What is an Accessory Dwelling Unit? The backyard homes may help the housing crisis in Mass.
Think of them as pint-sized homes, built on the same lot as an existing home. Once upon a time, these little homes were locked down by zoning rules, you could build one, but only if a relative was moving in. Renting to anyone else? Off limits. But now, building an ADU has become much easier.
For Linda and Mark Adler of Lexington, the solution to their own personal housing crunch didn't just fall from the sky, but it did get slowly lowered from above.
New homes in backyard
Their new ADU was delivered in a couple massive prefab pieces. A crane gently set them down in the side yard. Just like that, they had a brand-new two-bedroom, two-bath home.
Part of an Accessory Dwelling Unit lifted into place with a crane.
CBS Boston
"Two big pieces, on two flatbed trucks and an enormous crane lifting both pieces over our existing house," said Mark. "Which was a little scary."
The Adlers added the ADU when their daughter and grandkids moved in. Now, they're living just steps apart, with much more room to breathe.
"For us it was an affordable solution to being close, but giving everybody space," said Linda.
About 30 miles away in Northboro, Marsha Gleason built her own ADU in the backyard of the house she once shared with her late husband.
"My new home is just perfect for me," she said. "It has allowed me to stay in my neighborhood."
Accessory Dwelling Unit in Northboro, Massachusetts.
CBS Boston
Now, her son and daughter-in-law live in the main house. Marsha's 800-square-foot home is filled with her artwork — and she still hosts her friends and the occasional sleepover for her grandkids.
"I've had groups here," she said. "I can still entertain."
No more special permits
Until recently, ADUs were nearly impossible to build in many Massachusetts towns, thanks to zoning restrictions and red tape. But that changed last year with the Affordable Homes Act.
What's new? Well, there are no more special "ADU permits." No more rules about ADU's being for "relatives only." Now, you can build an ADU that's up to 900 sq ft in size. It can be inside an existing home, attached, or completely separate, as long as it has its own entrance. You can rent out an ADU.
"We had a patchwork of regulations across Massachusetts," said Ed Augustus, Secretary of Housing and Livable Communities. "Now, ADUs are one way we're tackling the housing crisis."
Augustus estimates 8,000 to 10,000 ADUs will be built in the next five years. But that's just the start. The state says Massachusetts needs about 200,000 new housing units over the next decade to truly get ahead of the crisis. ADUs are just one piece of the solution.
Before you start sketching your backyard floor plan, a few caveats: Property taxes may go up.
Adding an ADU increases the value of your property, and likely your tax bill. Towns can still pass rules banning ADUs from being used as Airbnbs or other short-term stays. You'll need to follow setback rules and other basics, even under the new law.
How much do ADUs cost?
Chris Lee runs Backyard ADUs, a company that builds these units off-site and installs them in a matter of months. His average turnkey price: around $300,000. They can run as much as $500,000. But the new laws are making ADU's more popular.
"It's getting easier," Lee said. "Vermont was the first state in New England, Maine followed, Rhode Island followed, Mass. followed and now New Hampshire just followed. Basically New England is catching up with the West Coast."
For some families, these small homes are delivering a big solution. For them, an ADU is A-OK.
For more information on the state's new rules on ADUs visit Mass.gov.
If you have a question you'd like us to look into, please email questioneverything@cbsboston.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Yorkers: Pay Attention to What's Happening in Chicago
Zohran Mamdani attributes his Democratic nomination for New York City mayor to the confidence he has inspired in younger voters. "Ive been heartened in many of my conversations with older New Yorkers, whove told me they were introduced to the campaign by their son or their daughter," Mamdani quipped. "I think its indicative of a new generation of leadership." His social media-savvy campaign promises to make NYC affordable and pursue social justice. We get the appeal as Gen Zers - the generation who led Mamdani to triumph over Cuomo in the primary. Were part of the most housing-burdened generation, and increasingly reliant on public transit. But young voters shouldnt be fooled by Mamdanis vision. These lofty promises arent new. After all, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has battle-tested Mamdanis proposed solutions to housing, crime, and public transit - and failed to deliver a safer, more affordable city. In 2023, Johnson campaigned on building affordable housing and enacting rent stabilization laws. Yet, Chicago experienced the highest annual rent hike compared to other metro areas, at 5.9%. And what about Johnsons promise to build affordable units? Chicago spent $300 million in government subsidies with only 500 new units to show for it. After failing to pass his more progressive policies, Johnson recently adopted proven, free-market solutions to combat rising housing costs, such as eliminating parking requirements near public transportation stops and cutting government red tape. Mamdani should be championing his pro-growth solutions, but instead his leading proposal is $100 billion in taxpayer funds to create 200,000 housing units over the next decade. New Yorkers should be skeptical: If Chicago couldnt muster at least 500 units after burning $300 million in subsidies, why would NYC fare differently? Mamdani also proposes to freeze rent for rent-stabilized apartments. This tried-and-failed approach to affordability will lead to more vacancies, deteriorate housing quality, and create a spill-over demand in market-rate apartments. Our Gen Z peers are now opting for Austin, Raleigh, and Baltimore for lower housing costs. Mamdanis vision to create a "Department of Community Safety" instead of empowering the NYPD isnt "new leadership" either. Johnson enacted similar boutique police reforms during his tenure with dismal results. The former teachers union lobbyist opted