It is not a tax increase
Supporters, the Tufts analysts and Axios say Question 6 does not raise taxes. The state budget office describes it as diverting receipts that now support the operating budget.
Question 6 and the Nature for All Fund
Election 2026 · Question 6 explainer
Question 6 and the Nature for All Fund
Listen: short summary
Election 2026 guide
Short summary read by Kerry Jane. It is not the full article.
Read the summary text
Question 6 is about conservation funding. It would create the Nature for All Fund, paid for by part of the state sales tax on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses. A Yes vote creates the fund. A No vote does not. Supporters say it provides steady money for water, land and parks without a new tax. Opponents say earmarking tax money creates an unstable budget and could displace existing state funding. As of October twenty sixth, the Yes committee has reported about three point seven million dollars, and no committee against is listed. Read the full explainer, with every source and the data, at capeanncurrent.com slash elections. The Cape Ann Current takes no position.
Question 6 asks whether Massachusetts should set up a state fund for land, water, parks and trails. The fund would get part of a sales tax the state already collects on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses. Supporters and the Tufts University analysts say it is not a new tax. The law says the Legislature would still vote on how much is spent. Voters decide on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
Figures in this article were checked against the cited sources on Oct. 26, 2026. Details can change in the final week.
This explainer takes no position on Question 6. It lays out the text, the money, the arguments and the data, and it names the source of every claim.
Election 2026 guide. All nine statewide questions, candidate answers and voting information are on one page. Open the Election 2026 guide
The short version
What voters are deciding, in plain words.
- The question. The official title is “Natural Resource Conservation Fund.” A Yes vote would create a state fund to protect land, water and wildlife (natural resource conservation). The fund would get some of the state sales and use tax collected on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses. A No vote would not create the fund and would not change how sales and use taxes are spent. This follows the Secretary of the Commonwealth's wording in the 2026 Information for Voters booklet.
- The money. Half of the covered tax would go to the fund starting July 1, 2027. All of it would go starting July 1, 2028. Supporters say that could be up to 100 million dollars a year. Tufts University's Center for State Policy Analysis says about 65 million dollars a year once the full share is in place. The state budget office says the law would move “tens of millions of dollars” that now help pay for the regular state budget.
- Who runs it. The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) would spend the money. A 15 member Nature for All Board would write the spending rules. The Governor would appoint 10 of the members.
- Who has the last word. Every part of the law is “subject to appropriation” by the Legislature. That means lawmakers still vote on how much of the fund is spent. The law's text, the Tufts analysis and the Legislature's committee majority all describe it that way. People disagree about what that means in practice.
- The campaign. A ballot committee called Vote Yes for Water and Nature backs Question 6. No committee formed to oppose it. The official argument against was put together by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office.
Words used in this article
Earmark means setting aside money from a tax for one purpose. Appropriation means a vote by the Legislature to spend money. Initiative petition means a way for voters to put a proposed law on the ballot by collecting signatures. Conservation land means land kept in a natural state, such as woods, wetlands and trails.
What is on the ballot
A proposed state law, not a change to the constitution.
Question 6 is a “law proposed by initiative petition.” Backers collected signatures to put it on the ballot after the Legislature did not pass it. If a majority of voters approve it, it becomes an ordinary state law. The petition's own title is “A Law to Protect Water and Nature.” The Secretary of the Commonwealth's ballot title is “Natural Resource Conservation Fund.” Supporters call it the Nature for All Fund.
| Item | What we found | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Initiative statute. It adds a new Section 2EEEEEE to Chapter 29 of the General Laws. | Petition text, No. 25-15 |
| Takes effect | The fund and its 50 percent share start July 1, 2027. A second section removes the words “50 percent of,” so the share rises to the full covered amount, starting July 1, 2028. | Petition text, No. 25-15 |
| Can it be changed later? | Like other state laws, a law passed by voters can be changed by later laws. The petition itself says all of its provisions are subject to appropriation. The coalition behind it says it plans follow up legislation to require that the money be spent on conservation. | Petition text; WBUR, Oct. 6, 2026 |
| Lawsuits or court rulings | We found no lawsuit or Supreme Judicial Court ruling about Question 6. A WBUR story on court fights over this year's questions lists other questions, not this one. Axios reported on Oct. 13 that there were no lawsuits or attack ads against Question 6. | WBUR, July 22, 2026; Axios, Oct. 13, 2026 |
| Ballot position | Sixth of nine statewide questions. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's office set the order. | WBUR, July 22, 2026 |
In short: Question 6 is a regular law with two start dates, July 1, 2027 and July 1, 2028, and no court case has been reported against it.
