EverythingWestport - 2010 State Ballot Question Summarys and Explanation

Information provided courtesy of:

QUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition

Sales Tax on Alcoholic Beverages

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY

As required by law, summaries are written by the State Attorney General, and the statements describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

This proposed law would remove the Massachusetts sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol, where the sale of such beverages and alcohol or their importation into the state is already subject to a separate excise tax under state law. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2011.

A No Vote would make no change in the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol.

A Yes Vote would remove the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol where their sale or importation into the state is subject to an excise tax under state law.

ARGUMENTS*

As provided by law, the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Against: Alcohol is not a necessity and does not deserve a special tax exemption. The only goods in Massachusetts exempt from the sales tax are necessities like food, clothing, and prescriptions. If anything should be taxed, products like cigarettes and alcohol should be.

Revenues from the alcohol tax provide dedicated funding for healthcare services for more than 100,000 residents with behavioral health problems. Massachusetts has some of the highest rates of alcohol and drug abuse in the country - the last thing we need is to take money away from prevention and treatment services to make alcohol more accessible. The alcohol tax helps saves lives by reducing teen drinking and funding treatment services to help people beat addictions and get their lives back on track.

Nearly every state has a sales tax on alcohol in addition to excise taxes. Massachusetts faces a serious budget deficit; don’t give alcohol a special exemption.

Authored by:

Vic DiGravio, Treasurer

Committee Against Repeal of the Alcohol Tax

c/o Association for Behavioral Healthcare

251 W. Central Street

Natick, MA 01760

508-647-8385 x-11 www.NoOn1MA.com

In Favor: This ballot question repeals the 6.25% sales tax on beer, wine, and liquor imposed last year. Massachusetts’ consumers have always paid a substantial excise tax on alcohol purchases. However, before last year, Massachusetts had no sales tax on the purchase of alcohol. The new sales tax should be repealed because it is an unfair “double tax;” a sales tax on top of an excise tax. The new sales tax has hurt small business owners who sell beer, wine, and liquor, particularly near New Hampshire, which has no sales tax on alcohol. Business has declined substantially for many of those stores. A ‘yes’ vote eliminates an unfair “double tax” on consumers and helps Massachusetts small businesses.

Authored by:

Frank Anzalotti

Committee To Repeal the Alcohol Sales Tax

c/o One Beacon Street

Boston, MA 02108

617-720-5090 www.YesTo1.com

FULL TEXT OF QUESTION

Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority as follows:

Section 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law to the contrary, alcoholic beverages subject to the excise tax imposed by Chapter 138 of the General Laws shall be exempt from sales tax, and to that end, Section 6(g) of Chapter 64H of the General Laws, as most recently amended by St. 2009, c. 27, § 55, is hereby amended by striking out the words “and 64F” and inserting in place thereof the following words: -64F and 138.

Section 2. Section 1 shall take effect on January 1, 2011.

QUESTION 2: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition

Comprehensive Permits for Low- or Moderate- Income Housing

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY

This proposed law would repeal an existing state law that allows a qualified organization wishing to build government-subsidized housing that includes low- or moderate-income units to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), instead of separate permits from each local agency or official having jurisdiction over any aspect of the proposed housing. The repeal would take effect on January 1, 2011, but would not stop or otherwise affect any proposed housing that had already received both a comprehensive permit and a building permit for at least one unit.

Under the existing law, the ZBA holds a public hearing on the application and considers the recommendations of local agencies and officials. The ZBA may grant a comprehensive permit that may include conditions or requirements concerning the height, site plan, size, shape, or building materials of the housing. Persons aggrieved by the ZBA’s decision to grant a permit may appeal it to a court. If the ZBA denies the permit or grants it with conditions or requirements that make the housing uneconomic to build or to operate, the applicant may appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).

After a hearing, if the HAC rules that the ZBA’s denial of a comprehensive permit was unreasonable and not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to issue the permit. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s decision issuing a comprehensive permit with conditions or requirements made the housing uneconomic to build or operate and was not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to modify or remove any such condition or requirement so as to make the proposal no longer uneconomic. The HAC cannot order the ZBA to issue any permit that would allow the housing to fall below minimum safety standards or site plan requirements. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s action was consistent with local needs, the HAC must uphold it even if it made the housing uneconomic. The HAC’s decision is subject to review in the courts.

