—
The Townsman asked the candidates for both of Andover's state representative seats three "Yes/No" questions. Candidates then had an opportunity to further explain their answers. The state primary, to choose one Democrat and one Republican who will be on the general election ballot, is Sept. 14.
Do you support allowing casinos in Massachusetts?
Please explain your views on whether to allow expanded gambling and what limits, if any, you support (up to 100 words).
Should Andover and other communities be able to choose the health-care plan offered its employees without union bargaining?
Please explain your views (up to 100 words).
Do you support Question 2 to eliminate Ch. 40B, the state's primary affordable housing law?
Please explain whether you would seek to change part or all of this law and why or why not (up to 75 words).
-Republicans
Jim Lyons
Casinos: NO
I will vote against any of the casino gambling proposals put forward by the Democrat leadership, whose quick-fix schemes aim to finance their own out-of-control spending. The argument behind casino gambling is that it will generate extra revenue for Beacon Hill; well, I'm not running for representative to rubber stamp such backroom deals cobbled together by lobbyists and politicians. Casino gambling involves a significant change to the social fabric of our Commonwealth. This alteration demands careful study and open debate, followed by popular consensus that casinos enhance, rather than detract from, our state's future. Such an important change deserves a higher motivation than a short-term revenue bail out of Beacon Hill.
Health-care plan choice: YES
[Candidate did not offer further explanation.]
Affordable housing law: YES
I intend to vote in favor of ballot question 2, a proposal to end the state's so-called Chapter 40 "affordable housing" central planning. Chapter 40 empowers the state to impose private developments on local communities, regardless of the needs and wishes of the residents in the affected neighborhoods. Local communities and neighborhood residents are in the best position to determine how much development is appropriate for their area, not an unhealthy alliance between powerful state bureaucrats and major private developers.
-
John Thorlin (R)
Casinos: YES
I would vote against the current proposals for licensing casinos and slot machines, but I support allowing casinos in Massachusetts generally. Allowing citizens the freedom to choose to gamble is the right role for government. It also generates economic activity and creates jobs. However, the current gambling bills promote thinly veiled corruption. Influential Democratic legislators want to license casinos and slot machines for only their districts. They think they can solve the State's fiscal problems by profiting from the vices of their constituents. Their scheme amounts to a pernicious backdoor tax, not a recognition of the freedom to choose.
Health-care plan choice: YES
The state law giving unions veto power over our local employee health insurance plans has contributed to a 150 percent increase in local health care costs over the last 10 years. By comparison, local spending on public safety, education, and infrastructure has increased about 25 percent. The state government can design its health plans without collective bargaining but has prohibited municipalities from doing the same. One of my priorities would be to stop this union giveaway funded by local taxpayer dollars. The Massachusetts Municipal Association estimates this single reform would save localities 4 to 6 percent on health costs.
Affordable housing law: YES
This should not be a partisan issue. Ch. 40B is a poorly structured program that has failed to produce affordable housing. Theoretically, Ch. 40B allows developers to bypass local zoning boards if their projects include a small percentage of affordable housing. Because of the ubiquitous fraud associated with the program, Ch. 40B is really just a subsidy for big developers that eviscerates local control measures. Real affordable housing advocates should support repeal of Ch. 40B.
-
Democratic incumbent Barbara L'Italien
Casinos: YES
I voted for casinos in 2010 to allow MA to keep gaming dollars within the state; to provide construction and service industry jobs; and to increase local aid.
I do not think that casinos are a panacea for our budget issues but do feel that if they are going to happen in MA the state should tightly regulate the industry.
I voted to support consumer protection provisions on-site and around marketing to people on the "excluded person's list". I also voted to include gambling addiction programs in the Mental Health Parity law.
Health-care plan choice: YES
Tough economic times require that everyone must step up and do their part to maximize scarce budget dollars.
I support the concept of allowing towns to choose the "plan design" of their health care programs (determining the co-pay and deductible structure) just as the state is allowed to do.
I voted in 2008 to allow communities to opt in to the GIC insurance plan as a cost saver. Removing the opt-in from bargaining would result in more communities' ability to sign on and reap savings.
Affordable housing law: NO
Chapter 40B has created affordable housing and allowed seniors, young people and families the opportunity to stay in their home community or own a home where they work.
That said, I support the Inspector General's proposal to tighten up the cost certification process to root out developer abuses;
I support broadening what counts as affordable towards the 10-percent requirement; establishment of density guidelines and feel there should be inclusionary zoning which includes greater local input.
