A ballot question that will go before Islanders and voters statewide at next month’s election would create a new fund that aims to protect nature and create new outdoor recreational areas in Massachusetts.
If passed, ballot question six would establish the Nature for All Fund, which would be sustained by the existing sales tax on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses.
Mass Audubon, with the support of dozens of other organizations, has pushed for the new fund as a way to create a consistent stream of funding to support conservation measures and outdoor spaces as federal and state budgets get squeezed in an uncertain economy.
David O’Neill, the president of Mass Audubon, said the impetus for the ballot initiative came when Massachusetts created climate, biodiversity and open space goals, but had no dedicated funding source to achieve them.
“We knew we needed a dedicated source of reliable revenue that we could call on to help us expand opportunities to protect clean water and natural lands, and improve parks and trails and open spaces,” he said in an interview last week.
Initially 50 per cent of the sales tax on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses would be earmarked for the fund, and starting in July 2028, the entire sales tax earned from those categories would be diverted, according to the ballot question.
An analysis of the ballot question by The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University estimated that, when fully phased in, the fund could earmark $65 million per year.
The Tufts analysis pointed out that figure is far below the estimated $400 million that the state currently spends on wildlife and outdoor programs, though supporters say having these earmarks will still be important moving forward.
The proposed legislation would establish a 15-member board to oversee the fund and establish rules for how the money would be spent.
Five state officials and 10 members of the public would be appointed by the governor. The 10 public members would include representatives of Indigenous and underserved communities, and at least one person with experience in natural resource conservation.
The ballot question has seen support from Island conservation organizations, such as BiodiversityWorks.
“We think that any opportunity to funnel funds directly into land conservation and water… is certainly mission aligned for us,” said Luanne Johnson, the director at BiodiversityWorks.
The Trustees of Reservations, which owns several properties on the Island, was one of the other initial core groups that put together the ballot proposal. The organization’s CEO, Katie Theoharides, emphasized that this fund would be used with existing sales tax.
“This does not raise a new tax,” she said.
The former secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs under Gov. Charlie Baker, Ms. Theoharides said funding for nature and open space is often on the chopping block when belts need to be tightened on Beacon Hill.
That’s what made this fund so important for her.
“We have nothing that goes to pay for the nature infrastructure that we all depend on,” she said. “Envinronmental and conservation spending is the last funded and the first cut in the budget.”
Supporters also said that the environment hasn’t been made a priority under the current presidential administration, prompting them to push the state to get more involved.
“We saw it here in Massachusetts,” Ms. Theoharides said. “Mass Audubon lost a $25 million grant in partnership with the state to protect land all over the Commonwealth.”
Coastal resilience, maintenance of public access and putting more land into conservation were all potential uses for the money that supporters cited.
While most ballot questions at the Nov. 3 election have galvanized official groups in opposition, ballot question six did not garner any opponents when the secretary of the commonwealth was putting together his red voter guide books.
But state budget minders did note that though the fund wouldn’t be a new tax, it would be diverting tax revenue the state has previously counted on. The state legislature’s special joint committee on initiative petitions raised some concerns, though it did not make a specific recommendation.
“A majority of the Committee has raised concerns regarding the structure, scope, and potential impacts of the Petition as drafted,” the committee wrote. “While proponents of the measure assert that it is designed to be financially neutral and does not constitute a tax increase, the Committee notes that the proposal would rely on existing state revenue streams that are currently allocated to other ongoing programs and priorities.”
The committee also noted that even if the ballot question passes, the state legislature still has complete authority over budgetary expenses.
“This constitutional framework ensures that funding decisions remain subject to annual budget deliberations and fiscal prioritization,” the committee wrote. “As such, passage of this Petition would neither guarantee additional funding nor materially change the status quo.”
Ms. Johnson at BiodiversityWorks said she believed that though some of the mechanics of the question may need to be worked out, the fund could allocate more money for Vineyard projects. Even work that improves the environment on Cape Cod could be a boon to Islanders.
“All of that benefits us, too,” she said. “We are essentially downstream from the Cape.”