| TOP STORIES AROUND THE COUNTY |
Voters to Decide Ballot Questions, Elect PresidentStaff reports
iBerkshires
12:29AM / Monday, November 03, 2008
A record turnout is expected for this presidential election — some 30 percent of the electorate may have already voted by Monday evening — which, in turn, should pump up voting on state races and initiatives.
When Massachusetts voters get their turn at the polls on Tuesday, they'll have to decide three ballot initiatives, the most important being whether to eliminate the income tax.
The polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. To find the polling station in your area, click here.
Need a ride? Several organizations are offering rides to the polls for those in need.
Adams: The Adams Council on Aging is offering rides between the hours of 9 and 2 on Tuesday. Call 413-743-8333 between those hours today to schedule a ride.
North Adams: Call Berkshire Rides before 2 p.m. today to schedule a free ride. Contact Mandy at 413-664-0300 before 2 p.m.
Williamstown: The Council on Aging van will be making two trips beginning at 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Tuesday. Residents must call van driver Kathy Vareschi in advance at the Harper Center at 458-8250.
Dress Appropriately
Residents are reminded not to wear any campaign paraphernalia — T-shirts, buttons, stickers, etc. — into the polling stations. It is against state law to "campaign" within 150 feet of a polling area.
On the Ballot
Question 1
The controversial Question 1 would eliminate the 5.3 percent state income tax over a two-year period.
Advocates say it's the only way to force state government to cut waste and that it will mean thousands more in citizens' pockets and spur job creation. They say it won't mean cuts in services or raises in property taxes because the budget is full of fat.
Opponents say the initiative will cut the budget by 40 percent and devastate local aid, education and social services. The savings for residents will be minimal, they say, because local governments will be forced to raise revenue through fees and property taxes.
State and local officials, the Berkshire Chamber of Commerce, Northern Berkshire United Way, and the boards of Berkshire Community College, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts and Elder Services of Berkshire County are among those on record against the measure.
Voting yes will cut the state income tax to 2.65 percent the tax year beginning Jan. 1, 2009, and eliminate it the following year.
Voting no will not change the income tax.
Question 2
This measure would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of mariujuana and, instead, institute a system of civil fines.
Police would confiscate marijuana weighing an ounce or less and the possessor would face a fine of $100; those under 18 would also have to complete a drug awareness program. If they didn't complete one, they could face penalties up to $1,000. Their parents would also be informed. It wouldn't change penalties relating to driving under the influence.
Proponents say the measure would save up to $30 million in arrest costs and remove the threat of jail, loss of student loans and other sanctions. It would also end the creation of a permanent criminal record that creates obstacles to housing and employment. They say 11 other states have similar laws and have shown no increase in marijuana use.
Opponents say the law would endorse substance abuse and criminal activity by emboldening drug dealers. They say today's marijuana is far more potent than that of 30 years ago and is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco. It also is a primary factor in juvenile hospital admissions, and its users are 10 times more likely to be involved in automobile crashes. And since state law already requires judges to dismiss charges and seal records of first-time offenders, decriminalizing is not necessary to protect errant young people.
Berkshire County District Attorney David F. Capeless, the Massachusetts District Attorneys, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs associations, and many health care, education and local leaders oppose the measure.
Voting yes will decriminalize possession of marijuana weighing an ounce or less; it will not affect penalties related to drug dealing, DUI, manufacturing or other drug-related offenses.
Voting no means no change to the current criminal laws.
Question 3
This proposal would effectively end greyhound racing in Massachusetts and affect the last two dog tracks in the eastern end of the state.
It would prohibit any dog racing where bettering or wagering would occur and the Racing Commission from approving any racing date. Violations would mean civil penalties no less than $20,000. The change would take place effective Jan. 1, 2010.
Proponents say the measure would put an end to a cruel and inhumane sport that kills or injures hundreds of animals a year.
It is supported by the Massachusetts Society for the Protection of Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, the Republican of Springfield, major animal shelters and community leaders.
Opponents say dog racing is a tradition in the state for more than 70 years. The industry is well regulated and the dogs well cared for, they say, and given up for adoption when their racing days are done. Passage of the proposal would the loss of 1,000 jobs and millions in badly needed revenue for the state; it could also lead to lawsuits from the tracks for taking property.
