Progressive Massachusetts stands in solidarity with the Boston area Starbucks baristas who are joining together and standing up for their right as workers to form a union.
Our founding belief is that we all do better when we all do better. Labor unions serve as powerful embodiments of that ethos, providing workers with a greater voice and greater economic security through collective agency.
We call upon Starbucks management to accept their workers’ decision to unionize and to refrain from union-busting tactics that pressure workers to vote No. Starbucks has gained a reputation as a socially responsible company, and we ask management to live up to their professed ethos and treat workers asking for a union with respect and dignity, not coercion and retaliation.
For me,
Accountability is Action –
So, take a fraction
Of your time
To learn what is not fine.
Take a stand
And address those in power and make them understand
That all injustice is intertwined.
“Justice is What Love Looks Like in Public.”
This is what Cornel West Said
And why I’ll be dressed in red
On Valentine’s Day
Standing outside the golden-domed State House
In collective action with those who want to show the way,
And be a beacon to help to sway
Those who write the policies.
To teach the leaders that radical love
Must come above
All other reasons why
Leaders guide.
We are done with the seasons of delay.
We will carry our signs that say
We cannot continue on this way.
Without LOVE for all:
Those coming from other places
People of different races
We need to welcome all faces
And face the consequences of income inequality
Of healthcare and education disparity
Housing insecurity, climate change,
Misogyny, and more.
We need to leave the system that pushes us
To consume more and more, and leaves us feeling spiritually poor.
Let us listen to Rebecca Cokley and Brittany Packnett Cunningham and “Spend Our Privilege” whatever that may be:
Health, or wealth, education, sexual orientation, citizenship of this nation,
The privilege of your race, your gender, your abled-bodied personhood
Take that privilege and spend it for the greater good.
It is not the role of the oppressed to address
The injustice that keeps them and us
Hushed. Voices unheard must rise up aided by those who can
Those who can do – Is that you?
It is I and it is why
I keep on writing, calling, showing up.
There is so much to do.
We need systemic change
We need an economy of gift exchange,
Not an economy of extraction, and exploitation, the system that
Created Mass incarceration.
Come to the world with gratitude
Welcome enough,
Stop buying all that stuff.
Know you are enough, you understand.
Lend your heart and hands.
In the words of Melnea Cass:
“If you can’t do great things
Do small things in a great way”
And have a Happy Valentine’s Day.
President Biden, Senator Warren, Senator Markey, all 9 of our US Representatives, and all 37 Democratic members of the MA Senate support allowing eligible voters to register or update their registration at the polls, and yet the MA House remains undemocratically opposed.
During that floor debate, several House Democrats—Assistant Majority Leader Mike Moran (D-Brighton), Rep. Danielle Gregoire (D-Marlborough), Rep. Mike Day (D-Stoneham), Rep. Tackey Chan (D-Quincy), Rep. Kip Diggs (D-Barnstable), Rep. Joan Meschino (D-Hull), Rep. Dan Hunt (D-Dorchester), and Rep. Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston)—spoke against implementing Same Day Registration or Election Day Registration (terms often used interchangeably, but in the context different as to whether or not the early voting period would be included for at-the-polls registration), delivering remarks filled with specious arguments and factual inaccuracies. Their colleagues have given similarly specious defenses of the vote to constituents afterwards. Let’s go through them.
Bad Argument #1: We are already a leader on voting rights.
