Hans Hansson | September 15, 2017
Warehouse demand is at an all-time high and industrial vacancies are at their lowest point in nearly two decades at 5.3 percent, according to JOC.com's data hub. Yet, building of warehouse space throughout the country is not keeping up with this demand. Why?
Simply put, the costs to secure the land, build, and then find a tenant does not make economic sense in most markets. Rents for warehouse spaces have remained relatively flat throughout the country until recently.
E-commerce fulfillment is a big reason why the demand for warehouses and distribution centers has increased of late, representing 40 percent of leasing of industrial properties today, according to a recent report from Jones Lang LaSalle.
In California, warehouse rents are doubling and in some cases tripling due to the legalization of marijuana. Warehouse spaces that used to sell at .50-.75 cents a square foot is now selling at $2.00 a square foot. In markets like Santa Rosa, California landlords are advertising two prices –$1.25 for non-marijuana use and $2.00 a foot for marijuana use. According to a CBRE article, 4.2 million sq. ft. of Denver, Colorado’s industrial market in Q4 2016 was occupied by marijuana growers.
Of course, at $2.00 a foot, it would make sense to build warehouses. The challenge we’re really seeing is that marijuana remains illegal on a federal basis. As a result, non-conventional funding sources from banks to hand out loans used to build warehouses are not allowed to support buildings that house marijuana.
In addition, if a landlord decides to add a marijuana tenant in their building, even if they had no loan on that particular building, their banks could legally take away any other loans on other properties owned by that landlord since they have illegal use in one of their properties.
In California, the marijuana demand has made it far more expensive for true warehouse users to not only find space, but to keep the space they have. In Santa Rosa, the Alhambra Water company will not have their lease renewed in favor of their current landlord wanting to add a marijuana cultivation operation in its place.
Unfortunately, the county is certainly not motivated to do anything but allow the expansion of marijuana. The fee structures established for marijuana cultivation is adding millions to the city. Until there is financing available to build marijuana cultivation warehouses, rents will continue to skyrocket.
What happens to the cost of basic services if businesses have to find warehouses further and further away from their marketplace in order to store their products? They will have to commute farther to bring their products to their marketplaces, making the warehouse location not only a hassle, but more expensive for the business.
Amazon is looking to build “super warehouses” across the country in order to meet their expected demand for their online products and now food with the recent acquisition of Whole Foods. As a result, there are different types of warehouse usages cropping up, such as indoor soccer fields, large gyms, and other sports facilities that are looking to reinvent their properties.
Local county and state planning is essential to provide quick decisions on warehouse development so that warehouse construction can happen and meet this demand. If not, the consumer in the end will be paying for it with much higher product costs and potentially face shortages in food and other basic product needs.
Hans Hansson | September 11, 2017
For the sales professionals who established goals at the beginning of the year, we now have just four months remaining to meet our original goals. In sales, September is the best month to close deals, particularly in commercial real estate when businesses are looking to move offices before the end of the year.
If you work for a larger corporate firm, you are certainly on a sales goal plan. If you are an independent salesperson, you either created a plan or you didn’t. Either way, all salespeople have a number in mind at the beginning of the year that they are expecting to hit.
Review Your Plan
This month, you need to look at your business plan and analyze where you are at. Are you at, above, or below your goal? If you have not met your goal, do you have enough in the business pipeline until the end the year to hit your goal? If you are below your goal, how far below are you and what will it take in the next four months for you to make or exceed your goals?
When It’s Time to Reevaluate
If you are behind your goal by a fair amount, a full review of your business plan is in order. You will need to review what has worked thus far and what hasn’t. If certain pillars of your business have worked, then what can you do to expand those efforts? Then, you need to review what hasn’t worked. It’s important to understand why production hasn’t occurred and then ask yourself how you can improve your activity in these pillars to generate deals. You may find that it’s best to concentrate on the pillars of business that are working or perhaps look into new avenues to develop business.
If the decision is to look at new ways to do business, the best next step is to study other salespeople that work those new pillars to see how they make it successful.
Room for Improvement
Finally, you need to access your daily time management activities. Are you properly organized each day? Are you organizing your day the night before? If not, you should start. Planning the night before will give you a solid start to a new day. Plan who you are going to cold call and how you are going to secure new business that day or week.
Next, schedule in the time it will take each day for you to work on new business development. It’s very easy to work on existing business that could eat up most of your day, but it’s crucial to set aside time for new business for long term success.
