Factors. Please refer to the documents filed by the company with the SEC, specifically, the most recent reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q, which identify important risk factors that could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. We are not obligated to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. In addition, on today's call, we will discuss certain non-GAAP financial information, such as FFO, normalized FFO, and adjusted FFO. You can find this information, together with reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure in our earnings release issued yesterday, as well as in our 8-K filed with the SEC. I'll now hand the call over to Alan. Alan? Thank you, Brian, and welcome everyone. We are pleased to report our financial results for the quarter, which I believe reflect our team's continued dedication and hard work in the execution of our day-to-day operations. As I've noted in the past calls, we are pleased with our company's position as the broader macro economy and the regulated cannabis industry continue to experience challenges that have impacted operator fundamentals in a number of respects. We have one of the strongest and most experienced teams of real estate professionals in the cannabis industry, a high-quality portfolio, and arguably a conservative and flexible balance sheet with a 12% debt to total gross assets, no variable rate debt, no meaningful debt maturities until May 2026, and as noted in our earnings press release issued yesterday, we've further enhanced our liquidity by obtaining a revolving credit facility, which David will touch on in his prepared remarks. To recap the quarter, we generated total revenues of $78 million in Q3 and adjusted funds from operations of $65 million. Rent collection for IIP's operating portfolio was 97% for the quarter. The financial performance continued to drive dividend returns to our investors, with $7.20 of dividends declared per share in the past 12 months, an increase of 6% over the prior twelve-month period. The Q3 dividend payout ratio was at 79% of AFFO, modestly below the midpoint of our targeted ratio of 75%-85% of AFFO. This quarter was another quiet one for us in terms of additional acquisitions and investment activity. As we noted for several quarters, we expected a significantly slower pace of investment activity, given the ongoing macroeconomic uncertainty and significant adjustments to cost of capital since the Fed began aggressively raising rates last year. We did commit additional funding to complete the development of one of our newer properties, which Ben will discuss. From a regulatory perspective, we are certainly following closely the development stemming from the Department of Health and Human Services recommendation to the DEA that cannabis be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA. Of course, there are significant benefits to this, including a potential lifting of the confiscatory 280E federal taxes imposed on regulated cannabis operators, and Paul will discuss our thoughts in more detail. While the vast majority of our tenant base continues to perform, we have previously discussed, we have taken back certain properties from Parallel, Green Peak, and Kings Garden, and Ben and Paul will provide updates on those properties. As always, we are here to answer any questions you have to the extent we can. I will now turn the call over to Paul to discuss regulatory and industry dynamics. Paul? Thanks, Alan. Before discussing overall market developments, I'd like to provide an update on the properties leased or previously leased to Parallel, Green Peak and Kings Garden. As we noted then, and I think it is worth repeating here, we are, of course, first and foremost focused on maximizing the value of each of our properties and having tenants with strong teams that can manage their businesses successfully through the inevitable ups and downs of this industry. We have engaged local counsel and other advisors in these situations, commenced legal proceedings for damages and possession, and are in discussions with applicable regulatory agencies. As we noted in our call last quarter, Green Peak was placed into receivership in March, and in mid-March, we regained possession of the Summit building, a cultivation and processing facility under redevelopment. In addition, in May, we regained possession of two small retail locations in Michigan, previously leased to Green Peak, for which our total investment is less than $3 million, and expect to regain possession of one more retail location at the end of November. The receiver is paying rent on all other remaining properties leased to Green Peak, including the Harvest Park cultivation and processing facility and the remaining retail locations. The court approved the sale of Green Peak's assets to a buyer in October, with the buyer assuming the Harvest Park lease and leases for the remaining three retail locations with no changes to terms. As noted on our prior calls, we also filed actions against Parallel for possession and damages at our Pennsylvania property and our Texas property. We regained possession of the Texas property in March, which is in the early stages of development and the Pennsylvania property just earlier this week. We are actively exploring all options for these properties. As we noted previously, Parallel continues to be current on their obligations for the other two properties we leased to them in Florida. In late September, as we previously disclosed, we regained possession of the remaining four properties previously occupied by King's Garden, and Ben will discuss our marketing activity on those properties, as well as for the Summit building in Michigan. Market developments. As we have noted for some time now, the regulated cannabis industry continues to experience a set of challenging circumstances, but I