The six bond issues on the Nov. 6 referendum ballot accurately describe the type of investments states must make in themselves to be competitive as places to live and to do business. Housing, research and development, transportation, secondary school renovation and repair, safe drinking water and other environmental protections, higher education – the subject matter reads like the table of contents for a primer on economic development and quality of life.

That does not guarantee that approval of any or all of these six questions will spark Maine’s sputtering economy and energize its nearly stagnant population growth. The Legislature prepared these questions, the public may endorse them, but all that merely creates potential. There is great latitude allowed for the actual spending to come, so the extent to which this $146.7 million will benefit Maine depends upon wise decisions by lawmakers and the agencies they oversee, and also upon the public persistently demanding wise decisions.

There are, however, a few points voters should keep in mind as they learn about each of these questions and assess their merits as investments. The first is that this is a very good time to borrow money.

Thanks to the Federal Reserve, interest rates are the lowest they’ve been in a decade and there is no indication they’ll rise any time before these bonds are sold. The State Treasurer’s Office estimates that this money can be borrowed at something in the upper 4-percent range, a genuine bargain.

The second is that Maine is a prudent borrower. It pays off its General Obligation bonds at an accelerated rate, which keeps the interest part of the principle/interest equation low. Its per-capita debt load of slightly more than $400 per person is the lowest by far in New England (other than New Hampshire, other states in the region are from two to seven times higher) and is about two-thirds of the national average. Given the obvious link between a lack of investment and poor economic standing, it is fair to wonder if Maine’s borrowing habits sometimes cross the line between prudent and self-inhibiting.

The third is that the economy – Maine’s and the nation’s – needs the kind of jolt that only substantial investment can provide and public investment can be just as helpful in this as private. Whether it’s repairing houses and schools or building roads and water treatment plants, this public-sector money will get converted into private-sector paychecks for a lot of Maine’s working men and women. The investments in higher education and R&D can pay off in entirely new businesses and new jobs.

The general subject matter of these bonds is worthy and the timing is right, but there is a problem with this ballot, though hardly a fatal flaw. If these were citizen-initiated referenda, there certainly would be loud and valid complaints about faulty, even biased, wording and about inaccurate and incomplete descriptions of the underlying legislation. These questions were not prepared by activist citizens untrained in crafting legislation, but by elected lawmakers with the assistance of professional staff. Voters deserve better.

The most blatant offender is Question 1. Affordable housing may be needed, but the use of the word “crisis” on the ballot itself is thoroughly inappropriate. By the time a voter reaches the voting booth, the campaign is over – no ballot should contain language designed to elicit a certain response. Also, the underlying legislation is not nearly clear enough. Voters who read it know they are being asked to invest $10 million in housing not just for the impoverished homeless and the mentally ill but also for workers who have left northern Maine, moved south to where the better jobs are and who find housing available but uncomfortably expensive. There is no indication of how much money will go to each of these purposes; given the great difference between them, this lack of specifics is indefensible.

If the wording in Question 1 is a bit hyperactive, Question 2 is downright anemic. Investment in research and development is one of the state’s most pressing needs, it is a key element of building a new economy. The $5 million here for bio-medical and marine research will leverage up to $40 million in matching grants, yet the ballot mentions nothing but the $5 million expenditure. Similar flaws pop up in other questions, which should not affect voter decisions but which should compel legislators to do better next time.