Question 6 (Nature Fund)

Progressive Mass has no formal position on Question 6. We polled our members, and no position reached our 60% endorsement threshold. 

Here are the best cases for YES and NO, as submitted by our members. 

Six reasons why you would vote YES on 6: 

• The Commonwealth has never adequately funded conservation or environmental programs, leaving state agencies and conservation programs short of resources. A yes vote on Question 6 will enable the Commonwealth to protect and improve wildlife habitat, protect and improve water resources, open spaces, improve biodiversity and climate resilance.

• Big picture, spending tax money on conservation initiatives is progressive. Saving the environment saves lives, remediates climatic damage and makes the planet liveable for those of us who live here.

• Passing this ballot question will send a strong message to the legislature that the people of Massachusetts want more protection of nature including clean drinking water.

• Massachusetts has historically underspent on environmental conservation and protection. The ballot initative is a blunt tool to give a signal to the legislature on need to increase resources in this area.

• Guaranteeing that some state funds go to support the environment in various ways will do much to enrich our state and nature in general, several other states already have such funds and have found them successful.

• Conservation and recreation generate tourism dollars. Clean air and water benefit human health and yet, caring for our collective lands is usually a low priority compared to law enforcement and other priorities. 

Six reasons why you would vote NO on 6:

• Unlike the Fair Share Tax, in this case we are talking about revenues that are already in place, and that we already depend on. Setting aside existing revenues outside a proper budgeting process for ANY goal, no matter how laudable, is poor process. What will be cut in compensation, and how will the decision be made? To put it another way, where do we find the dedicated funding stream for school lunches, public housing, universal pre-K, legal assistance for immigrants, public health, and domestic abuse programs? Ballot Question 6 is not an environmental justice proposal. It is, on the contrary, a tunnel-vision solution to a very real problem that throws every other real problem Massachusetts residents face under the bus. We need to grow the pie for critical services, not pick a fight with our friends for a bigger piece of what’s there.

• We need more funding for conservation, but this zero-sum proposal divisively pits conservation against all other needs in the Commonwealth. Earmarking a whole category of revenue for one need and leaving it up in the air which other budget areas this money will be taken away from is a bizarre way to go about this.

• This removes autonomy and flexibility to address the needs of the state through existing legislative process. Land conservation, while laudable in abstract, is a major contributor to high housing prices and the difficulty of building more housing. Paying for conservation easements for farms, for example, subsidize largely non-productive agriculture while simultaneously depriving towns of revenue-generating land and land for building housing. It’s actually a deeply anti-democratic move to remove normal appropriations to this separate committee!

• Funding for conservation, recreation, and clean drinking water is extremely important. However, MA funds so many public services that are critical for residents’ well-being: public education, health care, transit, housing stability, and more. When federal funding and our economic situation is so uncertain, we need flexibility to respond to new funding needs. Additionally, shifting funding decisions from the legislature to the executive branch (with all 15 members accountable to the governor) reduces democratic accountability.

• We should be imposing additional surtaxes on billionaires/centi-millionaires/large multi-national corporations rather than siphoning pre-existing funds from the general population of the Commonwealth.

• Even though the dedicated funds are small, dedicating existing revenue through ballot initiative is a terrible practice and precedent. particularly now, dedicating existing funding stream when already not enough funding to cover existing services is a bad practice