The Newton homeowner with the highest annual property tax bill pays $205,070 for their 17,802 square foot home built in 2004 in Newton Corner on 2 acres, which is over 16 times the average Newton property tax bill of $12,392. Should we tell future energy-hogging plutocrats that they can’t build mansions and McMansions here in the future?
Our new proposed zoning re-design plan would do just that by prohibiting building these “over-sized” homes, no matter what the lot size. Under current zoning, there is no maximum house size provided your lot is big enough and you meet setbacks and other zoning requirements. The new proposed zoning plan would instead set a maximum house size in each zone. In the current SR1 zone, the maximum house size would be around 5550 square feet of living space, and in the current SR2 and SR3 zones, the maximum house size would be around 3500 square feet of living space, depending on garage size. (The new proposed zones are a little different, but the new zones roughly equate to the old classifications). The rationale is that limiting house sizes would reduce the incentive for tear-downs, reduce inequality, reduce energy consumption and create more density and walkability.
There are, however, financial implications to this proposal that are not yet really being asked. I got a list of “over-sized” homes from the assessor’s office. There are 1653 single-family homes in Newton that are larger than the new proposed maximum house sizes. On average, these homes are 25% larger than the new proposed maximum sizes. If our forefathers had the wisdom to limit house sizes to this more modest square footage when Newton was being built, the property taxes we bring in now would be around $10,000,000 less EVERY YEAR.
Obviously, these houses aren’t going to be torn down or reduced in size, but what happens to the public fisc if we put a maximum size on new homes? For the last few years, we’ve been building about 28 single-family homes a year that are larger than the new maximum sizes. If we tell those homeowners their homes will have to be 25% smaller (and tax bill 25% lower), property taxes collected will be around $168,000 less the first year, $1,685,000 less in 10 years, and $6,743,000 less in 40 years, in today’s dollars. More likely, the tax loss would be even more because many of those homeowners, instead of building smaller homes, would just build in Brookline or Weston or most any other town in Massachusetts that would gladly accept the tax revenue. And, the 1653 existing “over-sized” homes will now be out of compliance, making it more difficult for them to improve or expand their homes in the future. There are a lot of unknown variables here, but this gives a rough cut of the potential tax revenue impact.
Is it worth giving up the tax revenue in order to “modernize our zoning code,” restrict tear-downs and reduce energy consumption?
Anyone who wants to do their own analysis can check out the underlying data from the assessor’s office and the assumptions I used here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DLwGru36_WPSUtQdX2RWAuPyj7RK_qqpWgeHEsLcQeE/edit?usp=sharing
Yes, we should put in place zoning that discourages teardowns and limits dimensions on new construction.
How far we go is to my mind still a matter worth debating and something I’m interested in getting resident feedback on.
@Laurie,
Thank you for a very thoughtful post.
It is not necessarily true that large homes are less environmental. A larger home with modern insulation, windows, HVAC, etc can consume less energy than a smaller, older home. A larger home with 7 residents (kids, parents, grandparents, for example) is more environmental than 3-4 smaller homes each with 1 or 2 residents (of which “aging in place” is one example).
It is possible to make even a gigantic home run carbon-neutral. This will be more true in the future. Of course, it takes more natural resources to build a large home in the first place. But if the city wants to use its zoning power to curb material consumption, then why stop with the square footage of homes? How about using zoning to prohibit restaurants that serve meat? There are a lot of un-environmental and superfluous luxury businesses in Newton that the city could banish. How about forbidding gas-powered vehicles from parking on city property?
This, of course, is not what zoning was intended to do. Zoning was intended to ensure that one person’s land use does not harm the value and use of neighbors’ lands. We impose dimensional requirements on buildings so that they don’t harm neighbors. As soon as a city starts to assert zoning power to accomplish broader political aims, like global environmental policy, there is no telling how far that power will extend.
Besides, you point out that limiting square footage would undermine the city’s tax base. Essentially, taxpayers would have to pay a heavy subsidy for the policy. And as you say, it would merely shift large construction to other nearby communities, accomplishing nothing for the planet.
So, what can we do? I think the best bet is to work at the state and national level to create more incentives for builders and homebuyers to choose clean energy, cleaner transportation, and green building materials.
Interesting comments.
Good point about the operational costs of older and newer homes.
My prior Newton home built 60 years ago was 1/2 the size of my current on <10 year old one. I had it energy audited and insulated etc. but where my old home cost $600/month to heat (and we were always cold/drafty) my current one costs $266/month to heat and we are totally comfortable.