State/Local Races
There are only two races on the Berkshire County ballot.
Democratic incumbent John W. Olver of Amherst is facing off against Republican challenger Nathan Bech of West Springfield to represent the 1st Massachusetts District in the U.S. House.
Democratic incumbent John Kerry of Boston is being challenged by Republican Jeff Beatty, a security expert, of Gloucester and and Libertarian candidate Robert J. Underwood, a computer analyst, of Springfield for the U.S. Senate.
Incumbent Democrat and attorney Thomas T. Merrigan of Greenfield is being challenged by Republican and veterans services officer Michael Franco of East Longmeadow for the 8th District seat on the Governor's Council, which advises on judicial appointments. The 8th District includes all of Berkshire County.
All other state officeholders are running unopposed.
President
Voters will choose to elect one of six (yes, six) presidential contenders on this year's ballot.
It's been pretty hard to avoid the candidates from the two major parties: U.S. Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and John Biden of Delaware are on the Democratic ticket; U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska are on the Republican ticket.
Don't like either party? Well, in Massachusetts you can also cast a vote for:
Constitution Party: Chuck Baldwin, a Florida minister and talk show host, and Darrell Castle, a Tennessee attorney.
Green/Rainbow Party: Cynthia McKinney, former Georgia congressman, and Rosa Clemente, hip-hop activist and journalist.
Libertarian Party: Bob Barr, another former Georgia congressman, and Wayne Root, entrepreneur
Independent: Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez |
Your Comments
iBerkshires.com welcomes critical, respectful dialogue. Name-calling, personal attacks, libel, slander or foul language is not allowed. All comments are reviewed before posting and will be deleted or edited as necessary. Comments are closed for this article. If you would like to contribute information on this article, e-mail us at info@iBerkshires.com |
| Berkshire residents are known for their independent thinking and community spirit. They are not known for throwing 1,000 hard working men and women out of work because Animal Rights activists are of the opinion that dog racing is abusive. The trainers love their dogs. As far as claims of abuse go, nothing could be further from the truth. Please carefully consider the issue and its consequences, and hopefully you will agree that the logical vote is NO ON 3. | | from: Daniel Jones | on: 11-03-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
Wonderland is not guaranteeing it will return next season. The fact that it is not defending the tracks during Question 3 debates points to a pretty strong argument that they will not return or are testing the waters.
Remember that the Wonderland kennel operator, Mr. O'Donnell has confirmed that he cages dogs for 18 hours per day and that tying dogs to trucks to run behind them is a form of acceptable practice. Organizations around the Commonwealth, including the MSPCA have tried to change the laws to protect the dogs and after little acceptance from the Racing commission (the Racing Commission wrote the rules and regulations not the MSPCA and HSUS) they are left with one opportunity - a ballot question. If anyone wants to speak against the ballot then speak to the tracks because they brought it on themselves. And now they shift in different directions to combat numbers that they recorded themselves and gave to organizations like Grey2K, HSUS and the MSPCA.
Vote Yes on 3! The tracks have had 70 years to get their acts together and they remain cruel and inhumane warehouses of cages for dogs.
Stop the suffering and remember that the tracks manipulate the numbers from skewed staff numbers to misleading reports to shady math.
Vote Yes on 3! Save the Dogs! Do the right thing.
| | from: GreyhoundTrainer | on: 11-03-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
My voice is for the children!
Save the children - My vote is for McCain/Palin -Pro Life!!
and It frightens me that a candidate running for President of the US refuses to say the Pledge of Allegience and is telling us what we want to hear, pacifying us..!
Editor: We welcome opinions from voters supporting their candidates. However, we feel compelled to point out inaccuracies in postings: Sen. Obama says the Pledge of Allegiance. And, like all Americans, he has the freedom not to.
| | from: Mom | on: 11-03-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
To the fine people of Massachusetts.
On Tuesday November 4, you will again be asked to decide the future of greyhound racing here in the bay state.
At this time I am asking you to PLEASE VOTE NO on question 3 for the following reasons.
*****
In my opinion measures such as this one should be decided by examining the arguments being made by both sides, especially those who are seeking a change in the law, which in this case involves those pushing to have greyhound racing banned, and see whether they have merit. Certainly not on radical knee jerk emotion.
Remember folks that your decision here could adversely affect the employment of over 1,000 of your fellow citizens during a time of financial instability, including not only those employed by the race tracks themselves, but also those employed at businesses in the vicinity of the racing facilities who currently benefit when racing takes place.
*****
Just as back in 2000, those pushing for passage of the measure are again attempting to paint the greyhound racing industry as cruel and abusive, using several of the very same allegations they used 8 years ago.
Among their claims being recycled in 2008 is that greyhounds spend a great deal of time in cages that (in their view) are too small.
The primary problems with this argument IMO are that ...
A) While cages are uniform in size, greyhounds vary, and if the "too small" claim held creedance, it would affect the performance of the greyhounds based upon size with the largest greyhounds being the most affected. ( It's not happening folks, the big greyhounds win just as much as their smaller counterparts.)
and
B) By nature greyhounds are short duration predators who spend most of their time conserving their energy and "charging up their batteries" for the chase by resting. Which is why greyhounds spend most of the day in their personal "crates". It is by their nature that they sleep up to 20 hours or more a day, and a sleeping greyhound doesn't necessarily need a bed that is several times the size of what they are currently accustomed to.
and most of all ...
C) There is absolutely NOTHING is the legislation to be created by passage of this measure which addresses how greyhounds are to be housed.
Not to mention that the very same group responsible for the bulk of the referendum's financing, the Humane Society of the United States clearly advocates confining dogs as follows ...
It is clearly stated on the hsus website that ...
"Your dog's crate should be just large enough for him to stand up and turn around in"
and that one should ...
"choose a crate size that will accommodate his adult size"
This clearly suggests that the hsus intends such cages to be used throughout a dogs life and not just as a temporary training measure while the dog is a puppy.
Certainly a bit of hypocrisy on behalf of those pushing to end greyhound racing now isn't there? On one side of the coin claiming that confining a dog in a small cage constitutes cruelty while on the other hand endorsing the very same practice they are alleging as being cruel when it is being used by those who they happen to be involved with venues they are opposed to .
********
One primary difference here in 2008 however is that referendum pushers have this time created a laundry list of injuries from official reports as required per Chapter 128C: Section 7A of the Massachusetts laws, cleverly manipulating the information provided by the race tracks to suit their needs and have added it to their repertoire.
However before anyone jumps to a conclusion that injuries incurred by greyhounds warrants shutting down the industry, or indicate any negligence on behalf of track personnel, especially in association with statements made by referendum pushers such as "Over 800 greyhounds have been seriously injured in the past few years", one should perhaps consider the following.
The modus operandi of those pushing for passage of question 3 primarily involves attempting to create an impression in voters minds that the greyhound racing industry does not care about the welfare of animals.
However folks when it comes to greyhounds being injured consider the following which occurred long before the existence of grey2k and their campaigns against greyhound racing.
Back in the early 1990's the management of Lincoln Greyhound Park in Rhode Island (Now called Post Time) where many Massachusetts greyhounds have competed over the years in various racing events decided one winter, at significant cost, to replace the racing surface of their facility with an alleged improved configuration designed to better handle winter weather conditions. Within a few weeks following its installation the "new" surface was removed and "old" surface replaced when it was discovered that the "new" surface resulted in a spike in the number of greyhounds being injured.
If the greyhound racing industry didn't care about the welfare of greyhounds as referendum pushers attempt to profess, a track wouldn't eat over $100,000.00 and remove an expensive new track surface that unfortunately did not serve the best interest of the greyhounds who run on it.
Please Don't Be Deceived
VOTE NO ON 3 !!! | | from: Tim4Trout | on: 11-03-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
| Please vote No on Question 2. It's even more reckless than Question 1 as it put young people in danger of drugs. The combination of no money from taxes for programs combined with more readily available drugs would be deadly for Massachusetts. Please think twice and vote no on 2. | | from: stephan | on: 11-03-2008 12:00AM
I Agree (0) - I Disagree (0) |
|
|
Advertise on iBerkshires.com
|