Adequate salespeople like to work on existing business, but great salespeople know they must keep the pipeline filled at all times. Closing deals without a pipeline for future business is like starting all over again each time a deal is done. If you are not meeting your goals, you still have time to turn it around, but the clock is ticking!
Hans Hansson | August 22, 2017
Lead generation through social media has become the new “norm.” Data analytics now enables customers to be notified of products and services they should consider while shopping in stores. If you walked into a car dealership, another dealership may advertise to you when you leave the premises across almost every medium available– Facebook, LinkedIn, banner ads, app push notifications, etc. Restaurant where you recently dined will advertise to you shortly after on visiting websites.
Sales has also been automated at almost every turn. But what does this mean for salespeople? Will technology completely replace the job of a salesperson? Sadly, I believe in some industries, this may be the case. Salespeople will be replaced not only by technology, but also by customer service personnel who can be paid far less than talented salespeople.
Yet, I still wonder– can an online ad really lead the end-user to the finish line of a sale without a human closer? Salespeople need to adapt to survive the advances in technology. They must understand today more than ever where their strengths lie as human beings and where robots fall short. Becoming a client’s trusted advisor will keep salespeople in the game. This is how we will maximize earnings potential. No matter what type of sales you may be in, applying your expertise and providing outstanding counsel to your client will outplay anything else.
The Power of Face Time
Taking time to meet with your clients in-person or at the least speaking to them consistently on the phone will also help achieve not only far better results short-term, but maintain strong relationships that you can count on for future deals. Although communication via email, text messages, and networking suffice, nothing beats having a conversation with your client face-to-face, or hearing the tone of their voice via phone.
When I first got started in the business, it was a requirement for us to make at least 50 connections a day in order to attract new business. Some required their salespeople to come back each day with at least 50 business cards. Others demanded that salespeople make at least 100 calls per day.
I recently hired two new sales agents who we are beginning to train. In the first week, I had them making phone calls to get comfortable with cold-calling. They both averaged about 35 calls a day with some success. Although calls are fewer, they are higher quality. Instead of “dialing for dollars,” each agent today takes time to study each person and their business before dialing out to a potential customer. They educate themselves on what their potential needs may be so that they can offer relevant services from the start.
In their second week of training, I selected specific streets in San Francisco and asked them to cold call each building tenant. I asked them to first study the building they were in, then study the current space and learn if the space is being properly utilized. Then I asked them to go in-person and present themselves to the tenants. The results of this training were amazing! Twenty percent of the time, the agents were not only able to speak to the office managers, but also the decision makers of the company. They were also able to learn more in-person about whether or not the company would need move soon, what their company size was, and their biggest needs in office space. The first day, they came back with two solid leads and the second day came back with four.
In another case, I had an agent that was texting back and forth to his client. His client was considering taking an offer he had just received ahead of getting the listing on his property. The offer was strong and my agent was asked for his opinion, even though he was not a part of the transaction deal she was considering. I had advised him strongly to go by and see her in-person instead of texting her. When he saw her in person, he was able to convince his client that it would be best to offer the property to the open market and see if they can secure a stronger offer, before accepting the first offer presented.
Personal conduct will beat social media. Maybe not all the time, but most of the time. Yes, it is important to utilize the technology and tools of today to improve our results. But it’s also important to note that sometimes “old school” techniques still work.Photo Credit: franchiseopportunitiesphotos Flickr via Compfight cc
Hans Hansson | July 28, 2017
Amazon recently announced the largest office lease signing this year in San Francisco– 180,000 square feet and occupying multiple floors at 525 Market Street. This deal presents a number of ramifications to both the current and future commercial leasing market. Amazon released a statement saying that San Francisco’s current tech market is still booming and that firms still want to be here in the city.
With the Boom Comes Doom
This may be a not-so-positive outlook for conventional businesses who have lease renewals nearing. More likely than not, landlords will want to sign new leases with larger tech firms who have deeper pockets.
Today, most leases that are going to expire after five-year terms will be seeing rent increases of at least 40 percent. For most businesses, they will not be able to pay the increased rent and will be forced to move out. The challenge is that with a vacancy of less than six percent overall, businesses will be forced to not only move, but make some drastic decisions on how small of space they can occupy and where.
