Jojo Yap: Sure. And then on — an additional, as Scott said, we added, of course, the land — Nashville land acquisition. And then we made some adjustments to our land values, those were in Chicago and Florida. And then we also slightly adjusted some lands. So we did this asset by asset. Some land, we started to make improvements, where it’s off-site improvements and therefore, that added to the value. So we added our cost to those additional investment in the land. So if you took all of that together, that resulted in the difference.
Nick Thillman: Was there any specific markets that were haircut like significantly in this process or not really?
Jojo Yap: No, I would say that we didn’t do it market by market. We did it property by property. I would say the change was anywhere from 5% to 15%. And then Chicago, we, for example, took down Orlando. We took down in terms of value, we adjusted it. So yes. So I mean we did it property by property.
Nick Thillman: And then a quick one for Scott. Maybe just an update on how bad debt is tracking year-to-date? And any updates on the tenant watch list?
Scott Musil: Sure. Bad debt’s very low. For the third quarter, it’s about $100,000 and that’s compared to our guidance assumption of $250,000. So still in very good shape. If you look year-to-date third quarter, we’ve expensed about $275,000 compared to our original guidance for those first 3 quarters of $750,000. So doing very well against our forecast. As far as tenants on the watch list, no material tenants are on the watch list at this point in time.
Operator: Our next question comes from Rich Anderson with Wedbush.
Rich Anderson: So when I was kind of looking back in time, Peter, back in 2019, I asked a question of you, what trigger points are you looking for as it relates to build-to-suit versus spec development. You talked a lot about it here on this call. One of the things you said then, not to put you on the spot, is the so-called musical chairs phenomenon where — where tenants have the ability to move around from 1 asset to another because they can. And that, to you, would be an indication of market weakness. You talked about the hesitancy of tenants and so on that’s going on today. But are you also seeing that with the elevated level of deliveries is creating optionality? Is that another sort of dynamic that you’re seeing happen in your space?
Peter Baccile: Kudos to you, Rich, for remembering that, bringing that up. That’s good. Good question. No, we’re not seeing that. What we’re seeing, someone — and we have a current example in the portfolio, where a tenant moved out to consolidate it to a bigger space. And that’s still the theme. If we lose a tenant, it’s because we can’t accommodate their additional growth needs. And in terms of people leaving buildings, it’s very expensive to move. So the deal that they can achieve somewhere else has to be pretty outstanding and that is not reflective at all of where we are right now, even with the additional supply coming to the market. As we’ve pointed out, vacancy rates, that 4% in our markets, that’s still a very, very low vacancy rate. That’s not going to generate the kind of financial arbitrage that is going to cause a tenant to leave to go to another building. So good — very good question but we’re not seeing that phenomenon right now.
Rich Anderson: Okay. Second question for me is, Scott, you gave your guidance, 94.5% occupancy at the midpoint and 97% if you didn’t include the development deliveries. So 250 basis points spread, how does that number compare to when everything was white hot and you kind of got further along in the leasing process by the time buildings were delivered? Is 250 significantly higher than that time? I assume it’s above it. And where do you think it’s headed from here when you kind of take your pulse of things going forward?
