Warehouse vacancy is climbing in major logistics corridors as speculative deliveries land, and the reflexive conviction that any asset with a truck court would reprice upward has started to fade. Industrial outdoor storage sits apart from that normalization—not because it rides the same tailwinds at a lag, but because it operates on a different supply mechanism entirely. Municipal zoning codes in infill markets rarely encourage new outdoor storage uses near residential or mixed-use corridors. Existing entitlements, once lost to rezoning or redevelopment pressure, are difficult and sometimes impossible to replace. The same proximity to ports, intermodal yards, and last-mile networks that makes a site operationally valuable to tenants makes it a target for municipalities that would prefer higher-density or less visually intensive uses. Supply tightens directionally over time in exactly the markets where demand is strongest.
That structural constraint is real, but the IOS label is getting stretched beyond what it can bear. Capital chasing the theme does not always distinguish between a site with defensible permitted uses, load-bearing surfaces, and ingress characteristics matched to actual tenant operations and a vacant parcel that happens to sit near a freight corridor. The risks that matter most—zoning reversion, environmental exposure, tenant concentration, municipal resistance to intensification—are the risks that casual participants tend to price last. This piece maps where the scarcity thesis holds, where it weakens, and what brokers and sponsors need to document to connect scarce, entitled supply with capital that understands the operating use case well enough to underwrite it.
What Industrial Outdoor Storage Actually Is—and What It Isn't
Industrial outdoor storage is permitted, zoned outdoor space used for the staging, storage, parking, or marshaling of vehicles, equipment, containers, construction materials, or other physical goods. The yard—not a building—is the primary economic asset. A functional IOS site typically includes hardened or improved surfaces (gravel, asphalt, or concrete rated for heavy loads), perimeter fencing or security infrastructure, and ingress/egress engineered for heavy truck and trailer movements. It may include minimal structures—guard shacks, office trailers, maintenance bays, fueling stations—but these are ancillary. The tenant is paying for entitled, accessible, load-bearing outdoor space in a location that serves a specific freight, construction, or logistics function.
The definitional lines matter because the market uses the term loosely, and the looseness costs real money. IOS is not generic vacant land awaiting development. It is not an unpermitted gravel lot where someone parks trucks without zoning authorization. It is not a brownfield site carrying environmental encumbrances that prevent active use. The IOS premium—in rents, in buyer interest, in marketplace engagement—attaches to entitled, permitted, operationally functional yard space, not to dirt with aspirational potential. Some brokerages label any open lot "IOS" to capture search traffic, which dilutes the category and frustrates serious buyers who arrive expecting documented entitlements and find a parcel with a speculative rezoning narrative. Listings that clearly document zoning entitlements, permitted uses, yard dimensions, surface specifications, and access configurations materially outperform generic "land" or "industrial" listings in buyer engagement. Brokers who package IOS assets with functional documentation rather than aspirational language connect with qualified capital faster—and the Wants surface is particularly useful here, because sponsors and operators with defined IOS acquisition criteria can broadcast demand in a way that helps match scarce supply to the right buyers.
A buyer underwriting an IOS acquisition needs to verify the zoning designation, the specific permitted uses under that designation, the history of municipal approvals, and whether the current use is conforming or legally nonconforming. A nonconforming use that predates a zoning change may be grandfathered, but it carries reversion risk if the use lapses, the property changes hands, or the municipality tightens enforcement. This is not a footnote—it is a core underwriting variable that affects lease durability, exit pricing, and financing availability. NAIOP research on industrial entitlement timelines and land-use friction illustrates the broader pattern: securing or maintaining industrial zoning in metro-adjacent locations is increasingly difficult, and IOS uses face steeper municipal resistance than enclosed warehouse development because the use is visible, loud, and politically unpopular 1. A clean entitlement package—zoning letter, site plan, permitted-use schedule, any variance or conditional-use history—should be assembled before the listing goes live. Without it, the broker is inviting tire-kickers and filtering out the institutional buyers who will not engage without documentation. For more on how listing preparation drives lead quality, see How to Perform Best on Brevitas.
Why Supply Is Structurally Scarce, Not Just Cyclically Tight
The supply constraint behind IOS is structural, not cyclical. It operates across four reinforcing mechanisms that make new supply genuinely difficult to create where it is most needed.