One legal point matters for the money. Under the state's initiative rules, a ballot question cannot order the Legislature to spend a set amount. WBUR reported that Question 6 therefore cannot require the earmarked money to be spent on conservation. The State House News Service described a legal memo on Mar. 24, 2026. It came from the law firm Ropes and Gray, which worked for the coalition without charge. The memo said “specific appropriations” by ballot initiative are prohibited. It also said that wording like “subject to appropriation” has in some cases been viewed as enough.
What the law says, piece by piece
Funding source, amount, spending, who runs it, oversight and the state budget.
This table follows the petition text (No. 25-15) and the published summary of the petition. The text we read was scanned from a filed copy, so wording can differ slightly. The full text is on Mass.gov, linked in the sources.
| Topic | What the text says |
|---|---|
| Funding source | The fund is credited with a share of state sales and use tax receipts from sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses. The text defines these sales using a standard government list of business types (the 2022 North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS). The fund can also take public and private gifts, grants and donations. |
| Share | 50 percent from July 1, 2027. All of the covered amount from July 1, 2028. |
| What is left out | Sales tax already sent to the MBTA State and Local Contribution Fund (Chapter 10, Section 35T) and the School Modernization and Reconstruction Trust Fund (Section 35BB) does not count. |
| Amount | The law sets no dollar figure. It sets a share. Estimates differ: up to 100 million dollars a year (supporters, in the voter booklet), about 65 million dollars a year when fully phased in (Tufts cSPA). |
| What the money can do | “Natural resource conservation” has six parts. (1) Protect or restore land to protect drinking water and the quality of streams, rivers, lakes and coasts. (2) Protect or restore farms, forests and other land for biodiversity, climate, resilience and environmental justice goals. (3) Create and improve parks, greenspaces, trails and outdoor recreation access, especially in underserved neighborhoods. (4) Protect parcels that connect open spaces. (5) Protect and restore lands and resources of indigenous cultural significance. (6) Pay for ongoing care and management of these places. |
| Who can receive money | State agencies, cities and towns (or groups of them), regional public bodies such as regional planning agencies and water districts, public charities with a conservation purpose, and tribal governments. |
| Who spends it | The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). It may hire staff to manage the fund, with fund money. |
| Who sets the rules | A 15 member Nature for All Board. Five members serve because of their jobs: the EEA Secretary, the Commissioner of Fish and Game, the Commissioner of Conservation and Recreation, the Secretary of Housing and Livable Communities and the state Climate Chief. Ten public members are appointed by the Governor. They must include representatives of underserved communities and of indigenous peoples. They must also include at least one person with conservation expertise. The text does not name a chair, as a state official pointed out at the March 2026 hearing. |
| Rules the board must write | Conservation requirements that follow environmental justice principles. Access to and restoration of lands of indigenous cultural significance. Guidelines for conservation alongside affordable housing development. Guidelines meant to keep fund spending from replacing or reducing spending on existing capital programs. Guidelines on special bonds for conservation. The summary we reviewed does not say how the “no replacing” rule would be enforced. |
| Oversight and reports | Each year the EEA must report to the board, the Environmental Justice Council, the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means and the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. The report covers how much of the spending went to buying or improving land in cities and towns with environmental justice populations. |
| Year end balances | The fund would be exempt from Section 5C of Chapter 29. The published summary says this means the state comptroller (the state's chief bookkeeper) could not move leftover money out of the fund at the end of the year. |
| The state budget | All provisions are “subject to appropriation by the legislature.” The state's Executive Office for Administration and Finance says the law would automatically divert tens of millions of dollars in tax receipts now supporting the operating budget, and that it would have substantial implementation costs. |
In short: the law moves a share of an existing sales tax into a separate fund, names who runs and oversees it, and leaves the actual spending decision to the Legislature each year.
How the money would move, step by step
- 1Shoppers pay the sales tax they pay now. Nothing changes at the register. Supporters, the Tufts analysts and Axios all say Question 6 does not raise taxes.
- 2The state counts the covered sales. The Boston Globe reported on Sept. 17 that the Department of Revenue and merchants do not track sales by product category. New tracking would be needed. The state budget office said a full analysis was not feasible.
- 3A share is credited to the fund. 50 percent from July 1, 2027, then the full covered amount from July 1, 2028, after the MBTA and school building exclusions.
- 4The Legislature decides how much to appropriate. The law says everything is “subject to appropriation.” This is the step that people disagree about most.
- 5The EEA spends it under board rules. Money could go to state agencies, towns, regional bodies, conservation charities and tribal governments. The EEA reports each year on spending in environmental justice communities.
How we got here
From an idea in the Legislature to the ballot.
Legislature and state
Campaign and signatures
Election
The Nature for All bill is filed in two legislative sessions. It never gets a floor vote, according to CommonWealth Beacon.
