« 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 - Franklin 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: # | %

Franklin County Results
« Return to Aggregate Results

 
City/Town Ward Pct Blanks Total Votes Cast
Totals
12,939
16,347
1,124 30,410
Ashfield
 
238
481
26
745
Bernardston
 
435
417
31
883
Buckland
 
343
525
38
906
Charlemont
 
226
285
22
533
Colrain
 
313
413
31
757
Conway
 
247
417
19
683
Deerfield
 
998
1,301
45
2,344
Erving
 
241
391
19
651
Gill
 
280
327
23
630
Greenfield
 
3,682
4,190
431
8,303
Hawley
 
43
65
6
114
Heath
 
90
136
9
235
Leverett
 
221
528
22
771
Leyden
 
140
125
2
267
Monroe
 
48
45
6
99
Montague
 
1,801
2,046
111
3,958
New Salem
 
165
195
9
369
Northfield
 
499
736
45
1,280
Orange
 
1,378
1,190
103
2,671
Rowe
 
70
120
8
198
Shelburne
 
371
510
27
908
Shutesbury
 
146
338
6
490
Sunderland
 
392
870
40
1,302
Warwick
 
102
168
16
286
Wendell
 
125
192
12
329
Whately
 
345
336
17
698
County Totals
12,939
16,347
1,124 30,410