Boston Globe: With Ballot "Question 4, GOP wants to trade safety for votes"

 

"Florida and Texas aren’t the only states where Republicans are fear-mongering about immigrants to whip up support in November.

It’s happening here, too, with a GOP-led ballot question that would repeal a law, passed by state lawmakers in June, allowing undocumented residents to apply for driver’s licenses.

What’s happening here is almost as naked and heartless a political ploy as Governor Ron DeSantis trying to strand planeloads of Venezuelan asylum-seekers on Martha’s Vineyard. Worse, Question 4 is an attempt to win votes at the expense of public safety.

The Massachusetts Major City Chiefs of Police, and a majority of the state’s sheriffs and district attorneys, support allowing undocumented immigrants to have driver’s licenses, and for good reason. Tens of thousands of those immigrants are driving anyway, mostly to get to work. We are all safer if everybody on the roads is tested, licensed, and insured."

Continue reading the Boston Globe article online (subscription may be required)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/09/28/metro/with-question-4-gop-wants-trade-safety-votes/

The Massachusetts State House CRAIG F. WALKER/GLOBE STAFF

Insights on Ballot Question 3 from MASSter List

"Go to www.foodstoresma.org. You won't find anything. Neither will you if you check the bank account of Food Stores for Consumer Choice, the ballot committee formed to oppose Question 3.

That's because after losing a Supreme Judicial Court case where companies, including Cumberland Farms, sought to have Question 3 disqualified from the ballot, the stores are not fighting passage of the question that will remake the rules around alcohol sales and licensing in Massachusetts.

Question 3 proposes to increase the combined number of licenses a retailer can hold for the sale of all alcoholic beverages and beer and wine from nine to 18 by 2031, but will reduce the cap on licenses for the sale of all-alcoholic-beverage from nine to seven. It will also prohibit self check-out of alcoholic beverages, make out-of-state licenses an acceptable form of ID for alcohol purchasing, and change the formula under which fines for selling to minors are calculated (something food stores opposed).

The question was proposed and is backed by independent package stores. It was pitched as a compromise with the food stores to avoid a fight over simply lifting the cap on licenses altogether.

While Cumberland Farms and other chains didn't necessarily see it that way, Louis Rizoli - former counsel to the House and the chair and attorney for the Food Stores for Consumer Choice - said there will be no last minute infusion of corporate cash to fight the measure.

"There's no coordinated opposition to this ballot question," Rizoli said. "Some food stores like certain provisions of question three and oppose others." 

A statement of opposition was printed in the "Information for Voters" guide mailed to homes, but Rizoli said food stores like Cumberland Farms and Stop & Shop are "more interested in obtaining a separate license," which was proposed in a bill (H 318) this session and will be refiled next year. 

In 2020, Cumberland Farms pursued a ballot question that proposed to create a new food store license for the sale of alcohol and eventually lift all license caps, but it ultimately dropped its campaign amidst the pandemic and chose to fight for a legislative solution this cycle instead.

That bill did not gain traction with lawmakers as an alternative to the ballot question, but depending on what happens in November a new bill cycle begins in January.

Meanwhile, the 21st Century Alcohol Retail Reform Committee has raised $823,450 over the past two years in support of its ballot measure, mostly from the Massachusetts Package Store Association, and spent $723,565 to make its case to voters. In its Sept. 20 report to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, it reported having $99,884 left in the bank.

Probably more than enough when no one's spending to fight you on the other side. "

Shared from the MASSter List of Tuesday, Sep 27, 2022

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Q3-going-off-without-a-fight.html?soid=1107496303234&aid=NdIOPZmYad0

 

Insights on Ballot Question 3 from MASSter List

Tufts University's Center for State Policy Analysis provides insights on Ballot Question #2

"If there's a question on the November ballot that will cause voter's to sit up and scratch their head for a minute, it's probably Question 2.

Supporters of the dental insurance initiative say it is intended to wring out wasteful spending from the system by requiring at least 83 cents of every dollar collected in premiums to go toward care, and not administrative costs, taxes or profit. This is also known as a loss-ratio.

But what will it mean for consumers? A new report published this morning by Tufts University's Center for State Policy Analysis concludes that if Question 2 passes, it could cause some smaller insurers to leave the market, leaving consumers with fewer choices.