Seems like size matters less than vintage.
You seem to be making a major assumption – that one smaller home will be built instead of the megahouse. But many of these lots would support 2 (or more) reasonable sized houses or a house with 2 units – and the taxes on those might add up to as much or close to what the megahouse would have paid.
And going back to previous discussions about density, if you want to preserve single-home neighborhoods while allowing middle-income people to live in Newton, more smaller homes helps do that.
@Bryan, you will fit right in on the current city council, especially if you join the Zoning And Planning committee, chaired by Susan Albright. I’ve been to ZAP meetings where they’ve discussed this ordinance, and like you, they don’t seem to have any concern about implications to the tax base. They’re more concerned about deciding how big a home they think citizens should be allowed to live in.
@Meredith, than plan as presented, will not create a lot more lot divisions. It is in fact designed to discourage that so that people won’t tear down a house on a big lot to build two houses. Curbing tear downs seems to be the biggest goal of the zoning redesign plan.
To your point though, what they do propose to allow is for people with “over-sized” historic homes (most would qualify as historic) to divide them up into multi-family conversions by special permit, regardless of zoning. This might indeed increase the tax base, as you suggest, but it will also create double or triple the demand for schools and public services that might exceed the additional tax revenue.
@Sarah – All of zoning is deciding how big a home the citizens of Newton are allowed. That’s the whole point of zoning.
The current zoning encourages teardowns rather than moderate homes, larger properties over smaller properties, and discourages apartments. The incentives are, in my opinion, not meeting our public policy goals.
And by the way, I consider it a compliment to fit in with Susan Albright – a longtime leader in our community first on our school committee, and now on our City Council. I’m proud to have her endorsement.
The rationale re environmental impact is a fine one and worth exploring. In addition, is there a discussion to be had on how the developers are tearing down homes with character and New England appearance and replacing them with gaudy, soulless, stucco monstrosities that blight neighborhoods?
If the lot permits the build out why “prohibit?” I do not find the arguments meaningful or logical
Lets not forget that those people are the City’s most profitable residents. For their $205,000 in taxes that household gets the same 2 barrels as everyone else (1 Blue & 1 Green). Chances are they don’t have more than 2-3 kids so their use of the schools is no more than an average family. Assuming that 15 adults don’t live there, they’re also not adding a disproportionate number of cars to the road (We hate those here on V14). I think we can also assume that they did not pave the remaining portion of their 2 acres but instead planted trees, shrubs and grass…
Seems to me that to make Newton Greener, its roads less congested, its schools less crowded and to lower city expenses overall, we’d want to up the size requirements of our housing and wait by the mailbox at 1000 Comm. Ave for the big checks to pour in.
Or we could just give rich people driving directions to Wellesley & Weston to build their houses instead. I’ll bet they wouldn’t mind the tax revenue…
This is some crazy talk. You guys seem to think that pontificating about how others live is your job. The rules are not incentivizing larger modern homes, people want larger modern homes if they can afford them.
Many of these historic homes are termite motels that cost $600 plus to heat and you still need to walk around in sweaters. I once rented in Newton and the home supposedly had ” antique glass” panes that were completely cracked but the owner didn’t want to replace because they were beautiful. The house was not even that old (1930s?) and definitely not historically significant.
Bottom line – Fall River is full of larger historic homes split into apartments. Waltham also has a lot of old dumpy homes. Sound like you guys should go walk around other cities. Would be wonderful experience. While you are at it go interview some people at alewife towers and see how much they love it.
It’s a slippery slope to everyone have the government determine the size of the house they can have. I’d invite you to talk to my friend Zhou Junwen, who grew up in Beijing under Communist rule. Everyone was paid the same – doctors and history professors- and lived in a house assigned by the government. Then the cultural revolution began, and he was forced to move to the country side to be re educated. Doctors were replaced by midwives. 600 million people died.
Although I am for creating better income equality, thus conversation sounds a little creepy.
@NewtonGuy, to add to your points, the chances that a family who pays $205,00o in property taxes sends their kids to public schools is close to zero.
Chapter 40A, Section 3 of Massachusetts General Laws states “No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a single family residential building…”
How about a little bit of lightheartedness on this Friday. For those of you with children, I highly recommend that you make a special trip on Halloween to the Newton Corner house referenced in the post. The owners have wide selection of full size candy bars for your kids. That house always has been an October 31 destination for my kids.