The Healey administration announces a plan to conserve 30 percent of the state's lands and waters by 2030 and 40 percent by 2050.
A redrafted bill, S.2571, goes to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, where it stays, according to the State House News Service.
Mass Audubon and the Nature for Massachusetts Coalition say they reached their goal of 85,000 signatures for the first round.
The Legislature's Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions holds a hearing. Supporters and state officials testify. Some lawmakers question the need for a ballot measure.
The committee's majority report, reprinted in the voter booklet, raises concerns about moving money away from other programs, including those run by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).
The Legislature does not enact the petition. Backers gather a second round of signatures. Mass Rivers Alliance, which posted campaign updates, said they needed at least 12,429 more.
The Secretary of the Commonwealth's office certifies nine questions for the ballot. Question 6 is the Natural Resource Conservation Fund.
The Yes campaign holds a launch rally on the Charles River Esplanade. Gov. Maura Healey endorses Question 6 on GBH's Boston Public Radio.
The voter booklet reaches homes. Its fiscal statement from the state budget office says a full analysis is not feasible. The Yes campaign chair says he was surprised by it.
Two public polls ask about Question 6. See the data section.
Election Day.
If approved, the fund starts with 50 percent of the covered tax. The full share starts July 1, 2028.
What a Yes vote would bring, and what a No vote would bring
Concrete results, who is affected and what stays the same. Uncertain items are marked.
If Yes wins
- A new state fund. The Nature for All Fund would exist in state law, with its own board, from July 1, 2027.
- A share of one sales tax is earmarked. The sales tax rate stays the same. Part of what the state collects on sporting goods, recreational vehicles and golf courses would be credited to the fund.
- Money for a defined list of work. Land and water protection, parks, trails, stewardship and indigenous lands, with grants open to towns, state agencies, regional bodies, conservation charities and tribal governments.
- Effect on the general budget. The state budget office says tens of millions of dollars that now help pay for the regular budget would be redirected, which would leave less room there. The size of the effect is uncertain because the state cannot yet say how much covered tax it collects.
- Uncertain: total conservation spending. Tufts says the law does not require lawmakers to spend more on conservation. Supporters say a steady source helps, and they plan a follow up bill to require the spending. Nobody can say yet what the Legislature would do.
If No wins
- No new fund. The sales tax on these goods keeps flowing as it does now, mostly to the general state budget and to the MBTA and school building funds.
- Conservation stays in the regular budget and bonds. Tufts puts current state spending on recreation and conservation at about 400 million dollars a year, counting budget and bond spending.
- Budget decisions stay as they are. At the March hearing, Rep. Alice Peisch asked why backers needed a ballot measure when they could ask for money in the budget. Supporters say the Nature for All bill has been filed since 2023 without a floor vote and that conservation funding has been “historically variable and inconsistent.”
- Existing goals continue. The state's 30 percent by 2030 goal stays. A state official told lawmakers the state is “on track.” Mass Audubon disagrees and says reaching it takes at least 350 million dollars a year.
- Uncertain: other funding paths. The Legislature could create a fund or raise conservation money on its own later. No bill to do that was found in our sources.
What stays the same either way
Tax rates do not change. The Community Preservation Act surcharges that Cape Ann towns already collect stay in place. Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grants continue under federal law. DCR keeps running state parks under the state budget. The 30 percent goal for 2030 remains official state policy.
The arguments, in their own words
From the Secretary of the Commonwealth's 2026 Information for Voters booklet. Neither the state nor the Current certifies these claims.
Argument for
- The argument begins, “We all need clean water and nature.” It says a Yes vote protects water, land and wildlife without raising taxes.
- It states, “Question 6 doesn't raise taxes or create a new tax.”
- It says the fund would provide up to 100 million dollars a year for clean water, flood prevention, pollution reduction, parks and trails, and conservation.
Written by Mass Audubon, Lincoln, Massachusetts.
Argument against
- No organized group urged a No vote, so the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office compiled the argument, in part from the Legislature's Majority Report.
- It says the measure “creates an unstable fiscal framework” by earmarking up to 100 percent of certain state sales tax revenue.
- It says the money could displace existing state funding and that the Legislature “retains exclusive authority over appropriations decisions.” It also notes the Majority Report's concerns about DCR programs and the “subject to appropriation” wording.
Compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
The case each side makes in public
People who back Yes say
- Steady money. Katie Theoharides, chief executive of The Trustees and a former state energy and environment secretary, told lawmakers at the March hearing that conservation funding has been “historically variable and inconsistent.”
- A goal without a funding source. David O'Neill, president of Mass Audubon, said the state set climate, nature and open space goals with no dedicated way to pay for them (Vineyard Gazette, Oct. 20). Mass Audubon estimates the 30 percent goal needs at least 350 million dollars a year and says current public investment averages about 25 million dollars a year.