would like to note that even during this macroeconomic environment, growth of the overall cannabis industry in the U.S. continues to remain strong, with BDSA projecting cannabis sales of $29.5 billion in 2023, representing approximately a 12% growth from 2022. Additionally, BDSA estimates that approximately 60% of U.S. adults could have access to adult use cannabis by 2026, with new state programs coming online. Unit pricing for regulated cannabis products has been under pressure in certain states at the wholesale level, reflective of what we believe to be a number of factors, including basic supply-demand dynamics, lack of meaningful enforcement in certain states on illicit, non-licensed cannabis sales by state and local law enforcement authorities, taxation, and general macroeconomic conditions. That dynamic continued through Q3 as a general matter, though of course, with some state-specific variations, and we have seen an uptick in national spot wholesale pricing since mid-September. Capital availability. Another continuing theme from our prior calls is the impact that the tightening of financial conditions has had on capital availability for the cannabis industry. As with other industries, the cost of capital and capital availability have fundamentally changed for cannabis operators over the course of the past year plus. With Viridian Capital Advisors reporting that both U.S. operator capital raising and mergers and acquisitions activity year to date were at their lowest levels since before 2018, the funding environment continues to be significantly challenged right now. Federal legislation. On the federal legislation front, there were a few noteworthy developments. In late September, the SAFER Act was passed by the Senate Banking Committee, marking the first time that cannabis banking legislation advanced through this committee. While a symbolic victory, SAFER was also supported by a bipartisan coalition of 22 states' attorneys general in a letter sent to congressional leaders, and with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowing to bring the act to the floor, quote, as quickly as possible, end quote. There remain numerous obstacles in getting the act through Congress and into law, so we are tempered in our enthusiasm as we have been with prior SAFE Act introductions starting ten years ago. Of course, the other significant development during the quarter was that in August, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended to the DEA that cannabis be reclassified from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. HHS based this recommendation on an FDA review of cannabis's classification pursuant to President Biden's executive order in October of 2022. The process for reclassification will require DEA approval and likely complex administrative rulemaking proceedings, and it remains unclear how long this process will take and the scope of any final decisions on rules. That said, such a reclassification is expected to end the 280 tax treatment, which has imposed an extreme tax burden on regulated operators, which would be a great win for the industry and immediately provide for a significant improvement in many operator financials. We will, of course, be monitoring progress in this area closely in coming months. I'd like to now turn the call over to Ben to discuss our portfolio and leasing activity in the third quarter. Ben? Thanks, Paul. As we noted earlier, we have regained possession of certain assets from Parallel, Green Peak, and Kings Garden and are continuing to focus on re-leasing efforts on those properties. Regarding our Summit property in Michigan, which we took back earlier this year, we executed an LOI to lease the entire property and are working through lease negotiations and final planning for completion of the redevelopment of that project. With respect to the four properties previously occupied by Kings Garden until late September, we are pleased to announce we executed an LOI for lease for the Nineteenth Avenue and McLean properties earlier this week, just over a month after regaining control of those two assets. We are also in active discussions regarding the other two smaller properties and evaluating alternative uses, including non-cannabis uses, given certain zoning changes that have impacted those properties. Those two smaller properties represent less than 1% of our total invested capital. Regarding our San Bernardino property, which we took back from Kings Garden late last year, we continue to explore a potential mixed-use development of that property, which may include a self-storage component pursuant to an LOI executed with a potential joint venture partner. As we previously noted, we expect the process to take many months, but we'll continue to report on progress as we can. For our properties in Texas and Pennsylvania, where Parallel defaulted, we took back the Texas property in mid-March and continue to explore options for that site. In Pennsylvania, Parallel wound down its operations in late October, and we were awarded a judgment for possession and damages at trial in late October. While we have been active on the leasing front, in terms of new investments, it was a relatively quiet quarter. As we have noted for several quarters now, given the significant adjustments to cost of capital across industries, including our own cost of capital and the macroeconomic uncertainties the regulated cannabis industry has been facing, we made the strategic decision to reduce our overall investment activity and continue to be extremely selective and patient in evaluating potential investment opportunities. As Alan noted, in late October, we amended our lease with Goodness Growth in New York, providing additional funding to complete the development of the expanded cultivation and processing facility and adjusting rent accordingly. As Goodness Growth