10/29 9:22pm GOOD SITE TO READ PROS AND CONS OF 3 BALLOT QUESTIONS!! Posted by: prr Remember to vote! http://massachusetts-election-2010.com/2887/ballot-questions-for-2010-mass-elections-announced/ Especially #2: I cut and posted this for your convenience: Read on! This is important! Question 1: Repeal the sales tax on alcoholic beverages The exact ballot question is: 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 click to read the summary 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 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. A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol. The Argument for Voting YES 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 The new sales tax should be repealed because it is an unfair ``double tax;'' a sales tax on top of an excise tax.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 www.YesTo1.com The Argument for Voting NO 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 www.NoOn1MA.com Background and Analysis The new sales tax on alcohol is ``payback'' to the liquor distributors in a way. In 2006 there was an effort to allow supermarkets and other food stores to be able to sell beer and wine. It was called the ``Massachusetts Food and Wine Stores Initiative''. A state sponsored study said it would have saved consumers an estimated $26 to $36 million dollars each year. Both Supermarket interests and liquor store interests funded groups both for and against the initiative. The initiative was defeated. The tax hike on liquor stores was political payback. Now liquor distributors are trying to defeat the tax hike. In 2010 alone, the Committee to Repeal the Alcohol Sales Tax, the main sponsor of Question 1, has received nearly $400,000 in contributions from state liquor distributors and individuals, according to public records. Opponents of Question 1 contend that there should be no ``special exemption'' on sales tax on alcohol. This is misleading. Even before the state sales tax, alcohol already had a substantial excise tax. This sales tax is a second tax on beer and wine. Massachusetts current high taxes on alcohol hurts the small businesses that sell alcohol near the Massachusetts border - especially on our border with New Hampshire. One only has to drive up there to see the massive beer and wine superstore that the New Hampshire state government has set up to take sales away from Massachusetts. Some of the arguments against Question 1 harken back to a paternal attitude toward the sale of alcohol, where the state does not trust its citizens to make their own choices about consuming beer and wine, and seeks to make decisions for them by making it financially onerous to buy. Like all sales taxes, the liquor tax is a regressive tax that hits working families the hardest. While the state income tax is graduated such that higher earners pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes, sales taxes make workers with lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income in sales tax. Prediction Massachusetts' Puritan heritage is alive and well, and makes ``sin taxes'' a natural winner here. Supporters of Question 1 are not well organized. Question 1 is likely to be defeated by a wide margin. Question 2: Repeal chapter 40b The exact ballot question is: 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 click to read the 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 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. A NO VOTE would make no change in the state law allowing issuance of such a comprehensive permit. The Argument for Voting YES 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 www.repeal40B.com The Argument for Voting NO 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 www.protectaffordablehousing.org Background and Analysis Cities and towns have over the years developed zoning laws to allow them to make good decisions about real estate development in their towns. It allows towns to make sure that new construction is sited appropriately. Real estate developers always have an interest in developing the largest buildings they can on land that they own. This is what makes their projects profitable. When a new development is planned, towns must consider if it is the right size for the lot, what effect it will have on the local neighborhood, and if the infrastructure can support the new development - such as the size of the nearby roads, access to water, access to schools, the impact of additional traffic. Many times, large developments cause towns to face increased costs to upgrade infrastructure. Section 40b is a special exemption given to real estate developers to sidestep zoning laws and build anything they want so long as a certain percentage of the new development is ``affordable housing'' When a zoning board turns down a development, real estate developers will threaten to build an affordable housing development instead which cannot be stopped. It is a tool developers use to crush local opposition to the development of everything from industrial buildings, to office buildings and shopping malls. Most ``affordable housing'' proposals under 40b are never built - they are simply used to hammer down opposition to some other development. Towns end up paying the associated infrastructure costs, and raising property taxes. The quality of life of local residents is affected. The cost of housing in Massachusetts is high, and most citizens believe that programs to encourage affordable housing are necessary. But on this score chapter 40b has been a failure. 63% of the affordable housing units in Massachusetts were built using programs other than 40b. The median cost of housing built in 40b developments is $400,000. After 30 years, Massachusetts still doesn't have enough affordable housing. There are better alternatives to encourage affordable housing than chapter 40b, such as ``inclusionary zoning'', or proposed laws like chapter 40R. These proposals would increase affordable housing while preserving our zoning laws. The group supporting repeal of 40b is entirely a grass roots citizen funded effort. The supporters of 40b include genuine grass roots and citizen groups but do receive very significant support from real estate developers. Prediction Real estate developers have done a good job of cloaking their support of 40b as grass roots activism, and by branding support of 40b as support of ``affordable housing'', they are likely to get support from voters. It will be difficult for underfunded 40b opponents to get their message out. Repeal of 40b is likely to lose by a narrow margin. (but we urge you to vote YES on 2) - PRR Norfolknet.com your community, on-line