My main concern with new zoning regulations is that they are (1) enforceable and (2) not easily circumvented. It may be more enforceable to set higher property tax brackets for oversized individual residential houses (and maybe that’s already part of the city’s property value assessments), than to try and write regulations that prohibit big new builds.
The regulations are not promoting modern large home construction, it is what people want assuming they can afford it.
I would suggest the author and other would be moderately elected officials who think they have a mandate to use their intelligence for the greater good drive to Waltham and look at the equally old homes and ask why they are less expensive. Or go to fall River and look at the sea of converted houses to apartments that are in disrepair. Better yet, go interview residents at alewife tower about the pros and cons prior to building similar building in Newton. How about some real fact finding versus pontification about morality, fairness, environment, or inequality based on some uneducated opinion you came up with while walking your dog in Webster woods.
Newer homes are more expensive because they are desirable. Build newer apartments and they will go for more than old apartments.
It is rich that the same people that complain about dense zoning that will “overpopulate” our schools are the same ones now complaining about zoning restrictions on big houses. If it is okay to allow a rich person to build any size house they want then why restrict dense housing? I find it to be the height of hypocrisy that you find restrictions on large houses to be “communist”, but restrictions on developers for dense housing is just protecting our schools. What are you really for? Keeping the poor and middle class out of Newton?
If energy efficiency is the primary concern why not make that the focus? New homes regardless of the size can be net zero. Can new construction be required to meet a higher building standards than just code? Keep in mind this will only increase the cost of construction and housing…
Second these restrictions will do nothing to prevent the tear down of smaller homes under 2,000 sq ft. Which is what they proclaim to be trying to do. I don’t understand the cap on the highest end of the market, what’s the purpose?
Btw restricting homeowners rights is not what I’d like to see the council to focus on. Perhaps they should try to pave the roads and get our teachers a contract.
Setting a maximum on house size does not reduce inequality; it just makes wealthy taxpayers move elsewhere. A better solution is to have a higher tax rate for houses above a certain size. Wealthy residents who can afford it will do so and contribute more to our public schools.
As for traffic, what are the chances that the house with the huge tax assessment doesn’t have a large staff of servants, groundskeepers, etc.?
It’s their property, they paid for it. Who is anyone say what they can or can’t do with it provided it’s within reasonable zoning regulations we currently have? No one complains when they tear down and replace businesses. Why should a home be any different? You’re going to force people to live in old homes when newer/greener technology and building materials exist?
People with larger homes already pay more in taxes based on assessment. Not to mention permitting fees which are outrageous. People want to tax them more just because “they can afford it?”
It’s personal property, as in you don’t own it. Aside from tax consequences can someone please tell me the logic behind a mob of jealous, stuck in the past, residents dictating personal property rights?
@Anthony, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue requires that all real property taxes be based on the assessed value of the property. So it is unlikely a “surcharge” could be imposed without a statewide law (and possibly a state constitutional amendment). That being said, a multi-story mansion is going to be assessed at a much higher value than a single-story cape.
With respect to whether “monster” houses should be banned, the primary purpose of dimensional restrictions in zoning is to ensure that neighbors and neighborhoods are not adversely affected by an oversize house. This can be accomplished through the use of setbacks, height restrictions, and other measures that would apply equally to all properties within the same zoning district. IMHO, that would be fair, whereas a ban or surcharge would not be.
Zoning Reform has been a multi-year effort that began long before I began chairing the Zoning and Planning Committee of the Board of Aldermen in 2014 and has continued since I retired from the City Council in 2017. Zoning Reform (I refuse to call it “Zoning Redesign”) is a complex challenge, and simple solutions generally turn out not to work as intended. Or, to quote H.L. Mencken, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
@Anthony,
Residential Exemption is the closest to your idea, yet legally acceptable tool:
https://www.wickedlocal.com/article/20130310/NEWS/303109645
Someone has to explain to me how you can be opposed to limits on size for a single family home, yet support extreme limits on multi-family apartments and condos?
@bryanbarash I find the SR1 designation weird since all houses are allowed accessory apts – the only difference is in the set backs, I believe, and this is where I’d like to see more push back.
As a resident, I don’t really care how big someone’s house is. But being climate-aware makes me question why we allow more expanded lot coverage just because the original house was ‘small’.
Why are we covering more of the earth with buildings and impermeable surfaces?