disclosed last quarter, the company is exploring the sale of its New York operations, including the operations at this facility. With that, I'll turn it over to Catherine. Catherine? Thanks, Ben. For this call, I will describe our property portfolio and tenant roster, in addition to our rent collection statistics and updates on our development projects. As of September 30th, we owned 108 properties across 19 states and leased to 29 operators, comprising 8.9 million rentable sq ft. Of these 108 properties, 103 properties are included in our operating portfolio. Our portfolio continues to be well diversified, with no one tenant representing more than 16% of our annualized base rent and no state representing more than 15% of our annualized base rent. We have relationships with some of the largest and most experienced operators in the industry, with our leased operating portfolio comprised of 90% multi-state operators and 62% leased to public company tenants. The total amount of capital invested and committed across our operating portfolio equates to $274 per sq ft, which we believe remains significantly below replacement cost. For the third quarter, we collected approximately 97% of contractually due base rent and property management fees from our operating portfolio. The 3% we did not collect related primarily to our previously disclosed defaulted tenant, Parallel, at one of our Pennsylvania properties. Our revenue and rent collection for the quarter included the application of approximately $2.2 million in security deposits. As we previously disclosed, we amended our leases with Holistic in exchange for inclusion of cross-default provisions and extensions of terms for all the leases, and agreed to apply security deposits for rent payments to the Michigan and California properties through September 30th, with pro rata payback of these security deposits starting in January 2024. Holistic began paying rent on these properties in October. Similarly, as disclosed last quarter, we amended our lease with Temescal in Massachusetts, a property that experienced delays in completion of construction, pursuant to which we extended the term of the lease, temporarily reduced base rent for April through January, and then increased the base rent for the remainder of the term, with application of security deposits for certain rent payments. Temescal began paying rent in September, which has been fully collected through October. Finally, as we disclosed last quarter, we amended our lease with 4Front at one of our Illinois properties in July, applying a portion of the security deposit to pay 1/2 of the monthly contractual rent due from the tenant, commencing on October 1st, 2023, and continuing through November 30, 2023, with repayment over a 12-month period starting in January. 4Front has paid the 50% of rent due since this amendment. Similar to our third quarter stats, in October, we collected approximately 97% of contractually due base rent and property management fees from our operating portfolio, with the 3% we did not collect relating to our previously disclosed defaulted tenant, Parallel in Pennsylvania. We also continued to fund draws for improvement allowances or construction development to our operators under our leases. As we've previously noted on prior calls, these improvements are critical for the efficient production of quality cannabis products at scale. In Q3 of 2023, we funded $18 million net of building improvements and construction activities at our properties. With that, I'll turn it over to David. David? Thank you, Catherine. For the third quarter, we generated total revenues of $78 million, a 10% increase from Q3 of last year. The increase was driven primarily by an increase in tenant reimbursements versus the prior period, as well as activity in prior periods for the acquisition and leasing of new properties, additional funding of building improvements provided to tenants at certain properties that resulted in base rent increases, and contractual rental escalations at certain properties. As Catherine noted, the $78 million of revenue for the third quarter included $2.2 million of security deposits applied for payment of rents or $0.08 per share. For the three months ended September 30, 2023, we recorded net income attributable to common stockholders of $41 million or $1.45 per share. Adjusted funds from operations for the third quarter was $65 million or $2.29 per share, an increase of 7.5% compared to the $2.13 per share of AFFO generated in the third quarter of 2022, driven by increased tenant reimbursements, revenue generated by properties acquired in prior periods, contractual rent escalations, and revenue earned on additional CapEx investments at existing properties. AFFO for the third quarter was up $0.03 per share versus the second quarter AFFO of $2.26, with the increase primarily due to contractual rent increases, slightly offset by lower income from the Kings Garden portfolio. Notably, regarding Kings Garden, results in the third quarter included $1.7 million or $0.06 per share of rent from them. As Paul noted in his remarks, they are no longer a tenant as of the end of September. On October 13th, we paid a quarterly dividend of $1.80 per share to common stockholders of record as of September 29th, equivalent to an annualized dividend of $7.20 per common share. As Alan noted, our dividend remained covered by our AFFO during the quarter, with a payout ratio of 79%, which is in line with the board's targeted payout ratio of 75%-85% of AFFO. Turning to the balance sheet, at quarter end, we had approximately $2.6 billion in total gross assets and roughly $304 million in debt, importantly, all of which is at a fixed rate. Our debt consists solely of unsecured debt, with the majority of this, or $300 million, not maturing until May 2026. In addition, our credit room metrics remain strong and among