to override the City Council and terminate the Chicago police-approved ShotSpotter - a gunshot detection system - for more "holistic" solutions. He stripped police officers from schools to end the "school-to-prison pipeline" and eliminated over 2000 police positions. The city leads America in homicides and mass shootings despite crime rates falling nationwide. Chicagoans have moved on from solving the "root problems" of crime, and now rank it as the preeminent issue facing the city. They voted out the progressive, "soft on crime" states attorney, and have expressed support for more police, not less. New Yorkers agree with Chicagoans - they support more policing - but Mamdanis proposed reforms are still rooted in these luxury beliefs. He argued that social workers, not the NYPD, should respond to domestic violence calls. He called for defunding the police in 2020. Mamdani may have walked back his rhetoric, but his $1.1 billion proposal rests on the same assumptions that guided Johnsons failures. If you thought the subway was overrun with crime and homelessness, just wait until New York State follows through with Mamdanis plan to make buses fare-free. Riders on the Chicago Transit Authority have seen dramatic scheduling delays since the pandemic, and homelessness, smoking, and crime dominate train cars. Ridership recovery lags behind other major cities. This decline has added up to a deficit of over $500 million. The NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority faces a similar crisis: a projected $900 million deficit. Unlike us, Mamdani and Johnson arent transit users. They dont rely on clean, well-managed trains to get to work. They get the privilege of casting societal failures on transit, when everyday riders just want to get home quickly and safely. Instead of relying on the state to bail out the struggling systems, riders in New York and Chicago would benefit from a thorough police presence that enforces fares and prevents anti-social behavior. Instead, Johnson and Mamdanis solution is to put social workers on the trains. Chicagos rejection of Johnsons progressive policies should have inspired a course correction. Instead, Johnson advised Mamdani to double down. "What has happened historically, particularly for candidates like myself or even Mamdani, when we win, sometimes the movement doesnt always show up after the win, right? So, we just have to stay committed as progressives to our values, and even when it gets bumpy a little bit, it doesnt mean that were doing everything wrong." Young New Yorkers should pay attention. Like many of our peers, we want safe, affordable cities. But, Chicagos experiment in progressive governance is already unraveling - and New Yorkers should think twice before importing the same failed blueprint. Daniel Idfresne is a student at Syracuse University, a Young Voices writer, and a former intern for 'The Story with Martha MacCallum.' Find him on Instagram and X. & Micky Horstman is the communications associate at the Illinois Policy Institute and social mobility fellow for Young Voices. Solve the daily Crossword
CBS News
12 hours ago
- CBS News
Elizabeth Warren criticizes President Trump, saying he's failed to lower costs for Americans
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is criticizing President Donald Trump for promising to lower costs for Americans, a promise she said he's failed to keep. Warren made the comments during the second part of her one-on-one interview with WBZ-TV. "I'm going to go with Donald Trump's own view, and that is he promised to lower costs on day one," Warren said. "That was his statement over and over and over, every rally, lots of ads, and when he was interviewed shortly after the election, he said, 'Reason I won was because I promised to lower costs on day one.' " Warren claimed Trump has failed to keep that promise so far, and sees opportunity for her party there. Warren cited rising costs of of housing, health care, groceries, and utilities. "In other words, Donald Trump not only hasn't delivered on the promise to lower cost, what we're seeing is that costs are up, up, up. Democrats are the ones who, both traditionally and at this moment, are fighting for affordability," she said. "We don't think 17 million Americans ought to lose their health care. We do think there ought to be more push to get more housing for people, and we are the ones who should be there, who will be there to make that affordability argument." Warren points to Boston Mayor Michelle Wu's emphasis on creating more pre-kindergarten seats as a piece of the affordability puzzle. "That's something momma and daddy don't have to pay for," Warren said. "Every time you create these opportunities, sure, you pay for them through taxes. But you have more mamas and more daddies who can go to work. You have more people who say, you know, I'm not sitting home. I can actually get out there and have a job and pay my fair share of the tax." Warren said she believes billionaires should be paying their fair share of the taxes. And fresh off her enthusiastic endorsement of Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani's candidacy for mayor of New York City, Warren defended his controversial proposal to open five publicly-owned grocery store that would sell goods at a discount to struggling city residents. "Keep in mind, there are in New York City entire food deserts, places where about the only place you can buy food are the equivalent of little corner grocery stores ... Fruits and vegetables, lower prices are just not available ... It's been tried in other cities... [with the] same kind of conditions [and] they've actually worked," Warren said. "And keep in mind, this is what we do also with military. This is what PXes are about, right? So the idea is to say, 'I'm going to get out there and do what I can to actually lower costs for families.' I think people are tired of hearing there's nothing we can do, or the billionaires wouldn't like it and don't want to have to pay more in taxes. I think part of the answer is, no, you get out there and you try these things." Warren also discussed a bipartisan plan she supports to jump-start affordable housing construction in the interview. Tune into WBZ-TV every Sunday morning at 8:30 for the weekend edition of Keller at Large.
