 |
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(781) 990-1251
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
44 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Wins and
losses from Beacon Hill
|
In the hectic final hours of formal
legislative sessions for 2018, House Speaker Robert DeLeo
opted against trying to advance benefit district legislation
after the proposal drew a wave of criticism from the left
and right in the last few weeks. The bill, which had quietly
built momentum over many months, now faces a murky future.
The legislation would enable new local
option assessments in defined community districts. It
cleared both branches this session before running into
trouble.
The bill would allow property owners to draw
up boundaries of a community benefit district, and start
charging assessments within that district as long as the
landholders who initiate the district would pay the majority
of the assessments. Districts would need local approval and
the total annual assessment could equal up to half of 1
percent of the total assessed valuation of the participating
properties....
One of the groups opposing the bill,
Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT), sent a thank-you note
to lawmakers Wednesday "for dropping the so-called
'Community Benefits District' proposal from the flurry of
legislation that passed yesterday and last night." CLT
added, "The last minute concern for the additional property
tax burden it would have imposed upon constituents is very
much appreciated." ...
In the wave of criticism that suddenly
crashed on the bill recently, CLT called it (H 4546) a "sly
end-run around Proposition 2½."
State House News Service
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Benefit district bill stalls out in Legislature
It was a surprise that the House and Senate
did not give final approval to a local option bill allowing
a city or town to authorize the creation of community
benefit districts which would allow owners of contiguous
property in a city or town to form a district and require
property owners in that district to pay for additional
services, improvements, events and other projects and
activities within the district. The districts would be
operated by a nonprofit board.
The Legislature meets in informal sessions
for the next several months and the rules basically allow
just one person in either the House or Senate to prevent
passage of any bills. That means the controversial measure
is effectively dead for this year.
The demise of the proposal is very unusual
considering the bill was approved 149-2 by the House on May
30 and 25-10 in the Senate on July 18. Only final approval
was needed in each branch prior to the measure going to the
governor.
Enter an unlikely coalition of liberal and
conservative groups who started a lobbying campaign against
the bill.
The conservative faction said the bill was
nothing more than another unnecessary tax on property
owners. The liberal faction said the bill gives too much
power to a few wealthy property owners in a neighborhood....
“The last-minute awareness by the
Legislature of the additional property tax burden the
neighborhood tax and an entirely new tier of government
would have imposed upon constituents is very much
appreciated,” said Citizens for Limited Taxation Executive
Director Chip Ford, a leader in the fight against the bill.
“The broad opposition coalition of left, right, and center
successfully got legislators' attention. When such widely
diverse political groups representing countless citizens can
so strongly coalesce on anything these days it speaks
loudly. It would be an easy task to collect signatures and
put it on the ballot for voter repeal if it had passed.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
By Bob Katzen
Week of July 30-August 3, 2018
Allow Neighborhoods To Band Together
And Form A District With Power (H-4546)
Governor Charlie Baker on Friday again
quashed a legislative proposal to fight Greater Boston’s
epic traffic with a toll discount for commuters outside rush
hour.
Baker vetoed the measure and directed his
transportation officials to “complete, within nine months, a
comprehensive analysis of when, where and why congestion is
getting worse . . . and what additional policies and
programs should be put in place to address it.”
The toll discount was proposed as a pilot
program to see if it would encourage some drivers to shift
their commutes outside rush hour, clearing up highway space
from Boston’s awful congestion....
In his veto message, Baker again expressed
his disinterest in so-called congestion pricing, a practice
more popular in other parts of the world. He characterized
that option as “raising the tolls [on] those who do not have
good alternatives to driving at congested times.”
Baker also asserted the test wasn’t
necessary because officials already know the state’s
electronic toll technology is capable of charging different
rates at different times.
Joseph Boncore, the state Senate’s
transportation chairman, said he was disappointed with
Baker’s decision.
“It was meant to measure whether reducing
toll prices at peak congestion times, with people who had
more flexibility, whether we could incentivize them to stay
off the road,” Boncore said. “I just don’t understand his
unwillingness to try it.”
The Boston Globe
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Governor Baker spikes toll discount trial again
“It was smart of Gov. Baker to veto the
congestion pricing bill,” said Citizens for Limited
Taxation Executive Director Chip Ford.