the best in the entire publicly traded REIT industry, with a debt to gross assets ratio of less than 12% and a debt service coverage ratio in excess of 16 times. While our balance sheet remains in excellent shape, in October, we added additional liquidity with the closing of a $30 million, 3-year revolving credit facility, which can be expanded, subject to obtaining additional bank commitments. Pricing is based on the prime rate, plus an applicable margin based on the deposits with our bank. Notably, since our IPO, we have always strived to maintain access to multiple capital markets as we have previously accessed the common stock, preferred stock, convertible debt, and unsecured bond markets. The closing of this revolving credit facility further demonstrates our ability to access capital in the cannabis industry and provides another liquidity option for the company. With that, I will turn it back to Alan. Alan? Thanks, David. I'd like to note the following in closing: We continue to be steadfast believers in the long-term growth and success of the regulated cannabis industry, and our team of dedicated professionals and advisors is singularly focused on navigating our company through this rapidly evolving business environment. We have a solid foundation of properties, a dedicated team, and a clear vision for the future. We are optimistic about the legalization trends. We believe our expertise, property portfolio, and balance sheet position us well for the future. Now, with that, I'd like to open it up for questions. Operator, could you please open the call up for questions? We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. If at any time your question has been addressed and you would like to withdraw your question, please press star then two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question comes from Tom Catherwood with BTIG. Please go ahead. Thank you, and good morning, everybody. Maybe Paul or Alan, thinking more broadly of the cannabis industry in the U.S., you mentioned modest improvements in wholesale pricing, starting in the fall. And obviously we've seen recent states that have added adult use programs. With that as a backdrop, how is the business outlook for your tenants trending, and are there any markets where you're incrementally more constructive or hesitant at this point? Well, thanks, Tom. You know, I think you're asking, you know, a really good question, and I wish I had the best crystal ball with the clearest vision. We think the industry continues to perform well. I think it continues to be very widely accepted, as we've just described, the number of states that now have either adult use or medical cannabis, over, I think, 40 states now. And growth in sales continues to increase year-over-year, with the projection that by 2027, it's supposed to be over, I think, $43 billion in total sales. So, I mean, I think the industry in general is continuing to move in a positive direction. What we are potentially experiencing is, you know, the growth rates have not been as robust as they have in the past, but maybe positioning themselves for future sector higher growth rates than we have experienced this year and expected early next year. So I think that's the best we can do in our, you know, in analyzing where we think the industry is today. Yeah. And I could add, Tom, this is Paul, that you know, we look at the rescheduling possibility next year as just a huge positive, obviously, with the 280E implication. And I don't think we can overstate the impact 280 relief would have on operators across the board. So we look at that as a real positive. Also, you know, we still look at state developments. You know, Ohio next week has a vote on rec, and all eyes on Ohio next week. So you know, there's a lot of positive things going on in the industry. Great. Appreciate those comments. And then maybe for Ben or for Paul, going over to the assets you've had in the market, great to hear the news on the LOIs. Maybe just a broader question on the marketing of assets when you get them back. When you have them out, is the demand mainly coming from MSOs looking to add higher quality cultivation assets? Or kind of, Paul, as you alluded to, with the potential for the rescheduling, are we seeing new company formation and maybe new capital coming into this industry that we hadn't seen in the past, you know, 6-12 months? What's the kind of mix of those tenants out in the market looking at your assets? Yeah, let me add, let me ask Ben to respond to that. He's dealing with that every day. Hey, Tom. We're really seeing a mix, which I think was great to see when we took some of these properties back and took them out to market. You know, the two properties, the two main properties from King's Garden that we recently got back that we were pleased to announce an LOI for, we saw interest from new companies that were looking to get into the industry. We saw interest from existing players in the California market. It was really a good mix of existing and new companies that I think really saw the value in those assets, that these were fully built out. You know, as, as we've said in the past, these are mission-critical facilities that, that take a lot of investment and time to build, and the fact that we had fully built out, ready to go facilities really felt was very attractive to a lot of different types of companies. I think we saw that in, in both the, the amount of interest and how quickly we were able to put those, those properties under LOI. Thanks, Ben. Really, really helpful. Then maybe for David, great to see the addition of the revolver in the fourth quarter. As far as the process behind adding that, was this a matter of, you know, it took a while to find the terms and the rate and the structure that worked for you, and so you've pulled the trigger now? Or are you looking out at, you know, opportunities