Related articles
This is the second in a series of “Arlington 2020” articles. The first article looked at the number of one-, two-, and three-family homes and condominiums in Arlington, and how that housing stock has changed over time. This article will examine changes in the value of those properties. We’re going to look at “value” through the lens of property assessments, so we should start with an explanation of what property assessments are and how they’re used.
A property assessment is simply the Town Assessor’s best estimate of what a property is worth, based on market values. The assessor’s office inspects properties every ten years; during intervening years, assessments are adjusted based on sale prices of similar homes in a given tax neighborhood. For all practical purposes, assessed values tend to trail market values by two years. In my neighborhood, property assessments are spot on — my house was assessed at $501,000 in 2020; during 2018, sales of similar homes in the neighborhood ranged from $495,000 to $520,000.
Condominiums have a single assessed value, which includes land and buildings. Otherwise, assessed values are broken down into land value, building value, and yard items (e.g., a garage or a shed).
Assessed values are used to determine the tax rate. The assessors page on the town website has calculations in worksheet form, but for all practical purposes, it’s just a division problem. One takes the total tax levy and divides by the sum of all property assessments (in thousands of dollars), and that’s the tax rate. An individual’s taxes are the assessed value of their property (in thousands of dollars) multiplied by the tax rate. If an individual owns (say) 1% of the assessed value in town, that individual will pay 1% of the property tax levy.
The main point is that assessed values are based on market values, but with a two-year lag. Consequently, we can use them as a way to see how home prices have changed over time.
With that background information out of the way, we can look at some numbers. Here’s a graph of the median assessed values for condominiums, one-family, two-family, and three-family homes from 2013 through 2020. (the “median” is a value such that half of the assessments are above, and half are below).
| year | Condominium | Single Family | Two-family | Three-family |
| 2013 | $297,800 | $472,850 | $532,650 | $581,600 |
| 2014 | $300,150 | $484,400 | $530,000 | $574,800 |
| 2015 | $318,200 | $507,900 | $572,000 | $616,300 |
| 2016 | $351,050 | $546,300 | $623,150 | $673,550 |
| 2017 | $357,750 | $581,200 | $663,900 | $714,800 |
| 2018 | $395,400 | $618,800 | $732,100 | $787,600 |
| 2019 | $463,250 | $701,550 | $851,200 | $897,500 |
| 2020 | $473,100 | $771,900 | $944,000 | $1,010,850 |
| %change | 58.87% | 63.24% | 77.23% | 73.81% |
As one would expect, two-family homes are worth more than single-family, and three-family are worth more than two. Condominiums have a lot of variety; they could be half of a duplex, or a single unit in an apartment building. But a general upward trend is clearly evident.
These values are straight out of the assessor’s database, and not adjusted for inflation. The Bureau of Labor Statistic’s inflation calculator shows 12% inflation between 2013 and 2020; the %change is pretty considerable, even if one deducts 12% for inflation.
Next, I’d like to dig further into the 1–3 family assessments, by breaking them down into the value of land vs the value of buildings, and showing how that’s changed over time.
Single-family homes:
| year | Land value | Building value | Total assessed value |
| 2013 | $243,700 | $226,300 | $472,850 |
| 2014 | $253,750 | $227,050 | $484,450 |
| 2015 | $272,700 | $229,900 | $507,900 |
| 2016 | $296,400 | $243,950 | $546,400 |
| 2017 | $326,400 | $246,400 | $581,250 |
| 2018 | $360,900 | $248,100 | $618,800 |
| 2019 | $440,400 | $250,400 | $701,600 |
| 2020 | $448,600 | $316,300 | $771,900 |
| %change | 84.08% | 39.77% | 63.24% |
Two-family homes:
| year | Land value | Building value | Total assessed value |
| 2013 | $202,500 | $320,550 | $532,650 |
| 2014 | $212,250 | $307,800 | $530,000 |
| 2015 | $256,400 | $309,800 | $572,000 |
| 2016 | $262,500 | $349,400 | $623,150 |
| 2017 | $307,000 | $350,700 | $663,900 |
| 2018 | $352,500 | $373,900 | $732,100 |
| 2019 | $478,300 | $374,850 | $851,700 |
| 2020 | $454,500 | $486,100 | $944,000 |
| %change | 124.44% | 51.65% | 77.23% |
Three-family homes:
| year | Land value | Building value | Total assessed value |
| 2013 | $200,100 | $377,900 | $581,600 |
| 2014 | $209,100 | $364,100 | $574,800 |
| 2015 | $249,800 | $366,550 | $616,300 |
| 2016 | $259,950 | $412,350 | $673,550 |
| 2017 | $298,100 | $412,500 | $714,800 |
| 2018 | $343,050 | $438,800 | $787,600 |
| 2019 | $459,000 | $440,100 | $897,500 |
| 2020 | $440,100 | $578,450 | $1,010,850 |
| %change | 119.94% | 53.07% | 73.81% |
There are several things worth pointing out in these breakdowns.