As for cost, one way insurers could try to come into compliance with the new rules would be to allow dentists to charge more for services. That would cause patients to more quickly hit their annual caps and wind up paying more out of pocket. CSPA Executive Director Evan Horowitz, however, writes in the report that "while it might inspire price increases that trickle down to consumers, the scale of these increases should be limited."

Other mechanisms insurers would have to meet the 83 percent loss-ratio would be to lower consumer premiums, cover more services or streamline their operations.

Horowitz said part of the problem in predicting the scale of the impact to the dental insurance industry is that the question has been "built on relatively thin information. It’s not clear whether dental insurers are currently close to — or far from — the proposed 83 percent requirements." Massachusetts would also be the first state in the country to impose an 83-cent loss-ratio on dental insurers.

Based on available data, CSPA finds that most large insurers probably have loss-ratios close to 80 percent, making compliance a lighter lift.

"Based on the limited information we do have, it seems likely that insurers will be able to meet the new standards with a mix of operational changes that includes somewhat increased prices for dental care," Horowitz concludes."

Shared from the MASSterList email -> https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Breaking-down-Question-2.html?soid=1107496303234&aid=472__lI5e0s

Direct link to the report -> https://cspa.tufts.edu/node/741

PDF of the report -> https://cspa.tufts.edu/sites/g/files/lrezom361/files/2022-09/cSPA_new_rules_dental_insurance.pdf

Tufts University's Center for State Policy Analysis provides insights on Ballot Question #2

Additional coverage on this ballot question from CommonWealth Magazine

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/ballot-question-would-shift-profits-from-insurers-to-dentists/

The State Election 2022 Red Book is coming to your postal mailbox

The Secretary of the Commonwealth has announced:

"Check your mailbox for the red Information for Voters book, which has information on 2022 ballot questions. Books are being delivered to all households this month.

Note: There will be 4 statewide questions on the November ballot. 

Questions 1-3 are included in the printed Information for Voters book. Question 4 was submitted too late to be included, but you can find it in the online version at http://VoteInMA.com."

Shared from Twitter: https://twitter.com/VotingInMass/status/1570459490637729796

Question 1 -  https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele22/information-for-voters-22/quest_1.htm

Question 2 -  https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele22/information-for-voters-22/quest_2.htm

Question 3 -  https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele22/information-for-voters-22/quest_3.htm

Question 4 -  https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele22/information-for-voters-22/quest_4.htm

The Red Book is coming to your postal mailbox

Fair Share Amendment web page ready to provide info on Ballot Question 1

"The Fair Share Amendment, or Question 1, would create a 4% tax on the portion of a person’s annual income above $1 million and dedicate the funds raised to transportation and public education. 

The amendment, featured on the November ballot, will allow Massachusetts to improve our transportation and public education systems by making the very rich pay their fair share. 

Only people who earn more than $1 million annually will pay this additional income tax; 99% of us won’t pay a penny more. And we’ll all benefit from better schools, roads, bridges, and public transportation. 

On November 8, vote YES on 1."

Learn more about the proposed amendment (Ballot Question 1) https://www.fairsharema.com/why-fair-share 

Fair Share Amendment web page ready to provide info on Ballot Question 1

This is the first of a series to help prepare for the November election. All the posts will be collected in one page to make it easy to bookmark and find.

Frequently Asked Questions: Fair Share Amendment

"Answers to all your Fair Share frequently asked questions 

Fair Share for MA has done such an incredible job putting together resources for supporting the amendment. Please go to http://fairsharema.com/faq for more in depth responses to these answers along with more answers!"

Frequently Asked Questions: Fair Share Amendment

Shared from Twitter:  https://twitter.com/350Mass/status/1545512812440686592

Supreme Judicial Court decides 2 ballots questions: approves health care question; rejects ride share question

"THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT on Tuesday threw out a ballot question that would classify ride-share drivers as independent contractors, putting a sudden end to what was primed to be an enormously expensive ballot campaign that was already gaining national attention. 

In a 31-page unanimous decision written by Justice Scott Kafker, the court concluded that the ballot question improperly contains “at least two substantively distinct policy decisions, one of which is buried in obscure language at the end of the petitions.” 