- No new tax. Gov. Healey said “It's no new taxes, OK?” on Boston Public Radio on July 29.
- Other states do it. Ms. Theoharides says Virginia, Georgia and Texas have each dedicated a sporting goods sales tax to conservation (Boston.com). Mass Audubon also cites a study finding that each dollar spent on land conservation returns about four dollars in economic value.
People who have criticized or questioned the measure say
- It may not add money. Evan Horowitz of the Tufts center said the floor could become the ceiling, as with the MBTA earmark created in 2000: “It is too easy for the legislature to use this money, not to increase spending, but just to fund the thing it already funds.” WBUR also quoted him calling the question “either pointless or dangerous.”
- Earmarks tie lawmakers' hands. The Massachusetts Republican Party has posted online that earmarking money for one purpose reduces lawmakers' flexibility each year. The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts is neutral but, WBUR reported, opposes earmarking specific revenues for specific purposes.
- A shaky revenue stream. Doug Howgate, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, called dedicating existing revenue streams “a dangerous road.” John Clavarius of UMass Lowell said sales tax revenue falls when consumer confidence falls, which could leave long projects underfunded.
- The process already works. Rep. Alice Peisch said at the hearing the result is “no different” from the process the state has now. Rep. Michael Day raised concern about special interest money in ballot campaigns.
Who is campaigning, and who has endorsed
| Yes side | No side and critics |
|---|---|
| Ballot committee: Vote Yes for Water and Nature, formed by the Nature for Massachusetts Coalition (OCPF record, as reported by Boston.com). Campaign chair: Sam Anderson of Mass Audubon (Boston Globe). | Ballot committee: none. No organized group submitted an argument against, and no committee formed to oppose Question 6 (Secretary of the Commonwealth; Boston.com). |
| Coalition: Mass Audubon says more than 90 groups and businesses. WBUR and Boston25 say more than 100. The counts differ by source. Steering committee includes The Trustees. | Statements: the Massachusetts Republican Party has posted against it online (Axios; Boston.com). The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts is neutral. |
| Endorsers named in coverage: Gov. Maura Healey, Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, former U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, former state environmental secretary Bob Durand, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Law Foundation and local land trusts. The Essex County Greenbelt Association posted on Sept. 26, 2026 that it supports a Yes vote. | Analysis and concerns: Tufts Center for State Policy Analysis (published an analysis of the earmark); Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (warning about earmarking existing revenue); the Legislature's committee majority (concerns about displacing funding). |
| Not endorsed as of Sept. 17: the Sierra Club's Massachusetts chapter and the Environmental League of Massachusetts, according to the Boston Globe. | Money raised for No: no committee registered with OCPF, so no money to report. |
In short: a large coalition and the Governor back Yes. No committee opposes it. Analysts, a state finance research group, a political party and some legislators have raised concerns about earmarking.
Money raised
| As of | What was reported | Reported by |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 26, 2026 | Vote Yes for Water and Nature: 3,732,847 dollars received in 2025 and 2026 combined (1,380,279 dollars in 2025 and 2,352,569 dollars in 2026). It spent 3,490,472 dollars and had 237,375 dollars cash on hand. Separately, it reports 591,148 dollars in in kind support (goods and services given instead of money), not counted in the receipts. | OCPF, pulled Oct. 26, 2026 |
| Oct. 26, 2026 | Opposition: no committee registered with OCPF. | OCPF, pulled Oct. 26, 2026 |
| Earlier press reports (history only) | The OCPF totals above replace these. CommonWealth Beacon (Apr. 3, 2026): 1.6 million dollars raised, about 950,000 dollars spent, three donors gave more than 1.3 million dollars. Boston Globe (Sept. 5, 2026): "nearly $1.3 million so far this year." Boston Globe (Sept. 17, 2026): more than 2.6 million dollars raised since last year. CommonWealth Beacon (July 30, 2026): a company pledged 100,000 dollars at the July launch. Massachusetts has no limit on contributions to ballot question committees. | CommonWealth Beacon; Boston Globe |
In short: OCPF shows the Yes committee has received about 3.73 million dollars as of Oct. 26, 2026, plus about 591 thousand dollars in kind, and no committee is registered on the other side.
The numbers
Size of the earmark, polls, protected land, state parks and federal grants. Every figure shows its source, date and unit.
How big is the earmark?
The earmark would be about 65 to 100 million dollars a year, by the Tufts and supporters' estimates. The state spends about 400 million dollars a year on recreation and conservation now, counting budget and bonds. Mass Audubon says public land conservation investment has averaged about 25 million dollars a year, and a state official put land conservation in the capital plan at about 40 million. The state budget office says the law would move tens of millions of dollars out of the regular budget. The governor's proposed budget for the year that starts July 2026 was 63.36 billion dollars, so by our arithmetic the earmark is between 0.10 and 0.16 percent of it.