First, note that the land and building values “jump” a bit between 2019–2020. 2020 was one of our full reassessment years, so I’m willing to attribute this to a periodic course correction. The total increase is generally linear, but the land/building composition has changed.
Second, the median land value for single-family homes is higher than the median building value, for all years between 2013–2020.
Third, most of the increases come from changes in land value. I believe this comes down to location, location, and location. Arlington has a well-respected public school system, and it’s close to universities and tech centers is Cambridge and Boston, and office parks in Lexington, Waltham, and Burlington. City amenities are close at hand.
So what does one do about our rising home prices, and in particular, the rising value of land? The first (and perhaps default) answer is to do nothing. Rising property values are a boon to homeowners who purchased a capital asset (i.e., a house) in the past, and have seen its value appreciate over time. The downside of doing nothing is that each year, increasing housing prices create an ever-increasing income threshold for new residents.
An alternative approach would be to allow more (and smaller) units to be built on each lot. This requires reconstruction or redevelopment, but it allows the cost of land to be amortized among several households. More units/lot means more people and more density, but it reduces the income threshold for buying in to Arlington. (Note that the per-unit cost for three-family homes is lower than the per-unit cost for two-family homes. Similarly, the per-unit cost for two-family homes is lower than the cost of a single-family home).
A third article will look at the distribution of housing prices in Arlington, and how the distribution varies by housing type.
Here is a spreadsheet of data shown in this post.
by Rebecca Gruber
On the evening of Wednesday, June 12th, Equitable Arlington co-hosted with the Town’s Department of Planning and Community Development and Envision Arlington, a ninety-minute webinar entitled “What’s an ADU and How Do I Build One?”
The webinar was designed for anyone interested in learning more about what defines an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and the ins and outs of constructing one in Arlington on their property. Topics included: the history and rationale behind Arlington’s ADU zoning article; the applicable zoning regulations to understand when building an ADU; considerations and cost estimates for three different types of ADUs; guidance on the permitting process with the Town’s Inspectional Services Department; and two case studies–one by a local homeowner, and a second, by the Housing Corporation of Arlington detailing their experience constructing a 100% electric, 2-bedroom Affordable Housing ADU at 40-42 Dorothy Road.
The webinar was recorded and is available on demand (registration required).
The Town website also has answers to some FAQs: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/departments/inspectional-services/accessory-dwelling-units-adus
The material in this post came from my efforts to learn about when Arlington’s housing was built. The data comes from the town’s 2019 property tax assessments, where I took our nineteen-thousand-and-some-odd homes and apartments and broke them down by housing type and decade built. It’s not exactly a history housing of production, though it is a close approximation. In this analysis, a single-family home built in the 1912 and rebuilt as a two-family in 1976 would show up as two units built in the 1970s. Similarly, a three-family home that was built in the 1924 and later converted to condominiums would show up as three condominiums built in the 1920s.
Here’s the visual summary:
And here’s a small spreadsheet with the underlying numbers.
My first surprise was at how much we built in the 1920s: just under five thousand units. This was our biggest decade for housing production, and nearly double our second biggest (the 1950s). Another surprise was the 1990s; 132 of our homes were constructed during that decade, which is the smallest number since the 1870s.
