On Election Day, voters will find, in addition to a roster of candidates from which to choose, a number of questions for their consideration. All voters in the state will be presented with questions 1 through 3. Voters in the 37th Middlesex District will also be presented with questions 4 and 5, two nonbinding questions that were added to the ballot as a result of signatures gathered by state representative candidate Kurt Hayes and his supporters, according to a press release issued by the Hayes campaign on Oct. 19. All questions are summarized here:
Question 1: Remove the sales tax on alcoholic beverages
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 to apply for a single comprehensive permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals instead of separate permits from a town’s permitting authorities in towns where less than 10 percent of the existing housing meets the government’s criteria for low- or moderate-income housing, as long as 25 percent of the units in a proposed development meet those criteria.
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 say that eliminating Chapter 40B would abolish the main tool in place right now to create affordable housing without offering any alternatives, and would result in the loss of construction jobs and affordable housing. 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).
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.
Proponents 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 restore more than 30,000 jobs, would give back an average of $688 per year to every taxpayer, and would encourage Massachusetts residents to shop in this state, rather than driving to New Hampshire, which has no sales tax. They assert that a “yes” vote 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 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 would harm schools, health care, and other town services.
Question 4: Instruct district representative to support legislation for Route 2 improvements
According to Hayes, this question would ask voters if they want their representative to “work on legislation that will finally get us moving forward with comprehensive improvements to Route 2 between Interstate-495 and 128. Route 2 is one of the most heavily traveled, accident-prone, and congested stretches of road in the state. This is more than just reconfiguring the rotary. We must take a comprehensive view of the entire stretch of Route 2 between I-495 and 128. With special legislation and a public-private partnership model like that used to complete the recent Route 3 improvements, we can finally improve safety, lower commute times, and reduce emissions on this vital artery that connects our region with the 128 corridor and Boston.”
Question 5: Instruct district representative to support legislation requiring proof of legal residence in order to receive state benefits
According to Hayes, this question would assess voter sentiment about their representative working to pass legislation that would put specific measures in place to require proof of legal residence before an applicant could access publicly funded state benefits. He says, “This common-sense legislation has been proposed several times. Rather than taking a straight up-or-down vote on a controversial issue, Beacon Hill Democrats have kicked the can down the road by killing the measure with a vote to send it to ‘study.’ I support this simple step to protect taxpayer dollars.”
