Miles of trail twist through thousands of acres of farms, woods and wetlands across Lexington. Every day, residents take in the greenery and autumn pigments from the reflections of ponds and marshes, from summit peaks and between stretches of oak, white pine and maple, thanks to the acquisition of conservation land.
On Nov. 3, Massachusetts voters will decide on Ballot Question 6, a proposal to redirect sporting sales tax revenue to a new “Nature for All” fund for further conservation efforts.
A coalition of over 50 environmental groups across Massachusetts, called the Nature for Massachusetts Coalition, is behind the ballot question. That group estimates the fund would raise $100 million a year to continue preserving wetlands, reduce polluted runoff to lakes, purchase conservation land, improve parks and trails and support other initiatives combating climate impact statewide.
While Lexington’s leading conservationists agree environmental preservation needs more funding, the revenue source proposed in Question 6 remains up for debate.
What is Question 6?
Sam Anderson, Senior Director of Government Affairs for Mass Audubon, one of the eight groups backing Question 6, said environmental funding, particularly for natural resources, is often the first cut and last funded.
“Over the past 20 years, funding for land protection programs out of the capital budget has gone down, despite the fact that the budget has increased significantly year over year,” Anderson said. “We’re trying to sort of reverse a trend.”
Anderson said this ballot question would protect that funding. His team researched alternative sources of funding and landed on sporting goods, golfing and recreational vehicle sales tax revenue.
“We wanted something that would be sort of equitable and not raise prices on Massachusetts residents and taxpayers, and we wanted something that would be impactful,” Anderson said. “The cost of meeting our land goals is humongous, and we wouldn’t want to advocate for something that wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket.”
Question 6 does not create a new tax or add to current taxes, but instead proposes allocating 70% of the revenue raised through sports sales tax to the Nature for All Fund.
The impact of Question 6
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs set out four key goals for biodiversity conservation last summer: protect, restore, sustain and connect. Their 25-year plan outlines steps they’ll take to reach those goals, such as removing 10% of dams and establishing a Local Biodiversity Grant Program.
Charlie Wyman, chair of Lexington Living Landscapes, a volunteer group that advocates for sustainable landscaping, said right now, the state is not on track to meet those goals.
“We are not spending anywhere near enough money to get there,” said Wyman, who was also the town’s conservation commissioner and conservation administrator before retiring in 2016.
Wyman said Question 6 could provide the funding to meet the state’s goals, which would also work to reduce chemical pollution of the land that feeds into the Quabbin Reservoir, Lexington’s drinking water source, and local farmlands.
Is Question 6 where conservation should get its funding?
However, Philip Hamilton of the Lexington Conservation Commission said Question 6 isn’t how the state should get this funding.
“Don’t get me wrong, conservation needs additional funding,” he said, “but I don’t see Question 6 as providing that.”
Hamilton said reallocating tax revenue could take funding away from other vulnerable programs, like Medicaid and SNAP.
He also worries that the legislature would end up taking the money back when the budget gets tight, because even if the measure is approved, the legislature has the final say over how money is allocated in the budget.
Instead, Hamilton proposes an increase to the state’s Community Preservation Act (CPA). First passed in 2000, the CPA allows towns and cities to vote to add a 1 to 3% increase on real estate taxes to create a local fund for open space protection, historic preservation, affordable housing and outdoor recreation.
He thinks the cap on the CPA should be raised beyond 3%, and he believes voters in Lexington would get behind that measure.
“That’s a much better way of funding conservation of open space because it doesn’t take — it adds revenue,” Hamilton said.
The CPA has funded the Conservation Commission’s last four to five land acquisitions, Hamilton said.
Question 6 would also establish a public oversight board consisting of five government officials and 10 members of the public to review and approve the division of funds.
Wyman said he believes Question 6 could have a positive impact on Lexington for years to come, noting that it would improve the “quality of life here in town.”
“To provide a state that our children and grandchildren will grow up in with a quality environment, clean water, clean air, parks to recreate in and salt marshes to protect our coasts — for all those reasons, I think [Question] 6 is important,” Wyman said.