Why I voted against the Resolution opposing Senate Bills 2246 and 2404
- Christine Rickmon
- Mar 1
- 3 min read
On February 2, the City Council voted on a resolution, one I voted against. At the time, I felt I explained my “no” vote clearly. But because this meeting also included inappropriate comments made by another councilor (I’ve addressed that separately, both in another post and on my social media), this vote (and the domestic partnership ordinance that will be a separate post) keeps getting brought up. So I want to walk you through my thinking on the resolution itself.
I started by reading the resolution. What stood out immediately was how much fear it relied on. I also remembered my own initial reaction the first time I heard the idea of taxing people based on how much they drive: it felt unfair, especially in Western Massachusetts where public transit options are limited.
But then I reviewed what our City Solicitor wrote, and it was clear the resolution was not accurately representing the bills it claimed to oppose. So I read the bills myself.
Senate Bill 2404 deals with electric vehicles and the reality that EVs don’t buy gas. This means they aren’t contributing to road funding through the gas tax the way other vehicles do. As cars become more fuel-efficient, gas tax revenue continues to drop, and that means less money for road maintenance. This bill does not create a new tax. It calls for a study, using 1,000 volunteers across the state, to evaluate whether Massachusetts should eventually move from a gas tax to a mileage-based system, and what a fair approach would look like.
Senate Bill 2246 is a directive to MassDOT. It says that if MassDOT approves plans, those plans must align with vehicle emissions goals and be designed in a way that actually helps people in the area—so residents aren’t forced to rely on their own vehicles for everything.
It’s also important to note: these are Senate bills. They would still need corresponding House bills to ever become law. And during the February 2 meeting, Council President Anthony Russo stated that the likelihood of these becoming law is next to nothing because they don’t have much support.
After reading the bills, I went back and reread the resolution. There was little to no meaningful mention of what the bills actually said. Based on the text, I came to the conclusion that the author either didn’t read the bills, didn’t understand them, or purposefully misrepresented them. Between the imagery used in the resolution and what had already been pushed in an earlier newspaper editorial, this didn’t feel like an effort to present facts. It was an effort to scare people.
Fear was used to create a problem that doesn’t exist, and then a resolution was offered as the “solution” to that same made-up problem. I don’t want my name attached to that.
I care about the people of Agawam. I chose Agawam as the place to raise my kids. Agawam is home, and I want what’s best for everyone here. But I’m not going to sign onto something that isn’t grounded in reality.
One of the reasons I was elected is because I think critically and analyze situations, and that’s exactly what I did. I read the resolution. I read the City Solicitor’s notes. I read the bills. Then I drew my conclusion. If the author wanted my vote, the resolution needed to be grounded in facts, with clear textual evidence from the bills it claimed to oppose.
I will continue to do my research, think critically, be open about my reasoning, and ground that reasoning in facts because that’s what the people of Agawam deserve.
Comments