A condition or requirement makes housing “uneconomic” if it would prevent a public agency or non-profit organization from building or operating the housing except at a financial loss, or it would prevent a limited dividend organization from building or operating the housing without a reasonable return on its investment.

A ZBA’s decision is “consistent with local needs” if it applies requirements that are reasonable in view of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing and the number of low-income persons in the city or town, as well as the need to protect health and safety, promote better site and building design, and preserve open space, if those requirements are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Requirements are considered “consistent with local needs” if more than 10% of the city or town’s housing units are low- or moderate-income units or if such units are on sites making up at least 1.5% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town. Requirements are also considered “consistent with local needs” if the application would result, in any one calendar year, in beginning construction of low- or moderate-income housing on sites making up more than 0.3% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town, or on ten acres, whichever is larger.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A No Vote would make no change in the state law allowing issuance of such a comprehensive permit.

A Yes Vote would repeal the state law allowing the issuance of a single comprehensive permit to build housing that includes low- or moderate-income units.

ARGUMENTS*

In Favor: Voting “Yes” on this Question will ensure that quality affordable housing is built and remains for our parents, children, teachers and public employees. Massachusetts needs more affordable housing. A “Yes” vote will repeal the current “Chapter 40B” statute, a law that promotes subsidized, high-density housing on any parcel of land without regard to local regulations, the neighborhood or the environment. By stripping away local control, it has destroyed communities in rural, suburban and urban neighborhoods alike, while lining the pockets of out of state speculators. The current statute does not build affordable housing. Rather, it maintains a corrupt law that the Massachusetts Inspector General has called a “pig fest” and “represents one of the biggest abuses in state history”. A “Yes” vote will stop this outrageous misuse of tax payer money and allow cities and towns to build affordable housing for those who need it most.

Authored by:

John Belskis

Coalition for the Repeal of 40B

196 Wollaston Avenue

Arlington, MA 02476

781-641-1441 www.repeal40B.com

Against: This referendum would abolish the primary tool to create affordable housing in Massachusetts without providing any alternatives.

Housing in Massachusetts is very expensive. We need to protect the Affordable Housing Law so that seniors and working families can afford to buy homes here.

The Affordable Housing Law has created 58,000 homes across the state and is responsible for approximately 80% of new affordable housing over the past decade, outside the larger cities.

Repealing this law will mean the loss of badly needed construction jobs. Thousands of homes that have already been approved for development will not be built if this law is repealed. Homes and jobs will be lost, and there will be less affordable housing for seniors and working families.

A coalition of hundreds of civic, municipal, business, environmental and religious leaders, including the League of Women Voters and AARP, urge you to vote No.

Authored by:

Tripp Jones, Chair

Campaign to Protect the Affordable Housing Law

P.O. Box 960158

Boston, MA 02109

617-933-5275 www.protectaffordablehousing.org

FULL TEXT OF QUESTION

Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority:

SECTION 1: Chapter 40B, sections 20 through 23, inclusive of the General Laws are hereby repealed.

SECTION 2: No provision of this act shall be interpreted as applying to, affecting, amending, or otherwise impairing the provisions of any project approved by a board of appeals or the Housing Appeals Committee pursuant to G.L. c.40B, s.20-23 before the effective date of this Act, provided that said project has been issued a building permit pursuant to the State Building Code for at least one (1) dwelling unit.

SECTION 3: The provisions of this act are severable, and if any provision of this act is found to be unconstitutional, contrary to law, or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the other provisions of this act shall continue to be in effect.

SECTION 4: This act shall take effect January 1, 2011.

QUESTION 3: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition

Sales and Use Tax Rates

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY

This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates (which were 6.25% as of September 2009) to 3% as of January 1, 2011. It would make the same reduction in the rate used to determine the amount to be deposited with the state Commissioner of Revenue by non-resident building contractors as security for the payment of sales and use tax on tangible personal property used in carrying out their contracts.

