![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
squirrelitude posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_squareHi all, I thought it might be interesting to open up a discussion of the questions that are unique to the Somerville ballot. The latest Resistat linked to the Somerville elections page, which includes some nearly illegible very nice scans of ballots for the various wards as well as a PDF of questions 4–7 (1–3 being the statewide questions.) This is the first time I've seen these questions, and I haven't seen any discussion of pros/cons. Is there anything voters should know about questions 4–7?
WARNING: I may have introduced errors into the text in the process of reflowing it. Read the text on the ballot before marking it!
QUESTION 4
Shall the City of Somerville accept Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, of Chapter 44B of the General Laws, as approved by its legislative body, a summary of which appears below?
SUMMARY
The Community Preservation Act (hereinafter “the Act”) establishes a dedicated funding source to enable cities and towns to: (1) acquire, create and preserve open space, including land for parks, recreational uses and conservation areas; (2) acquire, preserve, rehabilitate, and restore historic resources, such as historic community buildings and artifacts; (3) acquire, create, preserve, rehabilitate and restore land for recreational use, including parks, play grounds and athletic fields; (4) acquire, create, preserve and support community housing to help meet local families’ housing needs; and (5) rehabilitate or restore open space and community housing that is acquired or created as provided in this section. In the City of Somerville, the funding source for these community preservation purposes will be a surcharge of 1.5% on the annual property tax assessed on real property beginning in Fiscal Year 2014, other local funds committed by the Board of Aldermen for community preservation purposes subject to the limitations in Section 3(b)1/2 of Chapter 44B, and annual distributions made by the state from a trust fund created by the Act. The Commonwealth provides these funds only to communities adopting the Act. If approved, the following will be exempt from the surcharge: (1) property owned and occupied as a domicile by any person who qualifies for low income housing or low or moderate income senior housing in Somerville as defined in Section 2 of the Act; (2) $100,000 of the value of each taxable parcel of residential real property; and (3) $100,000 of the value of each taxable parcel of class 3, commercial property and class 4, industrial property as defined in Section 2A of Chapter 59. A taxpayer receiving a regular property tax abatement or exemption will also receive a pro rata reduction in the surcharge. Upon acceptance of the Act by the voters, a Community Preservation Committee will be established by ordinance to study community preservation needs, possibilities and resources, and to make annual recommendations to the Board of Aldermen for approval on spending the funds. At least 10% of the funds for each fiscal year will be spent or reserved for later spending on each of the Act’s three community preservation purposes: (1) open space, (2) historic resources and (3) community housing.
QUESTION 5
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress and the President to: (1) prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits, or to housing, food and unemployment assistance; (2) create and protect jobs by investing in manufacturing, schools, housing, renewable energy, transportation and other public services; (3) provide new revenues for these purposes and to reduce the long-term federal deficit by closing corporate tax loopholes, ending offshore tax havens, and raising taxes on incomes over $250,000; and (4) redirect military spending to these domestic needs by reducing the military budget, ending the war in Afghanistan and bringing U.S. troops home safely now?
QUESTION 6
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?
QUESTION 7
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?
WARNING: I may have introduced errors into the text in the process of reflowing it. Read the text on the ballot before marking it!
QUESTION 4
Shall the City of Somerville accept Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, of Chapter 44B of the General Laws, as approved by its legislative body, a summary of which appears below?
SUMMARY
The Community Preservation Act (hereinafter “the Act”) establishes a dedicated funding source to enable cities and towns to: (1) acquire, create and preserve open space, including land for parks, recreational uses and conservation areas; (2) acquire, preserve, rehabilitate, and restore historic resources, such as historic community buildings and artifacts; (3) acquire, create, preserve, rehabilitate and restore land for recreational use, including parks, play grounds and athletic fields; (4) acquire, create, preserve and support community housing to help meet local families’ housing needs; and (5) rehabilitate or restore open space and community housing that is acquired or created as provided in this section. In the City of Somerville, the funding source for these community preservation purposes will be a surcharge of 1.5% on the annual property tax assessed on real property beginning in Fiscal Year 2014, other local funds committed by the Board of Aldermen for community preservation purposes subject to the limitations in Section 3(b)1/2 of Chapter 44B, and annual distributions made by the state from a trust fund created by the Act. The Commonwealth provides these funds only to communities adopting the Act. If approved, the following will be exempt from the surcharge: (1) property owned and occupied as a domicile by any person who qualifies for low income housing or low or moderate income senior housing in Somerville as defined in Section 2 of the Act; (2) $100,000 of the value of each taxable parcel of residential real property; and (3) $100,000 of the value of each taxable parcel of class 3, commercial property and class 4, industrial property as defined in Section 2A of Chapter 59. A taxpayer receiving a regular property tax abatement or exemption will also receive a pro rata reduction in the surcharge. Upon acceptance of the Act by the voters, a Community Preservation Committee will be established by ordinance to study community preservation needs, possibilities and resources, and to make annual recommendations to the Board of Aldermen for approval on spending the funds. At least 10% of the funds for each fiscal year will be spent or reserved for later spending on each of the Act’s three community preservation purposes: (1) open space, (2) historic resources and (3) community housing.
QUESTION 5
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress and the President to: (1) prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits, or to housing, food and unemployment assistance; (2) create and protect jobs by investing in manufacturing, schools, housing, renewable energy, transportation and other public services; (3) provide new revenues for these purposes and to reduce the long-term federal deficit by closing corporate tax loopholes, ending offshore tax havens, and raising taxes on incomes over $250,000; and (4) redirect military spending to these domestic needs by reducing the military budget, ending the war in Afghanistan and bringing U.S. troops home safely now?
QUESTION 6
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?
QUESTION 7
THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 03:27 am (UTC)Question 7 is of course in response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 04:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 01:12 pm (UTC)I have yet to encounter a single person who is against it, and as Ron said, every Somerville elected official and a whole ton of community groups are massively in favor.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 01:34 pm (UTC)It enables Somerville to generate funds to support parks and open space, affordable housing, and historic preservation in Somerville.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 01:36 pm (UTC)In Cambridge 80% of the funds (which is the max allowable in the ordinance) have gone to subsidized housing projects and only 10% to parks and 10% to historic preservation. The mayor has assured me the funds will be allocated to all 3 categories. There is no guarantee that will happen, but I'm going to vote for it because of the potential to help the community path, even though I'd prefer a pure play for parks.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 01:38 pm (UTC)While I agree that corporations aren't people, this just seems like a silly way to go about it...
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 01:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 01:53 pm (UTC)Nonbinding resolutions on the ballot are a way to gauge voter sentiment in an on-the-record sort of way, with hard numbers you can point to later, so they're effectively petitions.
Some nonbinding ballot questions are intended to pressure specific legislators, and placed in those specific legislators' districts, in conjunction with some campaign or lobbying effort to get them to do something.
Far more often, though, nonbinding questions are like petitions, and the group running the question gets it placed in as many districts around the state as they can get volunteers in to collect signatures. This one is this sort of question.
Whatever makes you consider that "silly"? I don't get it. It's a very common way of running petitions that have more weight than just collecting names, because they're on the record, by actual voters, and you can see the numbers by district, and compare the yes vs. no votes.
P.S. Why "probably won't get passed?" Very large majorities of the public support it, our current President has on several occasions said he'd like to see such an amendment passed, and a number of US Senators and many more US Representatives have co-sponsored it. Not a majority yet in either house, which is why it hasn't gotten very far yet, but it certainly seems plausible that it could happen. Especially if more ballot questions like this, and state resolutions, get passed (FYI a bunch of states have already passed resolutions calling for such an amendment; one such resolution passed the Massachusetts state senate this summer on a vote of 35-1)
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 01:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 03:06 pm (UTC)The community preservation committee seems designed to be mostly filled with non-elected political appointees. It seems fundamentally undemocratic to put spending priorities in these people's hands rather than elected officials. The board of aldermen cannot alter the committee's proposals, only accept or deny, which is again undemocratic.
Now this is based on my understanding of the state law, which is a bit vague ("whether by election or appointment or by a combination thereof"). Where is the text of the actual Somerville proposal we are voting on? The invest in somerville site is nice, but have any of the people who may end up on the committee stated what projects they will actually support?
Also, to be honest, I would prefer that additional tax revenue not be spent on affordable housing.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 04:23 pm (UTC)I notice that the summary says that the committee will "make annual recommendations to the Board of Aldermen for approval on spending the funds", which indicates they won't have complete control over the funds. However, that's just the summary, and I haven't read the General Laws text yet.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 04:35 pm (UTC)It will likely pass because a huge portion (I'm assuming the majority) of Somerville residents don't own their property and so the surcharge hits their landlords, and because it is being billed as a way to support open spaces/historical preservation even though there is no guarantee that this will happen. It is certainly a small surcharge so to me it won't be a big deal either way. I would definitely vote yes if there was a solid plan already in place for what to do with the money.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 04:49 pm (UTC)It is a poor way to poll the public because many people are just going to skip the questions. I would be interested in seeing data on the response rate to these questions from past elections.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 04:56 pm (UTC)However, the fact that legislators support something doesn't inherently prove that voters support it, so there's a role for both things. An advisory ballot question is used to establish the evidence that voters support something, and that can be very valuable, especially for a coordinated national movement like this.
What do you base your assertion that "many people are going to skip the questions" on? That seems out of left field. We have many years of election results in Massachusetts that include healthy turnout for advisory questions. They're there on the ballot, it takes little extra effort to vote on them, so people do it. It sounds like you're just making up the idea that too many people will skip them and that they therefore won't be useful; I've never heard anyone else make that suggestion nor have I ever seen anyone ever present data that suggests it.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 05:12 pm (UTC)As I researched this issue a few weeks ago, I came to feel that the opposing viewpoints could be boiled down to a few points:
* Some people object to the vagueness of how the funds will be allocated -- which includes how the committee would be formed and what relationship it would have to the BoA in terms of decision-making. I understand this concern but personally find it not compelling enough to make me vote no.
* As you alluded to, some people feel it's unfair that most people in Somerville don't own property yet will vote in favor of raising taxes for those who do. I personally am fine with this. I own my home, and the notion that non-property-owners might vote on issues that affect my property taxes is part of the social contract that I understood myself to be signing up for when I bought. That's the way our society works. Everyone votes on every issue regardless of whether it impacts him/her personally; this is a fundamental principle of our legislative system. Additionally, to imply that people who rent shouldn't be allowed to participate in this decision is to implicitly suggest that they don't "matter" as much. I know people who have lived in Somerville for decades, but for their own personal reasons, they are still renters. They are deeply involved in the community, connected to the city's social infrastructure. They participate in city events and contribute to the city's culture. Somerville is their home and they are loyal to it. By contrast, there's a condo across the street from me that has changed hands at least 4 times in the 8 years I've lived here. Postgraduate students buying a condo for a year and then "flipping" so they can move on to the next opportunity should have more of a say in city financial matters than people who are deeply rooted but happen not to own property? I think not.
* Some people feel that the city already has "too much" money that is being "wasted." I feel that those things I put in quotes are matters of opinion and thus not convincing.
* There is some underlying racism apparent to me in the way some people object to seeing their tax money go to affordable housing. I don't mean anyone in this thread necessarily, but I did see some commentary elsewhere on the internet that seemed quite clearly to bear a subtext of "I don't want more icky poor brown people moving to my nice town."
* Some people object to lumping these three things together -- affordable housing, improving open spaces, historical preservation. I think that's a valid point, but that's the way the federal fund matching program is set up.
Overall, none of the above is sufficient to convince me to vote against this. Given that there are protections in place to prevent low-income homeowners from being burdened by this, and given that as a general rule I'm willing to pay a small amount extra to improve my community as a whole, and given that I think the overall benefits to the city far outweigh the potential problems, therefore I'm voting yes.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 05:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 05:51 pm (UTC)The first point is exactly why I lean towards voting no. If the city doesn't have a compelling reason for additional funding, it shouldn't raise taxes. I am a progressive voter who believes in the ability of government to solve problems, but where no problem exists, additional revenue should not be raised. And if 80% the money is used for affordable housing, it really feels like it is just being taken from some people and redistributed to others. Maybe we are fine with this, but if this is the plan, we should know so we can vote on it.
On the second point, I am a Somerville renter. I do not own. This makes me feel even more strongly morally compelled to not raise other people's taxes unless there is a good reason. But I don't think most people think this way; if it isn't their money, they will just vote yes.
I don't agree with the third point. I feel like the city is doing a pretty good job, for the most part (street sweeping aside).
On the fourth point, it is not relevant to this thread.
On the fifth point, again, I thought these were state funds. Correct me if I'm wrong. I am OK with these three things if we actually had a breakdown in place so we knew where the money was going.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 05:58 pm (UTC)I feel like I make my opinions on questions 5 and 7 heard by voting Democratic down the line. Both of these are central items of the party platform. In fact it looks like they were ripped straight out of an Obama campaign speech, since it uses the same $250,000 income line for tax increases that the President came up with four years ago.
I guess I can see the value in question 6 for determining if such a question would succeed as a statewide ballot question in some future election.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 06:04 pm (UTC)Thanks for your thoughts. I don't agree that revenue should never be raised when a problem doesn't exist -- or perhaps I should say that there can be disagreement on what counts as a problem. Some might argue that "not enough affordable housing" is the problem, or "not enough open space / we're not doing enough with the open space we have" or "historical sites not being maintained and taken advantage of." Or to put it a different way, we don't always have to be solving a problem; we can "just" be interested in improving our town for the benefit of all.
I certainly do think you're in a minority as a renter who feels that you shouldn't raise other people's taxes! I appreciate that viewpoint, idiosyncratic though it may be. ;)
I'm not sure I agree with you that the point about racism is irrelevant. It was certainly relevant to me when my question was, "what are the 'anti' arguments for this ballot question?" Because my initial googling only turned up lots of people talking about how great it is, I was interested in seeking out the other side. So I think it's relevant in that light, at least. As I said, in the end I found the arguments on the "anti" side not compelling for me personally. YMMV obviously.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 06:19 pm (UTC)It was nice to have this discussion. I am glad to see that people are thinking seriously about this question, and this thread has been very informative to me.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 07:33 pm (UTC)I'd much rather see these projects either come out of the regular budget, or have ballot questions tying temporary additional tax revenue to specific projects.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 10:01 pm (UTC)However, since you ask, it's not so hard to find election results. Since I initiated and organized an advisory ballot question campaign in Massachusetts in the 2004 election, I just went back to look at the results from that one.
Here's the question I organized,
and here's the page with state representative results from the same election. Since our civil liberties ballot question was by state rep district, you can compare voting totals directly. For example, in 25th Middlesex district in Cambridge, 13,925 people voted on this question, and 14,442 people voted for state rep, which I assume is close to the total number of people in this district who voted. In the 24th Middlesex (Cambridge/Belmont/Arlington), 19,588 people voted for state rep, and 18,125 people voted on this question. In those districts, and various others you can look it, an overwhelming majority of voters do vote on advisory ballot questions.
> I guess I can see the value in question 6 for determining if such a question would succeed as a statewide ballot question in some future election.
That's not really what it's about. It'll be members of Congress who have the most influence over whether such an amendment has a chance, so results from a question like this help advocacy groups demonstrate to our Senators and US Representatives that their voters want it.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 10:14 pm (UTC)Sure, the Somerville state senator votes for such a resolution. Do you really think that there is any chance that congress will act on it? Do you really think that there is any chance that ANYONE will act on it?
If you wanted a poll to find out how many people in Somerville want this amendment, you take a poll. That's what polls are for. This is a waste of paper. It's like last time's "vote to tell Israel to be nicer to the Palestinians" resolution. Umm.
It won't pass because the corporations won't let it pass. There is no way it would get past congress. I haven't seen any polling on this issue, but if you say very large majorities favor it, perhaps, but that's before billions of dollars are put into advertising against it. So, by the time this ever actually came to a vote that had any meaning, the polling would be the other way.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 10:34 pm (UTC)1. I'll paraphrase this one as "this amendment has no chance whatsoever, so why bother trying?"
2. Your arguments about using advisory ballot questions to support any particular effort at political change.
These are orthogonal. If you really believe #1 then it doesn't matter whether using advisory questions for something like this makese sense or not, and whether or not using advisory questions makes sense is a separate argument from whether this amendment has a chance.
On #1 you're mistaken, but I already addressed it in a comment a little bit above this one that I think you didn't read. I won't repeat it here because it's also tangential; it's not about the method (using advisory ballot questions), it's about the particular goal. So on to #2:
>> Sure, the Somerville state senator votes for such a resolution.
As I noted above, that's not what this is about. Advisory questions in MA have to be worded as advice to state reps or senators, but their purpose is to get a record of what actual voters support or oppose, which can be used for a variety of advocacy purposes, only one of which is to pressure a specific state legislator to vote a certain way. As I also noted above, that is not the purpose of this question (and, of course, Somerville's state senator already voted for such a resolution anyway, though I believe this question is on by rep district not senate district).
>> If you wanted a poll ... you take a poll.
Getting voters on the record is stronger than a poll. Polls are subject to guesses about who will vote or not, methodology differences, sampling, etc. Polls are therefore much easier to discount. When you have, in addition to polls, a real record of what actual voters voted on actual ballots in entire districts, it makes the data much more real and substantial. It's also got elements of a petition, plus a poll, but it's stronger than either.
>> It's like last time's "vote to tell Israel to be nicer to the Palestinians" resolution.
Other than the fact that they're both things you got to vote for in Somerville, I don't see much resemblance. That question was poorly thought out and misleadingly worded; it was on a divisive issue; it was placed on the ballot in Somerville only; there was no concerted larger campaign to make use of it to achieve anything; and it wasn't going for any specific concrete goal.
We have plenty of advisory questions in Massachusetts in every election. Many of them do significantly help groups achieve things. Most of those questions have a lot more in common with this one:
- They're part of a larger campaign, either statewide or nationally
- They're placed on the ballot in a bunch of districts around the state
- They're clear and simple, aiming for a particular concrete goal
- They're asking for things most of the public does support, but legislators are wary of because they don't have confidence that voters support them
That's exactly how and when advisory questions are most effective, and that's what this one is.
Of course none of this matters if you really truly believe claim #1, but if that's your argument, then it's not about whether doing this as a ballot question is effective. However, if you can for a moment suspend that opinion and pretend that such an amendment does have a chance (which is in fact true, but you don't have to believe that), *then* you can consider the points that are relevant to #2.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 10:40 pm (UTC)In PFAW's email, they said that "more than one third of the voters in Massachusetts" will have the opportunity to vote on this question. That means this was a very very successful signature campaign that got this same question in the ballot in a *LOT* of districts. That greatly enhances the influence of this ballot question, and its usefulness to organizations like PFAW seeking to get Congress to do something.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-02 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-03 01:35 pm (UTC)Take another look now. Someone with the power to fix this seems to have seen your post and put up much better PDFs (that don't look like they went through a scanner)
no subject
Date: 2012-11-03 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-06 05:36 pm (UTC)They were on the Cambridge Ward 11 Precinct 2 ballot, with an additional question that's the same as Question 5 except for having "representative" in place of "senator" (why these are separate questions, I have no idea), since Cambridge has no question 4.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-06 06:08 pm (UTC)In Massachusetts you can get an advisory question on the ballot in a state rep district with 200 valid signatures from registered voters in that district, or in a state senate district if you can collect 1,200 valid signatures from registered voters in that senate district. Since senate districts are 4 times the size of rep districts, the rules in general make it easier to collect for rep districts and get questions on the ballot that way, but there's very little additional cost in also having senate district petitions when you're collecting signatures, and collect them from the same people. If you do happen to hit 1200 valid for a senate district, it may include areas that aren't in any of the rep districts you were collecting in, so that's a bonus. Also, in some cases it may be easier to do a senate district than to explicitly collect for all the rep districts - for example, a rural senate district that has one big town where it's much easier to collect signatures. So basically, people try to get whatever districts they can to cover as much area as they can, and that often results in a bit of overlap between rep districts and senate districts where they got enough signatures.