Let people build the house as big as they want but on no more of a footprint than what is already there. Wouldn’t this simplify everything (And probably help preserve our smaller, more affordable homes)?
@Bryan, it’s presumptuous to assume that everyone commenting here in opposition to limiting house sizes also supports extreme limits on multi/family and condos.
@Bryan:
I don’t think anyone is opposed to limits on sizes of houses that are too large or too dense. It is only confusing if you state some contrived sentence that has supposed truth due to symmetry.
The problem here is the very strange and convoluted arguments of the article. The article was not about limiting the size of houses in newton… ie no massive homes and no massive developments, a consistent argument that could be made to protect neighbors who have invested in the city and their houses from financial harm.
(or am I suppose to say no massive homes, but hell yes to massive developments, those are great right — Let’s build four alewife towers!)
Specifically, this article says:
1) Should we tell future energy-hogging plutocrats that they can’t build mansions and McMansions here in the future?
2) The rationale is that limiting house sizes would reduce the incentive for tear-downs, reduce inequality, reduce energy consumption and create more density and walkability.
What is the rationale? Pontification of what is moral and why rich people consume too much and create inequality. Also some point that we should encourage people to keep living in turn of century dumps because they are unique (except for any other city in new england that also has old dumps).
Of course, these are made up in the author’s head with no facts. How much more energy does a modern home consume? Less. How much better would the city be with less tear-downs? Worse, it would look like waltham. How much greater would it be if Newton was more city like and walkable? None, it would stink and I don’t walk anywhere — I am not single anymore and I have kids to take places.
Frankly, for a supposedly progressive city, you should really just raise property taxes more generally. As Ruth said, 1 billion in the hole. Our property taxes are 2 points lower than surrounding towns. But instead of filling this whole, let’s open up a bunch of pot shops and sell developments in public private partnerships… especially if they are located in the poorer areas of the city where you don’t really have to see them. I thought public private partnerships where a conservative scam. Go ask krugman.
Which brings me to the last problem of the article. The tax revenue will always on average be exactly what it needs to be within the buffering of the borrowing ability of the city. The weird exercise in the article of doing some math in the absence of an interest or compounding factor shows why it is dangerous being led by people with a calling to do good. Bad math aside, is loss of tax revenue the only logically counter to why we would not all be for limiting the square foot of housings (beyond the set back requirements).
No of course not; As stated by Ted, the “primary purpose of dimensional restrictions in zoning is to ensure that neighbors and neighborhoods are not adversely affected by an oversize house. ” This obvious point was missing from the article. Strange.
No one is opposed to regulations on housing for the greater good. Let’s make sure the greater good is well defined and not simple moral preening.
“Someone has to explain to me how you can be opposed to limits on size for a single family home, yet support extreme limits on multi-family apartments and condos?”
The contrary is also true.
@Ted, I’d be interested to know how you see the difference between the “Zoning Reform” that you were leading and the “Zoning Redesign” that is currently being proposed. If Zoning Reform refers to specific reforms to address specific problems, then I definitely prefer that to the current Zoning Redesign, which aims to re-zone every single property in Newton.
@Steve, the “energy-hogging plutocrats” line was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I was merely trying to alert people to the fact that there are zoning changes proposed that are trying to curb what some deem to be un-environmental, large houses that promote teardowns and prevent density, without looking at what the costs of that proposal might be. And yes, I think there is more than a little anti-elitism behind this as well.
Full disclosure: While I am sadly not yet a plutocrat, I do own a Victorian that is over the proposed new size limits. This new policy does not adversely affect me, as far as I can tell, because nobody is suggesting I have to reduce my house size, and my house is already out of compliance in zoning anyway. This would just add to the non-compliance. I would, however, have the opportunity to sell my home to a developer would could split it into condos under this new ordinance, which might inure to my benefit (hard to know). Regardless, I agree with many people posting here that the proposed policy is misguided.
1. The size of a house is not the only eco factor; the age/build of the house is another big factor. Too many “old houses” which are not eco friendly (and most are not even up to the new building safety codes) are being resold at ridiculous prices instead of being torn down and rebuilt with new eco friendly technology. 2. Newton public schools are already overcrowded, bringing in more residents without proper public infrastructure (including public schools, roads, parking, public transit) to support would exacerbate the problems.
3. Newton already has a tax shortage problem, it should maximize the property tax revenue instead of limiting it.