The proposed law provides that if the 3% rates would not produce enough revenues to satisfy any lawful pledge of sales and use tax revenues in connection with any bond, note, or other contractual obligation, then the rates would instead be reduced to the lowest level allowed by law.

The proposed law would not affect the collection of moneys due the Commonwealth for sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property or services occurring before January 1, 2011.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A Yes Vote would reduce the state sales and use tax rates to 3%.

A No Vote would make no change in the state sales and use tax rates.

ARGUMENTS*

In Favor: Last year, the State Legislature and Governor Deval Patrick raised the sales tax to 6.25%.

Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Your YES vote rolls back the sales tax to 3% and:

· create 32,929 productive, sustainable jobs

· gives back an average of $688 - every year - to each taxpayer

· saves Northern Massachusetts Retail Businesses and jobs by keeping shoppers here – instead of driving them to New Hampshire’s 0% sales tax

· attracts shoppers from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and New York.

· It safely trims fat: 5% from $52 billion in total state government spending. It does NOT reduce spending for cities and towns, police, firefighters, schools, roads -- NOR any essential service. Not a dime.

Vote YES to reduce:

· Government Waste

· Bureaucracy

· Sweetheart Deals for rich corporations

· Union-inflated plush pensions that give government employees full retirement pay as early as age 54.

Vote YES for fiscal responsibility and desperately-needed JOBS.

Authored by:

Carla Howell

Alliance to Roll Back Taxes

P.O. Box 5268

Wayland, MA 01778

508-645-4099 www.RollBackTaxes.com

Against: The sales tax helps pay for things we all value and rely on. We all want good schools, police and fire protection, safe roads and bridges, clean water and quality health care. Cutting the sales tax by more than half will prevent us from achieving these goals we share.

Our communities rely on local aid to pay for schools, public safety, and emergency services. Local aid has already been cut by 25 percent in the last two years, forcing communities to reduce services. This proposal would result in further cutbacks.

This proposal would take away $2.5 billion in state revenue. This is about half the total amount the state sends to our communities each year to help pay for public education.

The recession has forced communities to reduce services. We cannot keep cutting without doing lasting harm to our schools, health care and the services that strengthen our communities.

Authored by:

Joanne Blum

MA Coalition for Our Communities

20 Ashburton Place

Boston, MA 02108

617-878-8317 www.votenoquestion3.com

FULL TEXT OF QUESTION

Be It Enacted By The People And By Their Authority:

SECTION 1. The rates of the excises imposed by Section 2 of Chapter sixty-four H and Section 2 of Chapter sixty-four I of the General Laws shall, beginning on January 1, 2011, and except as provided in Section 2 hereof, each be reduced to three percent (3%). The deposits, bonds, and deductions required under Section 30A of Chapter sixty-four H and Section 31A of Chapter sixty-four I of the General Laws shall, beginning on January 1, 2011, and except as provided in Section 2 hereof, each be reduced to three percent (3%).

SECTION 2. If any portion of the excises under said Chapters sixty-four H and sixty-four I has been pledged or obligated pursuant to law in connection with any bond, note, or other contractual obligation and if the total amount of all portions of said excises so pledged or obligated exceeds revenues generated through said chapters at a rate of three percent (3%), then the rates of the excises imposed by said chapters shall on January 1, 2011 be reduced to the lowest rates allowed by law.

SECTION 3. Notwithstanding the provision of Section 2, this law shall not be construed to impair the collection of moneys due the Commonwealth for sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property or services occurring before January 1, 2011.

SECTION 4. The provisions of this law are severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this measure, or an application thereof, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or application adjudged invalid.

* Arguments

Reminder! Bring Personal Identification to the Polls!

You may be required to show personal identification to vote. If you registered to vote by mail you may be required to show identification when you vote for the first time in a federal election, such as the 2010 election.

Also, under Massachusetts law, any voter may be asked to show identification if there is a question about their identity.

Acceptable identification must include your name and the address at which you are registered to vote, for example: a current and valid driver’s license, photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document showing your name and address.

- - - - - END - - - - -