in the market and just the added capital flexibility gets you to where you want to be? Probably any kind of color on the thought process behind that. Yeah, sure, Tom. You know, the revolver itself, I'd say, you know, more so the latter that you mentioned. It was an opportunity just to, you know, bolster liquidity at the company. You know, as you know, we already have a incredibly strong balance sheet. It's just a chance to add additional liquidity for the company was attractive to us. You know, I'll say in terms of the, you know what I can say on the bank itself, it's a very large bank. They've been lending in cannabis for a couple of years now. They have over $60 billion of assets. So I think that also speaks to, you know, one, just, you know, interest in the industry and also, you know, interest in us as a credit. And pricing is also, you know, very, very attractive too, with no ongoing use fees. So, you know, just again, at the end of the day, it's just another chance to, you know, increase liquidity for us. Thanks, David. And then just last one quickly for me. Ben, remind us, when a tenant is looking to sell their business, like you mentioned, for Goodness Growth in New York, what is IIP's involvement? Do you have a say in assigning the lease to a new operator? Yeah. Hey, Tom, we would not be involved necessarily in the discussions on a transaction, but yes, of course, we do have a say over anyone that might come in to want to lease our building. So we do get involved from a lease assignment perspective in terms of who the new tenant would be. We will underwrite them, just like we underwrite any other transaction, and make sure that it's a good fit that we feel for the property. Got it. Really helpful. Thanks for all the answers, everybody. Thanks, Tom. The next question comes from Scott Fortune with ROTH Capital. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning. First, a little housekeeping item around kind of litigation expenses there and, and the movement or, or potential timing of, potentially getting a day in court and, and kind of, the litigation side of things. If you can get an update on that, that'd be great. Sure. Hey, Scott, it's Paul. As we mentioned, we concluded the litigation in Pennsylvania with a judgment in our favor of $15.5 million. We also recovered the property effective this week. So that litigation is done. Ongoing litigation remains in some areas, but you know, we continue to pursue vigorously our options against the defaulting tenants. So, you know, that was a good win in Pennsylvania. And you know, we just continue to pursue aggressively all our legal remedies. Perfect. And Paul, while I have you on the call there, can you expand a little bit more on the recent filed lawsuit by influential law firm and some of your MSO partners, potentially they're seeking kind of to block the federal government from enforcing prohibition against the state legal cannabis activity? You know, although likely it take a few years to play out, potentially you know going to the Supreme Court there, but kind of thoughts or protections from this the states, for the states and your business model with MSO tenants and kind of facilities in these vertical operations in these key states. Any kind of thoughts on kind of the justice side of moving cannabis reform progress forward in a sense? Yeah, you know, Scott, it's a really interesting lawsuit. And of course, they retained David Boies, who's one of the top, U.S. Supreme Court litigators in, in the country. So that, that gives instant credibility, I think, to get the case before the Supreme Court. You know, the case is filed in Massachusetts. It's basically, challenging the right of the federal government to regulate state-operated cannabis businesses. Because you go back to, the Gonzales case in 2005, that gave the federal government right to regulate interstate commerce. But of course, the way the states are operating now, it's intrastate, commerce. So the challenge is saying that, the federal government does not have jurisdiction to regulate businesses that operate solely within the state's own borders. The second part of the case is also interesting from a legal analysis. It's a nullification theory, and that's basically saying that the federal government has allowed the states to violate federal government for, you know, 12, 13, 14 years now. So it's kind of a waiver argument that says the state, the federal government is not allowed to continue to have this prohibition when it's refused to enforce its rights. So you're right, it's gonna be a long haul, but I do think it will get before the Supreme Court. I think we'll probably have rescheduling before it hits the Supreme Court. So, you know, we'll see, but it's probably a two to three-year process. But it's nice to see a legitimate case now, and we're now looking really at three fronts. We're looking at activity at the judicial level. We're looking certainly activity at the executive level through rescheduling. And of course, safe banking, SAFER banking is trying to wind its way through Congress. So it's a three-front attack that we think is very healthy for the industry. I appreciate that color. And if I can slip one more in, probably to Ben. But can you provide color on your private tenants, as we're seeing, you know, similar actions by your private or kind of single state operators there, following the trends by many of the public companies to significantly reduce costs, CapEx, and those with debt, we're seeing extending or equitizing that kind of debt maturities out to generate cash flow seems to be positive for the tenants and the health in this tough environment. And obviously, they're improving their operations in the current environment without expecting kind of beneficial cash flow from the elimination of 280E. Can you just put a little bit of color on your private