Other businesses will have to look at their overall profits and decide if and when they need to make cuts. They will also need to review current business operations and determine what changes can be made to reduce spending or reallocate budget. Some of these changes may be minor. For instance, I have a client that is considering eliminating his conference room altogether because he simply doesn’t use it. I know of others who are looking to eliminate private offices in favor of open plans in order to lower square footage needs and costs. Minor moves like these can actually have major consequences on not only day-to-day operations but long-term.
Supply Doesn’t Meet the Demand
The largest issue we have is the slow process of office space development. San Francisco needs to develop spaces sooner in order to meet the demand. This has been a real challenge as we continue to see building costs skyrocket and the beyond lengthy process it takes to acquire land and actually develop buildings in the city. For a developer, this means taking a tremendous risk with an upfront investment, not knowing if the site will even be approved for development.
Old Laws With New Action Come Into Play
In addition, past city propositions, dating back to the 1980’s are now coming into action, along with potential delays on new measures to help enhance office development. In the 1980’s San Francisco passed an office limitation ordinance known as Proposition M. This established an “under one million square foot” annual cap on office space growth. Each year, whatever annual square footage was allowed that wasn’t built could be placed on “reserve” for future years.
For most of the years since the passing of Proposition M, there has been little to no office development. But today, almost all of the reserve space has been occupied, which means that we have little expansion of office space left. There are numerous projects, including office development plans for the San Francisco Giants, as well as expansion around the Golden State Warriors’ new stadium site. In addition, there are major office developments throughout South of Market (SOMA) planned– all of which will be at risk with Proposition M.
In adding to the list of challenges– San Francisco’s SOMA plan, which would rezone buildings from 4th street to 7th street in order to create office, residential, and hotel development, is now facing new opposition. Current condo owners are concerned of the larger scale projects causing shadowing throughout their neighborhood. All of which can be worked out, but will certainly cause delays.
Delays occurring within a boom market are not going to be good if our city cannot react to the needs of the marketplace in a timely manner. The city needs to be proactive in streamlining office development projects so we encourage growth, not delay it. With the city just passing the largest budget in its history at $10 billion, and with less than $50 million in available discretionary funds– any dip in business opportunities can have devastating effects on our city, our operating revenue, and jobs overall.
Hans Hansson | July 15, 2017
Hans Hansson | July 15, 2017
San Francisco’s Mayor, Ed Lee, just announced a $10.1 billion city budget, with increased spending to address homelessness. The two-year budget proposal, which includes a $10 billion budget in the second year, will boost services by $30 million each year around homeless services.
Per resident, San Francisco spends more money than any other city in the United States. While the budget was announced, real estate assessment figures showed that property tax revenue will increase by 7.4 percent, due to higher real estate sales transactions paired with higher real estate values.
The city is over six months to a year behind in actual reassessments of properties that have sold. Therefore, the actual gain will be much higher when the city finalizes new reassessments.
San Francisco is experiencing an unprecedented boom in new income due to increased property values and will continue to do so over for the next two years at least, until all reassessments are complete. Given we are spending the most per resident in the country and given our unprecedented growth in income, are we as residents getting our money’s worth?
The Board of Supervisors struggled with approving this $10.1 billion budget because it still requires major cuts in services to obtain a balanced budget. The city continues to spend more money than it receives. How can this continue to be?
Discretionary available funds are actually at an all-time low. There are less than $50 million available funds to tackle new projects from infrastructure to assisting the homeless. Almost all the $10.1 billion budget is locked into city wages, benefits, and pension dues. The sad fact is that there is little that can be done about it.
Illinois currently has no state budget because the state owes far more in outstanding bills than it has money to pay. The only difference between us and the state of Illinois is that we are experiencing a real estate boom. If this boom did not occur or eventually busts, our situation is going to be exactly the same as Illinois.
It doesn’t take an “eagle’s eye” to question whether we are getting our money’s worth out of this budget. As a native San Franciscan, I see that our streets are dirtier than ever before and are lined with even more homeless people. Countless streets are in desperate need of repair and there is absolutely no discussion amongst city officials to repair our underground infrastructure, namely our 100-year-old plus sewage system along with our electrical and water systems.
So, what is the hold up? First, we have a political problem. We are a one-party town with no political opposition to create a system of checks and balances. Secondly, the very worker’s government, union, and the large corporations that control the city are our politicians, which created these massive financial “giveaways” in terms of wages, benefits and pensions. Therefore, without independent oversight or some political oppositional pressure, there’s no chance that anyone will truly tackle these cost overruns.