“When I think about what we have done — pre-registration, where we allow our young kids ages 16 and 17 to pre-register so they automatically are registered — you can go online right now. We require the secretary of state to have an online portal where you can register to vote online. It takes approximately 12 to 15 minutes to register to vote online on your phone. If you’re moving and you need to change your address or change your voter registration address, you can do it online. You can follow your ballot online, much like FedEx lets you track your package. We’ve also done election day audits and early voting by mail. All of these are part of the package we should be very proud to talk about in this Legislature. The very last thing we did, automatic voter registration, might be one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we’ve done relative to voters.” (MORAN)
“We have enacted the most sweeping voter protection laws in the nation. No one is more frustrated about what is going on in this country and the attacks on voting.” (GREGOIRE)
“Based on some of the debate some might conclude we’re sitting in the Georgia State House. We seem to be losing sight of the gains we are making. Our constituents expect us to determine what’s best for here, not other states. Here in Massachusetts, we lead the country in making the franchise available and accessible to all eligible voters. No other state offers pre-registration, mail-in voting, outdoor ballot boxes, automatic and online registration and online updating.” (DAY)
“The gentleman from Stoneham was saying some say this is voter suppression. I say give me a break. Massachusetts has been a leader. I think our work today proves that.” (HUNT)
Massachusetts Democrats often like to describe our state as a leader in small “d” democracy, but it’s a claim in desperate need of a reality check. Massachusetts only began allowing early voting, pre-registration, and online registration after the election reform package in 2014 (we were a late adopter). Massachusetts was not the first state to adopt Automatic Voter Registration; we were the 14th. Our 20-day voter registration cutoff puts us to the right of most states. Eight states mail every eligible voter a ballot, going even further than the mail-in voting reforms discussed in Massachusetts (which, to be clear, have lapsed and which did not exist before 2020).
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Vermont, and Washington have Same Day Registration, Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, and all-mail elections (with the equivalent of in-person early voting with the drop-off centers). DC, Illinois, Maryland, and Michigan have Same Day Registration, Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, in-person early voting, and no-excuse absentee voting. So our current laws, or even the bill passed by the House, do not make us a leader.
But what if we were? What if our election laws were the best in the country? Simply “being better than other states” is not a sufficient benchmark; the question is always whether we are doing all that we can. And we’re not.
Bad Argument #2: It is a solution in search of a problem.
“The very last thing we did, automatic voter registration, might be one of the most impactful pieces of legislation we’ve done relative to voters. We have an opt out system, so when you engage with the Registry of Motor Vehicles or other agencies, you have to tell them you don’t want to be registered. I can tell you when we passed that vote, I won’t divulge names, one of the advocacy groups said to me, “You’re making it very, very challenging for us to make the case for same day voter registration.” I agreed with her then, but I think we have something to do in that direction, and that is what this further amendment is about.” (MORAN)
“I rise in support of the further amendment for several reasons, not the least of which is that the underlying proposals are solutions looking for problems. We do not have a voter registration problem, we have a perception problem here. This past November, in the election, that was historic, only 28.9 percent of registered voters cast a ballot. In the last municipal election before COVID in Marlborough, the turnout was 25 percent… However, enacting solutions to non-existent problems does nothing to change the national discourse. It creates issues and opens us to unprecedented criticism.” (GREGOIRE)
People move, and that includes moving close to Election Day. Especially when our state primary is so close to a major move-in day in Boston (i.e., September 1). The act of moving close to Election Day, or even being evicted close to Election Day, can lead to disenfranchisement if people are far away from their old polling location, and that is an injustice.
Moreover, these arguments are ignorant of the many stresses that working-class people face: planning more than 20 days (or even 10 days) in advance can be difficult for those balancing family commitments and multiple jobs with erratic work schedules, not to mention an array of bills and other responsibilities. Missing deadlines is common (the legislature does it all the time), and managing a deadline that far in advance can be difficult for those with ADHD (one Election Day is easier to get a handle of than the many steps that need to be juggled prior). None of that should make someone less worthy of participation.
Imagine as well how likely of a scenario it could be that someone thought they had registered but, indeed, hadn’t (they already get to fill out a provisional ballot, so why not let them register? ) Or imagine if someone’s pre-marriage or pre-divorce name, or deadname, were the one on the rolls, differing from what they use now and what their ID shows. Or, since poll workers are human, imagine if there was a clerical error in the books. Why should none of this be able to be fixed?
Automatic Voter Registration is great, but it will never capture everyone, both for the reasons stated above and for the fact that not everyone would be interfacing with a designated agency (not everyone has a license!).
That legislators would not see a need for Election Day Registration shows that they are not talking with their constituents with the greatest need. And that’s a problem.
Bad Argument #3: It doesn’t even lead to any demonstrable increases in turnout.
“To the contrary of the lady before me, I found the National Conference of State Legislatures, research from them has concluded that there is no demonstrable increase in voter participation in states that have same day or election day registration.” (GREGOIRE)
From the very website referenced: “There is strong evidence that same-day and Election Day registration increases voter turnout, but the extent of the impact is difficult to conclude. Immediately following the implementation of SDR, states usually see a boost in voter numbers. SDR states also tend to outperform other states in terms of turnout percentages. Many states that have implemented SDR have historically produced higher voter numbers, making changes hard to gauge. Multiple studies place the effect between an increase of 3% to 7%, with an average of a 5% increase.”