The first and most powerful is zoning friction. Municipalities near population centers increasingly resist truck-intensive, visually unappealing outdoor storage uses. Residential encroachment, noise complaints, traffic concerns, and aesthetic objections drive zoning boards to restrict or eliminate IOS-compatible designations in infill locations. NAIOP has documented rising political resistance and lengthening entitlement timelines facing industrial development broadly in metro-adjacent corridors 1. IOS faces a steeper version of this resistance because the use is open-air, generates heavy-vehicle traffic on local roads, and offers none of the visual containment of an enclosed warehouse. A municipality that will approve a tilt-up distribution building may reject an outdoor container yard on the same parcel—even if the yard generates fewer truck trips—because the optics are worse. The pattern is visible in port-adjacent Southern California: cities along the I-710 corridor that once tolerated open-yard trucking operations have spent the last decade rezoning parcels toward enclosed logistics or mixed-use, removing IOS-compatible entitlements that are unlikely to be restored.
The second mechanism is conversion economics, and it works as a one-way ratchet. When entitled yard space sits where land values are rising—driven by residential growth, retail demand, or enclosed industrial development—the economic incentive is to rezone and develop to a higher-density use, not to maintain a low-coverage outdoor storage operation. Every IOS site that gets rezoned removes supply that is functionally irreplaceable in that submarket, because the zoning that permitted the outdoor use is unlikely to return. This dynamic is most acute in infill industrial corridors near ports, intermodal yards, and dense population centers, where land values per square foot can justify multifamily, mixed-use, or high-bay warehouse development generating far more revenue per acre than a gravel yard. The IOS operator who loses a lease to a redevelopment cannot simply move two miles down the road; the replacement site with equivalent zoning, access, and proximity may not exist. In northern New Jersey's Meadowlands submarket, parcels that functioned as container staging yards for decades have been redeveloped into last-mile distribution facilities, permanently removing open-yard capacity from one of the tightest freight corridors on the East Coast.
Third, there is no speculative development pipeline for IOS. A developer can spec a 500,000-square-foot distribution building on entitled industrial land, finance it against projected market rents, and find a tenant through a standard leasing process. No one specs a 10-acre gravel yard on the same basis. IOS supply enters the market through legacy industrial sites, infrastructure adjacencies, and idiosyncratic entitlement wins—not through programmatic development. Census Bureau construction spending data tracks new industrial construction overwhelmingly in warehouse and distribution categories, with no meaningful line item for open-yard or outdoor storage development 2. The development market does not produce IOS supply because the economics of speculative yard development do not pencil against land costs in the locations where IOS demand is strongest.
Fourth, location is not fungible. An IOS site two miles from a port or intermodal yard, with direct highway access and road infrastructure rated for heavy vehicles, cannot be replicated 40 miles away in an exurban location where land is cheap but access is poor and the freight network is thin. Bureau of Transportation Statistics data on freight corridor density and tonnage concentration reinforces what operators already know: the value of proximity to intermodal nodes is steep and nonlinear, because every additional mile of drayage adds cost, time, and regulatory exposure 3. This is why IOS demand clusters tightly around specific infrastructure—ports, rail yards, highway interchanges—and why the scarcity is geographic, not just categorical. Buyers evaluating IOS acquisitions should weight proximity to freight infrastructure and road-load ratings as heavily as acreage and rent, because those access characteristics are what make the site defensible against substitution.
The Demand Anchor: Freight, Construction, and Last-Mile Staging
IOS demand is a direct function of how much physical stuff the economy moves, builds, and stages—and where that stuff has to sit between movements. Trucking accounts for the dominant share of U.S. domestic freight tonnage and value 3. That freight does not teleport. Trailers queue at intermodal yards. Containers stack near port complexes waiting for chassis. Construction equipment parks between job sites. Last-mile delivery vans marshal at urban-edge lots before fanning into residential routes. Every one of those activities requires functional outdoor yard space—graded, fenced, permitted, and accessible to heavy vehicles—within practical proximity to the freight infrastructure generating the demand.
