Update (10/18/17)
This post refers to an earlier post on the discussion of marijuana in a debate among Ward 2 At-Large Councilor candidates.
—
The misattribution of Jake’s comments to Councilor at-Large candidate Braden Houston prompted no correction by Jake, but a barrage of misdirected criticism at his rival, and I have two observations about that:
1. Jake knew that he was the one who made the comment. Here is Jake’s full answer from the debate in question: “…because Newton voted in favor of decriminalizing, or legalizing medical marijuana, the City would have to have a petition in order not to sell it here. I would actually be in favor of that petition.” The TAB reporter mistakenly thought Braden had said this, but the TAB has issued a correction in print today (p. A2) and fixed the mistake in their online article (http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20171010/ward-2-at-large-candidates-differ-on-development).
I find it appalling that Jake did not step up to make the mistake known and so allowed his own words to be used against another candidate. Why didn’t Jake admit that he was the one who said this? Was he hoping no one would notice? Even though the debate had been taped?
Jake’s silence seems to have been an attempt to benefit from a reporting error, at the expense of Braden Houston. His behavior is typical of the kind of politician who says one thing to one audience and says something different (or nothing at all) when expedient.
2. Many commenters on this blog were happy to take Braden to task for the incorrectly attributed statement. Will they be as quick to bash Jake now that the record has been set straight? Mike? Newtoner? Buf? Elmo? Patricia? Bryan? Ted? Marti? Fignewtonville? Will you apologize to Braden?
1) I don’t see the quote about the petition in the link you provided.
2) I suggest you add a link to the original post: https://village14.com/2017/10/10/council-
candidate-houston-calls-to-ban-recreational-marijuana/
If you are correct, then I owe Braden an apology and will reconsider my vote (although he is still opposed to my view). Jake commented on the other post, so if there had been a misattribution he should have been aware of it. I hope he will clarify things here.
This is smear tactics, Lynne. You didn’t campaign this way in 2015 and I’m disappointed that you would do so in 2017. I don’t know the verbatim of what Braden Houston said at the forum about legalizing marijuana, so I couldn’t possibly have known how the quotation was attributed. Indeed, it’s obvious from the other thread that Braden didn’t even know.
Not only have I been clear about my position on legalizing marijuana, I actually published my positions on all the ballot measures a full year ago. I did not vote in favor of legalizing marijuana. I also think that retail marijuana is waaay down the list of Newton’s potential problems right now. I’d prefer to focus on what’s important:
1. Better roads
2. Walkable, affordable housing in our villages
3. Sound city finances
I apologized in person to Braden earlier this week. It was our mistake. That being said, I don’t think the issue of whether Braden or Jake would support a petition/ballot initiative to ban or limit pot shops in Newton should be a deciding factor in how a person votes. (Unless you are a one-issue stoner, I suppose.) I voted in favor of legalization, but can certainly understand how someone would be opposed. As for Jake: I don’t know whether he clearly remembered he was the one who said he would favor a ban; I couldn’t remember … and I was on stage moderating the debate. It was a fast-paced and spirited forum and I had to review the audio to verify who said exactly what. What was clear is that it is extraordinarily unlikely we will see either Jake Auchincloss or Braden Houston at the next Dead & Friends concert in Boston.
@jake Is there anything incorrect in my blog? Your position may be clear to you but what was also clear was that in the Ward 2 candidate debate recording: you said you would support a petition to revisit the marijuana referendum.
I am not putting words in your mouth. Did you put words in someone else’s?
If it was a mistake then I would imagine an apology would be more fitting that killing the messenger.
@Jake: Thank you for the clarification.
@Andy: I’m sorry to see you trivializing an issue that I consider very important. It’s not only my right to consume marijuana, it’s tax revenue and it’s fighting other drugs that actually ruin lives.
@Jake: Could you please clearly state your position regarding marijuana sales in Newton? Would you support a petition to ban it?
@Andy I’m sure voters will appreciate the correction.
An addition to the correction: A reader above asked for the original story to be posted to see the error in context. Likewise, I have to say it has always bothered me that corrections are not placed in the same place of prominence or given the same context as the original incorrect article or post. Will anyone see or take notice of the tiny print at the bottom of page two? Not like they did in the front page main article. And I only bring this up, because the mis-attribution generated a lot of comments. That seems patently unfair.
@Lynne— My comment from the previous posting was in regards to his statement about marijuana sales being “one more thing a parent has to deal with.” I do not owe Braden Houston an apology since he still is the source of that quote.
Also, in my opinion, this posting has far too much personal analysis. I agree that this is questionable from Auchincloss, but that should be for the V14 readers to decide and discuss in the comments section. A simple headline and link to the updated Tab article would have done just fine.
@Buf It is for readers to decide but they need the correct information. It seems untenable to have had so many people taking Braden to task for a comment Jake made. I see nothing wrong with bringing attention to the correction as the incorrect information generated so much discussion in the first place. This has nothing to do with personal analysis as an examination of the facts. Clearly people felt strongly about the issue. Do they feel the same now?
@Lynne, you can come down off your high horse now. I already said Jake lost my vote on this too, based on Andy Levine’s comment in the other thread. But I wasn’t planning to vote for Braden anyway, so no big diff.
Lengthy headline.
@newtoner: OK, I was glib with a couple of my comments, but I didn’t mean to completely trivialize the matter. I also voted yes to the ballot question, mainly because I see absolutely no difference between the consumption of marijuana and alcohol. In excess or while driving, both are dangerous, but in moderation they are perfectly fine, IMHO. And, yes, the industry will produce needed revenue. But I think this was mostly a state matter. I have serious doubt there would ever be a successful referendum to ban the retail sale of marijuana in Newton. I think it passed here about 55 percent to 45 percent.