Overregulation and inefficiencies are built into the fabric of how we run our government. Again, you don’t need an “eagle’s eye” to see this. Simply go down to San Francisco City Hall and try to pay your taxes, or go to the City Permit department and try to pull a permit for construction. There is no motivation to be efficient because if they were, they simply would not be needed. The sad reality is that we are overstocked with government workers. From the time of Mayor George Moscone to the end of Dianne Feinstein’s term in office as Mayor, the city increased its city worker count by four thousand.
Here is an excerpt from a recent San Francisco Chronicle article on our budget.
“By far the biggest chunk goes to pay city employees. Almost half — $4.7 billion — is spent on the salaries and benefits of 30,626 city employees. How many workers is that? A little more than the population of Burlingame. Enough to provide one worker for every 28 San Francisco residents. Enough to fill three-quarters of the seats at AT&T Park, which — considering the way the Giants are playing — soon might be a great turnout.
The average San Francisco worker makes $108,774 in salary and $49,864 in benefits, including medical, dental and vision care and pension contributions. An income of $108,774 is just over 150 percent of the median salary in San Francisco.
Of course, San Francisco city salaries vary widely. A starting custodian makes $49,270, and a starting junior typist makes $44,798. That’s far less than the city’s top dogs, including the mayor ($302,400), fire chief ($311,194) and the police chief ($316,732). No wonder acting Police Chief Toney Chaplin wants the job full time.”
So, a city worker makes over 150 percent more than the average worker in the city? Yet, is the efficiency there? If not, can you reorganize these departments and can you create some mechanisms that tout servicing the citizens of the city first before worrying about job retention?
There is no way to fix this system if the politicians are controlled by the very workers and special interests that benefit from this budget.
Illinois is a very sad example that can easily happen here. We need government leaders with a backbone to see what is coming and find out a way to fix it before it’s too late.
Hans Hansson | July 10, 2017
Several years ago, I experienced my first case of age discrimination. My son and colleague invited me to assist him in a large sales presentation. This tech firm was looking to move about 100 people into new offices. As we sat waiting to make the presentation, a young woman came in by herself to start the meeting. My first question I asked her was, “Who will be the decision maker managing this move?”. She responded that she would be. My next question was about how long she had been with the firm, and she responded, “Three weeks.” I then asked her if she had ever moved an office before. She said, “No.”
At this stage, I knew I had to be very careful on how we delivered our presentation. I did not want to appear as though I was lecturing her on the market, much like a father would. Rather, I wanted to be perceived as her partner in the process and provide her with strategic direction based on our expertise. She indicated that she was looking for 10,000 square feet in total space at a price that was at least 20 percent below market. She also wanted an office in the most competitive blocks of San Francisco.
I tried to carefully explain to her the guidelines of how much space she would need for the number of employees they have and plan to have, as well as set expectations on the rent they should expect to pay. It did not take long before she began to ignore me and turned the whole conversation to my son (who was in his twenties at the time) to answer.
By the end of the meeting, we knew we didn’t win the business. My son looked at me as we were walking out and said, “Dad, you really blew that one.”
The prospect ended up hiring a rookie agent with no experience who took the amount of square footage I had recommended at a rent that was at-market rate in an area very different than what she was originally wanting.
As a “Baby Boomer” and much like any generation, we feel we know more than the previous generation and certainly question their way of doing things.
However, when we were younger, we also knew and respected that experience mattered. We looked up to people in the business, particularly in our own line of work who had achieved great success over their careers. We wanted to become just like them. There was respect and also trust in our older colleagues. We felt we could introduce things to improve the status quo.
In my eyes, I see today’s generation wanting to be disrupters, and blow up what we’ve been doing to start with an entirely new concept.
Starting out in my career, I was always trying to improve the situation and educate a potential client. Instead, this particular prospect was not looking to be educated. She was looking for someone to find exactly what she requested.
I’m sure the agent she had hired showed her spaces she was looking for, and his or her superiors at the firm decided to look into alternatives that better suited her needs.
In the end, I was wrong in not properly handling the situation. I should have realized my audience and showed her the spaces she was looking for, let her come to the conclusion that perhaps it wasn’t the best fit, and then direct her to alterative properties.
The challenge for salespeople today is that with all the data, product, and service information available at anyone’s finger tips––what are we going to do to continue to exist and be of value?