“It’s nothing more than a carrot-and-stick temptation, bait
that will only be switched to higher tolls during rush hour.
This is Massachusetts. We all know that when something
sounds too good to be true it’s too good to be true for
sure.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
By Bob Katzen
Week of July 30-August 3, 2018
Charge Different Tolls At Different Times Of Day (H-4831)
What began as a roughly $600 million
economic development borrowing bill nearly doubled in size
during secret talks before it surfaced for final votes
around midnight Tuesday after lawmakers packed in
authorizations for local projects.
The $1.15 billion bond bill, the product of
a late-session compromise between the House and Senate,
authorizes almost $538 million in public infrastructure
grants for local projects, $250 million for the MassWorks
Infrastructure program and $75 million in grants for
technical education and workforce training.
The latest version of the bill was
introduced in the House at 11:50 p.m., where it was approved
with no discussion. It made its way to Gov. Charlie Baker's
desk about an hour later after a final vote in the Senate.
The Senate passed its $601 million bill on
July 25, after the House approved a $666 million version
earlier in the month. Lawmakers spent the last week of
legislative sessions working behind the scenes to reconcile
the two bills and their final product included hundreds of
millions of dollars more in long-term borrowing
authorizations than what either branch had initially signed
off on....
Baker has 10 days to review the bill. One of
its provisions -- a two-day sales tax holiday set for Aug.
11 and 12 -- would take place 10 days from Wednesday.
State House News Service
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Jobs bill grew to $1.15 Billion in House-Senate talks
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Whew, what a close of the 2017-18
legislative session. The sausage is still being
dissected, the tea leaves read. So much was rammed
through the House and Senate in the closing 48 hours
that none could possibly know what they were voting for
or against.
If you were watching the proceedings (as
I was for 13 straight hours on Tuesday into Wednesday
morning) all you saw and heard was a blur of words from
the speaker's rostrum rambled faster than human hearing
could process. Not words, not even sentences
― just a relentless,
garbled stream of sound. Rules were regularly
suspended ad nauseam, calls of the yeas and nays were
indistinguishable from the "the ayes have it" in a
continuous stream of sound.
The Legislature passed a lot of
stagnating legislation. The Legislature ran out of
time and failed to pass a lot of stagnating
legislation. The two-year session legally ended on
midnight of Tuesday. The Legislature was still
voting an hour beyond that, until 1:12 AM Wednesday.
This time, they didn't even pretend to "suspend the
rules" ― they just kept
voting until they quit.
But we got our big win, and we saved
Proposition 2½ once again!
Our astounding 11th-hour turn-around of the neighborhood
property tax ("Community Benefits Districts") not only
saved CLT's Prop 2½ from an
assault from the flank but saved residents and property
owners from a shocking new property tax.
"Section 7. (a) The yearly assessment shall not
exceed ½ of 1 per cent of the sum of the assessed
valuation of the property owned by participating
property owners who are required to pay the district
fee."
A one half of one
percent new tax on a property's assessed value ―
as proposed [above] by that bill ― would have required a
resident in a "benefits district" with a home assessed
at $250,000 to pay an additional property tax of
up to $1,250 a year ― every year going forward.
Beyond cutting and
limiting taxes, numerous past CLT wins over the decades
have prevented new taxes like this from ever
being imposed. Though unheralded, not recognized
or unappreciated, CLT's defensive successes like this
have saved millions of taxpayers literally
billions of their dollars ― and most don't even know
it, or care.
Just ask any of
your friends, neighbors, or family members if they
appreciate, or even know about, this latest huge CLT
victory for them.
CLT Saves Proposition 2½ Again — 2018
from "Community Benefits
Districts"
A devious end-round around Prop 2½
One of the benefits of the Legislature
being unable to complete its job before the two-year
clock ran out is, now Governor Baker has the ability to
veto with little or no legislative recourse. One
such advantage is with the "congestion tolling" scam,
which is dead at least for now. But like
everything bad on Beacon Hill that fails, it will be
back.
We were provided with yet another case
of what "compromise" means on Bacon Hill with the
Legislature's so-called "economic development" bill.
The House passed its version,
"investing" (spending our money) $666 million
into "economic development."