The tenant categories are specific and worth naming, because they explain why IOS demand is operationally sticky rather than cyclically elastic. Trucking and logistics operators need trailer and container staging near intermodal facilities and distribution corridors. Construction firms—the sector employed roughly 8.2 million workers as of early 2025, per BLS establishment data 4—require equipment yards, materials laydown areas, and vehicle storage within reach of active job sites. Container drayage operators near port complexes need chassis and box storage that is functionally inseparable from the port's throughput capacity. Last-mile delivery operators, utilities, and infrastructure contractors all need marshaling space that cannot be replicated inside a warehouse. A drayage company cannot stage chassis in a suburb 40 miles from the port and remain competitive on turn times. A heavy-civil contractor cannot park a fleet of excavators at a self-storage facility. These tenants are not chasing speculative square footage; their businesses physically cannot function without yard access near their work.
BEA data on private fixed investment in structures and equipment—categories encompassing construction activity, fleet purchases, and infrastructure buildout—reflects the capital expenditure cycle that generates IOS tenant demand 5. Federal infrastructure and freight policy continues to channel investment into highway, port, and intermodal capacity 6, reinforcing the operational need for outdoor staging near those nodes. The critical point for underwriting: proximity to ports, intermodal yards, highway interchanges, and freight rail is not a marketing amenity for IOS sites—it is the demand driver itself. A site near a major intermodal yard draws container storage and drayage tenants because those tenants have no operationally viable alternative farther away. A site near an active metro construction corridor draws equipment staging because the equipment has to be somewhere between deployments. The demand is use-specific and location-anchored, which is why it supports pricing power where supply is scarce—and collapses where it is not.
Where the Scarcity Thesis Holds—and Where It Doesn't
The IOS scarcity thesis is strongest where three conditions converge in infill metro locations: freight demand is concentrated, zoning friction is high, and replacement supply is genuinely difficult to create. Port-adjacent submarkets in Southern California's Inland Empire and San Pedro Bay corridor, northern New Jersey's I-95 and port complex orbit, Houston's ship channel and intermodal zone, and Savannah's rapidly expanding port-proximate industrial belt are the clearest examples. In these markets, entitled outdoor storage parcels sit at the intersection of intense operational demand and municipal resistance to truck-intensive uses near encroaching residential development. NAIOP research on industrial development trends highlights the difficulty of entitling new industrial uses in infill locations, where community opposition, environmental review, and competing higher-density land uses can stretch entitlement timelines by years 1.
Consider what this looks like at the parcel level. A five-acre permitted truck-staging yard near a major intermodal facility in a tight infill submarket might trade at a meaningful premium to raw land value—not because the improvements are expensive, but because the entitlement is irreplaceable. If that parcel gets rezoned for townhomes, the drayage operators who used it do not find equivalent space nearby; they absorb longer turn times, higher fuel costs, or exit the submarket entirely. The conversion ratchet turns one direction only. And the spec development pipeline that is now delivering big-box warehouse space into softening vacancy does not produce entitled IOS yards as a byproduct. Census Bureau data on construction spending confirms that new industrial construction has been overwhelmingly concentrated in warehouse and distribution facilities, not in open-yard or IOS-type improvements 2.
The thesis weakens materially in exurban and rural locations where land is abundant, zoning is permissive, and freight demand is diffuse. A 20-acre gravel lot in a county with no zoning code and limited truck traffic is not IOS in any economically meaningful sense—it is cheap land with a fence. The scarcity premium that supports rent growth in infill IOS evaporates when a competing site can be graded and opened a quarter-mile away for minimal cost. Investors and brokers should be explicit about this distinction: the IOS label does not confer value by itself. What confers value is the combination of permitted use, functional access, and proximity to freight infrastructure in a location where new supply cannot easily be created. Applying infill IOS pricing to sites that lack those characteristics is how buyers overpay and how the subsector's credibility gets diluted.
International parallels exist directionally but should not be overstated. Savills has framed logistics land scarcity in markets like the UK, Northern Europe, and Australia in terms that echo the U.S. IOS dynamic: urban encroachment compressing available industrial land, planning resistance to truck-intensive uses near residential areas, and freight corridor density concentrating demand on a shrinking supply of functional sites 7. In the UK, the planning system's constraints on industrial land in the Southeast and Midlands create conditions broadly analogous to infill IOS scarcity in U.S. port markets. Cross-border IOS data remains thin, however, and investors considering international exposure should treat these parallels as structural framing rather than direct comparables—entitlement regimes, lease structures, and tenant profiles require local diligence. For brokers and sponsors working cross-border capital into U.S. IOS, the Strategies to Reach International Real Estate Investors framework is a useful starting point for structuring that outreach. Buyers with specific IOS acquisition criteria—port-proximate yards, minimum acreage, entitlement status—can surface that demand directly through posting a Want on Brevitas, which puts the criteria in front of brokers listing exactly those assets.
