC, CEDAC has overseen the financing of over 22,000 supportive housing units.

CEDAC’s affordable housing restriction requires nonprofit developers to lease resi­dential units only to lower-income or dis­abled individuals. Social service programs must be maintained for residents of sup­portive housing. Units are made available through a marketing plan acceptable to CEDAC, and CEDAC is involved in assuring that residents are income qualified for the affordable and supportive units.

EOHLC reserves a right of first refusal to purchase the property if the nonprofit wants to sell it later. EOHLC also reserves an op­tion to purchase the property at its then-cur­rent appraised value when the affordable housing restriction expires. CEDAC will subordinate its mortgage to institutional lenders that agree to honor EOHLC’s rights under the affordable housing restriction.

CEDAC’s most recent annual report, pub­lished as of the end of 2024, shows impres­sive results.

59 Projects in One Year

During that year alone, CEDAC loaned or granted, including participations, over $44 million in financial assistance on 59 projects with 2,315 dwelling units. Its affiliate, Chil­dren’s Investment Fund, also made available another $2 million for childcare projects.

CEDAC’s role in preserving and creating affordable and supportive housing is ex­pected to grow over the next few years, in part because of the Affordable Homes Act of 2024.

The AHA authorized the state treasurer to issue up to $5.16 billion in bonds to fi­nance government funding for housing proj­ects. Much of the authorized funds will be distributed through EOHLC, which, in turn, will rely on CEDAC and other quasi-public corporations to administer funding for qual­ified projects.

With a proven record of accomplish­ments, and financial support through the AHA, CEDAC is poised for continued suc­cess in 2026.

Download the article as seen in Banker & Tradesman on November 24, 2025. Learn more about Christopher R. Vaccaro.

Commercial Real Estate, Real Estate

Bane of Landlords Threatens to Reappear on Ballot

Leave a comment

Latest Rent Control Bid Still Faces Hurdles

To residential land­lords in Massa­chusetts, rent con­trol proposals are like Freddy Krueger from the Nightmare on Elm Street horror movie franchise – a relentless villain that cannot be subdued, and continues to terrorize victims in an endless series of sequels and remakes.

The latest remake is an initiative petition to “Protect Tenants by Limiting Rent Increases,” promoted by Homes for All Massachusetts, a coalition of housing justice groups.

Its petition would repeal the Massachu­setts ban on rent control, enacted by refer­endum in 1994, and replace it with a state­wide cap on residential rent increases.

The group announced last week that it’s gathered 124,000 signatures as it seeks to get its idea on the 2026 ballot. State election officials must still review the signatures to confirm their validity.

What’s the Latest Proposal?

The current WEEI studios in Brighton would be demolished to make way for a 330-unit apartment complex in a project by Nordblom Co.

Annual increases for most dwelling units would be limited to the lesser of the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, or 5 percent. Owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer units would be exempt, as would units regulated by public authorities, units rented to transient guests for less than 14 days and units operated for educational, religious or nonprofit purposes.

Units that received residential certifi­cates of occupancy within the prior 10 years would also be exempt. Rents in effect as of Jan. 31, 2026, would serve as the base for determining limits on annual increases.

Landlords who violate the law would be subject to enforcement suits under the Mas­sachusetts consumer protection law, facing possible liability for treble damages and at­torney’s fees.

Boston’s Proposal Pales in Comparison

Given the housing shortage in Massachu­setts, efforts to improve housing stability for lower-income families and individuals are understandable.

Some policymakers would impose rent control to achieve that goal. Indeed, sup­port for rent control can be good politics for elected leaders in communities where many voters are tenants worried about housing costs.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu seemed aware of this in 2023, when she promoted a home rule petition for the state Legislature to exempt Boston from the state-wide ban on rent control.

Her home rule petition would have al­lowed Boston to cap annual rent increases at the lesser of the CPI increase plus 6 per­cent, or 10 percent. Dwelling units with less than 15-year-old certificates of occupancy would be exempt.