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/courts/sjc-throws-out-uber-lyft-ballot-question/

Boston Globe coverage on the ride share question (subscription may be required)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/06/14/business/mass-high-court-blocks-gig-worker-question-november-ballot

"THE NOVEMBER BALLOT is coming into focus  as the Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday ruled that a question regulating dental insurance can proceed to the ballot.  

The ballot question would require dental insurers to spend at least 83 percent of premiums on clinical costs and quality improvements, rather than administrative costs. This is referred to as a medical loss ratio, and is similar to an existing rule for health insurance, which was put in place by President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. "

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/health-care/sjc-lets-dental-insurance-question-proceed-to-ballot/

SJC throws out Uber-Lyft ballot question

CommonWealth Magazine: "SJC will consider challenges to all four ballot questions"

"State law lays out the steps needed to file an initiative petition to put a question before voters on the state ballot: get certified by the attorney general, collect signatures, go to the Legislature. What’s not included, but may as well be, is defend the petition before the Supreme Judicial Court. In what has essentially become a rite of passage, all four potential questions on this November’s ballot will go to court next week.

One case that has gotten significant attention is a proposed constitutional amendment raising the tax rate on income over $1 million. The Massachusetts High Technology Council and others are asking the court to change the summary on the ballot to clarify that there is no guarantee the money raised will go toward increased spending on transportation and education, as the measure’s advocates claim. "

Continue reading the article online

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/the-download/sjc-will-consider-challenges-to-all-four-ballot-questions-2/

 

CommonWealth Magazine: "SJC will consider challenges to all four ballot questions"

CommonWealth Magazine "Legalization of happy hours, fireworks among approved ballot questions" for 2022

"ATTORNEY GENERAL Maura Healey’s office allowed 17 proposed laws and constitutional amendments dealing with a wide variety of public policy issues to keep moving toward the ballot on Wednesday.

Assuming sponsors can gather 80,239 signatures, Massachusetts voters will be asked in 2022 to decide whether fireworks and turbocharged happy hours should be legalized. They will decide whether retailers should be able to hold more liquor licenses, whether much higher rebates on zero emission vehicles should be offered, and whether to prohibit taxes, fees, and other measures “that would reduce or restrict the supply” of motor fuels – a question filed by Republican Rep. David DeCoste of Norwell that appears to be targeted at blocking Gov. Charlie Baker’s transportation climate initiative."

Continue reading the article online

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/legalization-of-happy-hours-fireworks-among-approved-ballot-questions/ 

The Attorney General's page has the complete list of ballot initiatives as proposed for 2022

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ballot-initiatives-filed-for-the-2022-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-laws-and-2024-biennial-statewide-election-proposed-constitutional-amendments

CommonWealth Magazine "Legalization of happy hours, fireworks among approved ballot questions" for 2022

"Blow for Uber as judge finds California’s gig-worker law unconstitutional"

A case that will have implication for MA as there is a proposed ballot question for 2022 on this issue.

"A judge on Friday struck down a California ballot measure that exempted Uber and other app-based ride-hailing and delivery services from a state law requiring drivers to be classified as employees eligible for benefits and job protections.

Alameda county superior court Judge Frank Roesch ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.

Voters approved the measure in November after Uber, Lyft and other services spent $200m in its favor, making it the most expensive ballot measure in state history.

Uber said it planned to appeal, setting up a fight that could likely end up in the California supreme court."

Continue reading the article online (subscription maybe required)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/20/california-gig-worker-law-proposition-22-unconstitutional 

A driver holds up a sign supporting a no vote on Prop 22 in Oakland last year. The ruling sets up a fight that could likely end up in California’s supreme court. Photograph: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images

MA News: vaccine required for nursing home workers; contact tracing extended; ballot question proposals filed

 COVID-19 vaccine requirements

"GOV. CHARLIE BAKER announced Wednesday that the state will require all nursing home and long-term care facility staff to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 by October 10.  

The decision marks an evolution for the Republican governor, who has resisted imposing vaccine mandates on public employees. The decision is intended to protect the population most vulnerable to COVID-19 — the elderly. Some major area hospitals have issued similar mandates to protect vulnerable patients."