Pricing Power, Rent Dynamics, and the Yield Profile
IOS rents behave differently from warehouse rents because the landlord's cost structure is fundamentally different. A conventional industrial lease sits on top of shell construction, roofing, fire suppression, dock infrastructure, and often a tenant improvement allowance that can run into the millions on a large distribution facility. IOS landlords carry none of that. The capital stack is land, grading, surface treatment—typically gravel or stabilized aggregate, sometimes asphalt—perimeter fencing, security infrastructure, and ingress/egress improvements. Most IOS leases are triple-net, pushing property taxes, insurance, and maintenance to the tenant. There is no roof to replace on a 15-year cycle, no HVAC system to maintain, and no TI negotiation at renewal. The landlord's ongoing capital obligation is largely limited to surface maintenance and security. That low-capex, pass-through structure is what makes even moderate per-acre rents produce unlevered yields that enclosed industrial assets struggle to match after accounting for replacement cost and capital reserves.
The metric that matters most is not headline rent but rent-to-basis ratio. IOS is typically priced per acre or per yard-square-foot, and the data is far less standardized than for enclosed industrial, which makes precise cross-format rent comparisons unreliable. What is more legible is the spread between acquisition cost and stabilized net operating income. Entitled yard space near ports, intermodal facilities, and dense metro cores commands a premium over raw land—but even at that premium, the per-square-foot basis is a fraction of what it costs to build a Class A warehouse. Directionally, broker surveys and trade reporting suggest that infill IOS rents in supply-constrained corridors—port-adjacent Southern California submarkets, northern New Jersey's Turnpike corridor, Houston's Ship Channel area—have grown faster than warehouse rents in the same markets over the past several years, though the absence of a standardized IOS rent index means these comparisons should be treated as indicative rather than precise. NAIOP research on industrial land costs and entitlement timelines reinforces the underlying dynamic: entitled, truck-accessible land near freight infrastructure is expensive to acquire and nearly impossible to replicate, which supports both rent durability and pricing power for incumbents 1. Cap rates for well-leased IOS assets with creditworthy tenants and confirmed zoning have reportedly compressed in recent years, broadly tracking the trajectory of single-tenant net lease industrial—but on a materially lower basis. Assets with shorter lease terms, weaker tenant credit, or ambiguous entitlements trade wider, sometimes significantly so. Precise cap-rate ranges are difficult to pin down because IOS transaction data remains thin and inconsistently reported; buyers should benchmark against named broker surveys or recent comps rather than relying on market-level generalizations.
The yield profile carries real caveats. IOS assets with month-to-month tenancies or short-term leases may show attractive current yields but embed rollover risk that institutional underwriters will discount. Tenant credit quality is uneven: a national equipment rental company on a seven-year NNN lease is a different risk profile than a local contractor storing materials on a handshake arrangement. Buyers who chase headline yields without diligencing the tenant's operating necessity—whether the site is functionally irreplaceable for that tenant's logistics or merely convenient—risk discovering that pricing power evaporates when the tenant has alternatives. The strongest IOS yield stories combine four elements: entitled zoning, proximity to a freight node or population center where relocation is impractical, a creditworthy or operationally sticky tenant, and a lease structure that passes through costs cleanly. Where all four align, the unlevered return profile is genuinely differentiated. Where one or more is missing, the yield premium may be compensating for risk rather than reflecting scarcity.
Stakeholder Implications
The IOS thesis lands differently depending on where you sit in the transaction chain. For brokers and sponsors, the immediate implication is that IOS deal flow rewards sourcing discipline and functional documentation far more than it rewards marketing polish. Most IOS transactions are off-market or lightly marketed because the assets do not photograph well, do not fit neatly into standard listing categories, and are often held by long-term owners who do not think of their gravel yard as an institutional asset. Brokers who can identify these sites, confirm zoning entitlements, document permitted uses, and present the asset with clear yard dimensions, ingress/egress specifications, and tenant operating profiles will attract qualified capital faster than those who list an IOS site as generic 'industrial land' with aspirational development language. In practice, this means packaging IOS listings with the functional detail that institutional buyers actually underwrite—zoning confirmation letters, permitted use schedules, environmental phase reports, and access diagrams—rather than aerial photos and a price-per-acre headline. Guidance on listing quality and lead generation applies with particular force here: the documentation gap between a well-packaged IOS listing and a generic one is often the difference between attracting a qualified operator and attracting tire-kickers.