Unit: millions of dollars per year. Sources: Tufts University Center for State Policy Analysis; Information for Voters 2026; WWLP and State House News Service, Feb. 18, 2026 (governor's proposed budget). Percent of budget is Cape Ann Current arithmetic. The Tufts figure is lower than the supporters' figure because, CommonWealth Beacon reported, some of the revenue is already earmarked for schools and transportation. The state budget office says a full analysis is not feasible.
What voters say in polls
YesNoUndecided or did not understand
Both polls found more voters saying Yes than No, but the gap was 51 points in one and 10 points in the other. The polls were taken at different times with different samples, and the question wording was not published in the coverage we read.
Sources: WBUR, Oct. 19, 2026 (UMass Amherst and WCVB; the 11 percent shown is 8 percent undecided and 3 percent who did not understand the question, per the UMass Amherst October 2026 report); WBUR, Oct. 20, 2026 (Suffolk and Globe). Poll shares are of respondents, not of voters on Election Day.
Land that is protected today
The state keeps a map layer of conservation and recreation land, run by MassGIS in the EEA. We added up the parcels marked as protected “in perpetuity,” meaning forever, and compared them to land area from the 2020 Census. This is our own calculation. The state's 30 percent goal counts “lands and waters” and may be counted differently, and the state has not published a current percent in the sources we opened.
Protected land in Massachusetts by owner
StateMunicipalPrivate, with legal protectionNonprofit land trusts and conservation groupsFederal
Massachusetts has about 1.44 million acres marked as protected forever, which is about 28.9 percent of the state's 4.99 million acres of land. The state owns the largest share, 43 percent.
Unit: acres of mapped parcels with level of protection "Perpetuity." Sources: MassGIS Protected and Recreational OpenSpace layer, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, queried Oct. 26, 2026; U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Gazetteer (land area 7,801 square miles). Percent is Cape Ann Current arithmetic. MassGIS says accuracy varies by town and parcels may include ponds and wetlands, so the percent may run high. Tiny "other" owners (0.1 percent) are not shown.
State parks and state spending: what is documented
| Measure | Figure | Source and date |
|---|---|---|
| Land DCR oversees | Over 450,000 acres of parks, forests, beaches, trails and watershed land | Mass.gov DCR page |
| Visits to DCR properties | Over 35 million a year (an estimate by Mass Audubon, reported by researchers) | UMass Donahue Institute, DCR Special Commission report, Oct. 2021 |
| State funding for DCR | About 208 million dollars a year | UMass Donahue Institute, Oct. 2021 |
| Halibut Point State Park visitors | About 100,000 a year, said a DCR spokeswoman | Boston Globe, Sept. 5, 2018 |
| Governor's proposed state parks operations | 104.38 million dollars for the year starting July 2026, down from 113.8 million dollars (a cut of 8.3 percent) | WWLP and State House News Service, Feb. 18, 2026 |
| Backlog of repairs | About 1 billion dollars, said the DCR Stewardship Council | DCR Stewardship Council, FY2025 budget priorities |
| Land conservation money in the state capital plan | About 40 million dollars a year (state official); Mass Audubon says public investment has averaged about 25 million dollars a year over ten years | State House News Service, Mar. 24, 2026; Mass Audubon, Oct. 10, 2025 |
DCR has over 450,000 acres and, by one estimate, over 35 million visits a year. Halibut Point State Park had about 100,000 visitors a year in 2018. We did not find a current visitor count for Halibut Point or any count for Dogtown.
The final enacted figure for state parks operations in the budget year that began July 2026 was not found. The 35 million estimate is not a count and comes from an advocacy group. A DCR spokeswoman gave the Halibut Point figure in 2018, and the park later received 1.8 million dollars for its visitor center and 1 million dollars for landscape work, according to DCR's Sept. 17, 2019 public meeting presentation.
Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
The LWCF is a federal program started in 1965. It pays for outdoor recreation and land protection through grants to states, which pass money to towns. A fact sheet from the LWCF Coalition, an advocacy group, says Massachusetts has received about 251.1 million dollars over five decades. On Aug. 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Interior listed 6,697,487 dollars for Massachusetts in a 325 million dollar national announcement.
The state's open space map marks projects that used LWCF money. In the four Cape Ann towns it shows two: St. Peter's Square Harborfront Park in Gloucester, and Lumber Wharf in Rockport (funded in 1974). The map records only some grant programs for each parcel, so there may be more.