The Senate passed its own version,
instead "investing" (spending our money) $601 million
into its "economic development" bill.
The two differing versions were sent to a House/Senate conference
committee to find, in "secret talks," a compromise
― a figure somewhere in the
middle that would be agreeable to both branches.
It was another one of those last minute things.
The State House News Service reported:
"The latest version of the bill was introduced in
the House at 11:50 p.m., where it was approved
with no discussion. It made its way to Gov.
Charlie Baker's desk about an hour later after a
final vote in the Senate."
The compromise between the House's $666
million and the Senate's $601 million?
$1.15 billion!
A classic Bacon Hill compromise!
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Benefit district bill stalls out in Legislature
By Michael P. Norton
In the hectic final hours of formal legislative
sessions for 2018, House Speaker Robert DeLeo
opted against trying to advance benefit district
legislation after the proposal drew a wave of
criticism from the left and right in the last
few weeks. The bill, which had quietly built
momentum over many months, now faces a murky
future.
The legislation would enable new local option
assessments in defined community districts. It
cleared both branches this session before
running into trouble.
The bill would allow property owners to draw up
boundaries of a community benefit district, and
start charging assessments within that district
as long as the landholders who initiate the
district would pay the majority of the
assessments. Districts would need local approval
and the total annual assessment could equal up
to half of 1 percent of the total assessed
valuation of the participating properties.
Assessment revenues would in turn help districts
and communities "to support the 18-hour
management of our state's downtowns, main
streets and village centers," as the
Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance put it.
"These 'live, work, and play' areas need more
attention and resources than residential
neighborhoods," according to the alliance.
The bill was the product of months of
negotiations between Sen. Brendan Crighton of
Lynn, Secretary of Housing and Economic
Development Jay Ash, and former Sen. Eileen
Donoghue, who is now Lowell's city manager.
According to Crighton's office, the bill
"carefully balances the interests of large and
small property owners" and has the backing of
several mayors, chambers of commerce, and the
Massachusetts Municipal Association.
The legislation is an "example of good
government," Crighton told colleagues during
debate in July. "The process of getting to this
point has been anything but brief ... We've done
as much outreach as we can to all parties
because we really believe this is a bill that
all sides can rally around and support."
One of the groups opposing the bill, Citizens
for Limited Taxation (CLT), sent a thank-you
note to lawmakers Wednesday "for dropping the
so-called 'Community Benefits District' proposal
from the flurry of legislation that passed
yesterday and last night." CLT added, "The last
minute concern for the additional property tax
burden it would have imposed upon constituents
is very much appreciated."
House and Senate leaders could still try to
enact the bill and send it to Gov. Charlie
Baker, who has vetoed previous iterations of the
proposal, but the barrier to passage rose
overnight Tuesday. During informal sessions that
are scheduled to run from now until early
January, any member of the House or Senate may
block the advancement of any bill. So if
opponents show up for sessions, they can thwart
any bid to give the bill final approval.
The House passed the bill 149-2 on May 30. All
seven Republicans in the Senate and eight
Democrats opposed the bill, which passed that
branch 22-15 on July 18. Citing strong concerns
with the bill from labor unions, Senate
President Pro Tem Marc Pacheco, a Taunton
Democrat, has said he might drop his support for
the bill unless his own concerns about it are
allayed.
"I believe we could be unleashing the
opportunity for outsourcing and privatization of
municipal services across the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in this bill," Pacheco said during
debate on the measure. "And if that's what I
find out that could be done when this bill comes
back in the enactment stage, I will vote no."
Crighton disputed the claim of labor concerns.
"We have not heard any concerns from labor that
I'm aware of," he said during debate,
distinguishing between municipal services and
"supplemental services" envisioned in benefit
districts.
After the Senate vote, House Minority Leader
Brad Jones said he was reconsidering his support
for the bill and had "serious concerns." Jones
said it "may well be better" for cities and
towns to pursue community benefit districts
individually rather than to enact a statewide
policy on district creation.
In the wave of criticism that suddenly crashed
on the bill recently, CLT called it (H 4546) a
"sly end-run around Proposition 2½." The
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts
said the bill violates the principle of "one
person, one vote" and called it "troublingly
silent" about the open meeting, public records
and procurement laws that guide local
government. Secretary of State William Galvin
also raised public records law concerns.