We as salespeople need to become the “trusted advisors.” We cannot rely strictly on information anymore. We need to take the information we have and create a strategy to survive. This is something, at least for now, that technology can’t do quite as well yet. The real question/challenge is––will the Millennial generation allow Baby Boomers to advise? Or will they just ignore us?
Hans Hansson | July 5, 2017
I recently attended an event organized by National Association of Realtors (NAR). Attending guests included senior board members from across the country. As I presented in cities large and small, I have quickly come to learn that there is a national shortage of both residential and industrial real estate.
The Supply Doesn’t Meet Demand
There is clearly a major population shift occurring from outer suburbs to inner cities. Cities from Amarillo to Cleveland are seeing changes in city-dwellers’ living habits, which create a real need for more urban development, particularly urban condos. Although development is happening, it’s not happening quick enough to supply the demand, therefore pricing has become unaffordable throughout the country.
Affordable housing was the center stage topic of the NAR convention. Cities like Detroit are seeing major development throughout the city, but it’s not growing fast enough to gentrify areas caught in the middle of high crime areas. This results in high-crime neighborhoods surrounding the new development.
Not Enough Warehouses
The next area of shortages in Industrial or warehouse properties. Because rental rates have not kept pace with overall development costs, this type of property has been out of favor for new development for quite some time. Now, shortage exists everywhere, creating real challenges for businesses seeking to expand in their marketplace.
For example, Napa Valley's industrial warehouse vacancies are now at 1.3 percent. Yes, with the expanding wine industry, businesses are finding themselves choked off for growth because they don’t have enough warehouse space to store their product.
In Hayward, where the industrial vacancy is only one percent, small to big businesses can’t find any warehouse space available because none have been developed for so long.
The challenge with these shortages rest in the length of time it takes from acquisition to permitting to the actual building process. All markets are experiencing long delays in securing permits, thereby creating more pressure on shortages in the marketplace.
So, what’s going on? Clearly, we are seeing continued growth in our economy, but typically housing shortages are caused by population, not economic growth.
Lifestyle Changes Force Industry Changes
One fact that I was discussed that I would never have guessed is the size of the millennial generation. I assumed incorrectly that the Baby Boomers still represent the largest population block. However, that is not the case. Today, there are roughly around 60 million baby boomers, but over 100 million Millennials– making Millennials the winner of the market share. As we continue to develop, it’s important to keep in mind what Millennials want.
According to a recent study from the Urban Land Institute, Millennials identify themselves with the following words: entitlement, connection, ambition and innovation. Each of these words directly correlate with the lifestyle and real estate Millennials demand.
Convenience is a top priority for urban Millennials on the house hunt, and residential mixed-use spaces are a part of the solution to address their needs. Crucial needs for living space includes walkable distance to public transportation, amenities such as an at-home gym, nearby dining and entertainment. As population density in urban areas continue to climb, it’s important that cities develop properties that the bulk of the market would be interested in investing in.
Hans Hansson | June 19, 2017
Asking our government to be proactive may seem like a long shot, but the City leaders across the country need to understand the impact of the changing retail landscape and start to plan ahead for their communities.
Retail buildings generate the highest tax base for cities that rely on property taxes. They also generate the most sales tax and gross receipts tax revenue. Retail is the largest supporting anchor to any city’s revitalization plans and without it, there is nothing to draw people to continue to visit, live, or support any other businesses in the city.
A revolution is taking place and the effects are becoming more noticeable by the day. Retail giants like Amazon have clearly become the first choice for purchasing almost anything at the determent of brick-and-mortar stores. Sears and JC Penny’s are on their last leg in the retail world, while Macy’s and Nordstrom are not far behind. The days of the large department stores are coming to an end and big box retailers could be next.
Target and Wal-Mart are also clearly seeing online competition take its toll on their bottom line, but still strive to make changes in their offerings to adapt to the ecommerce world. Both retailers have been testing online food ordering this year as a way to stay in the game. Food is still one of the least underdeveloped areas for e-commerce.
At the recent ICSC convention in Vegas, it’s apparent that the majority of shopping centers throughout the US in the next 15-years will be closed. Many shopping centers have already converted to large-scale food courts. However, food retail is also feeling the effect of the changing eating habits of the millennial. Customers under the age of 35 are no longer interested in high-end, sit-down restaurants, nor are they interested in the fast food chains like Applebee’s or Buffalo Wild Wings. Both are struggling to compete with the likes of Chipotle and Panera Breads, which are expanding while the rest of the competition are shutting down. Customers in this age group are more likely to order takeout or cook at home to eat.
