Massachusetts has 351 cities and towns. Some are running Proposition 2½ override votes this year, some never have, and some haven't in decades. What separates the groups isn't primarily about management or spending levels. It's structural. Two metrics from the MA Department of Revenue explain most of the variation: what share of a town's property tax levy falls on residential homeowners, and how much new construction expands the levy ceiling each year.
This page walks through those two metrics for a 21-town peer set spanning residential suburbs, mixed-use suburbs, commercial-anchor cities, and gateway cities. Whether any given town's situation constitutes a "problem" is a separate judgment that depends on values, priorities, and what residents want from their local government. The data here is meant to inform that judgment, not to make it.
When a homeowner in Marblehead pays their tax bill, 95.5¢ of every dollar the town collects in property tax comes from residential property. In Cambridge, that figure is 33.8¢. The rest comes from commercial, industrial, and personal property taxes. Towns with a large commercial base can spread cost increases across office parks, labs, and retail instead of concentrating them on homeowners; towns without one can't. This isn't a statement about which model is better. It's a statement about what each town's tax revenue depends on.
Source: MA DOR, Tax Levies by Class FY2026. Peer set selected to span residential suburbs, mixed-use suburbs, commercial-anchor cities, and gateway cities.
Proposition 2½ caps annual levy growth at 2.5%, but new construction (new homes, new office buildings, additions and renovations) adds to the levy ceiling outside that cap. DOR calls this "new growth." In towns with active development, the levy limit expands every year from new construction alone, without an override vote.
Marblehead's 5-year average new growth is 0.54% of prior-year levy, which works out to roughly $460,000 per year added to the levy ceiling. Needham, the top residential-adjacent suburb in the peer set by this metric, averages 2.83%, about $4.1 million per year. Cambridge averages 2.74% on a levy five times larger than Marblehead's: around $18 million per year. Whether this difference is a structural advantage for the commercial towns or a price paid by their residents (in traffic, scale, or lost small-town character) depends on what you value.
Source: MA DOR, New Growth Analysis. Bars scaled to the peer set maximum (Boston, 3.15%).
The peer towns cluster into four groups with different structural profiles. None is "doing it right" or "doing it wrong." Each reflects a different combination of geography, history, demographics, and policy choices that residents and officials made over decades. The same structural profile can be viewed as an advantage or a tradeoff depending on what residents value.
Mature, mostly built-out suburbs with minimal commercial tax base. Nearly all the levy comes from homeowners. Most towns in this group have either run an override recently or have one on the ballot this spring. Marblehead sits at the top of this group on residential share and at the bottom on new growth.
| Town | Res % | CIP % | 5yr NG | Last override win |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marblehead | 95.5% | 4.5% | 0.54% | FY2006 |
| Winchester | 95.1% | 4.9% | 1.14% | FY2024 |
| Arlington | 94.8% | 5.2% | 0.90% | FY2027 |
| Cohasset | 93.9% | 6.1% | 1.64% | FY2005 |
| Melrose | 91.4% | 8.6% | 1.12% | FY2026 |
| Wellesley | 90.4% | 9.6% | 1.64% | FY2015 |
| Hingham | 90.3% | 9.7% | 0.94% | FY2024 |
| Swampscott | 88.6% | 11.4% | 0.86% | FY2006 |
| Brookline | 84.1% | 15.9% | 1.24% | FY2024 |
| Stoneham | 83.0% | 17.0% | 1.57% | FY2027 |
Marblehead and Swampscott last passed an override in 2006, 20 years ago. Cohasset's last override win was FY2005. Every other town in this group has passed an override more recently or is voting on one this spring.
Similar demographics to the first group, but with enough office parks, biotech, retail, or routes along I-90 / Route 9 to carry 17–33% of the tax levy. New growth rates are materially higher too. These towns still hold override votes periodically, but the interval between votes tends to be longer.
| Town | Res % | CIP % | 5yr NG | Last override win |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natick | 82.8% | 17.2% | 1.51% | FY2026 |
| Needham | 79.2% | 20.8% | 2.83% | FY2015 |
| Lexington | 77.8% | 22.2% | 2.59% | FY2008 |
| Framingham | 67.2% | 32.8% | 1.22% | FY2003 |
Needham and Lexington average almost 2x the peer-group new growth despite being mostly residential. Framingham has not passed an override since 2003. These towns still vote on overrides regularly, but the underlying pressure is less acute.
Labs, biotech, large office campuses, retail, and in Boston's case everything. CIP class pays the majority of the levy. These four cities have never held a Proposition 2½ override vote in the entire DOR database (1982–present). Cost increases spread across a large commercial base, and new construction expands the levy ceiling each year. Whether their residents consider this a win depends on what they think about the density, traffic, and scale that come with it.
| Town | Res % | CIP % | 5yr NG | Overrides ever |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boston | 46.1% | 53.9% | 3.15% | 0 |
| Waltham | 39.1% | 60.9% | 2.29% | 0 |
| Burlington | 37.1% | 62.9% | 2.14% | 0 |
| Cambridge | 33.8% | 66.2% | 2.74% | 0 |
Cambridge's new growth in a typical year (~$18M on a $679M levy) exceeds Marblehead's entire FY27 deficit. Burlington's zoning choices in the 1960s and 70s made it a regional office destination; its current fiscal stability is the downstream result.