Bad Argument #4: We haven’t done the research, and we don’t know the cost and the impact. We need to study this.
“Now we come to the further amendment. The further amendment would call on the secretary of state to create a report. One of the things that having some institutional knowledge gives you is you have some sense of where this comes and where this is going. For years, it was something we talked about, it was debated in bills, but it wasn’t something that we really took in a serious way and did any real prudent research on.” (MORAN)
“When you’re talking about paying for same-day voter registration or the mechanisms you need to put in place and what that means to 351 cities and towns that range in size from 89, which is Gosnell, to Boston, it means very different things to very different cities and towns. What this report would hopefully do is identify some of those challenges that we would have.” (MORAN)
“I think it’s important to get it right and reject the argument this is suppression. It’s not a study in procedure only. It’s a true study. We have 351 cities and towns because when they were founded, individuals in one town got fed up with government, went to the next plot of land and started over. I think it’s important to spend some time and get down to the facts and get it right. The argument that this is voter suppression is not unlike Mona Lisa Vito. It does not hold water.” (HUNT)
The fact that the House has done no research on this issue, if true, is damning. The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on the VOTES Act in May of last year. If cost were a genuine concern, the Committee had ample time to investigate that question. Why does it exist if not to perform due diligence on bills?
Moreover, Same Day Registration has been filed each session at least going back to the 2000s, and it was voted on by the MA Senate in 2007 and 2014 (in both cases, the House refused to take it up). Why did the Joint Committee on Election Laws never collect such desired information in the hearings or meetings in the past? The only logical conclusion is that they never wanted to do it, and that they still don’t.
A “study” that has no deadline and no funding is not a study. Sending a bill or amendment to “study” is a common procedural trick in the Legislature to avoid having to formally vote yes or no. It is done all the time. The House routinely uses “further amendments” (which send an amendment to study) to nullify Republican messaging amendments that Democratic members are afraid to vote on. It gives people the ability to deflect from criticism of having opposed the thing itself: they didn’t oppose it; they just asked for a study. It is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
“I had a chat with the clerk with the city of Marlborough and his assertion was that if we implement same day or election day voting in addition to codifying emergency measures, the additional burden would be a logistical nightmare he was unsure of how it would work.” (GREGOIRE)
“A lot has been said today about clerks. Yes, we do read every single thing you send us. Reading the letters and the communications from the clerk and speaking with the women, the clerks, in my communities, they actually share our commitment to increasing voter access and engaging voters. These women are trained and knowledgeable in every facet of elections, including the parts you don’t see. They are committed to ensuring integrity, making sure it is a smooth easy process. They do a fantastic job. If they are the ones reaching out and asking us to just take a small pause, I think we owe it to them to listen to the people who do this work. I’m asking you to join me in supporting the further amendment.” (MESCHINO)
“In speaking with the clerks in my district, same day registration would be an overwhelming task to add to what is already a daunting process.” (LANATRA)
To the contrary, the Town Clerks’ Association expressed support for Election Day Registration (see their letter here). They disagreed with allowing voters to register at the polls during early voting. We can debate whether or not their opposition has merit (it doesn’t; other states have handled it fine), but the legislators are clearly disingenuous in invoking clerks to cover for themselves.
Bad Argument #6: This would be burdensome for staffing.
