Hey, there! Log in / Register
Reviewing the four statewide ballot questions
By adamg on Mon, 11/07/2016 - 11:22am
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Eggs
So WBUR posted an article about how the costs would be too high for poor consumers if the cost per dozen goes up by 50 cents at the high end. With the caveat that I have no perspective on how hard it is to live on SNAP, etc... is that really a huge burden?
MA farmers won't be impacted by this so the only reason to vote no is food costs and they don't seem exorbitant given how much food a dozen eggs is.
You not taking into acount
the fact if supply of cage-free eggs remains flat while legislation artificially increases demand the price increases would be greater that $0.50.
WBUR
I am assuming (perhaps in error) that when WBUR cites an estimated increase in pricing, that is based on some economic calculations. I didn't personally take anything into account, but it'd be pretty poor analysis on their part to just ignore that fact.
Point 2 - 'artificially increases'? You mean like most government laws regulating trade does? Does the minimum wage artificially increase the cost of my pizza? Does the existence of building codes artificially increase the cost of housing in Boston? What a specious phrase.
Not the building codes but the other regs
do, in fact, artificially increase the cost of housing in Boston, San Francisco, you name it.
One Farm
There is a lot of scuttlebutt online about this impacting one farm in Western MA - the Diemand Farm.
If you do a little searching, you can find it and form your own conclusion/opinion.
MA famer(s)
I guess I agree that MA farmerS...with an S, won't be affected, but the article says one MA farmer will. Diemand in Western MA.
I'm voting for the measure, but what is interesting to me is how they are going to enforce the sale of eggs (and pork, etc) that get shipped in from out of state. That's going to take a lot of resources to enforce correctly. Something tells me it won't be.
Why I voted no
And this is why I voted against this one. It seems unenforceable, and a restraint on inter-state trade and therefore likely to be challenged.
Feed those free range chickens some legal mary jane and
maybe they'll be happy and lay more eggs than consumers can handle.
Unlikely that they'd lay more eggs
...because they'll be too lazy to actually do anything. But they'll DEFINITELY be happier. And have the munchies.
I had this internalized debate
I discussed it with people on both sides of the issue, and I was given this example which while as always you have to consider the source, quotes studies from CA that the price of eggs did not fluctuate greatly due to the measure, but rather spiked due to an avian flu outbreak which causes substantial increases in all eggs US wide. Once the effects from the more Macro issue were resolved, the egg prices were in fact lower.
http://kirkpatrickfoundation.com/assets/docs/do_pro-animal_regulations_l...
Apples and oranges?
Were the two measures identical?
Did the CA measure cover out-of-state production as well?
How much of CA's food is grown in state vs. MA?
I'm happy
I'll put in an additional $0.00001 in taxes per year to cover an extra $0.50/dozen of SNAP-purchased eggs if it means healthier and happier chickens laying them.
Voting Yes
First off.. let me go on record that I do not buy cage free eggs or organic products and the like. Kinda think its all a scam.
But I will be voting yes on this because of my farming background. There's absolutely no reason why animals need to be penned up like that. None. No farming reason why. Except maybe having livestock injured which results in non-sellable product, but its seldom happens.
Chickens do not need to be penned up like that. They can roam free in a coop and still lay the same amount of eggs (once a day). The eggs will be the same shape and size. Penning them does not change that. No need at all for them to be like that. None. Not unless you've hyped up with hormones to lay more than once a day, which you shouldn't be doing anyways. The eggs are the same if they are caged or free range. So why not let the chickens be free?
Same with cows, especially dairy cows. No need for female cows to be locked into stocks all day. They only need to be milked once a day. No real reason to leave them like that all day. The cows will willingly (upon being trained to do so) come into the milking station on their own in a line. (if you've never seen a cow milk'd before, it's a a sight). Again no real reason to leave them like this unless you're doing something you shouldn't be doing (like hormones).
"don't seem exorbitant"
I don't think any of us really knows the impact of this law on food prices (which, let's remember, would cover all meat and animal products sold in MA, not just produced here). I do know that for people on fixed incomes, a little means a lot. Now, you can certainly make the argument that chicken drumsticks for 69 cents a pound represent a problem...but people rely on those low prices to survive. If you bump the price of eggs from $2.29 to $2.79, that might not make a dent in your wallet, but it would for some people.
Ballot question booklet
Galvin's office used to mail out a booklet with information on ballot questions, but I never saw one this year. Have they stopped it. or somehow I didn't get one?
Got one- Boston resident
I received one in late Sep\early Oct, though Q5 was not included.
^Same
Got ours in JP. Also no Q5.
Watertown
We got one weeks ago.