The Boston home rule petition stalled out in the Legislature.

If Homes for All’s initiative petition be­comes law, it would be far more restrictive than the Boston home rule petition, which is benign in comparison.

The Homes for All petition would also impose rent control throughout the entire commonwealth, instead of only municipali­ties that choose to adopt rent control.

Developers May Shun Massachusetts

If economists can agree on one thing, it is that rent control’s unintended conse­quences outweigh its benefits.

Rent control does not increase housing availability. It may instead reduce the sup­ply of quality housing because it impedes landlords’ abilities to cover rising carrying costs and replacement expenditures with rent increases.

Housing developers may decide to build out of state, wary that newly constructed Massachusetts properties will eventually fall under rent control.

Tenants of controlled dwellings are less likely to seek other housing when their dwellings are too big, too small or too far from their workplaces.

Rent control enforcement requires bu­reaucracies to adjudicate landlord requests for rent increases and to punish landlords that violate the law.

Lower property tax revenues for municipal­ities under rent control are another expected result. Perhaps the only beneficiaries of rent control are residential tenants lucky enough to have apartments when controls take effect.

A History of Unfair Results

Rent control does not necessarily help lower-income individuals as intended.

Opponents of rent control gleefully point out that when rent control was in effect in Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline more than 30 years ago, Supreme Judicial Court Justice Ruth Abrams, Cambridge Mayor Ken­neth Reeves, Prince Frederik of Denmark and as hundreds of well-heeled professionals were living in rent-controlled apartments.

The status of Homes for All’s rent control initiative remains uncertain.

It received a boost last September when Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell certified the initiative as a poten­tial ballot question for the November 2026 election.

The initiative needed to gather valid sig­natures from about 75,000 registered voters by Dec. 3, then approval by the state Legis­lature by May 2026. If the Legislature does not approve the initiative, it can still be placed on the ballot if an additional 12,429 valid signatures are collected.

Landlords, tenants and their respective advocacy groups, will be watching how things develop with the initiative. Homes for All is unlikely to gain approval from a Legislature that let Boston’s home rule peti­tion languish.

If the initiative makes the November bal­lot, prepare for a flood of political advertise­ments promoting both sides of the debate next fall..

Download the article as seen in Banker & Tradesman on November 24, 2025. Learn more about Christopher R. Vaccaro.

Commercial Real Estate, Real Estate

Soured Relationship Leads to Defamation Lawsuit Against Architect

Leave a comment

Contractor Objected to Negative Comments on Performance

 

The Massachusetts Appeals Court is­sued a noteworthy decision this month in B.C. Construction Co., Inc. v. Johnson Roberts Associates, Inc., a law­suit between a general contractor and architect.

The city of Everett awarded a construc­tion contract to B.C. Construction Co. Inc. in 2013 to renovate and expand its public li­brary. B.C. submitted change orders during construction, increasing the project’s cost. The architect, Johnson Roberts Associates Inc., settled an unrelated dispute involving an underground wall with Everett, by offer­ing a $20,000 credit.

B.C. and JRA had never worked on a project together before. Somehow B.C.’s change orders and JRA’s dispute with Ever­ett damaged their relationship.

JRA’s antipathy toward B.C. influenced the bidding process on subsequent munici­pal projects in Dracut and Cambridge.

Asked to Consult in Dracut

Dracut asked JRA and a project manage­ment firm in 2019 to evaluate construction bids for a fire station project. B.C. delivered the lowest bid. Massachusetts statutes re­quire that municipal construction contracts be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

However, JRA raised doubts about whether B.C. was a “responsible” bidder, apparently based on JRA’s experience with B.C. in Everett, and other negative informa­tion involving B.C. The project manager asked the Massachusetts attorney general’s office whether Dracut could reject B.C.’s lowest bid.