Massachusetts has received about 251 million dollars from the LWCF over five decades. The state's map shows two LWCF projects on Cape Ann.
Sources: LWCF Coalition, Massachusetts fact sheet (undated, program totals attributed to the Trust for Public Land); U.S. Department of the Interior press release, Aug. 8, 2024; MassGIS Protected and Recreational OpenSpace layer, queried Oct. 26, 2026.
How voters acted on related questions
We did not find an earlier statewide question about a conservation fund in the state's election archive. Two earlier votes are related in different ways. In 2022, statewide Question 1 (the Fair Share Amendment) said revenue from a new income tax on very high incomes would be used, “subject to appropriation by the state Legislature,” for education and transportation. In 2008, Gloucester voters decided whether to adopt the Community Preservation Act, which dedicates a local property tax surcharge to open space, parks, historic sites and housing. Neither vote predicts Question 6. They show how Cape Ann voted on dedicated funding ideas.
2022 Question 1 and the 2008 Gloucester Community Preservation vote
Essex, 2022
44.6% Yes
Gloucester, 202254.1% Yes
Manchester, 202253.0% Yes
Rockport, 202255.5% Yes
Statewide, 202252.2% Yes
Gloucester CPA, 200857.6% Yes
In 2022, Gloucester, Manchester-by-the-Sea and Rockport voted Yes on Question 1 at 53 to 56 percent, while Essex voted 44.6 percent Yes. Statewide the result was 52.2 percent Yes. In 2008 Gloucester adopted the Community Preservation Act with 57.6 percent Yes.
Unit: Yes share of Yes plus No votes, blanks left out. Sources: Secretary of the Commonwealth, electionstats.state.ma.us, 2022 statewide Question 1 (ID 7390: statewide 1,267,132 Yes, 1,158,225 No; Essex 797 to 991; Gloucester 7,037 to 5,974; Manchester-by-the-Sea 1,488 to 1,321; Rockport 2,271 to 1,822); 2008 Gloucester Question 4 (ID 6789: 8,270 Yes, 6,094 No). The archive had no record of the Rockport 2002, Manchester 2005 or Essex 2007 Community Preservation votes, which were held in local elections.
How other states handle it
Four states, four designs. Only documented facts are listed.
| State | How it works | Amount and status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | A share of general sales tax on sporting goods, set by the Comptroller, goes to the state parks agency (93 percent) and the historical commission (7 percent). Voters approved a constitutional amendment in Nov. 2019. From fiscal 2022 the money is appropriated automatically. A two thirds vote of each chamber can cut it by up to half for a limited time. | 404.8 million dollars for the 2022 to 2023 budget period, which includes 74.0 million dollars for employee benefits and debt payments. | Texas Legislative Budget Board, Mar. 2021 |
| Georgia | Voters approved a measure in Nov. 2018 to dedicate up to 80 percent of existing sales tax collected by sporting goods stores to the Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Trust Fund. The money still passes through the appropriations process. It has a 10 year sunset. | About 20 million dollars a year, estimated in 2018. The measure got 83 percent support. | Resources for the Future, Nov. 16, 2018; Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Oct. 29, 2018 |
| Missouri | A statewide one tenth of one percent sales tax for state parks and for soil and water conservation. It ends every 10 years unless voters renew it. It is a broad sales tax, not a tax on sporting goods. | About 136 million dollars a year. Voters renewed it on Aug. 4, 2026 with more than 80 percent Yes. | KCTV5, Aug. 5, 2026 |
| Iowa | In 2010, voters approved a constitutional amendment creating a trust fund for natural resources and outdoor recreation, to be financed by a future three eighths cent sales tax increase. | 63 percent voted Yes. The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, an advocacy group, said the fund sat empty more than ten years later, and WBUR said in Oct. 2026 that it remains empty. | Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation; WBUR, Oct. 6, 2026 |
Texas and Georgia use sporting goods sales tax shares like Question 6, Missouri uses a broad parks tax that voters keep renewing, and Iowa passed a fund in 2010 that has not been funded.
Two differences with Massachusetts stand out. Texas and Georgia put their rules in the state constitution. Question 6 is a regular law that the Legislature can change. Texas now appropriates its share automatically under its constitution, while Question 6 keeps the annual appropriation. Supporters, including Katie Theoharides, point to Georgia and Texas as examples that the idea works. Georgia's program began in 2019 and, she said, has helped conserve or restore at least 69,000 acres (Boston.com). We did not verify the 69,000 acre figure. WBUR noted that Iowa's fund sits empty because the tax increase meant to pay for it was never enacted. Tufts notes that Question 6 differs because it uses taxes the state already collects.
Where people agree, and what nobody knows yet
Points that supporters, analysts and officials share, and questions that are still open.
