By Vincent Stanton, Jr.
Long-time readers of the Newsletter may be surprised to see an article proposing more intensive development in Belmont. The Belmont Citizens Forum was created in 2000 by a group of residents who opposed the scale of development proposed by McLean Hospital on its Belmont Hill campus—initially over 1,000,000 square feet. Much of that development has not transpired, as commercial property developers have not found the McLean location attractive.
The McLean development proposed in the late 1990s came with the promise of substantial new revenue. Specifically, in 1999 the town’s financial impact consultant estimated that the McLean development would ultimately yield $1,818,425 in net tax revenue to Belmont: $1,191,085 from a senior development (never built), $193,500 from an R&D building (never built), and $433,840 from townhouses
In exchange the town gave up, in a phased process, the $512,450 in taxes that McLean had been paying based on the value of McLean’s land as zoned, for single family houses, assessed at $35 million in 1999. Thus the McLean development—all of it residential—has not made a meaningful difference in the town’s financial circumstances; indeed the net impact may be negative in view of the minimal town costs associated with the McLean payment.
Belmont’s development prospects are ultimately constrained by a tiny commercial tconstrained by a tiny commercial zone. The town occupies 4.71 square miles, of which 44% is owned by the town or nonprofits, leaving 2.64 square miles for development, the vast majority of it occupied by houses. In contrast, Lexington is 16.5 square miles, Waltham 13.76 square miles. Arlington (5.5 square miles) and Watertown (4.1 square miles) are similar in size to Belmont but have larger business districts.
Some members of the Newsletter Committee remain skeptical that aggressive new commercial development is the solution to Belmont’s financial predicament, not because it wouldn’t increase net revenues, but because the scale of development required to meaningfully address Belmont’s fiscal crunch is almost impossible to imagine and would come at a high price in quality of life.
Surrounding communities, particularly Cambridge, Lexington, Waltham, and Watertown, have been able to attract a much richer class of tenants than exist in Belmont, including Fortune 500 companies and a major biotech presence. That tenant mix allows those communities to set commercial property tax rates higher than residential rates by roughly two fold, amplifying the contribution of the commercial tax base.
It is far from clear that the tenant mix in Belmont (many of whom rent under terms that require the tenant to pay property taxes) could afford a doubling of taxes. For Belmont to get from where it is to where the surrounding communities are would be a multi-decade process requiring dedicated town staff, with no assurance of success, and no possibility of achieving the same commercial mix as Cambridge, Lexington, Waltham, and Watertown because of the very limited land for development in Belmont.
All that said, Belmont should of course support its businesses and encourage new business development, but not because that offers a financial panacea; rather, because our quality of life is enhanced by having high-quality goods, services, and restaurants nearby.
Finally, the Newsletter Committee recognizes that with the disappearance of local coverage in the pages of the Belmont Citizen-Herald, as well as the elimination of the editorial and op-ed pages, the Newsletter has a responsibility to cover a wider range of issues and offer a broader range of perspectives than in the past.
Vincent Stanton, Jr. is a director of the Belmont Citizens Forum.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.