19

THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, OCTObER 7, 2022 Page 19 BEACON | FROM PAGE 9 strengthen our economy by investing these funds to improve educational opportunities for all students and help rebuild our aging transportation system,” said Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester). “Question 1 is a win-win for Massachusetts: only people who earn more than $1 million annually will pay more, and 99 percent of us won’t pay a single penny more,” says Jeron Mariani, campaign manager for Fair Share for Massachusetts. “And we’ll all benefit from $2 billion every year that’s constitutionally dedicated to schools, colleges, roads, bridges and public transportation. That’s why thousands of educators, workers, small business owners, parents, faith leaders, municipal officials, drivers and transit riders are working together to pass Question 1.” “How many times do voters need to reject a graduated income tax before the insatiable Takers accept their decision?” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, which led the opposition to and defeat of the last two attempts to impose a graduated income tax in 1976 and 1994. “They won’t be satisfied until they drive out the productive and strangle the golden goose to death.Then who’ll they pillage?” “Question 1 is one of the state’s highest-ever proposed tax increases at a time when our state already has the biggest budget surplus in its history,” said Dan Cence, spokesperson for No on Question 1. “Proponents claim that it will raise taxes only on Massachusetts’ highest earners, but in reality, Question 1 would nearly double the income tax rate on tens of thousands of small business owners, family farmers, retirees, homeowners and other Massachusetts residents. We feel strongly that Massachusetts voters will recognize the harm that this tax hike will have on our economy and vote No on Question 1.” “Voters must decide this November, if they will go along with the Legislature’s very deceptive ballot question, which gives them a blank check to spend the new tax on anything they want,” said Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “The deceptive ballot question hopes to raise the income tax by 80 percent on some taxpayers and small business owner that want to retire and sell their business. If taxpayers think an 80 percent income tax increase is just too high, they can send the clearest message this November and vote ‘No’ on Question 1.” Here’s the official arguments of the supporters and opponents as they appear in the Redbook – the book, distributed by the Secretary of State to households across the state, that provides Information to voters on ballot questions. IN FAVOR: Written by Cynthia Roy, Fair Share Massachusetts FairShareMA.com “By voting Yes on Question 1, you will make sure that the very richest in Massachusetts—those who make over $1 million a year—pay their fair share. Current tax rules allow multimillionaires to pay a smaller share in taxes than the rest of us. Question 1, the ‘Millionaires’ Tax,’ will make the extremely wealthy pay an additional 4 percent on the portion of their yearly income above $1 million. The additional money is constitutionally guaranteed to go toward transportation and public education. Question 1 means every child can go to a great school. We can fix our roads, expand access to vocational training, and make public colleges more affordable. Excellent roads and schools help our small businesses grow, create new jobs and build strong communities. Question 1 means creating opportunity for everyone.” Vote Yes on Question 1. Only the very rich will pay—not the rest of us.” AGAINST: Written by Paul D’Amore, Small Business Representative Coalition To Stop the Tax Hike Amendment www.NoQuestion1.com “Question 1 nearly doubles the state income tax rate on tens of thousands of small-business owners, large employers and retirees. Question 1 treats one-time earnings—the sale of homes, investments, businesses, pensions and inheritances—as income. This would suddenly force many residents into the new, very high tax bracket, depleting the nest eggs of small-business owners and longtime homeowners whose retirement depends on their investments. Record inflation, supply chain difficulties, and continuing COVID-19 issues make now the worst possible time for massive tax increases—especially when Massachusetts already has a giant budget surplus. There is absolutely no guaranteed revenue from this huge tax hike would actually increase spending on education and transportation. Politicians are giving themselves a blank check, with no accountability. Organizations representing over 20,000 small businesses and family farmers urge: Vote ‘No’ on Question 1.” Listed below is how your local state representatives and senators voted on the proposed constitutional amendment on June 9, 2021. (A “Yes” vote is for the tax hike. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Joseph McGonagle Yes Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL GRANTS TO PRESERVE VETERANS’ HISTORY – Secretary of State Bll Galvin’s office, in conjunction with the Massachusetts State Historical Records Advisory Board, is offering matching grants of up to $15,000 to cities and towns and non-profit organizations including libraries, historical societies and commissions, muBEACON | SEE PAGE 20 CITY OF EVERETT - LEGAL NOTICE - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 484 BROADWAY EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS 02149 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This notice is to inform you that a public hearing will be held on Monday October 17, 2022 at 6:00 PM, Everett City Hall, 3rd Floor George Keverian Hearing Room. All interested parties may attend and opinions will be heard regarding the following petition. Whereas a petition has been presented by: Property Address: Property Owner: 380 Second Street Map/Lot: K0-06-000041 Conquest Realty Richard A. Badolato, Richard E. Kolinsky Trustees. 380 Second Street Everett, MA 02149 Person Requesting: Mr. Scott Brown 1280 Centre Street Newton, MA 02459 PROPOSAL: To construct a new mixed use residential and Commercial Building with 21 stories and 250’ height. Reason for Denial: • The proposed Left side yard is only 1’-3” wide. • The proposed building height is 250’. • The Floor area ratio is above what is allowed at 9:58. • Parking is not as required. The proposed dimensions for each parking space are 8’-6” x 18’. • The proposed inner court width is 30’. Zoning: Section 33 Commercial Triangle Economic Development District (CTEDD) F: Dimensional requirements line 3, which states the following: Side yard: ten (10) feet; provided, that the planning board may reduce the side yard requirement to four (4) feet by special permit. Section 33 Commercial Triangle Economic Development District (CTEDD) F: Dimensional requirements line 5, which states the following: Height. All buildings shall be limited to a maximum of eighty-five (85) feet. Other structures on the roof shall not count towards the height unless the area of such structures exceeds thirty-three percent (33%) of the area of the roof or any enclosed structure or mechanical equipment exceeds twelve (12) feet in height. The height of any building may be increased to a maximum of one hundred (100) feet upon the grant of a special permit. Section 33 Commercial Triangle Economic Development District F: Dimensional Requirements line 6, which states the following: FAR (floor area ratio). The floor area ratio shall not exceed 3.5:1; provided, that the planning board may increase allowable FAR up to 6:1 by the grant of a special permit. Section 17 Off-Street Parking I, which states the following: Each required car space shall be not less than 9 feet in width and 18 feet in length exclusive of drives and maneuvering space, and the total area of any parking facility for more than five (5) cars shall average two hundred seventy-five (275) square feet per car. Section 8 Courts B, which states the following (as applicable): No inner court shall have a length, which is less than twice its width. No outer court shall have a length, which is greater than four times its width. No court shall have an opening less than its width. No court need extend below the lowest story, which it is required to serve. Widths of courts shall not be less than as follows: No. of stories above the bottom of the court 6 Inner (feet) 32 MARY GERACE - Chairman Roberta Suppa - Clerk of the Board of Appeals September 30, October 7, 2022

20 Publizr Home