The Legislature keeps the last word
The petition says all provisions are subject to appropriation. The Legislature's committee majority and Tufts say the same. Supporters say they will press for a follow up law.
Conservation costs money
Nobody in the coverage we reviewed argues the state should spend nothing on land and water. The question is how to pay and who decides.
The 30 percent goal is official policy
The Healey administration set a goal of 30 percent of lands and waters by 2030. A state official said the state is on track. Mass Audubon says more money is needed.
Budgets are tight
Both lawmakers and advocates talked about a hard budget year. Sen. Cindy Friedman cited a 3 billion dollar MassHealth deficit. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimated a 3.8 billion dollar initial gap for the year starting July 2026.
The dollar amount is uncertain
The state budget office said a full analysis is not feasible, and the Boston Globe reported that the Department of Revenue does not track sales by product category. The Tufts figure and the supporters' figure also differ.
Open questions nobody can answer yet
- How much would the earmark really be? Estimates range from tens of millions of dollars to 100 million dollars a year, and the state says it cannot do a full analysis.
- Would the Legislature appropriate the whole amount each year, and would total conservation spending go up or just move around?
- Would a follow up law require the spending, and would the Legislature pass it?
- What would the board's rules say, and how would they change which projects win money?
- How would a downturn in sporting goods sales affect the fund?
- How much of the money, if any, would reach Cape Ann?
What it means on Cape Ann
Land that is already protected, local conservation money and who owns what.
Question 6 does not name any town. Towns, land trusts and state agencies could apply for money if the fund exists and the Legislature appropriates it. The board's rules are not written yet, so we cannot say who would receive what. Here is the local picture today.
Permanently protected land by town
MunicipalNonprofit land trusts and conservation groupsStatePrivate, with legal protectionFull bar width equals 40 percent of the town's land.
About a third of Gloucester and Essex is permanently protected, 33.8 percent and 32.7 percent. Rockport is at 27.8 percent and Manchester-by-the-Sea at 22.1 percent. In Gloucester and Rockport most of it is city or town land. In Essex and Manchester most of it is held by land trusts or private owners with legal protection.
Unit: percent of the town's land area, from acres of parcels marked protected in perpetuity. Sources: MassGIS Protected and Recreational OpenSpace layer (EEA), queried Oct. 26, 2026 (latest record date in the layer for these towns: Sept. 2026); U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Gazetteer land area. Cape Ann Current arithmetic. Parcel acres can include ponds and wetlands, and Census land area does not, so percents may run high. The 30 percent state goal is statewide and counted differently, so it is not a target for any one town.
| Town | Land area (acres) | Protected (acres) | Percent | Municipal | Nonprofit | State | Private |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essex | 8,936 | 2,924 | 32.7 percent | 23 | 1,681 | 25 | 1,196 |
| Gloucester | 16,767 | 5,659 | 33.8 percent | 3,300 | 2,062 | 0 | 297 |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | 5,907 | 1,303 | 22.1 percent | 202 | 803 | 0 | 298 |
| Rockport | 4,472 | 1,242 | 27.8 percent | 967 | 139 | 88 | 48 |
Gloucester has the most protected acres, 5,659. Rockport has the most state owned land, 88 acres, mostly Halibut Point State Park. The City of Gloucester owns about 297 acres in Rockport. That is a different 297 from the 297 private acres in Gloucester's row; it is a coincidence in the numbers.
Acres rounded. Rockport's municipal figure (967 acres) includes about 297 acres owned by the City of Gloucester (water supply land). Those acres are counted once, in Rockport, and not in Gloucester's 5,659. Gloucester's own 297 acres in the Private column are privately owned land with legal protection, a separate set of parcels that happens to round to the same number (checked against the MassGIS layer, Oct. 26, 2026). Sources and method as in the figure above.
Named places
| Place | Owner and manager | Acres | What else we found |
|---|---|---|---|
| Halibut Point State Park, Rockport | DCR | About 63 (state map) | About 100,000 visitors a year (DCR spokeswoman, 2018). Next door, The Trustees manage the 12 acre Halibut Point Reservation. The Trustees' page lists about 70 parking spaces at the state park lot. |
| Dogtown, Gloucester | City of Gloucester, managed by the Conservation Commission | About 129 in parcels labeled Dogtown (state map) | Dogtown is mapped under several names, including watershed lands, so this understates it. We found no visitor count. |
| Ravenswood Park, Gloucester | The Trustees | About 606 (state map) | A nonprofit reservation, not a state park. |
| DeNormandie Woods, Gloucester and Manchester-by-the-Sea | Essex County Greenbelt Association | 330 (Greenbelt Association) | Bought in late 2024. Greenbelt says it is part of a 1,400 acre protected area across Manchester, Gloucester and Essex. |
The best known Cape Ann places mix owners. DCR runs Halibut Point State Park, the city owns Dogtown, and The Trustees and the Greenbelt Association own large reservations.