You can probably get one at your local library. If not, text of the questions can be found on the Secretary of State's website.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
http://www.wheredoivotema.com
http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/MyElectionInfo.aspx
Didn't get one - South End
n/t
Yep got mine too
Here's Galvin's website with ballot question info:
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele16/ballot_questions_16/ballot_questio...
voter information
I think Question 5 is a Boston-only issue related to the CPA; the Voter Information Guide is a statewide resource that doesn't include local referenda.
Question 2.... WHAT?!
"As it stands no more than 120 charters are allowed to open up shop in the state, there are currently 78 charters in operation..."
What was that about long waitlists and not enough charter schools...?
Can someone bridge the gap on this...?
Separate but related....someone is REALLY lying
Pro Question 2: "It doesn't take money away from the public schools."
Anti Question 2: "It takes money away from the public schools."
Someone is lying out their turd-cutter on this one.
Simple arithmetic
The state pays about $15K per year to put a kid thru a public charter. BPS, for example, spends $18K. Plus BPS spends about $7k-9k more for pensions, retirement bennies, capital expenses and more. Public charters have to use part of their $15k to rent their schools. Regular publics effectively get their schools for free.
Do all the math and it costs about $10k per year more in a public than in a charter. Iincluding transport, we spend about $150 million to educate the 8100 students in Boston's charters. Putting them back in BPS would cost well over $200 million.
Draw your own conclusions about who's lying.
Oversimplified Arithmetic
Remind me to avoid letting you do my taxes.
Many charters save money in ways that hurt education - like hiring unqualified people and dropping them in the classroom to burnout. They also boot kids who are "underperforming" at test time (like, say, kids on IEPs that cost more to educate). I personally know at least three kids who fell afoul of this Pump Up The Test Scores nonsense.
There are some good ones out there, but the beancounters tend to dumb them down in short order. That and high turnover of staff.
As for your "savings", you have massively oversimplified everything and you know it. Public schools aren't free - unless they are heated by your magic beans and cold fusion.
I don't do taxes
I do investments. Pretty well I might add.
As for your comment, the "unqualified" teachers seem to be doing a pretty good job at least here in Mass and especially in Boston.
Keep hearing that stuff about kids getting tossed at test time. Sounds debatable at best. At least two sides to that story, maybe three if you count the students.
As for oversimplifying - actually not much. Check back when you figure out how Mass school districts do their accounting. Heating is part of their operating costs (included in cost per pupil). Things like new boilers are capital costs, totally separate municipal budget. Things like new boilers installed in a new school are generally state funded and an animal unto themselves.
Unless you are a charter. Then to the best of my knowledge it's all in your operating budget, including rent. Bottom line - amazing results on a shoestring which is why the teachers union is throwing everything they can at defeating this, including the repeated massive lie about $400 million lost to charters.
Where is the question
There are caps in certain communities and restrictions on opening charters. So in Boston and other high need/demand communities you can't open a charter due to the cap. There is room to open charters in other communities, but apparently not enough demand to stimulate supply of a new school. Many fear the new limit of 12 schools per community, but it's unlikely you would even be able to open 2-3 per year in Boston because quite simply it's too damned hard to open a charter in Mass, as it should be. Even if you could find the students, you have to find teachers and staff which is REALLY hard and likely effectively caps expansion well below 12 per year.
Not only can they not open
Not only can they not open one, they can't expand any of the existing charters. Take Conservatory Lab, a charter where they offer something that would be very difficult to do within BPS and it has had great results. Many parents would love to see their kids go there through 12th grade and continue with their traditional and music education but the cap is limiting any possible expansion.
It's a shame the legislature punted this and now it is an awfully-crafted ballot question. I am skipping this one because a yes or a no vote hurts as many kids as it helps.
And yet ...
The state somehow approved 1,100 new charter-school seats in Boston this year.
I can support legal pot, but
I can support legal pot, but I can't support pot culture. I'm voting No.
Is it the hacky sacks?
Have to admit they're keeping me on the fence...
Pot culture
I understand where you're coming from, but for me it's about not being hypocritical. If a thing isn't overly dangerous (and less dangerous than already legal things) it shouldn't be illegal. As much as I don't want to smell pot smoke while just walking down the street, there's just no logical reason it should be illegal. There are plenty of "cultures" or subgroups I think are dumb, or annoying, or even bad; but I wouldn't support making their thing illegal. I think vape culture is moronic, but I don't think it should be illegal.
Question 4
Funny story. I smoke on occasion, but my roommate does not like me smoking in the house so I use my screened in porch. He often complains about the smell when I come inside (its the one thing he doesn't like about about pot).
So I told him.. "don't wanna smell it anymore, make sure you vote yes on 4 so I can buy vapes and edibles over the counter legally"
He seemed to buy that argument :-)