Massachusetts statutes require that municipal construction contracts be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

The AG’s office recommended that Dra­cut gather client reviews and allow B.C. to address any negative reviews. It advised that after taking these steps, Dracut could legally reject B.C.’s bid if B.C. was not “re­sponsible.” JRA and the project manager obtained and summarized B.C.’s project ref­erences for the town.

After Dracut’s building committee dis­cussed negative references with B.C.’s pres­ident, Dracut rejected B.C.’s bid.

When budgeting issues delayed its project, Dracut conducted a second round of bidding six months later. B.C. again submitted the lowest bid. JRA again summarized B.C.’s proj­ect references in a report, mentioning poten­tial litigation involving B.C., an architect and a municipality regarding a different project.

JRA again declined to recommend B.C. for the project, and Dracut again rejected B.C.’s bid.

Second Rejection Leads to Lawsuit

Meanwhile, B.C. submitted a bid to con­struct a fire station in Cambridge, where JRA served as architect.

B.C.’s bid was among the lowest, but a JRA principal warned the Cambridge proj­ect manager that in JRA’s experience, B.C. was among the worst general contractors that JRA had ever worked with. JRA also re­ported that B.C.’s recent projects may have required mediation and litigation to be com­pleted. Cambridge rejected B.C.’s bid.

Perceiving JRA as an obstacle, B.C. sued JRA in Superior Court for intentional inter­ference with advantageous business rela­tions and defamation. JRA moved for sum­mary judgment dismissing B.C. suit without a trial, arguing that the undisputed facts did not show JRA to be liable for any wrongful actions.

The Superior Court agreed with JRA and dismissed the suit. B.C. appealed.

The Appeals Court first discussed B.C.’s claim against JRA for intentional interfer­ence with advantageous business relations. To prevail on that claim, B.C. had to prove that JRA knowingly and improperly induced Dracut and Cambridge to forgo business re­lations with B.C.

Not Liable for Offering Honest Advice

The court focused on whether JRA’s mo­tives were improper. After observing that JRA, as project architect, had offered hon­est advice within the scope of its services, the court upheld the Superior Court’s ruling that JRA was not liable for intentionally in­terfering with B.C.’s business relationships during the bidding processes.

The court next considered B.C.’s defama­tion claim against JRA. To prevail on that claim, B.C. had to prove that JRA published a false and defamatory statement about B.C., the statement was not protected by any privilege, and B.C. suffered damages as a result.

JRA argued that its negative statements about B.C. were privileged. Massachusetts courts recognize a “conditional privilege” protecting publication of defamatory mate­rial when publication is reasonably neces­sary to protect legitimate business interests.

This conditional privilege is available where the author of a defamatory statement and its recipient share a common interest, and the statement is intended to protect that interest.

However, the privilege does not excuse malicious statements or knowing false­hoods. The court noted that B.C.’s evidence was insufficient to prove that JRA’s negative statements about B.C. lacked good faith or were so egregious that JRA should be liable for defamation.

Accordingly, the court upheld the Superior Court’s dismissal of B.C.’s defamation claim.

This decision shows that Massachusetts courts are reluctant to hold defendants lia­ble for intentional interference or defama­tion when defendants act in good faith and without obvious malice. This is particularly true in the governmental bidding context, where public agencies depend on candid opinions from independent consultants.

Download the article as seen in Banker & Tradesman on October 27, 2025. Learn more about Christopher R. Vaccaro.

Commercial Real Estate, Real Estate

Woods Hole Project Illustrates Coastal Permitting Challenges

Leave a comment

Marine Researchers Secure Dock Upgrade

The deepwater port at Woods Hole on Cape Cod has hosted research ves­sels for the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu­tion (WHOI) for nearly 100 years.

WHOI has a world­wide reputation for oceanography. Its Iselin Marine Facility, located in the middle of Woods Hole village, is the homeport for WHOI’s ocean-going research vessels and underwater vehicle operations. The facility is also a hub for developing and testing new technologies, and an important contributor to the regional blue economy.