side of tenants and their actions as far as kind of what the public side is doing? Yeah, sure. Hey, Scott, this is Ben. Happy to, happy to provide some color there. I'd say we're, we're really seeing similar initiatives taken by the private companies as we're seeing with the public companies, and they're all experiencing the same market dynamics as the public groups in terms of capital raising, in terms of operations. You know, we have single state private companies, we have multi-state private companies, and I think it's been very healthy, a lot of the things that you noted for the industry in terms of focusing on efficiencies of operations, addressing any sort of balance sheet challenges that they might have. It's been great to see that a lot of the publics have been able to extend loan maturities, refinance, restructure some of the debt, and really push out some of that debt concerns that some investors might have had for some of the public MSOs. So again, I think it's very healthy overall for the industry. They're taking the same steps. You know, they have been, you know... We're pleased to continue to report the strong rent collection. They're staying current on rent. They're continuing to occupy and operate out of our facilities and improve their operations and really focus on their financial health, which again, I think is really a benefit to the industry overall. Thank you for the detail. I'll jump back in the queue. Thanks, Scott. The next question comes from Alexander Goldfarb with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Hey, morning, morning out there. Always interesting whenever an earnings call gets into constitutional law. So, thank you for that, Paul. So two questions here. The first is maybe going along the legality part. Dave, you mentioned the bank that you guys got the letter of credit from was over $60 billion. So certainly, you know, one of the, I would assume, a big bank that would be subject theoretically to, to, you know, federal prohibitions on lending, but clearly not enforced. So, you know, we all discuss safe banking, but it almost seems like in practicality, given cannabis has access at the community bank level and it looks like all the way up to the $60 billion level, what benefit would safe banking provide that the industry doesn't seem to already have? Obviously, banks underwrite the credit, so a bad operator or credit unworthy, you know, potential borrower clearly is not gonna get credit. So from a good sponsorship basis, what's the difference from right now to if we had safe banking? Well, hey, Alex, this is Paul. So I think the short answer is it would encourage more banks to get into the space, because right now, FinCEN regulations do make it expensive for banks and borrowers and customers to have accounts because of the extensive reporting requirements, basically the SARs. So if we have safe banking in, that theory would go away, which I think would encourage more banks to get in. But to your point, you know, there still are the credit issues of these operators. So, you know, we've been consistent, I think, since we've been talking about this for six, seven years, is, you know, even with safe banking or safer banking now, we don't think that the large money banks, you know, the Wells, the Chases, are gonna come into the space. But it would be definitely a positive for the operators, to have better access and cheaper. You know, and then we always go back, you know, we were talking about earlier about, you know, the whole rescheduling idea, which we think is certainly more of a impactful to the industry than safer banking would be right now because of, the potential for 280E relief. So that's what we're really keeping our eye on. But, you know, safer banking would be good, but it's, you know, Schumer says he's gonna get it, to the floor vote, before the end of the year. We'll see with all the competition, you know, with having to fund the government and is the, the various war fundings, and it's probably not gonna get space, this year. So, you know, I think if, if SAFER gets some floor time in the Senate, Q1 next year, it, it can get over to the House, where, you know, I think we all understand it's gonna have some resistance at the House. So, all eyes on, on, rescheduling for next year. Okay, the second question is, and yeah, I mean, especially given Mike Johnson's views, hard to imagine the House passes, but who knows? But the second question is on, y ou know, as we look at the industry, one of the key issues that you guys have grappled with, although, you know, you've managed through it, is every quarter, there's like a new tenant that comes up as a credit issue. So, you know, you guys are, are steadily resolving, you know, legacy credit issues, but then a new one pops up, so it's like a conveyor belt, right? And ideally, you know, it doesn't. Well, there's no, there's no conveyor belt. Let's, let's not don't put those words in our mouths or, or out there. That's not, that's not a fact that's, that's occurring. But we, we have dealt with some legacy, legacy credit issues. Maybe in your other companies or in your own personal life, you have, you know, a conveyor belt of problems, but not in ours. So what's your question again? My question, though, is for the past few quarters, in fairness, there have been a number of tenant issues that have come up. Historically, you're right, it hasn't been a conveyor belt. Right. But recently, recently, we have been having that issue. So my question is, what is the key to getting the operators on a better footing? Is it the 280E tax burden going away? Is that the big solution? Is it, is it better state crackdown on the illicit? What I'm trying to do is understand what gets, you know, the current situation to resolve such that, you know, rent collections go back to 100%, and you guys can regain a competitive cost of