WESTFIELD – Four questions will appear on tomorrow’s statewide ballot, placing the fate of the state’s indexed gasoline tax and casino gaming law – along with whether or not to expand the state’s bottle bill and guarantee earned sick time for workers statewide – in the hands of the Commonwealth’s voters.
Question one will decide whether or not the state will be able to adjust the gasoline tax every year according to the consumer price index without a vote of the state legislature.
The question reached the ballot as a result of the Commonwealth’s first ballot question signature gathering effort since the early 90’s, which Westfield at-large City Councilor and candidate for state Representative, Dan Allie, played an integral role in.
Opponents of the tax – who will be voting yes on the ballot – say it’s a perfect example of taxation without representation, while proponents of the tax say that it will provide the revenue necessary to fix the state’s crumbling roads and bridges.
“This initiative cuts no money to for bridge and road repair,” said Steven Aylward of the Committee to Tank Automatic Gas Tax Hikes. “It just requires the legislature to take a vote if and when they want to raise the tax.”
“53 percent of all bridges in the state are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete… 27 bridges have been closed because they are unsafe,” according to the Committee for Safer Roads and Bridges. “Potholes and bad roads cost Massachusetts residents $2.3 billion a year in car repairs.”
Question two will expand the state’s bottle bill, an influential piece of legislation that has been in effect in Massachusetts since the 1980s, which placed a nickel deposit on beverage containers to encourage recycling.
A yes vote for the measure will expand the number of beverages eligible for a nickel deposit to include all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated beverages such as sports drinks, iced teas and a number of other products that weren’t present on the market when the original bill went into effect.
Groups such as the Massachusetts Sierra Club and MassPIRG claim that an expansion is a commonsense measure that will cut down on litter and increase recycling, while opponents – beverage distributors being chief among them – claim that curbside recycling is already effective enough and that unclaimed nickels do not go toward environmental programs but into the state’s general fund.
“The bottle bill is a proven success. It has successfully reduced litter in our parks, beaches and roadways,” said Patrick Nagle, executive assistant for MassPIRG. “It has increased our recycling and reduced the cost of waste disposal for taxpayers in our cities and towns. As a result, it is very popular with the public.”
“Question two would cost nearly $60 million a year, more than three times the price of curbside programs, while increasing recycling rates by less than one percent,” said Robert Moylan of Comprehensive Recycling Works.
Still others oppose the expanded bottle bill for the same fundamental reason they oppose the gas tax, as the law would gradually increase the value of the deposits without a vote on Beacon Hill, albeit far slower than with gasoline.
“(It will) waste taxpayer dollars on expanding an uneconomical, 30-year old system,” said Moylan. “And raise your nickel deposit and additional fees every five years – without your vote.”
The most divisive – and confusingly worded – question on this year’s ballot may be the third, which will place the state’s 2011 casino gaming law on the chopping block, with voters statewide getting to decide what will become two planned casinos in Springfield and metro Boston and a slot parlor in rural Bristol County.
An army of supporters for these gaming facilities – including the Chamber of Commerce’s for greater Boston and greater Springfield – are urging residents to vote no against the repeal, claiming that Bay Staters spend almost one billion dollars a year at casinos and slot parlors in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine, revenue they feel would be better spent in Massachusetts.
These groups also believe the resorts will bring thousands of construction and casino jobs and revitalize the economies of Springfield and the Middlesex County city of Everett, municipalities that have planned to build casino resorts.
“The law has ensured that no community opposed to a casino within its borders will have one,” said Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno. “To help further protect residents, the law contains industry leading consumer safeguards and dedicated public health funding.”
Even still, organizations such as Repeal The Casino Deal Committee are skeptical that casinos – which Fitch Ratings has said are ‘reaching a saturation point’ – are the answer for two rundown communities that serve as either an anchor for or a part of, the state’s two metropolitan areas.
“The former CEO of American Gaming said he would ‘work very, very hard against’ a casino in his hometown. Moody’s downgraded its casino outlook from ‘stable’ to ‘negative’,” said Repeal The Casino Deal. “Massachusetts can do better than casinos. Just ask the ‘experts.’”
Ballot question four relates to earned sick time and, if passed, would force employers with more than 11 employees to grant up to 40 hours of earned sick time a year, an hour for every 30 hours worked.
The law would enable employees to accumulate these hours, to be used only after 90 days of employment, to care for themselves and/or family members without risk of termination.
“Thousands of hardworking people in Massachusetts are forced to choose between going to work sick or losing a day’s pay – or worse their jobs,” said Debra Ann Fastino, co-chair of Raise Up Massachusetts. “Businesses providing sick time find that it reduces employee turnover, increases productivity and helps their bottom line.”
Labor unions and women’s groups are among the most vocal proponents of voting yes on the measure, while small business groups are fighting the measure tooth and nail, claiming that if question four passes, they will be forced to make a decision between simply firing employees or closing up shop.
In their case against question four, the Retailers Association of Massachusetts state that the law would make Massachusetts the first state to require small and taxpayer funded employers to provide up to a week of earned sick time.
“When an employee calls at a typical office setting calls in sick, other employees usually step in to cover the work load,” said the Association, adding that the law would negatively impact some service employers. “These employers would be required to pay twice – once to an employee on leave and a second time to an employee working a shift.”