For investors and capital-markets participants, IOS represents a subsector where the underwriting requires more operational diligence than a typical warehouse acquisition. Census Bureau data on construction spending confirms that new industrial construction has been overwhelmingly concentrated in warehouse and distribution facilities, not open-yard or IOS-type improvements, which means the supply pipeline that has begun to pressure warehouse vacancy in major logistics corridors is largely irrelevant to IOS 2. That structural insulation from new supply is the core of the investment thesis—but it does not eliminate tenant-level risk. Investors entering the space need to underwrite tenant durability with the same rigor they would apply to a single-tenant net lease retail asset: What is the tenant's operating use case? How replaceable is the site for that use? What happens to demand if the tenant's industry contracts? BLS data on trucking, warehousing, and construction employment can serve as useful proxies for the health of the tenant base in a given metro—if freight volumes and construction activity are stable or growing, the demand anchor for IOS is measurable rather than assumed 4. Environmental diligence is a non-negotiable cost. Many potential IOS sites have prior industrial use histories that carry contamination risk, and the EPA's brownfield framework provides relevant guidance on assessment and remediation obligations that can materially impair returns if phase assessments are deferred or underscoped 8. A Phase I that surfaces recognized environmental conditions on a $3 million yard acquisition is an inconvenience; the same finding discovered post-closing is a capital event.
At the operator and asset level, IOS tenants are often more operationally sticky than their credit profiles suggest—and this is the dimension most frequently underweighted in conventional underwriting. Consider a regional construction firm storing heavy equipment at a yard two miles from an active job corridor. That tenant is not choosing the site because of a broker's marketing deck; it is there because the alternative is a 45-minute deadhead from a yard on the metro fringe, which adds fuel cost, driver hours, and response time on every dispatch. The same logic applies to last-mile delivery staging, utility fleet parking, and container drayage operations near port complexes. These tenants may not carry investment-grade credit ratings, but their renewal probability is high because the cost of relocation—measured in operational disruption, not just moving expense—is disproportionate to the rent. Operators who understand this dynamic can structure leases with modest annual escalators and longer terms, trading headline rent for occupancy certainty. The practical implication for asset managers is that tenant retention in IOS is less about concessions and more about confirming that the site remains operationally critical: maintaining access quality, accommodating equipment staging needs, and keeping permitting current. For brokers packaging a disposition, documenting that operational stickiness—tenant use case, proximity to demand drivers, renewal history, and relocation cost analysis—is as important as the rent roll itself. Sponsors actively assembling IOS portfolios can accelerate sourcing by broadcasting acquisition criteria through structured demand tools like Wants, specifying proximity to ports or intermodal yards, minimum acreage, and required zoning designations—matching scarce supply to defined capital mandates rather than relying on passive listing discovery.
Strategic Outlook
The IOS thesis is no longer a discovery trade. Institutional capital has arrived, the label carries a pricing premium, and what comes next is a sorting phase. The brokers and sponsors who can document the difference between a genuinely scarce, well-entitled infill yard and a loosely marketed gravel parcel in a secondary location will control the quality end of the deal flow. Those who cannot will find that the IOS label alone no longer closes the pricing gap with buyers who have watched enough commodity land get dressed up as institutional product.
Several forward indicators are worth tracking closely. Municipal zoning and land-use actions in infill industrial corridors matter most: any rezoning of truck-intensive parcels to mixed-use or residential designations permanently removes IOS-capable supply and strengthens the position of remaining entitled sites. NAIOP research has documented how entitlement timelines and community opposition constrain industrial land availability near population centers, and that friction shows no sign of easing 1. At the corridor level, BTS freight tonnage and intermodal volume data can reveal where operational yard demand is actually concentrating—IOS demand follows truck and container flows, not headline industrial absorption figures 3. Census Bureau construction spending breakdowns add another layer: as long as new industrial construction dollars flow overwhelmingly toward warehouse and distribution facilities rather than open-yard or staging-oriented projects, the functional supply gap for IOS sites widens by default 2. And EPA brownfield program activity shapes the conversion pipeline, because many potential IOS sites carry legacy contamination that affects both acquisition timelines and basis 8.
