Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

August 30, 2010

Sept 14, 2010 State Primary Candidates (for Cambridge voters)

Filed under: 2010 Election — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:05 pm

Sept 14, 2010 State Primary Candidates (for Cambridge voters)

Governor/Lt. Governor
Democrat: DEVAL L. PATRICK / TIMOTHY P. MURRAY (incumbent) Republican: CHARLES D. BAKER / RICHARD R. TISEI
Green Party: JILL STEIN / RICK PURCELL
(will appear only on the November ballot)
Independent: TIM CAHILL
(will appear only on the November ballot)
Treasurer
Democrat: STEVEN GROSSMAN
Democrat: STEPHEN J. MURPHY
Republican: KARYN E. POLITO
Auditor
Democrat: SUZANNE M. BUMP
Democrat: GUY WILLIAM GLODIS
Democrat: MIKE LAKE
Republican: MARY Z. CONNAUGHTON
Republican: KAMAL JAIN
Green Party: NAT FORTUNE
(will appear only on the November ballot)
Attorney General
Democrat: MARTHA COAKLEY (incumbent)
Secretary of State
Democrat: WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN (incumbent) Republican: WILLIAM C. CAMPBELL
Representative in Congress (8th District)
Democrat: MICHAEL E. CAPUANO (incumbent)
Governor’s Council (3rd District) [Pcts. 9-2, 9-3, 10-1, 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: MARILYN M. PETITTO DEVANEY (incumbent)
Democrat: COREY A. BELANGER
Governor’s Council (6th District) [Wards 1 through 8 (all precincts); Pcts. 9-1, 10-2]
Democrat: SUZANNE R. ENGLISH-MERULLO
Democrat: TERRENCE W. KENNEDY
Republican: PAUL A. CARUCCIO
State Senate
First Suffolk and Middlesex District [Ward 1 (all); Ward 2 (all); Pcts. 3-1, 3-3;
Ward 4 (all); Ward 5 (all); Pct. 8-3]
Democrat: ANTHONY W. PETRUCCELLI (incumbent) Republican: FRANK JOHN ADDIVINOLA, JR.
Second Suffolk and Middlesex District [Pcts. 9-2, 9-3, 10-1, 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: STEVEN A. TOLMAN (incumbent)
Democrat: WILLIAM B. FEEGBEH
Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex District [Pct. 3-2; Ward 6 (all); Ward 7 (all): Pcts. 8-1, 8-2, 9-1, 10-2]
Democrat: SAL N. DiDOMENICO (incumbent)
Democrat: TIMOTHY R. FLAHERTY
Republican: BARBARA T. BUSH
State Representative
Eighth Suffolk District [Pcts. 2-3, 3-3; Ward 5 (all)]
Democrat: MARTHA MARTY WALZ (incumbent) Republican: BRAD MARSTON
Ninth Suffolk District [Pct. 2-2]
Democrat: BYRON RUSHING (incumbent)
24th Middlesex District [Pct. 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: WILLIAM N. BROWNSBERGER (incumbent)
25th Middlesex District [Ward 4 (all); Pcts. 6-2, 6-3; Ward 7 (all); Ward 8 (all); Pcts. 10-1, 10-2]
Democrat: ALICE K. WOLF (incumbent)
26th Middlesex District [Ward 1 (all); Pcts. 2-1, 3-1, 3-2, 6-1]
Democrat: TIMOTHY J. TOOMEY, JR. (incumbent)
29th Middlesex District [Ward 9 (all)]
Democrat: JONATHAN HECHT (incumbent)
District Attorney (Northern District)
Democrat: GERARD T. LEONE, JR. (incumbent)
Sheriff (Middlesex County)
Democrat: JAMES V. DiPAOLA (incumbent)
Coming up in the November 2, 2010 State Election: BALLOT QUESTIONS (Laws Proposed by Initiative Petition)

Question 1: Sales Tax on Alcoholic Beverages

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would remove the Massachusetts sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol, where the sale of such beverages and alcohol or their importation into the state is already subject to a separate excise tax under state law. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2011.

A YES VOTE would remove the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol where their sale or importation into the state is subject to an excise tax under state law.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol.

Question 2: Comprehensive Permits for Low- or Moderate- Income Housing

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would repeal an existing state law that allows a qualified organization wishing to build government-subsidized housing that includes low- or moderate-income units to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), instead of separate permits from each local agency or official having jurisdiction over any aspect of the proposed housing. The repeal would take effect on January 1, 2011, but would not stop or otherwise affect any proposed housing that had already received both a comprehensive permit and a building permit for at least one unit.

Under the existing law, the ZBA holds a public hearing on the application and considers the recommendations of local agencies and officials. The ZBA may grant a comprehensive permit that may include conditions or requirements concerning the height, site plan, size, shape, or building materials of the housing. Persons aggrieved by the ZBA’s decision to grant a permit may appeal it to a court. If the ZBA denies the permit or grants it with conditions or requirements that make the housing uneconomic to build or to operate, the applicant may appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).

After a hearing, if the HAC rules that the ZBA’s denial of a comprehensive permit was unreasonable and not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to issue the permit. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s decision issuing a comprehensive permit with conditions or requirements made the housing uneconomic to build or operate and was not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to modify or remove any such condition or requirement so as to make the proposal no longer uneconomic. The HAC cannot order the ZBA to issue any permit that would allow the housing to fall below minimum safety standards or site plan requirements. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s action was consistent with local needs, the HAC must uphold it even if it made the housing uneconomic. The HAC’s decision is subject to review in the courts.

A condition or requirement makes housing “uneconomic” if it would prevent a public agency or non-profit organization from building or operating the housing except at a financial loss, or it would prevent a limited dividend organization from building or operating the housing without a reasonable return on its investment.

A ZBA’s decision is “consistent with local needs” if it applies requirements that are reasonable in view of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing and the number of low-income persons in the city or town, as well as the need to protect health and safety, promote better site and building design, and preserve open space, if those requirements are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Requirements are considered “consistent with local needs” if more than 10% of the city or town’s housing units are low- or moderate-income units or if such units are on sites making up at least 1.5% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town. Requirements are also considered “consistent with local needs” if the application would result, in any one calendar year, in beginning construction of low- or moderate-income housing on sites making up more than 0.3% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town, or on ten acres, whichever is larger.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A YES VOTE would repeal the state law allowing the issuance of a single comprehensive permit to build housing that includes low- or moderate-income units.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state law allowing issuance of such a comprehensive permit.

Question 3: Sales and Use Tax Rates

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates (which were 6.25% as of September 2009) to 3% as of January 1, 2011. It would make the same reduction in the rate used to determine the amount to be deposited with the state Commissioner of Revenue by non-resident building contractors as security for the payment of sales and use tax on tangible personal property used in carrying out their contracts.

The proposed law provides that if the 3% rates would not produce enough revenues to satisfy any lawful pledge of sales and use tax revenues in connection with any bond, note, or other contractual obligation, then the rates would instead be reduced to the lowest level allowed by law. The proposed law would not affect the collection of moneys due the Commonwealth for sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property or services occurring before January 1, 2011.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A YES VOTE would reduce the state sales and use tax rates to 3%.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales and use tax rates.

Where do I vote?

Comment: My general practice is to leave blank any uncontested race. If you are given no choice, why pretend that you have one? – RW

1 Comment

  1. What a wonderful service! Thank you cambridgecivic.com!

    Comment by Chris Adams — September 14, 2010 @ 9:50 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress

%d bloggers like this: