Progressive Mass and the League of Women Voters take no position on Question 6.
Steph Solis from Axios Boston reports:
There are no lawsuits or bitter attack ads against Question 6, which would set aside state funding for conservation efforts.
- But the ballot measure has sparked speculation about state spending and unintended consequences.
Why it matters: Even the least controversial ballot questions can raise questions on Beacon Hill.
Catch up quick: State lawmakers have invested roughly $400 million every year between bonded funding and operational spending for conservation and related projects.
- State reports suggest that Massachusetts needs to increase conservation spending as part of its long-term climate resilience measures.
State of play: Question 6 would require lawmakers to set aside at least $65 million a year in a new fund starting in fiscal 2029.
- The funding wouldn’t raise taxes.
- Instead, it would pull 50% of existing state tax revenue from sporting goods, RVs and golfing-related sales.
How it works: Question 6 would create a “Nature for All” fund, overseen by a 15-member board, to support land restoration, park improvements and other conservation projects.
- The state would have to direct half of the earmark to the fund in fiscal 2028 before ramping up to full funding.
What they’re saying: “There is nothing that we pay for clean water and clean air that has a dedicated funding source, and so this invests in those critical resources,” Katie Theoharides, former state secretary of energy and environmental affairs under Gov. Charlie Baker, told Boston.com.
- Theoharides is now president and CEO of The Trustees, part of the steering committee behind the ballot measure.
Friction point: On its face, environmental advocacy groups support the measure, while the state Republican Party says it would hamstring lawmakers as they decide how to spend taxpayer funds every year.
- No opposition campaign has formed against Question 6.
Yes, but: Evan Horowitz, executive director at the Tufts University Center for State Policy Analysis, suggests another possible downside — the ballot measure’s floor could inadvertently become the ceiling, as it did with the earmark created for the MBTA in 2000.
- “I understand the appeal. I just worry that people are going to be disappointed with the result,” Horowitz tells Axios.
- “It is too easy for the legislature to use this money, not to increase spending, but just to fund the thing it already funds.”