Continue reading the article online 

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/health-care/baker-order-requires-nursing-home-staff-to-be-vaccinated/ 

Contact tracing extended to 2021 year end

"THE STATE’S CONTACT tracing effort is ramping up again in the midst of a resurgence in COVID-19 cases. 

The program was scheduled to shut down in September but instead the contract with the operator, the nonprofit Cambridge-based Partners in Health, is being extended through the end of the year. The number of contract tracers, currently at 130, is also being increased by as much as 300."

Continue reading the article online

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/health/contact-tracing-ramping-up-yet-again/ 

Ballot question proposals filed

"PROPONENTS FILED 30 ballot questions with the attorney general’s office on Wednesday in an attempt to circumvent Beacon Hill and win approval directly from voters in 2022 for laws dealing with the gig economy, voting, hospital operations, newborn babies, the Transportation Climate Initiative, smoking, the sale of alcohol, and assorted other matters.

Most of the proposals are unlikely to make it on to the ballot because, even if they pass muster on constitutional grounds with Attorney General Maura Healey’s office, they would still require the gathering of more than 93,000 voter signatures, a time-consuming and expensive process. Several of the proposals were filed in multiple forms in an effort to increase their chances of gaining approval from Healey’s office."

Continue reading the article online

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/from-gig-economy-to-tci-30-ballot-questions-filed/

MA News

“Massachusetts is going to be ground zero for the next wave of this fight”

"A fight that became the most expensive ballot measure in California’s history has arrived in full force in Massachusetts, setting the stage for a potentially costly campaign that could reshape the state’s labor law and how hundreds of thousands of workers operate under it.

The question of whether Uber drivers, DoorDash delivery people, and other so-called gig economy workers should be classified as independent contractors or employees has already reared its head in litigation and at the State House, where a bill backed by the major ride-hailing companies is working through Beacon Hill’s legislative gears.

But the emergence of two similarly named but opposing coalitions — each claiming the backing of app-based workers — is seeding a potential ballot question fight next fall, when voters could be asked to decide how the workers should be treated."

Continue reading the article online (subscription maybe required)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/06/22/metro/mass-poised-be-ground-zero-high-stakes-gig-economy-battle-potential-ballot-question-looms/

Legislature Advances Fair Share Act to 2022 Statewide Ballot

Legislature Advances Fair Share Act to 2022 Statewide Ballot

Proposed constitutional amendment would fund transportation and education investments

At a Joint Session of the Massachusetts Legislature, members of the House and Senate on Wednesday held a Constitutional Convention where they advanced an amendment to the state Constitution to provide greater investments in education and transportation funding.

The Amendment, which now goes before the people of the Commonwealth for a vote in 2022, establishes a four percent tax on annual taxable income in excess of $1 million. The revenue generated, estimated by the Department of Revenue to be as much as $2.2 billion annually, would fund repair and maintenance projects for roads, bridges or public transportation as well as funding for public education, including support for early education and childcare and public higher education.

"As we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, and prepare for the Commonwealth's long-term success, we must be bold as we strive to create the future we want to see," said Senate President Karen E. Spilka (D-Ashland). "I'm thrilled the Fair Share Amendment has advanced, moving us one step closer to being able to make the critical investments in transportation and education that the public wants and deserves."

"Massachusetts has a bright future ahead of it and the House of Representatives is committed to a continued focus on education and transportation investments," said House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D-Quincy). "Today's vote allows the Fair Share Amendment to be placed on the ballot and put before the people for a vote. This measure is one step in a multi-pronged strategy to make our Commonwealth a more equitable place to live, work and raise a family."

"When the Fair Share Amendment was first introduced in 2015, there were about 15,000 Massachusetts residents earning over $1 million a year," said Representative James O'Day (D-West Boylston), the lead House sponsor of the constitutional amendment. "Now in 2021, there are about 18,000 residents earning over $1 million a year. Clearly, there are millionaires and billionaires who can afford to pay their fair share in taxes, which will support our neighbors and local communities with investments in public education and transportation. Thank you to Speaker Ronald Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka for prioritizing the Fair Share Amendment so early in the session." 