What about homes constructed before 1850? There are only 117 of them, and they’re omitted from the data set. I’ve also omitted residential units in mixed-use buildings, since my copy of the assessors data doesn’t break mixed-use buildings into residential and non-residential units.
by Anson Stewart
Last year, the New York Times published The Climate Impact of Your Neighborhood, Mapped. This interactive feature shows that across the country, carbon emissions per household tend to be lower in relatively dense, walkable, and transit accessible areas. Compared to nearby communities like Winchester, Lexington, and Belmont, the average household in Arlington is responsible for much lower carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e) emissions. Allowing more housing along Mass Ave and Broadway, as proposed by the town’s MBTA Communities Working Group, would enable more households to live in these lower-emissions neighborhoods and could be a meaningful step toward reducing driving and Massachusetts’ climate impact.
Zoning Artificially Limits Housing Supply
As noted in the NYT feature above, “For many people today, it is often easier and cheaper to find a home in a high-emissions community than a lower-emissions one… Many cities and local governments often artificially limit the amount of denser or transit-friendly housing available, particularly in wealthier neighborhoods, through zoning that favors single-family homes or requirements around minimum lot sizes and parking spaces.” Zoning restrictions from the 1970s severely constrain housing capacity along the corridors that help reduce climate impacts in Arlington. Those restrictions push families out to places where people drive more to meet their daily needs.
Driving (VMT) is the Largest Source of Massachusetts’ Climate Emissions
Cars are mind-bogglingly detrimental to our climate. According to the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2025 and 2030, “Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in the Commonwealth, responsible for 42% of statewide GHG emissions as of 2019… Emissions in the transportation sector have stagnated despite state and federal vehicle emissions standards that have gradually increased the fuel efficiency of vehicles. One major cause of increased emissions is the considerable increase in total statewide vehicle miles travelled (VMT) over the past 30 years.” Even as electric vehicles proliferate, the carbon intensity of our grid means driving will have a substantial climate impact, and reducing VMT must be a primary strategy.
The NYT analysis uses nationally available survey and expenditure data, so income and other effects may confound the estimates of transportation emissions. Massachusetts has a unique dataset that allows measuring driving emissions much more directly – the Massachusetts Vehicle Census (mentioned in the town Working Group report).
For each municipality, dividing the daily mileage driven (of cars registered there) by the population yields vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, which varies widely in the Boston region. For example:
- Cambridge: 8 miles per person per day
- Somerville: 11
- Arlington: 14
- Boston: 14
- Belmont: 14
- Medford: 15
- Lexington: 16
- Winchester: 17
- Waltham: 17
- Woburn: 24
Thanks to Arlington’s walkable neighborhoods and transit access, our per capita VMT is lower than many nearby communities, and even on par with the City of Boston!
If Not Arlington, Then Where?
As a thought experiment, consider a climate-conscious family of four who wants to buy a condo in one of the communities above. If they can’t afford Cambridge, Somerville, or Arlington (where 2023 YTD median condo sale prices were $910k, $855k, and $810k respectively), they might consider Waltham or Woburn ($615k and $638k, respectively), or even Winchester or Lexington ($795k and $798k).
Lexington in particular might be appealing, especially as their Town Meeting recently adopted MBTA Communities zoning that allows much more multifamily housing than the minimum required (see the Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group materials in support of meaningful new housing supply). But even with that new capacity, the pace of development will be slow and most of the transportation “bones” of Lexington will be fixed. It is generally less transit accessible than Arlington, and all else equal, the family would likely end up driving more than if they lived in Arlington.
Assuming the average VMT per capita figures above, a family of four would end up driving an additional 2,920 miles per year living in Lexington versus Arlington. Assuming 30 mpg fuel efficiency and 8.9 kg CO2e per gallon of gas, the incremental emissions from this one family would be 865 kg of CO2e, equivalent to the annual carbon sequestered by six half-century-old red oak trees (according to Forest Service data here).
If this family moved to Woburn instead of Arlington, the incremental annual driving would be 14,600 miles. Associated emissions would be over 4.3 metric tons, equivalent to the annual carbon sequestered by 32 of those red oak trees.