For brokers, the execution advantage belongs to specificity. A listing that includes a zoning confirmation letter, a site plan with yard dimensions and turning radii, a summary of permitted outdoor uses, and documentation of completed environmental phase work will materially outperform one that simply tags the property as 'industrial land.' Given that IOS deal flow is disproportionately off-market or lightly marketed, structured buyer-matching matters more here than in sectors where inventory is abundant and widely listed. The Wants surface on Brevitas is well-suited to this dynamic: sponsors and operators with defined IOS acquisition criteria—minimum acreage, proximity to intermodal yards, specific zoning designations—can broadcast that demand so brokers can match scarce supply to qualified capital before a site hits broad syndication.
The risks worth stress-testing on every acquisition are specific and knowable: zoning reversion if the municipality shifts land-use priorities; environmental liability on legacy industrial parcels where Phase I findings may only be the beginning; and tenant concentration where a single operator represents the majority of yard income. Underwriting discipline on these three vectors—not sector enthusiasm—is what separates durable IOS acquisitions from sites where the label was applied but the fundamentals were not.
- Track municipal rezoning actions in infill industrial corridors—every entitled IOS parcel lost to residential or mixed-use conversion tightens the supply thesis for remaining sites.
- Follow BTS truck tonnage and intermodal volume data at the corridor level to identify where operational yard demand is concentrating, not just where industrial absorption headlines are strongest 3.
- Monitor Census construction spending splits between warehouse/distribution and other industrial categories; persistent underinvestment in open-yard facilities is the supply constraint expressed in federal data 2.
- Package IOS listings with zoning confirmation letters, permitted-use documentation, site plans with yard specs and access diagrams, and environmental phase summaries—not aspirational development-potential language.
- Use Post a Want to broadcast specific IOS acquisition criteria so that off-market sites reach qualified buyers before broad syndication.
- Stress-test every IOS acquisition against three failure modes: zoning reversion risk, environmental liability on legacy sites, and tenant concentration where a single operator dominates yard income.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does IOS pricing power persist when broader industrial fundamentals are softening?
Because the binding constraint is supply, not demand. Warehouse vacancy is rising as speculative deliveries absorb, but IOS inventory cannot be speculatively built in most infill markets—zoning friction, environmental review timelines 8, and municipal resistance to open-storage entitlements prevent it. Even modest, steady demand from logistics, fleet maintenance, and construction staging keeps well-entitled infill sites fully occupied with real pricing leverage. The asset class doesn't need a demand boom; it needs the supply bottleneck to hold.
What is the most common underwriting mistake in IOS acquisitions right now?
Treating entitlement status as binary rather than investigating its durability. A site can be correctly zoned for outdoor storage today and still face reclassification risk if the municipality's comprehensive plan or an overlay district targets the corridor for mixed-use redevelopment. Operators who skip that layer of diligence may find their hold period compressed involuntarily. The second mistake is ignoring stormwater and environmental compliance costs 8, which vary widely by jurisdiction and can turn a clean-looking land basis into a capital-intensive remediation project before a single tenant moves in.
How cyclical is IOS tenant demand?
More cyclical than the pitch decks suggest, less cyclical than conventional warehouse. BTS freight data tracks meaningful swings in tonnage and shipment counts across modes 3, and IOS tenants tied to discretionary construction or project-based logistics pull back in downturns. But tenants tied to essential infrastructure—utility staging, municipal fleet yards, last-mile distribution for non-discretionary goods—are materially stickier. The practical question is tenant-mix composition: a site leased predominantly to a regional utility and a waste hauler has a very different risk profile than one leased to three general contractors on short-term deals.
What location attributes make an IOS site defensible versus replaceable?
Functional proximity to freight infrastructure is the clearest differentiator—nearness to intermodal yards, port complexes, or major highway interchanges where truck volumes are concentrated 6. Sites within a short drive of active job corridors or dense last-mile delivery zones also hold up well. The replaceable sites are cheap acreage with an industrial zoning tag but no functional connection to the freight or labor networks that generate repeat tenant demand. Acreage alone is not scarcity; entitled acreage embedded in a working supply chain is.