"The Fair Share Amendment once again received strong support from legislators and, in public polling, typically receives support from more than 70% of voters in Massachusetts," said Senator Jason Lewis (D-Winchester), the lead Senate sponsor of the proposal. "The reason it is so popular is that most people recognize that our wealthiest residents can afford to pay a bit more in taxes to fund investments in public education and improving our transportation infrastructure that will grow our economy, expand opportunity, and make our Commonwealth more just and equitable for all."

Should voters approve the ballot measure, the income level would be adjusted annually to reflect increases in the cost of living by the same method used to determine federal income tax brackets. This would ensure that, over time, the additional four percent tax would continue to apply only to the highest earning individuals in the Commonwealth. The tax would apply to all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023. 

The legislature must approve a constitutional amendment in two consecutive joint sessions before the question appears on the ballot for voter approval. The Fair Share Act was approved for a first time on June 12, 2019, in a 147-48 vote. This week's June 9, 2021, vote of 159-41 ensures the proposal will appear on the November 2022 statewide ballot.

Boston Globe coverage (subscription may be required)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/06/09/metro/massachusetts-legislature-cusp-advancing-millionaires-tax-2022-ballot/

CommonWealth Magazine: 2 views on the Fair Share Amendment

 

"THE FAIR SHARE AMENDMENT — which would assess an additional tax of four percentage points on annual taxable income above $1 million and invest the proceeds in transportation and public education — has been discussed and debated for many years. It has been voted on three times in previous Constitutional Conventions convened by the Legislature, and has received strong support every time. In public polling, this proposal typically receives support from more than 70 percent of voters in Massachusetts. 

Together with our colleagues in the Legislature, we will again take up the Fair Share Amendment at Wednesday’s Constitutional Convention."

Continue reading the article online

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/fair-share-amendment-will-make-the-commonwealth-stronger-and-more-equitable/

"AS IT MEETS in a constitutional convention on Wednesday, the Massachusetts Legislature has another opportunity to approve the so-called  millionaire’s tax, paving the way for the measure to appear on the November 2022 ballot.

This latest campaign to make the state’s flat tax into a graduated income tax would impose a 4 percent tax surcharge on incomes of $1 million and more. Six past efforts to impose a similar graduated income tax scheme have failed at the ballot box and, more recently, the state’s highest court rejected it as “unconstitutional.”

Continue reading the article online

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/claims-for-millionaire-tax-dont-add-up/

What's with the "Right to repair"?

"What ever happened to Question 1?

On Election Day, Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly approved this “right-to-repair” ballot initiative. It requires the world’s automakers to give Massachusetts consumers access to a car’s “telematic” data — diagnostic information via wireless connection. The new law, intended to let consumers have their cars repaired at their own mechanics, was supposed to take effect with the coming of the 2022 model year.

But as carmakers crank up production of their 2022 models, the right-to-repair law is in limbo.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents the top US and foreign automakers, filed suit in federal court to block the law, arguing that it conflicts with federal laws governing automotive safety."

Continue reading the article online (subscription may be required)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/05/12/business/will-carmakers-defeat-question-1-court/

In the News: "Mass voters reject ranked choice, but OK car repair measure"

From the Milford Daily News, articles of interest for Franklin:

"Voters of Massachusetts said no Tuesday night to a reform that would have dramatically altered the way voters choose their elected leaders, rejecting a ballot question backed by a who’s who of current and former political leaders from both parties that would have allowed voters in future statewide elections to rank candidates in races with three or more choices on the ballot.

Voters approved the other ballot question, breaking in favor of giving independent mechanics access to wireless vehicle data to repair cars by a 3-1 margin, according to incomplete and unofficial returns.

Supporters of the auto repair question said their win at the ballot box would ensure that consumers can get their car or truck repaired wherever they want, but even after conceding defeat opponents of Question 1 said the Right to Repair Committee failed to show why the change was necessary.

Unofficial results showed voters favoring Question 1 by a 3-1 margin with over 93% of precincts reporting, according to The Associated Press."