A different fiscal model entirely. Massachusetts designates 26 "gateway cities," former industrial centers that qualify for specialized state aid formulas. Their residential share of the levy is high (70–83%), but they receive more Chapter 70 education aid and Unrestricted General Government Aid per capita than wealthy suburbs, so more of the operating budget comes from state transfers rather than local property tax. None of the three gateway cities in this peer set has ever passed a Proposition 2½ override. Malden became the first to put one on the ballot when it held a special election on March 31, 2026. Both options failed; the $5.4M option fell by 124 votes.
| Town | Res % | CIP % | 5yr NG | Overrides ever |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lynn | 82.7% | 17.3% | 1.84% | 0 |
| Malden | 80.4% | 19.6% | 1.11% | 0* |
| Salem | 72.8% | 27.2% | 1.35% | 0 |
*Malden held the first Proposition 2½ override vote in its history on March 31, 2026. Both the $5.4M and larger options failed. That Malden didn't put an override on the ballot for more than forty years after Prop 2½ took effect reflects a different combination of state aid, local tax structure, and political dynamics than most suburbs face. Marblehead does not qualify as a gateway city (the designation is based on historical manufacturing employment and median household income) and therefore cannot access most gateway-city state aid programs.
The archetypes above aren't permanent. Towns can move between them over time, and the mechanisms that enable those moves are policy choices about zoning, taxation, and development. This section lists the mechanisms that explain most of the differences between groups, along with a note on how each applies (or doesn't) to Marblehead's current situation. None of these is a recommendation; each mechanism has tradeoffs and political costs beyond the scope of this data.
Massachusetts allows municipalities to tax commercial, industrial, and personal property at up to 175% of the residential rate, shifting some of the burden off homeowners. Boston, Cambridge, Waltham, and most gateway cities use this aggressively. It's the primary reason Cambridge residents have a low effective tax rate despite the city's overall wealth.
Marblehead context: Marblehead already uses a single tax rate (no split) and the CIP class is only 4.5% of the levy. Even the maximum allowable shift would reduce residential taxes by a small single-digit percentage. Whether that's a meaningful amount depends on the size of the underlying budget gap and what else is on the table.
New growth is the quiet, annual release valve. Towns that permit new housing, office space, and mixed-use development see their levy limit expand every year without ever holding a vote. Burlington's overlay districts, Waltham's lab corridor, Needham's 128 frontage, and Framingham's Natick Mall / Route 9 retail are all consequences of zoning and permitting decisions made over decades.
Marblehead context: Marblehead is a peninsula with historic districts, limited developable land, and zoning that favors single-family residential. Increasing new growth substantially would require some combination of rezoning established neighborhoods, developing remaining open parcels, or converting existing commercial space. Each carries tradeoffs around density, historic character, and neighborhood scale that residents weigh differently.
Chapter 40B allows developers to bypass local zoning if at least 20–25% of units are affordable, in towns where the affordable housing stock is below 10%. The 2021 MBTA Communities Act requires towns with rapid-transit service to zone for multifamily housing near stations. Both mechanisms can add new growth quickly if a town chooses to participate or is legally required to.
Marblehead context: Marblehead has no MBTA rapid transit station and is exempt from the MBTA Communities Act. Marblehead is below the 10% affordable threshold, which means 40B projects can technically proceed, but the town's geography and existing built environment limit their scale. The 2026 Board of Selectmen have discussed affordable housing goals but no major 40B pipeline currently exists.
Chapter 70 is the state's primary school aid formula. Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) is for municipal operations. Both are distributed by formulas that favor lower-income and lower-property-value communities. Gateway cities and poorer towns receive significantly more per capita than wealthy suburbs.
Marblehead context: Marblehead is a high-wealth community by state measures and receives near the minimum per-capita state aid. The MMA's October 2025 Perfect Storm report documents that statewide UGGA is 25% below its 2002 level after inflation. Residential-heavy suburbs with little commercial base have fewer alternative revenue options to offset that reduction, which is part of the structural story this page describes.
The data on this page shows that Massachusetts towns face different fiscal pressures because of different underlying structures, and that Marblehead sits at the residential-dominant, low-new-growth end of the spectrum. Several things this page does not claim, and should not be read to claim:
Sources. Residential and CIP levy shares: MA DOR Tax Levies by Class FY2026. New growth: MA DOR New Growth Analysis (5-year average, FY2022–2026). Override history: MA DOR Proposition 2½ Override & Underride Votes. Statewide fiscal context: MMA, A Perfect Storm: Cities and Towns Face Historic Fiscal Pressures (October 2025). Malden vote result: GBH News (April 1, 2026).
Data files. Raw peer-town CSVs: tax levies by class, new growth, override history.
Data currency. DOR data was pulled April 10, 2026. The DOR override database reflects results through late March 2026 (Arlington's $14.8M override won March 28; Stoneham's $9.3M won December 2025). Malden's March 31 failed override had not yet appeared in the DOR database at time of pull but is referenced in the table above from contemporaneous news sources. Winchester held a failed override vote in March 2026 that is also not yet reflected in DOR data; the "last override win" column shows the last successful vote of record, not all recent attempts.
Note on "new growth." The DOR metric shown is total new growth applied to the levy limit as a percent of the prior-year levy limit. This captures how much the levy ceiling expands each year from new construction, outside Proposition 2½'s 2.5% cap. It does not include annual 2.5% growth, value increases from reassessment, or debt exclusions.
Note on gateway cities. "Gateway city" is a statutory designation under MGL Chapter 23A, Section 3A, based on historical manufacturing employment and median household income. The 26 designated gateway cities receive specialized state grants, formula aid, and zoning tools not available to other municipalities.