Answers to the Ballot Questions

Question 1

There's no question about it: Property taxes are going up. Massachusetts already has the highest property taxes of any state, and the State Supreme Court's 1974 decision in the Sudbury case will make them even higher. The Sudbury decision enforced a state constitutional provision that requires assessment of all proerty at 100 per cent of its market value, instead of the long-time practice of assessing residential property at, say, 50 per cent, and business property, income-producing property, at 75 per cent.

Question 1 will not solve the ultimate problem of property taxes: That they are regressive (that is, they aren't scaled according to income, so that elderly people on fixed incomes are increasingly driven out of their homes because they can't afford to pay the taxes). Nor will Question 1 cut property taxes, as long as localities have come to depend on property taxes to finance the essential services like police, fire protection, and schools. The real answer to the burden of property taxes will only come when the state passes a graduated income tax and uses the proceeds to support local services now paid for by property taxes. But the 1975 referendum for an income tax not only lost, but was annihilated, by a margin of 2-1.

If passed, Question 1 would allow the legislature to reinstitute variable assessments in four classes: residential, commercial, industrial and open space. The Massachusetts Mayors' Association proposes that residential property be assessed at 40 per cent of market value, commercial property at 50 per cent, industrial at 55 per cent, and open space at 25 per cent, with all residential parcels getting a $5000 exemption.

Very simply, if Question 1 fails to pass, if 100 per cent valuation goes into effect, there would be a mammoth shift of the property tax burden from business to homeowners, on the order of $265 million. The shift would be felt hardest by the homeowners in older cities where there are great numbers of both lower-income housing and industrial properties. In Cambridge, for instance, the shift would amount to $8.6 million--and the average tax bill on a single-family home would jump from the present $1931 to over $3000. In Boston, the bill would increase from $1365 to over $2300.

Business is fighting Question 1 not only in anticipation of the $265 millions shift, but also in hopes of a second cut--when homeowners start feeling the pain of 100 per cent valuation with tax hikes in the thousands of dollars, they'll descend on city halls throughout Massachusetts and demand budget cuts and tax rollbacks, and business will get the benefits of that, too.

Clearly, Question 1 is a stopgap. No politician is going to call for an income tax, even though Republican gubernatorial candidate Frank Hatch '46 voted for the 1975 measure. Only when the King/Hatch campaign schemes for tax relief prove cosmetic, drippy lip gloss for the sore mouths and worn wallets of Massachusetts homeowners, will there exist even the possibility of genuine tax reform.

Right now, the choice is clear: A tax cut for business and increases for homeowners with a NO vote on Question 1, versus keeping the distribution of the tax burden the same with a YES vote.

Question 2

This would give a new governor eight weeks from the convening of the first legislative session to submit his budget proposals, instead of the current three-week limit. With Ed King taking two months just to figure out what kind of half-baked rollback in property taxes he can get away with, this budget time limit looks right on target.

Question 3

This would require the Secretary of State's office to distribute ballot question information to the residence of every eligible voter rather than to each individual registered voter. But maybe you'd just rather not know about these things.

Question 4

This would have the state census use federal standards to determine residence. Presently, the state considers legal domicile, regardless of physical presence, to be determinant of residence, while the feds consider the location where a person spends most of his or her time as the residence. So if you don't think out-of-state students should be excluded by the state census, vote yes.

Question 5

Local charter commissions now have ten months from their election to present charter proposals to the voters. Question 5 would extend that deadline to 18 months, while bureaucracy wends its merry way.

Question 6

This is a George Wallace-style "send a message to Washington" proposal. It would prohibit assignment of students to any public school on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin. But since this would be merely a state provision, and the federal courts have jurisdiction (as in the Boston and Springfield desegregation cases) to order busing for racial balance, Question 6 will make no legal difference; it's just a chance for the anti-busing forces to get their ya-ya's out.

Question 7

This would allow the legislature to assess at different rates two types of land: privately-owned recreation land, and land left in its natural state. The legislature presently has this power regarding agricultural and wild or forest land. It's too bad the "natural state" provision is mixed in with the "recreation" provision, because passage of Question 7 basically means a tax break for country clubs. Golf, anyone?