“In our caucus earlier, the gentlelady from Gloucester brought up some of the staffing issues and staffing levels that would have to happen in the state to do this. Also brought up was training people to know how to do this correctly. There’s more than 2,000 precincts in Massachusetts and approximately 1,220 polling locations, and there are 391 early voting locations. All of those would need to be looked at to see how they could appropriately carry out the process of same-day voter registration. In many of those locations, they’ve never even considered it.” (MORAN)
“Other issues we need to consider: bilingual residence. How many additional staff do we need across the commonwealth to make sure those people coming in have their voices heard?” (MORAN)
“Those who spend quite a bit of time at polling locations know that there is a challenge regarding staffing election days. The expansion of early voting prompted a lot of questions about staffing. Challenges were met and overcome but it took some time. The same issue applies to linguistic access to polling places, people that you can find on election day to work polls, to talk to people who don’t speak English to help them to vote. I want to have a system where no one is disenfranchised or one that makes people feel small when they have the opportunity to cast a vote.” (CHAN)
If legislators had good faith concerns about staffing, they would have asked for an analysis last year or years prior and made the necessary appropriation. The feigned concern for overworked small towns is undermined by the fact that the House made early voting requirements more burdensome for small municipalities than the Senate did (see the chart below). Having more early voting hours is, obviously, better than having fewer ones, but it demonstrates that staffing is not a genuine concern.
Furthermore, our poll workers, on whom our democracy depends, have to prepare for full turnout every election. We never get close to that unfortunately; turnout more than 50% is often deemed impressive. But what that means is that going into Election Day, we need to assume that everyone who has not yet voted by mail or voted early could show up to vote. The additional voters that EDR could turn out will be small in comparison to that (although meaningful in terms of election results).
Bad Argument #7: We do not have the technology.
“Internet accessibility was brought up by the gentleman from Quincy. There are parts of this commonwealth we have yet to get appropriate access. Are we going to have a closed system, where only clerks are limited to using that system? Or is it going to be held in the cloud? These are lots of challenging things we’ve never really thought about when it comes to same-day voter registration.” (MORAN)
“We do not have a plan before us to equip them with technology and access to the internets [sic] they would need to implement these proposals. We do not have a sense of what it would cost. Our clerks describe a normal election day, charitably, as a nonstop fire drill, sometimes ending days later. Clerks have not been provided with information about these changes. This amendment would do just that. You want same day or election-day voting? Let’s figure it out. That’s what this amendment does. As enshrined in this bill voters may register up to the day before.” (DAY)
Maine has had Election Day Registration since the 1970s, and New Hampshire has since the 1990s. We are no less technologically advanced. It is not a question of technology; it is a question of political will.
Moreover, the small towns in Massachusetts that have bad Internet access (digital inequities are real) are places where voting likely occurs at one location: their city hall—a place that will have decent Internet access. (Additionally, Rep. Day’s comment that “voters may register up to the day before” is factually untrue; the underlying bill only narrows the cutoff period to ten days.)
Bad Argument #8: What if it leads to more people voting in a pandemic?
“What about queuing in line, where there are many people who want to vote but the facility has a queue that can’t build up? What about COVID? What about the next variant? How serious is that going to be? We all took that vote last year. Our clerks and the people that administer our elections are essential workers to us. These are things that we have not really fleshed out or considered when thinking about same-day voter registration.” (MORAN)
First of all, this frames higher turnout as an inherently bad thing, a disappointing thing to hear from an elected.
Second of all, see the comments about staffing earlier.
Third, isn’t the very purpose of mail-in voting and early voting to spread out when voting occurs to avoid lines? This bill is creating less work on the day of by doing so.
Bad Argument #9: People should have to register in advance; it’s a vital step of responsibility and a part of political education.
“It is a privilege and it comes with responsibilities and efforts in registration, in a timely way. We agree that they are benchmarks of our democracy. Forward thinking people of all races walked over the trenches in the South to get here to vote. I am a professional boxer but to have to fight on same day voting is a bit much. I will fight for anyone in the state to vote but I feel that they have to register in time. They have from now until 10 days before our voting day. And then we can give 10 days to mail in or walk in to vote. We have plenty of time to vote and that is the best way to do it.” (Diggs)
“I have a different perspective as a person who in his 20s stood on street corners to register voters. This was some 25 or so years ago today. And in Quincy at the time it was predominantly Chinese and people of color. We had to engage them one on one. I didn’t do this sitting at a fair, it was a direct approach for engagement. Voter education is a large part of voter registration and the need to explain why it is important to register. This is very time consuming. Since my days of registering people in person, new ways have come up. The ability to vote online which at the time websites were not used that much back then, but it is very commonplace now. I never thought that we would have automatic voter registration through the RMV. There are many new ways to cross different barriers. I am concerned about the impact on the underlying amendment because the engagement of registering to vote is a one on one experience. To have the linguistic ability present at the polls to explain to people how to manage a ballot, how to register is important.” (CHAN)
To some extent, the response is the same in #2 about the need that Election Day Registration fills, especially among BIPOC communities, working-class communities, immigrant communities, young people, and renters.
