 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
46 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, September 15, 2020
Vote on Proposition
2½ Attack Closing In
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow
Commentary)
|
|
As negotiations
over legislation that would give cities or towns the power
to authorize a local surtax to fund transportation projects
near the two-month mark, a conservative think tank says its
analysis found that provision could lead to "potentially
devastating economic effects across local economies within
Massachusetts."
Coalitions
representing dozens of cities and towns have urged lawmakers
piecing together a compromise transportation bond bill to
approve the Senate-backed regional ballot initiative
proposal and a House-backed "value capture" proposal, but
the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research said it
found the proposals would lead to negative economic impacts
that would largely offset the revenue raised by the
surtaxes, based on an analysis of Suffolk County.
"This analysis
shows that, within Suffolk County, tax surcharges of the
kind considered here would inflict substantial losses in
employment, investment, and disposable income. When the
negative effects on employment, investment, and disposable
income in the county (which is to say, the 'dynamic' effects
of the tax changes) are taken into account, the amount of
revenue gained by imposing the tax surcharges would barely
exceed the loss of disposable income to county residents,"
the institute said in a report published Monday. "The
economic losses will increase exponentially if a local
option sales tax or property tax levy limit increase is
imposed at a regionwide level."
The Senate's
version of the bond bill (S 2836) would authorize regional
ballot initiatives for transportation purposes, a system in
which any city or town could approve a surtax within its
borders and direct the additional revenue toward
transportation revenue. Before the increase could take
effect, a municipality's governing body would first need to
authorize a surtax on the sales, real or personal property,
room occupancy or vehicle excise tax and then secure
approval from a majority of voters through a ballot
question.
Two or more
communities could join together to approve regional surtaxes
as a way of funding transportation projects that impact
multiple areas. Advocates have said regional ballot
initiatives allow towns or regions to have more control over
transportation infrastructure solutions while opponents say
they circumvent Proposition 2½ and could also deepen
regional inequities because lower-income communities have
less of a tax base on which to build transportation
funding....
[M]ayors and town
officials from dozens of communities wrote to legislative
negotiators in July urging them to support the regional
ballot initiative proposal because "local and regional
transportation investments will play an important role to
foster economic revitalization and recovery ... [and] will
help create jobs and promote greater access to Main Streets
for employees and consumers alike." ...
The Senate
overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of a regional ballot
initiative measure in a 2016 municipal modernization bill,
but the House did not include a similar provision and it did
not make it into the version of the bill that became law.
Last session, the Senate approved an amendment putting
regional ballot initiative authorization into an economic
development bill, but it did not survive negotiations with
the House.
Rep. William
Straus, the House's Transportation Committee co-chair, told
the News Service in July that he is not sure about the
viability of regional ballot initiatives and suggested the
Senate's proposal may not survive the conference committee
negotiation process.
"My concern about
regional ballot initiatives has always been that it's
essentially grafting onto transportation policy a type of
Proposition 2½ system where whether you get good roads, safe
roads, or a good transportation system depends on the
variables of local municipal elections," Straus said before
the bills went into conference.
Three
representatives, including Straus, and three senators have
been negotiating bills authorizing $17 billion to $18
billion in borrowing and numerous transportation policy
changes since July 23.
State House News
Service
Monday, September 14, 2020
Report: Regional Taxes Would Drain Jobs, Investment
Senate Plan Would Permit Transpo Ballot Initiatives |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"The
Senate's version of the bond bill (S 2836) would
authorize regional ballot initiatives for transportation
purposes, a system in which any city or town could
approve a surtax within its borders and direct the
additional revenue toward transportation revenue.
Before the increase could take effect, a municipality's
governing body would first need to authorize a surtax on
the sales, real or personal property, room occupancy or
vehicle excise tax and then secure approval from a
majority of voters through a ballot question."
It appears that the
conference committee vote on the stealth attack on
Proposition 2½ may be coming up
sooner rather than later. The mayors around the
state have weighed in, of course, in support of the
assault. (See
the mayors' letter.) Mayors, city councilors,
selectmen, and school committee members have detested
Proposition 2½ and its restrictions since before our law
was even adopted forty years ago.
I contacted House Transportation Chairman
Rep. Straus on July 15
asking him to reject the attack on Proposition 2½:
CLT memo to Rep. William Straus
Wed 7/15/2020 8:42 PM
Dear Representative Straus;
The State House News Service today reported your
comments on your concerns about the Senate’s
proposal to circumvent Proposition 2½ by adding
another mechanism to fund local “transportation
projects” through ballot initiatives (excerpt
below). Your perspective added to Citizens for
Limited Taxation’s concerns as presented in our memo
to the Senate on Monday morning (copy further
below).
We
appreciate your reluctance to support Section 5 of
S-2813 in conference committee, should it pass in
the Senate tomorrow, and hope it doesn’t get that
far. Amendment 230 filed by Sens. Diana DiZoglio and
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr would “would scrap the
regional ballot initiative proposal altogether,” the
News Service further reported, so perhaps it won’t
survive.
Chip Ford
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
He
still seems reluctant to support the attack, for his own
reasons.
Rep. William Straus, the
House's Transportation Committee co-chair, told the
News Service in July that he is not sure about the
viability of regional ballot initiatives and
suggested the Senate's proposal may not survive the
conference committee negotiation process.
