« Go Back   « Go Back
Summary of Question 1

The proposed law would limit certain taxes, and change laws relating to school budgets and compulsory binding arbitration. It would impose a limit on state and local taxes on real estate and personal property equal to 21/2% of the full and fair cash value of the property being taxed. If a locality currently imposes a tax greater than 2Vi% of that cash value, the tax would have to be decreased by 15% each year until the 21/2% level is reached. If a locality currently imposes a tax of less than 21/2%, it would not be allowed to increase the tax rate. In either situation, a city or town could raise its limit by a 2/3 local vote at a general election.

The proposed law would provide that the total taxes on real estate and personal property imposed by the state or by localities could never be increased by more than 21/2% of the total taxes imposed for the preceding year, unless two thirds of the voters agreed to the increase at a general election.

It would further provide that no law or regulation which imposes additional costs on a city ortown, or a law granting or increasing tax exemptions, would be effective unless the state agrees to assume the added cost. A division of the State Auditor's Department would determine the financial effect of laws and regulations on the various localities.

The proposal would limit the amount of money required to be appropriated for public schools to that amount voted upon by the local appropriating authority. It would also repeal the law which provides forcompulsory binding arbitration when labor negotiations concerning police and fire personnel come to an impasse. In addition, the petition would provide that no county, district, or authority could impose any annual increase in costs on a locality of greater than 4% of the total of the year before.

The proposed law would also reduce the maximum excise tax rate on motor vehicles from $66 per thousand to $25 per thousand, and it would allow a state income tax deduction equal to one half of the rent paid for the taxpayer's principal place of residence.

1980 - Berkshire County - Question 1Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was disapproved by the House of Representatives on May 6, 1980, by a vote of 5-146, and on which no vote was taken by the Senate before May 7, 1980?

View as: # | %

Berkshire County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
38,278
25,479
5,219 68,976
Adams
 
3,197
1,892
326
5,415
Alford
 
124
87
10
221
Becket
 
284
212
35
531
Cheshire
 
900
668
70
1,638
Clarksburg
 
502
333
26
861
Dalton
 
2,194
1,190
92
3,476
Egremont
 
388
245
34
667
Florida
 
194
148
16
358
Great Barrington
 
1,581
1,118
438
3,137
Hancock
 
202
106
16
324
Hinsdale
 
513
313
41
867
Lanesborough
 
920
471
118
1,509
Lee
 
1,528
1,014
302
2,844
Lenox
 
1,797
1,088
250
3,135
Monterey
 
183
210
24
417
Mount Washington
 
27
24
4
55
New Ashford
 
30
64
3
97
New Marlborough
 
277
236
44
557
N. Adams
 
3,563
3,648
487
7,698
Otis
 
231
174
47
452
Peru
 
193
112
7
312
Pittsfield
 
14,481
7,992
2,388
24,861
Richmond
 
630
273
18
921
Sandisfield
 
178
98
35
311
Savoy
 
143
76
11
230
Sheffield
 
712
583
90
1,385
Stockbridge
 
762
582
79
1,423
Tyringham
 
105
92
8
205
Washington
 
147
99
4
250
W. Stockbridge
 
406
283
35
724
Williamstown
 
1,710
1,908
159
3,777
Windsor
 
176
140
2
318
County Totals
38,278
25,479
5,219 68,976