SPRINGFIELD – The community room was standing room only for a pro and con discussion of the four ballot questions facing voters state-wide and as well as Springfield’s fifth question on the adopting the Community Preservation Act.

The forum was sponsored by the Springfield Public Library and the League for Women Voters. 

Ballot Question 1

A “yes” vote would authorize a second slots location.

Stephen Abdow, the CFO of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Massachusetts, spoke against the question. There was no proponent.

Abdow explained the Question 1 is very specific and would allow a second slots parlor – other than the one at Plainridge Park – to be located in revere near Suffolk Downs racetrack.

Abdow said officials in Revere as well as the operators of Suffolk Downs oppose the questions as well as Gov. Charlie Baker and House Speaker Robert DeLeo.

“Let’s let the dust settle [on approved casino projects] before we consider another slots parlor,” Abdow said.

Ballot Question 2

A “yes” vote would approve the state to add up to 12 new charter schools or enrollment expansion in existing schools per year.  A “no” vote would maintain the present cap of four new schools a year.

Jacob Oliveria, the president of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, spoke against the question, while Rachel Romano, the founder and principal of the Veritas Prep Charter School in Springfield, spoke in favor.

Romano, a former Springfield public schools teacher, said charter schools are about “equal access to quality public schools.” She asserted that 50 percent of urban schools are underperforming and “near 100 percent in Springfield.”

There are 3,000 students are waiting lists for charter schools in Springfield and the current cap is “arbitrary.”

She claimed the arguments being used in charter schools are “scare tactics” and that approval of the ballot question “will not open the floodgates for new charter schools.”

Oliveria said the question comes down to equity and accountability. Funding is one of the “greatest challenges” for public school districts and that additional charter schools will affect the amount of money they receive from the state.

He used as an example his hometown of Ludlow where 2,800 students attend charter schools that drew away $400,000. The state does reimburse the districts for the lost revenue; however, the legislature determines from year to year how much that will be. In Ludlow’s case, they received $100,000 leaving a $300,000 deficit.

Oliveria said 170 school committees across the Commonwealth have voted to oppose the initiative.

Romano did acknowledge “there is some loss of funding but it’s exaggerated.”

Romano also contested the idea that charter schools are only accountable to their boards. She said the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education performs site visits and the schools are independently audited.

Oliveria countered that last time the reimbursement amount was fully funded was five years ago. He then went on to say there are a lower percentage of special education students in charter schools than public ones. He added the special needs students in public schools tend to have more severe learning disabilities.

Ballot Question 3

If approved, this law would prohibit breeding pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens from being held in confined spaces. Question 3 defines confined as meaning that which “prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely.” This law would also apply to business owners who knowingly sell pork, veal, or eggs from animals held in this way, even if the source is outside of Massachusetts.

Stephanie Harris, the state director of the Humane Society of the United States spoke in favor of the question, while Diane Sullivan, an anti-poverty activist opposes the measure.

Harris said the legislation is “common sense rules for farm animals” as well as “common sense protections for food safety.” She maintained that cages are too small for both laying hens and pigs to move. She asserted the cages in which female pigs are confined are little more than “living in a coffin.”

For egg producing hens, there have been cases of hens producing eggs while resting on the bodies of dead hens, she added,

Harris said the measure would not affect egg prices greatly – 1 to 2 cents per egg – and that many egg farmers have already moved to a cage free format of producing eggs.

Sullivan said Massachusetts is already one of the most expensive states in which to live and that 700,000 people are on some sort of public assistance. This initiative is “working hard to steal away” a source of protein from the poor: eggs.

She said in California, where all eggs are produced cage-free, the cost has doubled, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. Sullivan maintained the ballot question would only affect one farm in the state that is producing pork.

She charged that opponents have said low-income people don’t care about animals and “that is ludicrous.”

The Massachusetts farm Bureau Federation is opposed to the question, Sullivan said. Farmers in Massachusetts have been pressed by hate mail, she added.

Ballot Question 4

Question 4 would legalize and create a commission to regulate marijuana in Massachusetts. Currently, marijuana is only permitted for medicinal purposes. Under the new law, Individuals at least 21 years old would be able to use it, grow it, and possess it. The measure stipulates that individuals could possess under ten ounces of marijuana inside their homes and under one ounce in public. They could also grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes. The measure would create a regulatory structure called the Cannabis Control Commission. This body would oversee marijuana legalization and issue licenses to firms that seek to sell marijuana products. Under the measure, retail marijuana would be subject to the state sales tax with an additional 3.75 percent excise tax. If it chooses, a local municipality could add another 2 percent tax. Revenue from excise taxes, license application fees, and fines for minor violations of this law would be placed in a Marijuana Regulation Fund, which would help to pay for administrative costs of the new law. If approved, marijuana legalization would take effect on Dec. 15.

Will Luzier, the campaign manger of Yes on 4 was the only speaker. He said the legislation would “take control of the market” and would “drive down youth access.”

Luzier said right now it is more difficult for a young person to get alcohol than marijuana. Sullivan added there is an element of social justice in the legislation as African-American and Latinos are three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession and seven times more likely to serve time for distribution.

The legislation would allow easier access to marijuana for people who need it for health purposes but who do not want their name to be on a list of users, such as veterans, federal employees people with firearms identification cards and others.

He offered a reason why many police officials oppose the ballot question: “80 years of propaganda is hard to shed.”

Luzier noted that any marijuana product would be labeled to note the strength of its active ingredients.

Community Preservation Act

Both Springfield and Holyoke voters will be considering enacting legislation to create a Community Preservation Act (CPA) in their city. At the presentation, former member of the city’s Historic Commission Ralph Slate spoke in favor of the measure, while Attorney Paul Nicolai spoke in opposition.

Slate explained if approved the city of Springfield would add a 1.5 percent property tax surcharge starting July 1, 2017. The first $100,000 in property value would be exempted and only the remainder would be affected. With the value of the average home in Springfield at $134,000 the additional tax would be $10 a year.

There are exemptions for a number of taxpayers, Slate added.

That money, when matched with state funds, can only be used to create or restore parks, playgrounds, and bike paths; create community gardens and preserve conservation areas; restore historic buildings and create programs that help create housing or assist first-time home buyers.

Slate noted that about half of the communities in the Commonwealth – 161 – have adopted the CPA.

Nicolai said, “The CPA is a tax and in Springfield we already pay among the highest tax rates in the state.” He added the city is the second poorest in the state and has the second lowest median property value.

He charged the CPA would be a “slush fund” to be used to fix the Campanile clock tower, a project that is being pushed by City Council President Michael Fenton.

“The problem here is a question of priority,” Nicolai said.

Slate disputed the Campanile is a priority and said that way the CPA is written, “there is protection from the mayor and the City Council” in approving projects.

Nicolai added he thinks, “the exemptions are essentially sham.” He questioned if anyone would go through the process to save between $10 and $80.