The state election is one month away, and in addition to choosing candidates for a number of offices, voters will be asked to consider three ballot questions, which were added to the ballot by way of citizens’ petitions. The questions, and arguments for and against, are summarized here:
Question 1: Remove the sales tax on alcoholic beverages
As summarized by the office of Secretary of State William Galvin in a booklet recently sent to all state residents, this proposed law would eliminate the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages that are already subject to a separate excise tax under state law. If passed, this law would take effect Jan. 1, 2011.
Proponents argue that the 6.25 percent Massachusetts sales tax imposed last year on alcoholic beverages is an “unfair double tax”—a sales tax on top of an excise tax. They say that the new sales tax has hurt small business owners who sell those beverages, particularly those in close proximity to New Hampshire, which has no sales tax on alcohol.
Opponents say that revenue from the alcohol tax has helped fund health care services for more than 100,000 residents with health problems that stem from alcohol and drug abuse. They argue that “nearly every state has a sales tax on alcohol in addition to excise taxes,” and add that “alcohol is not a necessity and does not deserve a special tax exemption,” especially in light of the state’s serious budget deficit.
Question 2: Repeal of Chapter 40B, the Affordable Housing Law
This proposed law would repeal the state law that allows developers “wishing to build government-subsidized housing that includes low- or moderate-income units to apply for a single comprehensive permit from…the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)” instead of having to apply for separate permits “from each local agency or official having jurisdiction over any aspect of the proposed housing.” If passed, this law would take effect on Jan. 1, 2011, but would not impact any proposed housing that had already received approval under the current law. The law also provides that if any of its parts are declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
Under the Chapter 40B law, the ZBA holds a public hearing on a qualified application and takes into consideration the recommendations of local agencies and officials. It may then deny the comprehensive permit or grant it with certain conditions. A developer can appeal the ZBA decision with the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).
If the HAC decides, after a hearing, that the ZBA’s denial was “unreasonable and not consistent with local needs,” it can order the ZBA to issue the permit. If the HAC decides that the conditions imposed would make the development uneconomic to build or “not consistent with local needs,” it can order the ZBA to modify or remove the conditions. Requirements are considered “consistent with local needs” if more than 10 percent of the town’s housing units are low- or moderate-income units or “if such units are on sites making up at least 1.5 percent of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use” in the town.
Proponents of Question 2 argue that the current law takes away local control over housing and “promotes subsidized, high-density housing on any parcel of land without regard to local regulations, the neighborhood, or the environment.”
Opponents of the proposed law say that eliminating Chapter 40B would abolish the main tool in place right now to create affordable housing, without offering any alternatives. They say that the current law is responsible for about 80 percent of new affordable housing that has been built in the state over the past decade (outside of larger cities). They argue that eliminating the law will result in the loss of construction jobs and affordable housing.
Question 3: Reduce state sales and use tax rate to 3 percent
This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates from 6.25 to 3 percent as of Jan. 1, 2011. It would also “make the same reduction in the rate used to determine the amount to be deposited with the state Commissioner of Revenue by nonresident building contractors as security for the payment of sales and use tax on tangible personal property used in carrying out their contracts.”
According to Galvin’s office, the proposed law “provides that if the 3 percent 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 law also states that if any of its parts are declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
Proponents of the measure argue that the 6.25 percent sales tax passed by the legislature and the governor last year resulted in thousands of people losing their jobs, and say that rolling the rate back to 3 percent would:
- help create 32,929 sustainable jobs
- give back an average of $688 per year to every taxpayer
- encourage Massachusetts shoppers to shop in Massachusetts, rather than driving to New Hampshire, which has no sales tax
Proponents say that a “yes” vote on this question would not reduce spending for cities and towns, schools, or any essential services, but would trim 5 percent in total spending on state government.
Opponents of Question 3 say that cutting the sales tax by more than half will affect schools, police and fire protection, safe roads and bridges, clean water, and quality health care. They argue that the proposal would take away $2.5 billion in state revenue and would result in further cuts to local aid, which has been cut by 25 percent in the last two years, forcing communities to reduce services. They say that further cuts could do “lasting harm to our schools, health care, and the services that strengthen our communities.”