Reps. Michelle DuBois (D-Brockton) and Denise
Provost (D-Somerville) said they oppose the bill
because they think it grants outsize power to
wealthy corporations. Calling the districts a
"bad idea," the Massachusetts Law Reform
Institute recently tweeted, "Let's keep our
public spaces public. Say NO to a bill that
proposes to turn them over to a few wealthy
property owners." The institute called the bill
an "anti-democratic takeover of our
neighborhoods."
Other groups opposing the bill, according to the
institute, are Alternatives for Community &
Environment, the Boston Tenant Coalition, Lynn
United for Change, the Massachusetts Fair
Housing Center, Springfield No One Leaves/Nadie
Se Mude and The Welcome Project of Somerville.
Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll and Worcester Chamber
President Tim Murray, the former lieutenant
governor, have spoken out in favor of the
legislation.
"Massachusetts is one of the most restrictive
states in the country in terms of how
municipalities raise revenue," Murray told the
News Service last month. He said, "There's going
to be a very involved, thorough process where
these things are looked to be implemented. So
this is just a tool. It's not a fait accompli
whether it's going to happen or not. You've got
to make the case."
Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge), who joined
Provost and DuBois in guarding against the
bill's advancement in recent weeks, said talks
are continuing over it.
Asked about the legislation's future in informal
sessions, Connolly said, "I think it remains to
be seen. There have been a lot of discussions
with different members. My sense is a lot of
folks really started to take a close look at it
in the last couple of weeks."
In addition to hearing concerns about the bill
from labor unions, Connolly said there are other
programs, including the business improvement
district model, that can serve as an alternative
to community benefit districts. He also
expressed concerns about how a benefit district
could be dissolved after issuing debt, calling
that an area of "huge concern."
Asked if he planned to monitor future
legislative sessions with Provost and DuBois,
Connolly told the News Service on Wednesday
afternoon that he would check in with them about
plans and also mentioned concerns about the bill
from the House Republican caucus, which has 34
members.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
By Bob Katzen
Week of July 30-August 3, 2018
Allow Neighborhoods To Band Together And Form A
District With Power (H-4546)
It was a surprise that the House and Senate did
not give final approval to a local option bill
allowing a city or town to authorize the
creation of community benefit districts which
would allow owners of contiguous property in a
city or town to form a district and require
property owners in that district to pay for
additional services, improvements, events and
other projects and activities within the
district. The districts would be operated by a
nonprofit board.
The Legislature meets in informal sessions for
the next several months and the rules basically
allow just one person in either the House or
Senate to prevent passage of any bills. That
means the controversial measure is effectively
dead for this year.
The demise of the proposal is very unusual
considering the bill was approved 149-2 by the
House on May 30 and 25-10 in the Senate on July
18. Only final approval was needed in each
branch prior to the measure going to the
governor.
Enter an unlikely coalition of liberal and
conservative groups who started a lobbying
campaign against the bill.
The conservative faction said the bill was
nothing more than another unnecessary tax on
property owners. The liberal faction said the
bill gives too much power to a few wealthy
property owners in a neighborhood.
Andre Leroux, Executive Director of the
Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance supported
the bill and believes that community benefit
districts can be a game changer. “The bill
establishes a way for communities to organize a
public-private-nonprofit partnership to support
their downtown, Main Street, cultural district,
historic area or other important place, said
Leroux. “It’s really about empowering local
people to tackle their own challenges.”
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville), one of only
two representatives to vote against the bill in
the House in May said this new option allows
certain property owners to create their own
fiefdoms and the ability to assess other
property owners for purposes determined by
themselves. “These are the kind of activities
for which local government exists,” said
Provost. “Why would we want to have a class of …
private, parallel quasi-governments to perform
these functions? Is the democracy, transparency
and accountability of local elected government a
problem?”
“While we are disappointed that the bill didn’t
pass, we are encouraged by the overwhelming
showing of support by businesses, non-profits,
residents, and municipal leader,” said Sen.
Brendan Crighton (D-Lynn), the sponsor of the
proposal. “Communities across the state have
made it clear that they want this additional
tool that has been successfully used in over a
thousand districts across the country.”
“The last-minute awareness by the Legislature of
the additional property tax burden the
neighborhood tax and an entirely new tier of
government would have imposed upon constituents
is very much appreciated,” said Citizens for
Limited Taxation Executive Director Chip Ford, a
leader in the fight against the bill. “The broad
opposition coalition of left, right, and center
successfully got legislators' attention. When
such widely diverse political groups
representing countless citizens can so strongly
coalesce on anything these days it speaks
loudly. It would be an easy task to collect
signatures and put it on the ballot for voter
repeal if it had passed.”
The Boston Globe
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Governor Baker spikes toll discount trial again
By Adam Vaccaro
Governor Charlie Baker on Friday again quashed a
legislative proposal to fight Greater Boston’s
epic traffic with a toll discount for commuters
outside rush hour.
Baker vetoed the measure and directed his
transportation officials to “complete, within
nine months, a comprehensive analysis of when,
where and why congestion is getting worse . . .
and what additional policies and programs should
be put in place to address it.”
The toll discount was proposed as a pilot
program to see if it would encourage some
drivers to shift their commutes outside rush
hour, clearing up highway space from Boston’s
awful congestion.
After lobbying from transportation advocates
throughout 2018, lawmakers included it as part
of the new state budget adopted in July. Baker
swiftly nixed that idea, sending it back to
lawmakers with the suggestion to conduct a study
instead.
Lawmakers didn’t take him up on the offer;
rather, they simply sent the same discount plan
back to Baker. This time, though, with the
Legislature out of formal session for the year,
his veto is almost certainly the final word.
The governor had said he was doubtful that a
small toll decrease would put much of a dent in
traffic. A toll increase at rush hour might —
but he was reluctant to explore that option, he
said.
In his veto message, Baker again expressed his
disinterest in so-called congestion pricing, a
practice more popular in other parts of the
world. He characterized that option as “raising
the tolls [on] those who do not have good
alternatives to driving at congested times.”
Baker also asserted the test wasn’t necessary
because officials already know the state’s
electronic toll technology is capable of
charging different rates at different times.
Joseph Boncore, the state Senate’s
transportation chairman, said he was
disappointed with Baker’s decision.
“It was meant to measure whether reducing toll
prices at peak congestion times, with people who
had more flexibility, whether we could
incentivize them to stay off the road,” Boncore
said. “I just don’t understand his unwillingness
to try it.”
Transportation for Massachusetts, the advocacy
group that pushed for the initiative, said Baker
must develop policies to improve traffic.
“For the sake of everyone stuck in traffic
across Massachusetts, we urge the governor to
take action on congestion,” said Chris Dempsey,
the group’s director. “The status quo is not
working.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
By Bob Katzen
Week of July 30-August 3, 2018 Charge Different
Tolls At Different Times Of Day (H-4831)
Gov. Baker vetoed legislation directing the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation to
design and implement a temporary pilot program
to test the technological feasibility of
charging toll rates that differ depending on the
time of day, with the goal of relieving
congestion for motorists.
The measure forbids the program from resulting
in a toll rate increase on any road or driver
and must include a discount structure, including
off-peak discounts of not less than 25 percent.
“While I support the idea of reducing congestion
on our roads, this ... proposes a program that
is too narrow and unlikely to have the desired
effect of alleviating congestion,” Baker said in
a message to the Legislature. “It would be
better to evaluate all of the potential
solutions to this problem and then pursue the
solutions that are most likely to achieve the
best results.”
Sen. Joseph Boncore (D-Winthrop) and other
proponents of the pilot program are disappointed
with the veto. They said the program would have
been an important first step toward taking some
concrete action to solve the traffic congestion
problem in the Bay State.
Boncore said the program is aimed at drivers who
have more flexibility to use the roads during
off-peak hours, instead of during rush hour. He
noted that studies have shown that if the number
of drivers on the road is reduced a mere 5
percent, traffic congestion could be reduced by
25 percent.
“Congestion not only strains our infrastructure,
but it severely limits our economic potential,”
said Boncore. “Smart tolling is an innovative
use of an existing technology that can help use
our roads more efficiently. If we can
incentivize drivers that don’t need to be on the
road during peak transit hours and reduce the
number of vehicles, we will improve our traffic
conditions and reduce stress to our
infrastructure.”