This has already had a rippling effect particularly in shopping centers that have food chain anchors. Shopping centers like The Westfield Mall in San Francisco have seen the majority of surrounding high-end restaurants close while fast food joints like Panda Express have seen record numbers since they opened in the same mall.
Most shopping centers rely on anchors like Panda Express to feed foot traffic and sales to the smaller surrounding shops, who pay true market-rate rents to be there. anchor stores typically pay little to no rent since they help draw the bulk of customer traffic. As large anchors begin to fail, the entire shopping center will struggle, unless they can find an anchor replacement.
The challenge to communities is what to do with retail zoned buildings that fail. Zoning laws are next to impossible to change quickly and in a lot of cities restrictions on types of retail, changes to other uses such as office, medical, residential are also restricted.
In San Francisco, a brand-new shopping center opened its doors recently, located on the 900 block of Market Street. It’s the biggest and most ambitious retail development in San Francisco since the Westfield shopping center and cost $150 million to build.
The center was built to compete with the Westfield shopping center, located down the street, but due to the changing retail market, the building has been unable to secure tenants who are willing to pay the necessary rent to make the costs of the project economically viable.
Interestingly, this project was originally built as retail as the Kress department store. When the urban market retail began to lose favor over the new regional suburb of shopping centers, it closed for a number of years. A developer in the early 1980’s eventually converted the building to ground floor retail and offices above successfully. But during the down turn of 2009, it fell on hard times until the current developer bought it and converted it to retail when market street booming again with customers.
The reality is that this building should once again become an office building. The floor plates lend itself well to support the types of office space that tech firms like Airbnb and Facebook are looking for in the city. Yet, to convert the building back to office space (if it would even get approved) would take at least two years through the planning department. This would mean two years of a vacant building in an area that has been posed to seen massive changes with the added residential development planned all around this building.
City officials and developers need to wake up fast to these rapid changes and begin determining what steps can be taken and what product type should be supported in these ever-changing times. The good news is that buildings are still needed and will always be needed. But the bad news is that government leaders lead from behind and not from the front. By doing so, this could lead to the next real great economic collapse.
Hans Hansson | May 19, 2017
Today, office vacancy throughout the Bay Area is on average at five percent. Planned office development is taking place in San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland to meet the office market demands. Retail vacancy is also around six percent. We still see new retail projects underway, while larger retailers across the country continue to close their brick-and-mortar stores and try to find new ways to survive in the ecommerce marketplace.
However, the lowest vacancy factor in all available commercial real estate sectors is industrial. Today, the overall industrial vacancy rates are at around three percent. In industrial heavy markets like Hayward, the overall vacancy is under two percent. Yet, there are almost no industrial projects in progress to address.
As a commercial real estate firm, the highest requested space that we receive inquiries on is for 10,000-20,000 square feet of warehouse space in the Hayward market. Unfortunately, it simply does not exist.
Even more challenging is that our warehouse market overall is old and obsolete. For instance, in San Francisco, there has not been a large warehouse industrial project built since the 1980's. Most of our warehouse stock was built before and during World War II to address the need of building navy ships. Most warehouse units are underpowered and cannot address the needs of today's offices that are typically included with warehouse space. Today's industrial space calls for power, sprinkler systems, high ceilings, and the ability to stack three-four palates on top of one another. Properties with this checklist are almost non-existent.
Why then do developers not build warehouse space? The first reason is leasing costs. Warehouse tenants often have a lot smaller budget to work with. Therefore, the cost to acquire land and make economic sense of the development is challenging. The second reason deals with return on investment for developers. Warehouse space requires access for large trucks and requires larger parking areas. This requires more common area land that developers need to include in their planning, which means they will need to buy land at a much lower cost to accommodate– which is not easy to find.
If we do not develop warehouse and industrial space, we will face even more congestion on our freeways, as trucks will have to venture farther away into the central valley to bring in goods to the Bay Area.
Zoning restrictions have been implemented in Bay Area cities, including San Francisco, to try to force development of more warehouse space. However, in the end, land is simply too expensive and the process to get a project up and running will take years since all projects must go through the planning process (typically up to two years from start date). Without a regional approach from our government officials to support our need for more warehouse and industrial property, we risk impeding our economic growth.