But both of these comments ignore the simple fact that figuring out that an election is happening, finding your polling place, and doing some research on candidates—all things that people who show up at the polls have done—is a demonstration of the very responsibility and political education that they are demanding. To Rep. Chan’s remarks, the work of civic engagement is year-round, and that reality is not an excuse for turning anyone away from the polls.
Bad Argument #10: This would allow voter fraud.
“From my conversation with constituents, there is a sense that same day or election day voting could give a fog of potential nefariousness. I have faith in our clerks and the secretary to have fair elections but I do have concerns over that sentiment, which I believe is false. I’ve heard from constituents who are looking for this underlying amendment and numerous who have great concern.” (HUNT)
It should be beneath any Democrat, and any elected official, to dignify voter fraud myths that have been debunked time and time again and are only ever invoked as a justification for racist and exclusionary policies.
Bad Argument #11: We didn’t have a veto-proof (two-thirds majority) for Election Day Registration, and Baker would have vetoed it.
Several state reps have said this in response to constituents, arguing that they themselves don’t oppose Election Day Registration but that the votes aren’t there in the caucus and they wanted to do something. None of them are willing to name the colleagues that are the roadblocks; they just seek to absolve themselves of all blame.
It is unclear why a study with no funding and no deadline that is never intended to actually happen is the solution to a political question. Given the centralization of power in the House, if the votes are wanted for something, the votes are typically corralled one way or another (when one is in charge, one has many tools at one’s disposal). Framing a fake study as a “consensus, second-best outcome” is an insult to the intelligence of voters, and it also conveniently ignores how many of the people who voted for this study are vehement opponents of Election Day Registration (indeed, almost every Republican voted for it, with the only ones opposing it doing it because they thought even a study was too much).
A Democratic supermajority should not lower its ambitions to cater to a Republican governor, especially now.
Bad Argument #12: If we allowed people to register to vote on Election Day, then people in my district I don’t know—such as college students, recent graduates, renters, working-class people, immigrants, members of BIPOC communities, etc.—might show up to voteand not for me.
No one said this out loud, but it’s the dominant reason why many are opposed. And if they want people not to show up to vote for someone else, they should do the work of engaging with their constituents and welcoming new ones. Indeed, isn’t that what representative democracy is about?
The Common Start Coalition hosted a Round Table Event January 24th to underscore the importance of the Common Start bill (S.362/H.605), a comprehensive, innovative bill that will transform the lives of many families as well as the Massachusetts economy by guaranteeing affordable, high-quality child care and early education for all. Check out this visual to see how many benefits radiate out of this one piece of legislation.
Colin Jones from Mass. Budget and Policy Center gave an overview of recent federal funding. The upshot is that federal relief has not offset the total losses of our child care system during the pandemic. More federal funds are expected but they will constitute a bridge for a couple years until we can develop state funding for the universal child care program.
Representative Katherine Clark spoke of child care as a PUBLIC GOOD. She has been a consistent supporter of accessible child care even before being elected to the U.S. House of Representative in 2013. She explained that lack of available child care costs the U.S. economy $57 billion dollars a year because 30% of families can’t find care for their children. Other developed countries spend about $14,000 per year to subsidize child care while the U.S. spends about $500. She emphasized that our legislators are continuing to fight for adequate funding for child care initiatives.
Parents and educators provided real stories about the realities they face these days. The additional stresses of the pandemic make their needs especially clear.
Naomi Meyer, an attorney at Greater Boston legal Services who helped develop and write this bill, explained that it may take five years to fully implement the legislation but would start by covering the families with the lowest incomes first.
Over the past few years, the Common Start Coalition has done an impressive job of bringing together stakeholders across the state to work on the bill. As Meyer explained, we can’t solve one piece of the puzzle by itself: we will only succeed by bringing parents, teachers, providers, and community members together around a shared vision.
Curious what your new districts will look like when you go to the polls next year? Here’s an overview of how MA’s legislative districts changed. If you don’t see your district on here, that means it didn’t change.