capital to continue to grow the way historically you have. Yeah. Hey, Alex, this is Paul. So, you know, I think as we've said in prior calls, and I know you and I have talked about it, it, it's a combination of many things. Certainly, you know, crackdown on the illicit market is one, price stabilization across the board is another, and certainly better access to capital for the operators, and that would probably mean, you know, stability in interest rates. So, you know, there's a lot of macro factors that would come into play, I think that would certainly improve the credit health of the operators. But again, 280E relief would be the number one and the quickest solution. I've been looking at various legal opinions, and they think that if 280E, if we have a rescheduling during next year, that it would be retroactive to January 1st, 2024. So, you know, even if we get it, you know, sometime before the election, you know, August, September, you know, that would give relief for the whole tax year, most likely for these operators. So that's something that could be an immediate relief and really, really move money down to the bottom line. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. The next question comes from Eric Des Lauriers with Craig-Hallum Capital. Please go ahead. Great. Thank you for taking my questions. First one, just a bit of a housekeeping question. Hoping you can help me understand the lease amendment with Goodness Growth a bit more. In the press release, it states that the improvement allowance has increased by $14 million to now about $67 million. But if I look at the property list from previous quarters, the amount of committed capital was already $67 million. So I'm just wondering, is this just the difference between committed capital and tenant improvement allowance, and that now post-lease amendment, the committed capital for this property is now roughly $81 million? Yeah, Eric, that's correct. The financial supplement is through September thirtieth, so we would adjust that with the amendments for this next quarter. But $81 million is the new committed capital. Got it. Thank you. Then I guess just more broadly, can you just kind of talk about how you're viewing the risks associated with New York? You know, obviously, it's been a slower market to start. Illicit market is pretty entrenched there. Was a bit surprised to see more capital being allocated to that state. So I guess, could you just kind of give us your, your updated thoughts, on New York? Yeah, so, you know, obviously, New York has had some struggles, but the size of New York market is compelling, and we do believe that, you know, it'll get through these growing pains. And, you know, the big, big thing we really need to see, of course, is, you know, crack down on the black market, but also open some more stores. And I think, we're gonna see that, starting this quarter or next quarter, where we're gonna see, an emphasis on getting more retail stores open, that can handle the supply. Ben, do you have any other thoughts on that? Yeah, no, I would just add to that. I mean, even with all the historical issues that we might have seen in New York, it is still projected to be a top five market by 2027. So we do think there is a lot, a lot of long-term value in the state. Apart from state-specific dynamics, I mean, we felt that this was a good investment. This is an underdeveloped property that we wanted to make sure was completed on time. We felt that this adds value to the property for the long term. So we like where this sets this particular asset up for a market that, while has seen some challenges, has a tremendous amount of growth potential. All right, that's helpful. I appreciate that. And then, last for me, I'm just hoping that you can help me, kind of understand a bit more what's going on, with the Green Peak's assets and the potential impacts to, to your rental revenues and overall portfolio. So a couple of weeks ago, Sundial issued a press release announcing that their bid to take over receivership of those Green Peak's assets was approved, and that as part of that receivership process, economic leases representing more than $12 million of annual fixed obligations were rejected. So I guess just a few questions. You know, what, what is the impact to your rent collection of this $12 million? Would you look to restructure this lease? You know, how might a restructuring look? And then I guess just more broadly speaking, you know, how do you kind of look at the risk of other leases of yours potentially being deemed uneconomical? Thanks. Hey, Eric, this is Ben. So just wanted to clarify, they obviously have a lot more leases than just with us, so I think the press release was referring to some things outside of our portfolio. You know, as we've described, we took back the Summit property from Green Peak, that was in May, and we're very happy to announce that we signed an LOI for that entire property, and are looking forward to getting that tenant in there and operating and paying rent. We did take back two smaller retail assets, and in our prepared remarks, mentioned a third retail asset. Total of those is about 0.3% of our assets across those three retail properties. The remaining leases, the buyer did agree and is assuming those as is, and we are not making any changes, and there were no changes requested to any of the deal terms on those leases. Okay, great. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Eric. This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Alan Gold for any closing remarks. Thank you. And thank you all for joining me here today, and once again, I can't thank the team for all their fantastic, hard work that they've done over the last quarter, and looking forward to a better quarter coming up, and to a fantastic 2024. Thank you, all. The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation.