Editor’s note: For details on the Massachusetts ballot questions, see Ballotpedia.org.

To the editor:

Vote “yes” on question 4 and give all workers the right to earned sick time.

Currently, one million workers in Massachusetts cannot earn sick time. Earned sick time improves employee retention and productivity. Employees who work for employers having 11 or more employees could earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per year. Employees working for smaller businesses could earn and use up to 40 hours of unpaid sick time per year. Earned sick time can be used for the employee’s own health needs or the health needs of a family member such as a child, parent, spouse or parent of a spouse. It can be used for recovery from a physical or mental illness or injury, preventive care or medical appointments and to address domestic violence needs within the family.

Earned sick time provisions protect employees from losing their job or being punished just for using their earned sick time. This would help our state’s workers, businesses, and economy. While Massachusetts has near universal health care, 1/3 of workers can’t access that health care without the risk of losing their jobs. This gives all workers the right to maintain their wellbeing and that of their families. Businesses would benefit from healthier, more productive and more loyal employees, while the reduction in worker turnover also generates big savings for business.

New York City, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and Newark all have earned sick time laws in place. California, Eugene, Ore., San Diego, and several cities in New Jersey have recently passed laws to ensure earned sick time for employees.

Sincerely,

Gary Davis
21R Camp Lane

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Editor’s note: For details on the Massachusetts ballot questions, see Ballotpedia.org.

To the editor:

Voting “no” on Question 1 keeps the gas tax indexed to inflation as adopted by the State Legislature.

Fifty-three percent of Massachusetts bridges alone are now structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, making Massachusetts second worst among the 50 states. Twenty-seven bridges have been closed because they are unsafe. The ten busiest structurally deficient bridges in Massachusetts carry more than one million cars per day. Roadway conditions are a significant factor in one-third of all traffic fatalities. According to current legislation, the turnpike toll revenue may decrease substantially when the western Massachusetts tolls are phased out in 2017.

Last year, the legislature voted to increase investments in our entire transportation system with the passage of a transportation financing bill that raised the gas tax for the first time in 22 years. According to the private Tax Foundation, Massachusetts ranks only 29th of all states for 2013 gas tax rates.

Investments in transportation infrastructure supports thousands of jobs. And every $10 million we invest in public transportation generates $30 million in increased business sales. A good transportation system drives our economy. We can’t afford not to invest in transportation.

Sincerely,

Gary Davis
20R Indian Camp Lane

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

To the editor:

Massachusetts is fortunate in having an array of smart, hardworking citizens who are willing to run for public office. This is certainly the case for the upcoming November 4 midterm election. Struggling through the complexities of campaign speeches and analysis, I find it sometimes difficult to sort out fact from fiction, well supported accusation from malicious innuendo or affront. The Baker/Coakley race is no exception, but after careful thought, I have determined to support Martha Coakley. Here’s why. I have summarized my thoughts into four categories, each based on evidence that I have found to be persuasive.

Character: Coakley has grit, sometimes called good old-fashioned pluck, and determination. The evidence is there in her feisty comeback from her 2010 election defeat, and the lessons she has learned about humility and taking nothing for granted. She also has integrity as demonstrated throughout her career. I am confident that she won’t answer to special interests, whether locally based in Massachusetts, national or global. Moreover, she doesn’t prevaricate or avoid making comments on “hot” topics such as the behavior of Roger Goodell, the National Football League Commissioner, when confronted with domestic violence issues on the part of football players. There are, in addition, no questions about her ethical positions on matters such as those her opponent faces in regard to his relationship with General Catalyst.

Leadership and Style: On the personal side, Coakley has the capacity to focus, to hone in on a problem, and to deal with it incisively and effectively. She is a clear, analytical thinker who can go to the heart of a matter with alacrity. She has practiced those skills for years, and the results show not only in her job performance but also in the way she handles questions in interviews and debates. She clearly has the intellectual, managerial, political and leadership attributes to be an effective governor.

Vision: Coakley is committed to all the people of Massachusetts. To borrow a phrase from the Berwick candidacy in the Democratic primary, “all means all.” Coakley has made a big effort to reach out and to really listen to all the citizens of this state. She clearly wants a more inclusive Commonwealth. That vision is reflected in many of the policies she is advocating in areas of health, education, regional economic enhancement and opportunities for women.

Specific policies: The policies Coakley advocates reflect a concern for fairness and opportunity for all. She does not deal in generalities; she offers specific recommendations. For example, her position on early childhood programs would provide pre-school education for more than 17,000 Massachusetts youngsters who are at present on waiting lists for such opportunities. Policy recommendations on closing the wage gap for women and reducing domestic and sexual violence are not mere platitudes but are linked to specific steps for implementation. In the health arena, assuring access to earned sick time would vastly help Massachusetts citizens across the board. Promoting educational opportunities in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) along with expanded vocational education would benefit wide swaths of the Massachusetts public.

In sum, for me, Martha Coakley is offering a coherent package in which her vision—one that I firmly support—is buttressed by specific, relevant policy recommendations. Her character has been tested through long years of public service and several rigorous political campaigns. She has long developed and demonstrated the requisite skills for effective leadership. I’ll vote for Martha Coakley for governor for all the reasons noted above—and more, and I hope that readers of The Lincoln Squirrel will too.

Sincerely,

Barbara Slayter
7 Trapelo Rd.

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Editor’s note: For details on the Massachusetts ballot questions, see Ballotpedia.org.

To the editor:

Vote “yes” on ballot Question 3 expanding prohibitions on gaming.

By creating a dependency on casino revenue, states become stakeholders in the gambling industry itself, obligated by necessity and self-interest to ensure and maintain casino profits. But casinos are failing. Nine out of 12 casinos in New Jersey have filed for bankruptcy and closed due to 35 percent loss of earnings between 2012 and 2013.

Some other points to consider:

• In 1999, the federal government advised states to stop building casinos because of an already oversaturated market. Moody’s recently downgraded the casino industry’s outlook from “stable” to “negative.”
• “Host communities” do not witness economic development spin-off because casino operators do everything they can to keep customers in the casino rather than patronize neighborhood businesses.
• Casinos do not create high-paying long-term jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual salary of gaming service employees and dealers is less than half the $41,000 casinos claim. Construction jobs only last for a few years.
• The social burdens of gambling, addiction and crime fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, and minorities. They spend a higher portion of their income on gambling. Today, 30 percent of Atlantic City residents live below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate of 13.8 percent is the highest in the country.
• Crime, including embezzlement, robbery, DUI, aggravated assaults, domestic violence, sex trafficking, and public corruption increases right after casino is built, and continues to increase after that. Local communities have to pick up the tab.
• State and local “leadership” and host communities refuse to consider the related cost of casinos to Massachusetts taxpayers. Based on experience of other states, the social cost in fighting crime and addiction, the cost of a new regulatory bureaucracy and the cost in lost lottery revenue would surely exceed the casino revenue. Cities, towns and taxpayers will suffer in the long run.

Compare all of that to the recent Assembly Square development in Somerville that is projected to create 9,700 permanent jobs, 10,300 construction jobs and will use only about one-third the land area. That sounds like a better choice to me.

Sincerely,

Gary Davis
20R Indian Camp Lane

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Editor’s note: For details on the Massachusetts ballot questions, see Ballotpedia.org.

To the editor:

Voting “yes” on the Question 2 (the beverage container deposit law or “bottle bill”) will expand coverage of the current deposit law to include water, juice, sports drinks and other non-carbonated drink containers.

We recycle 80 percent of containers with deposits, but only 23 percent without deposits. The majority of these are plastic, which is over 90 percent petroleum-based. Boston Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham (“Bottle bill foes hope you buy in,” September 14) says, “Don’t fall for it, people,” referring to the ads opposing Question 2.

This law would keep billions upon billions of plastic bottles out of landfills (and oceans) is all about protecting you and Mother Earth. Massachusetts consumers buy 3.5 billion drinks in on-the-go containers each year. Only one-third of those are recycled—enough to fill Fenway Park. The types of drinks covered by this ballot question were not even around when the original bill was passed 32 years ago. Furthermore, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection found no difference in cost of beverages between states with expanded bottle deposit laws and those without.

The Boston Globe (“Advertisements with inaccurate data aid foes of wider bottle law,” October 3) says the $8 million in advertisements being paid for by the American Beverage Association and large supermarket chains about Question 2 include false statistics and claims. Specifically:

• Only 47 percent of cities and towns provide curbside recycling, not 90 percent as the ad claims.
• Non-deposit containers outnumber deposit containers 3 to1 in litter found in public parks even though they only make up 40 percent of the market.
• The majority of beverages covered by this expanded container deposit law are sold and consumed away from the home and thus have no recycling.
• 62 percent of voters supported Question 2 until the false advertisements started to run. Since the false ads started, support has dwindled to 33 percent.

Sincerely,

Gary Davis
20R Indian Camp Lane

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.