OARS, the Massachusetts Rivers Alliance and Sudbury Valley Trustees are urging voters to approve Massachusetts ballot Question 6 on Nov. 3, saying the measure would strengthen land and water protection without raising taxes.
The proposal would establish a Nature for All Fund supported by existing sales and use tax revenue associated with sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses. The share would be 50% in the first year and 100% beginning July 1, 2028, subject to legislative appropriation and excluding revenue already dedicated to the MBTA and school construction funds.
Mass Audubon emphasizes that the measure uses existing tax revenue without creating a new tax. Spending would remain subject to legislative appropriation. The fund would be overseen by a 15-member board managed by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
The campaign reported more than 125 organizational supporters as of Oct. 13. They include the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust, Concord Land Conservation Trust, Concord Climate Action Network and Walden Woods Project, along with Mass Audubon, The Trustees, the Conservation Law Foundation and The Nature Conservancy. Supporters say dedicated funding would help protect natural areas and improve public access to them.
The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance and Massachusetts Republican Party recommend a no vote. They argue that earmarking existing tax revenue for conservation would restrict lawmakers’ budget choices and put pressure on other state priorities. MassFiscal says spending decisions should be made through the regular budget process.
The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts also opposes the proposal, favoring voluntary private support for conservation and objecting to the creation of a new government board to oversee the fund.
The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts has taken no position. The League says its support for environmental protection is weighed against its fiscal policy opposing the dedication of specific revenue sources to particular purposes.
According to the Boston Globe, supporters have said the ballot question could generate up to $100 million for conservation efforts, while an independent analysis has projected it would be closer to $65 million.
