Brewster Commission Weighs In On Ballot Question 6

BREWSTER – Brewster’s Natural Resources Advisory Commission last week discussed a November statewide ballot question that, if approved, would funnel more Commonwealth general fund money to local and statewide land and wildlife conservation efforts. 

At issue is Question 6, a petition to establish a “Nature for All Fund” initiative, on the Nov. 3 ballot. 

A “Yes” vote on the measure would support creating the Nature for All Fund that would be then used solely to support statewide nature conservation efforts.

It would require that before July 2028, 50 percent of the tax revenue from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses be placed in the fund; and that after July 2028, 100 percent of such tax revenue would be earmarked for the fund.

“No” votes on Nov. 3 would oppose creating the fund and thus continue to place those revenue sources into the general fund.

At the Brewster Natural Resources Advisory Commission’s Oct. 8 meeting, Chair Kimberley Crocker Pearson pointed out that there are “zero, no new taxes associated with Question 6. A yes vote on Question 6 establishes this Nature For All Fund, which is designed for natural resource conservation. A no means the taxes that you are already paying will not be going for natural resources. So, no new taxes, money specifically earmarked for natural resources conservation.”

Commission member Rob Michaels asked if there were specific funding offsets that would occur if the recreational tax revenue were dedicated to the new fund.

Brewster Natural Resources Director Chris Miller asked Pearson a clarifying question before that issue was settled.

“That’s the question. They’re collecting these taxes now on the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses,” Miller said. “Are the taxes earmarked already to somewhere else, or is it just the general fund?”

“General fund,” Pearson said. 

Miller then concluded, “Then it’s just coming off whatever [the legislature] decides to appropriate it to, no designated use.”

Commission member Ron Slowek pointed out there are legal precedents in other states for measures such as Question 6, and Miller made sure commission members and any listeners understood a taxation issue.

“This is not an additional tax on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses,” Miller said. “We’re not taxing additionally. It’s the same tax. Because that’s sometimes a rallying cry. No, you’re going to make it more expensive [to buy equipment].”

The commission did not formally weigh in collectively on Question 6, but Pearson made her position clear.

“I’m not telling anyone how to vote,” the chair said. “But vote yes on 6.”

According to Ballotpedia.org, several groups have come out in favor of the measure, but at least a couple are opposed. Ballotpedia lists the Massachusetts Republican Party and Americans for Tax Reform as two in opposition. 

The Republican Party argues, according to Ballotpedia, that “Earmarking dollars for a single purpose reduces the flexibility lawmakers need to address the Commonwealth’s most pressing priorities each year.”

Per Ballotpedia, those who favor Question 6 include Mass Audubon, which states the measure would “dedicate more than $100 million every year for the fund without any increase in taxes,” and Nature for Massachusetts, which argues, “Nothing is more important than having clean drinking water.”

The Massachusetts Voter Guide also offers pros and cons: 

Its “against” position read: "The proposed law creates an unstable fiscal framework by permanently earmarking up to 100 percent of state sales tax revenues from sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses. The proposal would rely on existing state revenue streams that are currently allocated to other ongoing programs and priorities. Implementation of the measure would require the reallocation or reduction of funds presently directed toward other state initiatives, raising questions of opportunity costs and the potential displacement of existing infrastructure and environmental funding priorities. Even if approved by the voters, the funds may not be allocated to the ‘Nature for All Fund,’ as the legislature retains exclusive authority over appropriations decisions. This constitutional framework ensures that funding decisions remain subject to annual budget deliberation and fiscal prioritization. The proposed law, as written, raises questions regarding fiscal impacts, programmatic displacement, and constraints on administrative flexibility.” 

The Voter Guide’s “for” position read: “We all need clean water and nature. Voting yes on 6 protects water, land, and wildlife in Massachusetts — without raising taxes. Voting yes dedicates as much as $100 million/year to: protect clean drinking water; prevent flooding and storm damage; reduce pollution in rivers, lakes, and the ocean; create and improve parks, trails and greenspaces for public use; and conserve forests, family farms and natural wildlife habitat. Question 6 doesn't raise taxes or create a new tax. It dedicates the sales tax we already pay on sporting goods to protecting water and nature, and requires strict oversight and annual reporting so we can see how funds are spent. Massachusetts is home to beautiful natural areas and diverse species of birds, fish and other animals. That's why 90-plus local conservation organizations and businesses support yes on 6 to permanently protect our rivers, lakes, forests, farms, and wildlife habitat for future generations to enjoy.”