Page 16 THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, OCTObER 16, 2026 BEACON | FROM PAGE 14 Keohane continued, “Opponents insist this is a budget cut which it clearly is not. This simply limits how much we can grow revenue year to year. Furthermore, their position that this benefits the wealthy is patently false. Under a 2023 change in Massachusetts law, refunds are required to be distributed equally among eligible taxpayers. The proposed ballot measure does not change that. We are excited with the direction of the campaign. Every public poll has shown us with a significant lead and the interactions we have with voters reflects it. We have been doing dozens of regional forums, interviews and meetings. In each one, the response has been phenomenal because people want money back in their pockets.” WHAT OPPONENTS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL “As voters learn about the negative consequences Question 5 would have for Massachusetts, they’re increasingly seeing through the spin from the anti-government multi-millionaires who paid to put Question 5 on the ballot,” said Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for Protect Massachusetts’ Future. “Question 5’s reck~ Legal Notice ~ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT MIDDLESEX, ss Docket No: MI26E0055PP To Luis E. Umana of Gardner, in the County of Worcester, in the and to all other persons interested. A petition has been presented to said Court by, Aparicio Umana ,of Everett, in the County of Middlesex, representing that She holds as a joint tenant a 50% undivided part or share of certain land lying in Everett, in the County of Middlesex, and briefly described as follows. SOUTHWESTERLY by Nichols Street, 55 .25 feet; NORTHWESTERLY by Lot Al on said plan, 96.9 feet; SOUTHWESTERLY again by Lot Al on said plan, 2.3 feet; NORTHWESTERLY again by Lot Al on said plan, 25 feet; NORTHEASTERLY by land now or late of Lovejoy, 20 feet; SOUTHEASTERLY by land now or late of Bennett, 39 feet; NORTHEASTERLY again by land now or late of Bennett, 38.08 feet; and SOUTHEASTERLY again by Lot B, shown on said plan, now or late of Ida. H. Reed, 79.94 feet. Said parcel contains 5,254 square feet ofland more or less. Setting forth that the petitioner desires that all said land may be ordered to be sold at private sale Or Public auction, for not less than ($1,229.000.00) ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS, and praying that partition may be made of all the land aforesaid according to law, And to that end, that commissioner be appointed to make such partition and be ordered to make sale And conveyance of all, or any portion of said land which the court finds cannot be advantageously Divided, either at private sale or public auction, and be ordered to distribute and pay over the net proceeds therof in such manner as to make the partition just and equal. If you desire to object thereto you or your attorney should file a written appearance and answer in said Court at Woburn before ten o’clock, on the third day of November, 2026 the return date of this citation. Witness, Honorable Terri L. Klug Cafazzo, Esquire, First Justice of said Court, this twenty-second day of September, 2026 TARA E. DeCRISTOFARO REGISTER OF PROBATE COURT October 02, 09, 16, 2026 less revenue limit would force repeated cuts to state and local public services, leading to layoffs for teachers, nurses and firefighters.” Farnitano continued, “Occasional tax rebates won’t make up for the fact that Question 5 would make healthcare, childcare and housing more expensive for Massachusetts families. Question 5 would give repeated tax rebates to the rich while the rest of us suffer the pain of budget cuts, and it would severely limit the state’s ability to recover from recessions. Question 5 is great for multi-millionaires who don’t rely on public services, but it would be terrible for the rest of us.” WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES: A “Yes” vote would limit state revenue to the net amount of state revenue from the prior year, increased by a rate equal to the average growth of wages and salaries in Massachusetts over the most recent three years and return the excess amount to taxpayers. A “No” vote would make no changes to the laws governing the amount of revenue the state can collect. BALLOT QUESTION 6 – Here is a look at Question 6: QUESTION 6: THIS PROPOSED LAW WOULD ESTABLISH A “NATURE FOR ALL FUND” THAT WOULD RECEIVE 50% OF STATE TAXES COLLECTED FROM THE SALE AND USE OF SPORTING GOODS, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND GOLF COURSES FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF ITS OPERATION AND 100 PERCENT IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS. This question asks voters if they approve of establishing a “Nature for All Fund” that, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, would receive 50% of state taxes collected from the sale and use of sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses for the first year of its operation and 100% in subsequent years. The proposed law would allow the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to spend the money in the fund for natural resource conservation and would also allow public and private donations to the fund. Natural resource conservation would include the conservation or restoration of land to protect drinking water, streams, rivers, lakes, coasts, farms, forests, connectivity between open spaces and lands and natural resources of indigenous cultural significance, as well as the creation, improvement and management of parks, trails, greenspaces and outdoor recreation access. WHAT SUPPORTERS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL “Mass Audubon, the Trustees, the Conservation Law Foundation and more than 125 organizations across Massachusetts support Question 6 because we see an urgent need to protect clean drinking water, preserve forests and wildlife habitats, build more trails and parks, and increase access to the outdoors and nature for everyone in the commonwealth,” said Andrew Farnitano, a spokesperson for Mass Audubon. “Question 6 would dedicate funds from the existing state sales tax we already pay on sporting goods like camping gear, golf clubs, and fishing equipment to a new “Nature for All Fund,” without raising taxes one cent. That means as much as $100 million each year — just 0.16% of the overall state budget — for permanently protecting and conserving water and nature.” Farnitano continued, “And Question 6 comes with real accountability: a public oversight board that approves all spending and strict annual reporting requirements so the public can see how every dollar is spent. A “Yes” on 6 will permanently protect the places we love by conserving forests, farms and wildlife habitats, reducing pollution in our rivers and streams and creating and improving local parks. I’ll also note that there is no organized opposition to Question 6.” WHAT OPPONENTS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL There is no organized group urging a “No” vote on this question so Beacon Hill Roll Call could not reach out to such a group. Opponents in general said that the law would create an unstable fiscal framework by permanently earmarking 100% of state sales tax revenues from sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses. They noted that currently that revenue goes to existing ongoing programs and that redirecting it would require the reallocation or reduction of funds presently directed toward these other state initiatives, raising questions of opportunity costs and the potential displacement of existing infrastructure and environmental funding priorities. WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES: A “Yes” vote would create a fund that would be utilized for natural resource conservation. A “No” vote would make no changes to the laws governing natural resources conservation. ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL RENAME COLUMBUS DAY (S 2113/H 3292) – A bill sponsored by Sen. Jo Comerford (D-Northampton) would designate the second Monday in October, now known as Columbus Day, as Indigenous Peoples Day and recommend appropriate exercises in schools to acknowledge the history of genocide and discrimination against Indigenous people. Rep. Christine Barber (D-Somerville) filed the same bill in the House. Both bills are tired up in committee and have yet to reach the House or Senate floor for debate and a vote. The measure met the same fate in the 2021-2022 and 2023-2024 Legislature. “Christopher Columbus did not discover the Americas,” said Comerford. “That long-perpetuated myth — rooted in racism and violence — credits a European man with ‘discovering’ a land alBEACON | SEE PAGE 17
17 Publizr Home