NOTE: All precinct numbering in the below spreadsheets refer to the precincts as they existed 2012-2021. Go here for the new numbering.
Progressive Mass signed onto the following letter about the urgent need to allocate additional funding for emergency rental assistance.
December 20, 2021 Senate President Karen Spilka Speaker of the House Ronald Mariano Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Michael Rodrigues House Ways and Means Committee Chair Aaron Michlewitz Members of the Massachusetts Legislature Governor Charlie Baker Secretary Mike Kennealy, Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development Undersecretary Jennifer Maddox, Department of Housing and Community Development
Re: Take immediate action to allocate additional funding for emergency rental assistance instead of curtailing benefits
Dear Senate President Spilka, Speaker Mariano, Chairperson Rodrigues, Chairperson Michlewitz, Members of the Legislature, Governor Baker, Secretary Kennealy, and Undersecretary Maddox:
The Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) provides critical emergency rent and utility funds to Massachusetts families and individuals dealing with the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. ERAP is a program of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the bulk of funds awarded for Massachusetts residents are administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) through the network of regional administering agencies. The Baker Administration has begun notifying stakeholders that ERAP is projected to run out of funds in just over six months, and that in response, DHCD will begin to wind down key portions of ERAP.
We are alarmed that the state has abruptly decided to ramp down ERAP instead of allocating additional — and available — federal funds to continue this critical emergency assistance. At a time when application numbers are increasing, these changes will place additional burdens on families and individuals already in crisis due to the pandemic. These changes are being implemented on a very short timeline amidst another winter COVID-19 surge, without input from community stakeholders or notice to households counting on assistance to remain in their homes. We are asking you to leverage resources that were provided to the Commonwealth specifically for COVID relief and continue to allocate these critical funds to households in need while minimizing bureaucratic barriers to obtaining funds.
While DHCD is moving forward with multiple, unanticipated changes to ERAP, three policy changes in particular represent a fundamental shift in ERAP eligibility: (1) the recertification process will be eliminated as of January 1, 2022 [1]; (2) most tenants will be unable to apply for future rent assistance from ERAP or the parallel state-funded homelessness prevention program, Residential Assistance for Families in Transition (RAFT), unless they have already fallen behind on rent [2]; and (3) tenants will not be ableto use RAFT after exhausting ERAP benefits. [3]
At the same time, DHCD is planning to implement a decreased cap on RAFT benefits, as required by the Legislature’s language from the FY22 budget. As of January 1, 2022, households only will be eligible for $7,000 in RAFT assistance in a 12-month period, down from the current $10,000 cap. Like the planned ERAP changes, this restriction on RAFT benefits is ill-timed, and will lead to further housing instability at a time of heightened need.
These significant policy changes will add further confusion to an already complex process, causing more applications to “slip through the cracks” and further destabilizing families over the holidays. Taken together, these changes are likely to lead to an increase in eviction filings and displacement. With so much money available for emergency relief, moving forward with these changes would be a disgraceful and unnecessary outcome.
We must not allow the most vulnerable members of our community to suffer when we have the means to prevent it. We call upon the Legislature to take emergency action to access resources from the $2.25 billion remaining from the state’s allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) fiscal recovery funds to replenish ERAP and eliminate arbitrary barriers to access, while also restoring the RAFT cap to $10,000. We also call upon the Baker Administration to cease implementation of these disruptive ERAP policy changes.
During yet another frightening surge of the virus, where positive infection rates have matched January 2021 levels and are increasing, families with children, unaccompanied adults, elders, youth, people with disabilities, and other households at risk of losing their housing must be at the top of our list of urgent priorities.
We look forward to working with you to further promote housing stability, equity, and public health.
[1] Through recertifications, eligible households in need of additional ERAP assistance have been able to request an extension of their approved benefits without falling behind on rent and with fewer administrative and documentation barriers. Recertifications have provided households with up to 18 months of assistance, allocated in three-month increments. This change presents tremendous barriers for tenants who still rely on ERAP for rent, such as those who have not yet found employment.
[2] Tenants seeking rent assistance are currently able to apply and receive upstream assistance before they fall behind on rent. Requiring tenants to have at least one month of arrears (absent an additional housing crisis) will incentivize people to fall behind on rent, straining tenant and landlord relationships and making eviction more likely.
[3] RAFT currently plays a critical role in keeping tenants safely housed by covering expenses not covered by ERAP. Under the new policy, tenants who use RAFT first might still be able to access ERAP, but households who have reached the ERAP limit will be unable to access RAFT. Tenants with pre-pandemic utility debts not covered by ERAP will be unable to access relief. Households are being encouraged to pay for such expenses out of pocket, even when that is not possible based on their resources.
Coordinating Organizations and Contacts Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless Kelly Turley Associate Director kelly@mahomeless.org Massachusetts Law Reform Institute Andrea M. Park Housing and Homelessness Attorney apark@mlri.org Homes for All Massachusetts Isaac Simon Hodes and Rose Webster-Smith Co-Anchors info@HomesForAllMass.org
Endorsing Organizations in Alphabetical Order, as of December 20, 2021 ACE Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. Action for Equity AFT Massachusetts AIDS Project Worcester Inc. Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT) Allston Brighton Health Collaborative Amherst Survival Center Arise for Social Justice Asian American Resource Workshop Asian Community Development Corporation Beacon Communities Behavioral Health Network Berkshire County Regional Housing Berkshire United Way Bethel AME Church – Lynn Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC) Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program
Boston Tenant Coalition Brazilian Women’s Group Breaktime United, Inc. Bridge Over Troubled Waters Cambridge City Councillor Quinton Zondervan Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition Cambridge Residents Alliance CAN-DO Castle Square Tenants Organization Center for Human Development Central West Justice Center Children’s HealthWatch Chinatown Community Land Trust Chinese Progressive Association Christian Community Church City Life/Vida Urbana City of Boston Office of Housing Stability City of Lawrence Mayor’s Health Task Force City of Somerville Clean Water Action Commonwealth Care Alliance Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc. Community Action Pioneer Valley Community Day Center of Waltham Community Labor United Community Service Network, Inc. Congregation B’nai Israel Tikkun Olam Committee De Novo Center for Justice and Healing Domus Incorporated DOVE (DOmestic Violence Ended), Inc. Economic Mobility Pathways (EMPath) Eliot CHS Homeless Services Emmaus Inc. Essex County Community Organization
Evangelizo Family ACCESS of Newton FAMILY Movement, Inc. Family Promise North Shore Boston FamilyAid Boston Father Bill’s & MainSpring First Parish in Waltham, Unitarian Universalist Franklin County DIAL/SELF, Inc. Franklin County Transition from Jail to Community Task Force Gandara Center Greater Boston Legal Services Greater Boston Real Estate Board Greater Bowdoin/Geneva Neighborhood Association Greater Lawrence Community Action Council Greater Mattapan Neighborhood Council Greening Greenfield GreenRoots Grow Food Northampton, Inc. Hadwen Park Congregational Church, UCC HallKeen Management Inc. Harvard Law School Legal Services Center Health Leads Health Resources in Action Healthcare & Human Service Consulting Group LLC HealthLink Heisler, Feldman & McCormick, P.C. Homes for Families, Inc. HomeStart, Inc. Housing Families Inc. Immigrant Service Providers Group/Health International Language Institute of Massachusetts Jay Rose Consulting Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action Jewish Climate Action Network – MA Jewish Family & Children’s Service
Joint Executive Council, UMass Amherst and UMass Boston Professional Staff Union Jordana Roubicek Greenman, Attorney at Law Just A Start Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts La Colaborativa, Inc. Lawrence CommunityWorks, Inc. Lynn United for Change Male Engagement Network Maloney Properties, Inc. Mass Alliance of HUD Tenants Massachusetts AFL-CIO Massachusetts Climate Action Network Massachusetts Coalition of Domestic Workers Massachusetts Communities Action Network Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light Massachusetts Jobs with Justice Massachusetts Law Reform Institute Massachusetts Public Health Association Massachusetts Voter Table Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee Metro Housing|Boston Metrowest Worker Center – Casa My Brother’s Table National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts Chapter Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts Education Fund New England United 4 Justice New Lease for Homeless Families New Lynn Coalition Northampton Survival Center Northeast Justice Center Northern Berkshire United Way On The Rise One Family Our Revolution Cambridge