Continue reading the article online (subscription may be required)

https://www.milforddailynews.com/news/20201104/mass-voters-reject-ranked-choice-but-ok-car-repair-measure?rssfeed=true

 

For more info on the Nov 3, 2020 election check the unofficial Franklin results on the Town Clerk page  https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerk

 

Franklin voters: Election Day is here

Election Day is here.  Please note the following:
- The drive-thru window will be open until 8 PM on 11/3
- Ballots sent via USPS must be postmarked by 11/3
- The white mailbox will be checked for the FINAL time at 8 PM on 11/3
- Polls will be open at Franklin High School from 7 AM - 8 PM

Other election information can be found here

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2020/11/franklin-voters-election-2020-reminders.html

or on the Town Clerk page https://www.franklinma.gov/town-clerk

 

 

Franklin voters: Election Day is here

“People see the opportunity to protect the best for our town"

From the Milford Daily News, an article of interest for Franklin:

"Among the questions on the general election ballot is one that is all about benefiting Franklin, supporters say.

The question asks Franklin voters to support adoption of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) for Franklin -- a step that would allow the town to raise money for open space and historic preservation, recreation, and community housing by adding a 2 percent surcharge to property taxes.

If the initiative is approved, the town will join the ranks of 177 other Massachusetts towns that have also adopted the CPA. Additionally, it would make the town eligible for a portion of funds the state collects each year from fees on home sale transactions, to be used in tandem with surcharge funds raised by the town.

The proposed 2 percent surcharge -- minus an automatic $100,000 exemption on residential properties -- would cost about $105 per year for the average Franklin taxpayer. That is based on the town’s average home value of $460,000. Exemptions would be offered for low-income families and moderate-income seniors."

Continue reading the article online (subscription may be required) 

https://franklin.wickedlocal.com/news/20201028/franklin-looks-to-adopt-community-preservation-act-question-is-on-ballot 

Voices of Franklin: James Gianotti Jr - "Just say NO to Question 3"

Who would honestly ask for more taxes in the middle of a pandemic?

Your Franklin's governing body would. It’s much more than just not right its downright shameful to be asking citizens at this time for more money. We all know someone in your family or your friends that are going through what might be the toughest times of their lives and having big challenges with their day-to-day bills. Massachusetts has the highest unemployment in the country and businesses are closing every day. What’s even worse there is no end in sight.

With that I am opposing the CPA for a few reasons. Remember, the CPA can only fund four kinds of things - historic preservation, affordable housing, open space, and parks and recreation projects.  These are all nice to have, but we need to focus on our MUST have list right now – namely schools, police, and fire departments and have compassion for our fellow citizens who don’t know when their next paycheck is coming, Lets also not forget, in addition, to talk about an override vote “soon” to raise town taxes, we are also facing increases to water and sewer costs and a completely new tax (cleverly described as a utility) to fund federally mandated stormwater treatment and mitigation – expected to total something like $50 million dollars over the next several years.

CPA is about “pet projects” not these critical projects that we absolutely must do.

In addition, CPA proponents consistently rely on the most optimistic estimate of how much funding the state will chip in.  Given the condition of the state’s budget and the state, this is probably going to be way off.

So, if we pass CPA, we will be stuck with an additional burden, one that will hit many people when they can least afford it. Consider the example of a couple where both wage earners have been laid off. Maybe they need to downsize and hope the equity they have achieved in their home over the last few years will help them through. Guess what? That’s when CPA will hit them, to the tune of thousands of dollars!  That’s what’s called a hidden tax. You vote for it because it won’t affect you right away, but when it does, it’s a big hit!

Our town is economically diverse. While there may be some families that can easily afford CPA, for most, it could be devastating. Above all, 2020 is not the year to be gold plating town spending and hitting those who can least afford it.

I ask you all to have some compassion for those currently and those that will be fighting for their American Dream during the pandemic.

Just say NO to Question 3

James Gianotti Jr. 

Franklin

If you have something to say, you can find the guidelines here
https://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/03/introducing-voices-of-franklin.html

 

Community Preservation Act Webinar - Oct 15, 2020 (YouTube)

This shares the Community Preservation Act Webinar hosted by the CPAForFranklin group on Thursday, October 15, 2020.

Video link = https://youtu.be/lM5xB9hgiuk 

The webinar agenda doc
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13SXYzw2QJidTitdOKVgrB8Le6I9kdC4x/view?usp=sharing 

The main presentation doc
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_qVhDBTTr3FzfPL6AeftTNiVbAczGJXS/view?usp=sharing 

More about the CPAForFranklin group and the Community Preservation Act can be found at  https://www.cpaforfranklin.org/