Extrapolating These Emissions
How does this example of one family relate to the level of development Arlington might see from MBTA Communities zoning updates? The Working Group’s proposal had a nominal capacity of just over 7,000 housing units in an area that currently has about 2,100. The ARB recommendation to Town Meeting cuts the nominal capacity to around 3,400, for a possible net change of around 1,300 units theoretically allowed. Recent estimates (following the approach here) suggest that this capacity might result in 100 to 300 new housing units built in Arlington by 2033.
If new units enable 250 families like the one above to live in Arlington instead of Woburn, these back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the avoided annual emissions from VMT reduction would be over 1,000 metric tons CO2e in the year 2033.
Of course these are rough estimates, and the actual climate impact will depend on wider development trends, grid decarbonization, MBTA service, and the details of the zoning that Town Meeting adopts later this month. Low parking requirements (as originally proposed by the Working Group) and robust transportation demand management could help strengthen the climate change mitigation potential of Arlington’s MBTA Communities zoning update. On the other hand, further reductions in Arlington’s multifamily housing capacity would exacerbate emissions. Those concerned about reducing our collective climate impact should take note.
Accessory Dwelling Units (aka “granny flats”)
The following information was presented to the Arlington Redevelopment Board in October, 2020 by Barbara Thornton, TMM, Precinct 16
This Article proposes to allow Accessory Dwelling Units, “as of right”, in each of the 8 residential zoning districts in Arlington.
Why is this zoning legislation important?
Arlington is increasingly losing the diversity it once had. It has become increasingly difficult for residents who have grown up and grown old in the town to remain here. This will only become more difficult as the effects of tax increases to support the new schools, including the high school, roll into the tax bills for lower income residents and senior citizens on a fixed income. For young adults raised in Arlington, the price of a home to buy or to rent is increasingly out of reach.
Who benefits from ADUs?
- Families benefit from greater flexibility as their needs change over time and, in particular providing options for older adults to be able to stay in their homes and for households with disabled persons or young adults who want additional privacy but still be within a family setting.
- Residents seeking an increase in the diversity of housing choices in the Town while respecting the residential character and scale of existing neighborhoods; ADUs provide a non-subsidized form of housing that is generally less costly and more affordable than similar units in multifamily buildings;
- Residents wanting more housing units in Arlington’s total housing stock with minimal adverse effects on Arlington’s neighborhoods.
What authority and established policy is this built on?
Arlington’s Master Plan is the foundational document establishing the validity and mission for pursuing the zoning change that will allow Accessory Dwelling Units.
Under Introduction in Part 5, Housing and Residential Development, the Master Plan states: Arlington’s Master Plan provides a framework for addressing key issues such as affordability, transit-oriented residential development, and aging in place.
The Master Plan states that the American Community Survey (ACS) reports that Arlington’s housing units are slightly larger than those in other inner-suburbs and small cities. In Arlington, the median number of rooms per unit is 5.7. There is a great deal of difference in density and housing size among the different Arlington neighborhoods. The generally larger size of homes makes it easier to contemplate a successful move to encourage ADUs.
What do other municipalities do?
According to a study (https://equitable-arlington.org/2020/02/16/accessory-dwelling-units-policies/), by 2017 65 out of 101 municipalities in the greater Boston (MAPC) region allowed Accessory Dwelling Units by right or by special permit. The average number of ADU’s added per year was only about 3. But by 2017, Lexington had 75 ADUs and Newton had 73. Both of these communities were among about 10 “as of right” municipalities in the MAPC region. This finding suggests that communities with more restrictions are less likely to see any significant affordable housing benefits.
Even in the midst of a housing crisis in this region, according to Amy Dain, housing expert, (https://equitable-arlington.org/2020/02/18/zoning-for-accessory-dwelling-units/) most municipalities still have zoning laws that restrict single family home owners from creating more affordable housing.
And this is despite the fact that, as according to Banker & Tradesman, March 10, 2020: https://www.bankerandtradesman.com/63-percent-in-greater-boston-back-adus/, 63% of people in the region approve of ADUs. California has recently passed strong pro-ADU legislation. A study by Zillow further corroborated this strong interest in communities across the US, including our region. https://equitable-arlington.org/2020/03/10/adu-popularity/.
Learn more about Accessory Dwelling Units/ “Granny Flats” here: https://planning.org/knowledgebase/accessorydwellings/
