14

Page 14 THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, OCTObER 23, 2026 Beacon Hill Roll Call Volume 51 - Report No. 42 October 12-16, 2026 By Bob Katzen THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. On November 3, or prior to that for voters who take advantage of early voting between October 17-30, all voters will have the opportunity to vote on nine ballot questions that will become law if approved by the majority of voters. To get on the ballot, the groups backing each ballot question were required to collect and submit at least 74,574 signatures last fall. The Legislature had until May 5, 2026 to act on the proposed law. The Legislature did not act on any of the proposals by the May 5 deadline. At which point supporters were required to collect another 12,429 signatures by July 1, in order to get their question on the ballot. All nine groups gathered suffi cient signatures to get their question on the 2026 ballot. Although neither the House nor Senate voted on any of the nine proposals, the Committee on Initiative Petitions did hold public hearings on the questions. The committee eventually issued a majority report recommending that the Legislature take no action on each proposal. The Legislature never acted on the reports which were simply “placed on fi le,” where they died. Secretary of State Bill Galvin has issued an 88-page book via the U.S. mail and online with details about each question. If you would rather not read the entire 88-page book, Beacon Hill Roll Call continues its look at each ballot question over the next several weeks prior to the election. This week’s report includes Questions 7, 8 and 9. BALLOT QUESTION 7 – Here is a look at Question 7: QUESTION 7: THIS PROPOSED LAW WOULD ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO BE BUILT IN A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA AS LONG AS THE LAND ON WHICH IT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS AT LEAST 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND MEETS OTHER CONDITIONS. This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would allow single-family homes to be built in a residentially zoned area as long as the land on which it is to be constructed is at least 5,000 square feet, has at least 50 feet of land bordering the street, road or public way that it faces and has access to public sewer and water services. It would also allow cities and towns to reasonably regulate certain aspects of those single-family homes, including their height, distance from neighboring buildings, open space, parking requirements and whether they can be rented out on a short-term basis. WHAT SUPPORTERS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL “Massachusetts families need more homes, and a yes vote on Question 7 would provide more housing for young families looking for starter homes,” said Andrew Mikula, the chair of Legalize Starter Homes. “Young people often can’t find homes in Massachusetts to stay close to family or are living with their parents as adults. Building more starter homes has lowered costs in other parts of the country. A series of polls has shown strong support for Question 7, and our broad coalition refl ects the fact that housing aff ordability is both an economic development priority and a social justice imperative. Every city and town will still have control over important regulations including the height of new homes, their distance from neighboring houses, parking, open space and short-term rentals. This is a winwin for working families, young people and seniors who want to fi nd homes they can aff ord in their own communities.” WHAT OPPONENTS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL “Question 7 is promoted as an eff ort to ‘legalize starter homes,’ but this misleading claim ignores the fact that starter homes are already legal, and Question 7 includes no mechanism to ensure aff ordability for fi rst-time buyers,” said Adam Chapdelaine, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. “Instead of serving local communities and young families, this blanket mandate primarily serves the financial interests of developers — a motivation underscored by the substantial funding the campaign receives from real estate interests. Question 7 would bypass local public input, override municipal zoning authority and undermine thoughtful community planning, particularly in the area of local infrastructure. Cities and towns remain committed partners in addressing the state’s housing needs through far more eff ective, collaborative strategies, such as the 21st Century Road to Housing Act and Move-In MA. We believe voters are able to see through the clever marketing and are recognizing that Question 7 is not an effective solution.” WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES: A “Yes” vote would allow single-family homes to be built on lots of 5,000 square feet or more in residential areas, subject to reasonable local regulation of certain aspects of those homes. A “No” vote would make no change to the current law on building single-family homes. BALLOT QUESTION 8 – Here is a look at Question 8: QUESTION 8: THIS PROPOSED LAW WOULD PROHIBIT RETAIL SALE OF ADULT RECREATIONAL USE MARIJUANA. This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would change the type and amount of marijuana that may be legally possessed in Massachusetts by repealing the current laws that legalize, regulate and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana. The proposed law would also permit persons 21 years of age and older to possess one ounce or less of marijuana, including no more than fi ve grams in the form of concentrate and to gift or transfer to another person 21 years of age and older one ounce or less of marijuana including no more than fi ve grams in the form of concentrate. The proposed law would also impose a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana for the possession of marijuana between the weight of one and two ounces. For persons 21 years of age and younger, the proposed law would make the possession of two ounces or less of marijuana a civil infraction subject to a $100 fi ne, forfeiture of the marijuana, completion of a drug awareness program, community service and notifi cation to their parents or legal guardian of the off ense and penalties. The proposed law would also allow currently licensed adult recreational marijuana businesses to apply on an expedited basis to become a licensed medical marijuana dispensary and to sell their remaining inventory of adult recreational marijuana to medical marijuana dispensaries. WHAT SUPPORTERS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL Dr. Jeff rey Morgan, a spokesperson for the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, did not respond to repeated requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him why voters should vote “Yes” on Question 8; why opponents are wrong and are they distorting the truth in their arguments; and how is the campaign for Question 8 going? Morgan did respond to Secretary of State Bill Galvin and his response was included in Gavin’s 88-page book. “Question 8 would keep personal possession of marijuana legal, keep medical marijuana legal and stop commercial marijuana stores,” wrote Morgan. “Marijuana is now the most common drug found in fatal car accidents in Massachusetts and 85% of marijuana users admit to driving after and over 50% drive within an hour or less. Business owners have increased costs from higher rates of workplace injuries, increased healthcare costs and higher turnover. For every $1 gained in tax revenue, taxpayers spend $4.50 to mitigate the eff ects of legalization from societal expenses including increased healthcare, lost productivity and crime (like DUI’s). Modern concentrates and edibles have been linked to mental health conditions like psychosis, severe anxiety and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults. As a result of commercial marijuana, ER visits in Massachusetts have drastically increased for teenagers with psychiatric conditions.” WHAT OPPONENTS TOLD BEACON HILL ROLL CALL “Our campaign is working to protect the will of Massachusetts voters and keep recreational cannabis legal,” said Ryan Dominguez, chair of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition. “In 2016, voters made a clear choice to replace restrictive policies and a dangerous unregulated illicit market with a safe, regulated cannabis market. In the decade since, Massachusetts has built a highly regulated system that prioritizes public health, consumer safety, responsible regulation and equitable opportunities. Repealing recreational cannabis laws will not only take us backwards, it will negatively impact our communities that are already struggling with budget shortfalls. Since legalization, the cannabis industry has brought in close to $2 billion in state and local revenue. The revenue from the Marijuana Regulation Fund, the main fund that receives cannabis revenue, supports public health programs, investments in communities, law enforcement and public safety, as well as regulatory oversight. In addition to the public revenue impacts, it will negatively impact locally owned small businesses that have invested their life savings into building their legal businesses that create jobs and support local economies. Since the initiative passed in 2016, over 400 adult-use cannabis retail locations have opened across the state. These businesses, and the broader industry, support more than 27,000 jobs across Massachusetts. These retailers are an important part of the community. They support local jobs, they support local charities and volunteer opportunities, and they have focused on recruiting, training and employing a diverse workforce, including people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people, women, veterans and minority communities. Those jobs and this community support all go away if this question passes. It will also negatively impact the safety of our communities by pushing consumers back into unregulated markets and eliminating consumer protections. Since legalization, Massachusetts has implemented one of the nation’s most robust regulatory systems for cannabis sales, ensuring products are tested for BEACON | SEE PAGE 16

15 Publizr Home