Forbes
15 hours ago
- Forbes
Bitcoin Is Coming For The Housing Crisis
The Case-Shiller index of home prices is something else. Chip Case, a Wellesley professor, started the thing in the 1980s because he saw Massachusetts home prices zooming up like never before. In 1980, Massachusetts had put a permanent hard cap on local property taxes. It said they could go up by no more than 2.5 percent per year. Inflation in 1980 was 14 percent. Tough luck, local government, you lose. Money poured into property like never before. Hmmmmmmm. Cap taxes at a low level, watch the asset flourish. The full Case-Shiller index going back to 1890—not 1980, 1890—tells a tale. Home prices were generally flat, actually going down a little (check out the modernization of this index on page 23 here), for three quarters of a century until the late 1960s. Then home prices went up by over 50 percent in the 1970s. This is all in real terms, adjusted for inflation. In the 1980s they dipped down, recovered a little in the 1990s, and then powered up like never before in the new millennium. Wait, home prices generally modestly declined for seventy-five years from 1890 to 1965? You read that right. For the bulk of American history, as our best evidence has it, the trend for home prices was down. This stuff about home prices soaring is exclusively a story of basically 1970 to the present. To paraphrase the famous X feed, What the devil happened in 1971? That's when we went off the gold standard. Here is the origin of the housing crisis. Going off gold prompted mass dubiousness about currencies and sparked interest in currency hedges. This new state of affairs has waxed and waned, generally waxed, for fifty some years now. Any asset or useful product limited in supply by geology—land (the basis of housing), gold, oil, you name it—has attractive hedge characteristics in a non-gold standard environment. These hedge characteristics were not apparent, not relevant before the late 1960s, when it became clear the money masters were going to make the gold standard kaputt. Stable low-priced housing for the age before, big time housing bubbles after. But you say, there are housing markets that stink (hi, Detroit, Toledo, that ilk), home prices rather sunk in the latter 1980s and early 1990s, and there was a housing bust after 2008 for Pete's sake. Well yes, there is waxing and waning in an asset to which people would prefer not to allocate a major portion of their portfolio, that is if we had a real currency system. Having a fakey currency system—fiat money—makes people reluctantly grope for things, housing especially, to which they would rather allocate a modest portion of their resources. The predicament today is that the normal person's financial/asset portfolio has an outsized share of housing (or fails to because it is too expensive) because the premium continues to attach to hedging the fiat monetary system. Who talks about going back on gold today? Nobody? Then cue the housing boom. Let's be up and talk about solutions. Here comes one, a freight train. Bitcoin, as we discuss in our new book Free Money: Bitcoin and the American Monetary Tradition, is a barbaric yawp, Whitman's enduring phrase, from the American people, or the global electorate to use a term of Jude Wanniski's, saying if you are not going to return to classical money, we'll force you. And my, is it working. Look at that price and market capitalization. It's weird, it's not based on anything, why would anyone hold that stuff—we're talking about…fiat money, right! That's why Bitcoin exists. As Bretton Woods Research recently put it in a report on how 'Bitcoin signals a market revolt': 'Its rise isn't about fundamentals or even monetary architecture. Bitcoin is about a broad-based rejection of what the fiat system has become.' Here's the future of housing prices. As Bitcoin either forces the world back on to classical money or becomes the approximation of classical money itself, dispatching fiat to the ash-bin of history, the demand for hedges against the whole currency system will fall. Housing is one of the first examples of these hedges. Living quarters will revert to normal pricing, housing will fall as a share of portfolios, everyone will be snug as a bug in a great place, and we will be off to better uses of our time and energy and resources. We'll leave for another day the uninspiring saga of the hangers-on to the housing boom, the collectors and beneficiaries of property taxes. One remark is in order at this point. This is that where housing has done poorly even in this expectational hedge environment, property taxes have been ridiculous. In other words, you really can't find an exception anywhere. Where housing is permitted to function as a hedge against the currency system, it sure has. We should take lessons from when in the post-1971 era housing has moderated. We should look at the 1980s more than post-2008. In the 1980s, it looked like we had a chance to go back on the gold standard. Tax-rates had been cut big time, and the world of real investments was so great the value of businesses went way up while gold sunk precipitously and stayed low. People dis-allocated from housing to get in on the fantastic times. Had we gone back on gold then, which would have been a piece of cake, the old 1890-1965 Case-Shiller trend would have reasserted itself for the duration. Missed opportunity.