Unfortunately, the facility’s 57-year-old dock is nearing the end of its useful life, while facing threats from rising sea levels and coastal erosion.

Many Permits, Years of Review

WHOI determined several years ago that repairs and maintenance to the existing dock, without major capital improvements, were not economically feasible, so the insti­tute developed plans to replace the facility with a new Complex for Waterfront Access to Exploration and Research (CWATER).

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution waterfront is a hub for oceanography and a major contributor to the regional blue economy.

The project will include a redesigned and rebuilt pile-supported dock, bulkhead re­placement, dredging, new facilities for ro­botic vessels and a new building hosting labs and shops focused on water-dependent activities. CWATER will provide WHOI with a more resilient marine facility designed to withstand anticipated sea level rises and se­vere weather events for the next 80 years.

CWATER will impact several coastal re­source areas that are subject to state regula­tion. Therefore, WHOI was required to sub­mit an environmental notification form to the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs for the project under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).

WHOI enjoyed an early success in the permitting process in 2020, when the secre­tary determined that WHOI could proceed without filing an environmental impact re­port for CWATER under MEPA.

However, WHOI still needed several per­mits for CWATER, including a Chapter 91 waterways license and a water quality cer­tificate from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, a wetlands order of conditions from the Falmouth Con­servation Commission, authorization from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the U.S. Department of Envi­ronmental Protection and federal consis­tency review from the Office of Coastal Zone Management.

WHOI was also required to consult with state and federal agencies to minimize the project’s impacts on nearby eelgrass mead­ows.

Waterfront permitting in Massachusetts is not for the faint of heart.

Community Feedback Built Consensus

After years of public hearings, neighbor­hood meetings and design changes to ac­commodate engineering challenges and pub­lic and governmental input, WHOI obtained its final permits for CWATER this year.

WHOI notably secured its permits with­out having to endure litigation or appeals. This success would not be possible without excellent public relations, and local appre­ciation for WHOI’s mission and reputation.

Part of WHOI’s strategy involved creation of a community advisory committee to pro­vide a mechanism for communication and feedback. WHOI also co-founded Resilient Woods Hole, which helps its Woods Hole neighbors to better understand how infra­structure improvements along Wood Hole’s coast are essential to protecting the village from the effects of climate change.

$100M Pier Project

However, one major challenge remains for CWATER – obtaining financing for a project that is expected to take seven years to complete at a cost of over $100 million.

WHOI is a private nonprofit that is not di­rectly tied to any governmental entities or public universities, so it depends heavily on federal and state grants and philanthropy. WHOI initially obtained a few million dol­lars in state grants for CWATER, and it also received some private grants for design and permitting. Construction can now begin in earnest.

WHOI had hoped to obtain major funding from the federal government, but those sources were largely eliminated from the federal budget this year.

For now, CWATER is expected to move forward in phases, as funding becomes available. The first phase of the project, scheduled to begin next year, will involve the construction of a robotics vehicle port with funds from the U.S. Navy. Finding reli­able sources of funding for later phases re­mains a challenge.

“CWATER will be an advanced, resilient facility that will provide access to the sea for our scientists, engineers, seafarers and technicians for the rest of this century,” Rob Munier, WHOI’s vice president of marine fa­cilities who has quarterbacked this project since its inception, told me. “It will serve as a classroom for future generations of oceanographers and an incubator for new technologies, ensuring continued leadership in our basic understanding of the ocean and enabling the discovery of solutions to criti­cal problems facing the Earth system – and humanity. The process of delivering CWA­TER is complex and we have achieved the critical ‘shovel-ready’ milestone. Now it is time to get wet!”

Download the article as seen in Banker & Tradesman on September 29, 2025. Learn more about Christopher R. Vaccaro.

1 2 … 22