“Hardworking Massachusetts residents who drive
into Boston every day should not be punished any
more than they already are,” said Paul Craney,
Executive Director of the Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance,” who opposes the measure.
“The governor was right to veto this latest bad
idea and if the state is serious about reducing
traffic, which we hope they are, they should do
it in a way that rewards good behavior, not
punish those who give so much to our state’s
economy. It would be a first to have a study
commissioned by the Legislature in which the
final outcome was that they wanted to reduce the
amount of money they take from taxpayers.”
“It was smart of Gov. Baker to veto the
congestion pricing bill,” said Citizens for
Limited Taxation Executive Director Chip
Ford. “It’s nothing more than a
carrot-and-stick temptation, bait that will only
be switched to higher tolls during rush hour.
This is Massachusetts. We all know that
when something sounds too good to be true it’s
too good to be true for sure.”
State House News Service
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Jobs bill grew to $1.15 Billion in House-Senate
talks
By Katie Lannan
What began as a roughly $600 million economic
development borrowing bill nearly doubled in
size during secret talks before it surfaced for
final votes around midnight Tuesday after
lawmakers packed in authorizations for local
projects.
The $1.15 billion bond bill, the product of a
late-session compromise between the House and
Senate, authorizes almost $538 million in public
infrastructure grants for local projects, $250
million for the MassWorks Infrastructure program
and $75 million in grants for technical
education and workforce training.
The latest version of the bill was introduced in
the House at 11:50 p.m., where it was approved
with no discussion. It made its way to Gov.
Charlie Baker's desk about an hour later after a
final vote in the Senate.
The Senate passed its $601 million bill on July
25, after the House approved a $666 million
version earlier in the month. Lawmakers spent
the last week of legislative sessions working
behind the scenes to reconcile the two bills and
their final product included hundreds of
millions of dollars more in long-term borrowing
authorizations than what either branch had
initially signed off on.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr said the size
of the bill reflects "the tremendous interest in
both chambers in expanding our economic growth."
"I view that as a positive, because I view it as
an alternative to increasing taxes to be able to
fund the priorities that we have, and so I would
hope that we would continue along that path to
say that we need to grow our economy and
concentrate on things that help it grow, rather
than things that may constrain or inhibit it,"
he said after the Senate adjourned early
Wednesday morning.
Among the projects included in the final bill
are $500,000 to design and build a regional arts
center at the Burlington Mall or elsewhere in
the town, $250,000 for North Mountain Park in
Dalton, $500,000 for the career and technical
services program at Weymouth High School, $2
million to restore the Everett Square Theatre in
Hyde Park, and $3 million for the replacement of
Framingham's Saxonville Fire Station.
The inclusion of a project in a bond bill, even
if it is signed by the governor, does not
guarantee that a project will occur since the
executive branch can only advance a limited
number of projects under the state's annual
borrowing cap.
"There's still many steps to get those checks
cashed, so to speak," Sen. Eric Lesser, the
Senate chair of the Economic Development and
Emerging Technologies Committee, told the News
Service Wednesday. "What it's really about is
setting down markers for where the priorities
are, where we want the state heading, and what
types of investments we want in the picture for
when the capital planning process comes along."
Lesser, who developed the bill with House Chair
Joseph Wagner, said the bill focuses on three
main areas.
"If the first part, the sort of bread and butter
infrastructure, was about hard hats and putting
people to work on construction and improving
infrastructure, the second part was about
training and education of our workforce," the
Longmeadow Democrat said. "The third element
that I think was important was about the future
and how we position Massachusetts to continue to
be an innovation sector."
On the policy front, the bill (H 4868) restricts
non-competition agreements between employers and
workers, a measure that eluded lawmakers' grasp
in the final hours of formal sessions in 2016.
It also includes protections against "patent
trolling," which Lesser's office describes as
bad-faith assertions of patent infringement that
entangle new small businesses in costly
lawsuits, and it tasks the Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative with recommending ways
the state can best position itself for the
autonomous vehicle industry.
Baker has 10 days to review the bill. One of its
provisions -- a two-day sales tax holiday set
for Aug. 11 and 12 -- would take place 10 days
from Wednesday. |
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ (781) 990-1251
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