Sources: MassGIS layer (EEA), queried Oct. 26, 2026; Boston Globe, Sept. 5, 2018; The Trustees' Halibut Point page; Essex County Greenbelt Association Fall 2025 newsletter.
Essex County Greenbelt Association
The Essex County Greenbelt Association is a regional land trust. In its Spring 2024 newsletter it reported 21,500 acres protected: 7,500 acres it owns, 10,000 acres under conservation or agricultural restrictions, and 4,000 acres of projects it assisted, from more than 700 projects over 63 years. In the state map the association owns about 1,117 acres in Gloucester, 477 in Essex, 115 in Manchester-by-the-Sea and 68 in Rockport. The association posted on Sept. 26, 2026 that it supports a Yes vote on Question 6. The 21,500 acre totals and the Yes position come from the association itself, an interested party. The town figures come from the state map.
Community Preservation Act money in each town
The Community Preservation Act (CPA) lets a town add a surcharge of up to 3 percent to property tax bills. The state adds matching money from a state trust fund. Towns spend it on open space, historic sites, recreation and housing. CPA is local money. It is separate from Question 6.
| Town | Surcharge | Adopted | Surcharge committed | State match rate | State match, Nov. 2025 | Project spending since 2010 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essex | 1.5 percent | May 14, 2007 | $228,671 | 16.87 percent | $37,370 | $885,230 |
| Gloucester | 1 percent | Nov. 4, 2008 | $920,447 | 16.87 percent | $154,276 | $7,646,698 |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | 1.5 percent | May 17, 2005 | $459,049 | 16.87 percent | $77,296 | $5,032,362 |
| Rockport | 3 percent | Apr. 16, 2002 | $767,370 | 24.82 percent | $189,742 | $6,834,031 |
Rockport charges the full 3 percent CPA surcharge. Gloucester charges 1 percent and Essex and Manchester-by-the-Sea charge 1.5 percent. Rockport's higher state match, 24.82 percent, is because towns at 3 percent can get extra rounds of state money.
Sources: Massachusetts Department of Revenue, FY2026 Community Preservation Act State Match file (surcharge committed is labeled FY25 data; adoption dates and rates from its adoption sheet; distribution of Nov. 15, 2025); Community Preservation Coalition (statewide: 196 communities, 78 at 3 percent, 47,006,013 dollars distributed); North Shore REALTORS CPA tracker for spending since 2010 (the page does not show the end year of its data, and it counts all CPA categories, not only open space). Gloucester adoption confirmed by the 2008 ballot record (Question 4, 1 percent surcharge starting fiscal 2010).
State and local grants already used on Cape Ann land
The state's map records a grant program for some parcels. These are the programs it shows for the four towns. Each parcel lists only its first program, so totals are partial.
| Town | Parcels and acres with a recorded grant program |
|---|---|
| Gloucester | Self Help: 19 parcels, 222 acres. Conservation Partnership: 7 parcels, 68 acres. Community Preservation Act: 1 parcel, 27 acres. PARC: 1 parcel, 7 acres. LWCF: 1 parcel, 1 acre. Urban Self Help: 2 parcels, under 1 acre. |
| Rockport | Community Preservation Act: 2 parcels, 49 acres. Self Help: 4 parcels, 31 acres. Conservation Partnership: 1 parcel, 25 acres. LWCF: 1 parcel, under 1 acre. |
| Essex | Conservation Partnership: 1 parcel, 46 acres. |
| Manchester-by-the-Sea | Urban Self Help: 1 parcel, 1 acre. |
Gloucester and Rockport have used state Self Help grants, Conservation Partnership grants and CPA money on protected land. Question 6 would create a separate fund alongside programs like these. The text we read does not say how the two would fit together.
Source: MassGIS Protected and Recreational OpenSpace layer (EEA), grant program field, queried Oct. 26, 2026. The layer's own note says data completeness varies by town. Self Help, Conservation Partnership and PARC are state programs run through the EEA.
The local picture, side by side
If Question 6 passes, Cape Ann towns, land trusts such as the Greenbelt Association and state parks such as Halibut Point could seek grants once the board writes its rules and the Legislature appropriates money. Nothing in the text promises any amount to any town. If it fails, local land protection continues with CPA money, state and federal grant programs, private gifts and the regular state budget, as it does now.
Candidate answers for the Fifth Essex District race are on the Election 2026 guide. We did not find the candidates' stated positions on Question 6 in public sources, so none are reported here.
More in this series: Question 5 comes before this question on the ballot and Question 7 comes after it. Final article links will be added to the Election 2026 guide.