Partners In Health Peabody Properties Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts Progressive Massachusetts Project Place Project Right to Housing RCAP Solutions, Inc. Reclaim Roxbury Resist the Pipeline Sociedad Latina Somerville Homeless Coalition Somerville Office of Housing Stability Somerville-Cambridge Elder Services Southeast Center for Independent Living, Inc. Springfield No One Leaves Springfield Technical Community College Tapestry Health Tenants’ Development Corporation The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts The Neighborhood Developers Inc. Three County Continuum of Care Trinity Management LLC UHM Properties LLC Union of Minority Neighborhoods United Way of Greater Fall River United Way of the Franklin & Hampshire Region Veterans Legal Services VietAID Waltham City Councillor Jonathan Paz Waltham Public Schools WATCH CDC Western Massachusetts Network to End Homelessness WinnCompanies Worcester Interfaith Y2Y Network
Two weeks ago, the Boston Globe published an article casting doubt on the necessity of the Fair Share Amendment: “Massachusetts has nearly $5 billion in unspent federal stimulus dollars to spread to its residents. At least another $8 billion in aid is coming from the US government to help repair roads, bolster public transit, and shore up the state against climate change. The state’s tax receipts are again running well ahead of expectations.” If we have so much money, the Globe article implies, why would we need a ballot initiative to raise taxes on income over $1 million to fund additional investments in education and transportation?
But such framing is short-sighted, and a new report from Mass Budget explains why: short-term federal money is no substitute for long-term investment. In the report’s own words: “One-time federal funds during the pandemic have been crucial in providing immediate relief and helping recover from COVID, but are insufficient to meet the long-terms needs or close the kinds of gaps in access to transportation and education that the Fair Share Amendment (FSA) seeks to address.”
Let’s break down the key parts of this argument:
(1) Federal funds are inadequate to meet the scale of our transportation needs: “Around the state, 1 out of 11 bridges are considered structurally deficient and public transit systems large and small will see big dropoffs in revenue when the short-term federal relief funding runs out. Regional Transit Authorities, such as the Worcester Regional Transit Authority, have been able to use federal funds to improve service and eliminate fares, which particularly helps low-income riders and people of color. But they lack a way to continue these improvements in a few years when federal pandemic funds are depleted.”
(2) We need both the early investments to start new major transportation initiatives and the continuing investments in their long-term operation: “Ramping up major new infrastructure systems and commitments to more frequent and accessible service on existing systems without a backstop of permanent increases in transportation revenues would set up a funding cliff after federal funds run out. Lawmakers on Beacon Hill are understandably hesitant to invest in new commitments that they won’t be able to sustain.”
(3) Pledging our own investments in transportation will enable Massachusetts to better leverage federal money: “Like with the current Green Line extension that was financed through competitive grants in the 2009 federal stimulus package, states must offer partial state matching funds from state revenues. Winning federal grants will also be easier if the Commonwealth demonstrates a commitment to innovation, repair, increasing transit ridership, and improving the transportation networks that would connect to new federally-supported projects.”
(4) Our investments in pre-K and early education lag behind what’s needed for a strong recovery: “In our research earlier this year MassBudget found the cost of a full, universal, high quality and affordable system for early education and care in Massachusetts was projected at $5 billion above the amount of existing funding at that time….Proposed new federal funding in the “Build Back Better” plan will also likely come with state match requirements, making ongoing state revenue from FSA even more important.”
(5) We need a reliable funding source to deliver on the promises of the Student Opportunity Act: “The SOA creates growing commitments to continue to fund state Chapter 70 support for school districts at this higher level permanently….Back in 2019, the complete figure for increasing Chapter 70 funds under the SOA was estimated at $1.5 billion after 7 years.”
(6) We need a vision for world-class, affordable public higher education, not just temporary band-aids: “Current federal relief funding addresses COVID-era harms such as decreased enrollment, disruption to other funding streams like housing and dining that depend on in-person life on campuses, and some staff layoffs. With additional ongoing revenue from FSA, Massachusetts could start heading towards where we want to go: world-class campuses at UMass/state universities/community colleges, well-supported staff and faculty, and affordable opportunities for students to learn without taking on massive debt.”
If you haven’t yet signed a pledge to be a Fair Share voter next year, do so right now at raiseupma.us/pm!