"My concern about regional
ballot initiatives has always been that it's
essentially grafting onto transportation policy a
type of Proposition 2½ system where whether you get
good roads, safe roads, or a good transportation
system depends on the variables of local municipal
elections," Straus said before the bills went into
conference.
Soon after my outreach to Rep.
Straus, the Senate went forward and adopted the stealth
attack, regardless of bipartisan opposition. (See
"Senate
defies, circumvents Proposition 2½")
The time is running out to contact
the transportation bond bill committee members.
Whatever comes out of the committee will be
rubber-stamped by the full Legislation, rushed to the
governor, and quickly become law,
so if the attack is to be stopped it must be
within this committee .
This is a radical tax policy change — an attack on
Proposition
2½. It does not belong in a
transportation bond
bill. A sneak attack on CLT's and the voters' Prop 2½ is both unnecessary and
ill-advised.
If you haven't already, now
is the time to speak out (to them) or forever hold your
peace — and pay higher taxes without complaint.
For more information and our
arguments, see CLT's July 13 memo to the state Senate
HERE.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
State House
News Service
Monday, September 14, 2020
Report: Regional Taxes Would Drain Jobs, Investment
Senate Plan Would Permit Transpo Ballot Initiatives
By Colin A. Young
As negotiations over legislation that would give cities or
towns the power to authorize a local surtax to fund
transportation projects near the two-month mark, a
conservative think tank says its analysis found that
provision could lead to "potentially devastating economic
effects across local economies within Massachusetts."
Coalitions representing dozens of cities and towns have
urged lawmakers piecing together a compromise transportation
bond bill to approve the Senate-backed regional ballot
initiative proposal and a House-backed "value capture"
proposal, but the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy
Research said it found the proposals would lead to negative
economic impacts that would largely offset the revenue
raised by the surtaxes, based on an analysis of Suffolk
County.
"This analysis shows that, within Suffolk County, tax
surcharges of the kind considered here would inflict
substantial losses in employment, investment, and disposable
income. When the negative effects on employment, investment,
and disposable income in the county (which is to say, the
'dynamic' effects of the tax changes) are taken into
account, the amount of revenue gained by imposing the tax
surcharges would barely exceed the loss of disposable income
to county residents," the institute said in a report
published Monday. "The economic losses will increase
exponentially if a local option sales tax or property tax
levy limit increase is imposed at a regionwide level."
The Senate's version of the bond bill (S 2836) would
authorize regional ballot initiatives for transportation
purposes, a system in which any city or town could approve a
surtax within its borders and direct the additional revenue
toward transportation revenue. Before the increase could
take effect, a municipality's governing body would first
need to authorize a surtax on the sales, real or personal
property, room occupancy or vehicle excise tax and then
secure approval from a majority of voters through a ballot
question.
Two or more communities could join together to approve
regional surtaxes as a way of funding transportation
projects that impact multiple areas. Advocates have said
regional ballot initiatives allow towns or regions to have
more control over transportation infrastructure solutions
while opponents say they circumvent Proposition 2½ and could
also deepen regional inequities because lower-income
communities have less of a tax base on which to build
transportation funding.
The Beacon Hill Institute said it used its State Tax
Analysis Modeling Program for Massachusetts methodology to
determine the economic impacts of the Senate's proposed
local option sales tax on Suffolk County "due to the
magnitude of the local economies within the county."
"Localities with larger economies would experience the
largest impacts. In Boston (the largest economy in our
analysis), employment would fall by 1,097 jobs; investment
would fall by $105 million, and disposable income by over
$47 million in the first year," report authors David Tuerck
and William Burke wrote. "In Chelsea, employment would fall
by 33 jobs; investment would fall by $3 million, and
disposable income by over $1 million. In Revere, employment
would fall by 39 jobs; investment would fall by nearly $4
million, and disposable income by nearly $2 million.
Winthrop would experience only a fraction of the economic
impacts due to its smaller economy."
BHI's analysis appears to have focused solely on the impacts
of raising revenue for transportation projects, but not the
benefits that could come as a result when that tax revenue
is spent on those projects, typically large public works
efforts.
For example, mayors and town officials from dozens of
communities wrote to legislative negotiators in July urging
them to support the regional ballot initiative proposal
because "local and regional transportation investments will
play an important role to foster economic revitalization and
recovery ... [and] will help create jobs and promote greater
access to Main Streets for employees and consumers alike."
Massachusetts is one of nine states in the country that does
not allow its local governments and citizenry to propose and
pass regional ballot initiatives to raise tax money for
transportation, and the idea has floated around Beacon Hill
for years.
The Senate overwhelmingly supported the inclusion of a
regional ballot initiative measure in a 2016 municipal
modernization bill, but the House did not include a similar
provision and it did not make it into the version of the
bill that became law. Last session, the Senate approved an
amendment putting regional ballot initiative authorization
into an economic development bill, but it did not survive
negotiations with the House.
Rep. William Straus, the House's Transportation Committee
co-chair, told the News Service in July that he is not sure
about the viability of regional ballot initiatives and
suggested the Senate's proposal may not survive the
conference committee negotiation process.
"My concern about regional ballot initiatives has always
been that it's essentially grafting onto transportation
policy a type of Proposition 2½ system where whether you get
good roads, safe roads, or a good transportation system
depends on the variables of local municipal elections,"
Straus said before the bills went into conference.
Three representatives, including Straus, and three senators
have been negotiating bills authorizing $17 billion to $18
billion in borrowing and numerous transportation policy
changes since July 23. |
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) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