But a critical issue here? Not compared to: the land use debate about the best way to make Newton more affordable, the pension/OPEB liability, the need for continued investments in infrastructure, including roads and schools (future overrides?), the school budget, the “banning” debate, the role of City Council if the charter plan is approved, the size of City Council moving forward should the charter question be rejected, the opioid problem, etc…
Lynne:
Umm…Lynne, maybe go back and read the full post? Many of us were commenting on Braden Houston’s position on the Sunrise senior development (the “I support the project, just not the project as proposed, just wipe out an entire floor and I support the project, that’s support, right?”) in that post. My only comment on pot was that Houston’s position was going to make Mike’s head explode, and since I think both Jake and Braden’s position is the same, BOTH of them will make Mike’s head explode.
So, no apology. Except that now you owe ME one.
Also, may I suggest a less intense initial post? I get that you are a strong Braden supporter, but this was advocacy on a level above what we typically see from the moderators.
I hold to my original view that Braden will come in 3rd, in both the overall city and Ward 2. I don’t think this tempest in a tea”pot” changes that.
Lynne, I, along with others, have nothing to apologize to Braden for and I personally believe you are using dirty tactics to push your candidate – who is anti development. He won’t get my vote.
From the other thread:
“I’m not an advocate of recreational use of marijuana. It’s illegal at the federal level,” said Houston. “I think for a lot of parents it’s one more thing a parent has to deal with.”
My reply:
“If Braden thinks keeping pot shops out of Newton will influence teenagers chances of obtaining marijuana or that parents won’t have to have the same discussion with their teens, he’s talking the talk of those who think not teaching teens about sex or birth control will keep them from having sex or getting pregnant. Plainly makes no sense.”
I still think Braden has work to do on his position on marijuana and don’t support his position. Braden stated he opposed the ballot question and spread fear about how legalization effects underage drug use (it doesn’t).
“…marijuana use has not increased since legalization, with four of five high school students continuing to say they don’t use marijuana, even occasionally,” the Colorado health department said in a news release. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/21/colorado-survey-shows-what-marijuana-legalization-will-do-to-your-kids/?utm_term=.cbb971e8a195
Jake has even more work to do. I’m not sure why he would support a ban on marijuana sales in Newton. Presumably, voters here supported the ballot question because they believe marijuana should be legal and available the same way alcohol is. I’ll say to Jake as I mistakenly said to Braden, if you really believe marijuana should be banned, explain why alcohol shouldn’t be as well?
There’s enough blame to go around for cannabis prohibition. It was as foolish a policy as alcohol prohibition. Thankfully, the voters decided to end prohibition and legalize cannabis last year. So the real question is, where do we go from here? How does the law play out across Massachusetts, and in Newton specifically?
Let’s put to rest all this bull shit that “people didn’t know what they were voting for.” It was all printed plain as day, in black & white, right there on the ballot. Any “confusion” about what that vote meant is the result of legislative tinkering, and a deliberate effort by the losing side to undermine implementation of the law.
Newton’s elected officials should be more respectful of the voters. The City Council should move swiftly to codify zoning regulations for retail cannabis sales in Newton. They should take financial advantage of the fact that a local tax can be added to those sales. Also, they should use a little bit of common sense, and recognize that the right zoning model for cannabis is already reflected in the way we regulate liquor stores.
Come on City Councilors, let’s get this done. Honor the vote! No moratorium! Embrace freedom!!!
For those who might not have seen this
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20171016/ask-mayoral-candidates-newton-in-age-of-legal-marijuana
You have high schools with massive underlying drug problems, and yet we should open marijuana shops in Newton. In regards to the economic argument, the tax rate on marijuana would be one of the lowest in the nation at up to 20% compared to 39% in Washington. Additionally, you’ll be allowed to homegrow marijuana, meaning that we won’t even have tax money (or regulation).
For a lot of us, the issue isn’t marijuana. The issue is that the ballot question is so pro-marijuana that it’s nonsensical.
Just wanted to add on to my previous comment – the “yes” vote for legalizing marijuana only won by 4k votes in Newton, so for all those demanding that we “respect the vote,” let’s also respect that this is a hotly contested issue within our own city. We’re not Cambridge where “yes” won 71%, or even Brookline where “yes” won 61% of the vote.
Thanks to Claire for posting that link about both mayoral candidates positions on cannabis legalization and how it plays out in Newton. The article helped me toward making a decision.
While I haven’t “endorsed” either candidate, I did make a contribution to Scott Lennon’s campaign and had planned to contribute more. However, based on his position [as presented by Wicked Local], I am withdrawing any support I offered Scott and will not vote for him.
Unfortunately, Ruthanne Fuller’s position [according to Wicked Local] is equally untenable for me. She is going to base her proposal for implementing the new cannabis law in Newton [at least in part] on the recommendations of a mayoral commision. Despite Ruthanne’s assurance that the commission’s work will be “transparent and inclusive,” the commission has already been meeting without any public oversight, and rejected my request for their notes and minutes. So much for Ruthanne’s version of “transparent and inclusive.”
I find it incredibly disturbing in a democracy when the expressed will of the people is ignored. The State’s cannabis law was passed by voters one year ago, with the directive it be fully implemented by January 1st, 2018. Rightfully, there has been much consternation about the influence of a foreign power in the presidential election. While I find that to be troubling, it is not nearly as disturbing as watching our own office holders work so hard to undermine and subvert a legally binding ballot box vote. Their actions represent a genuine threat to democracy.
Mike Striar before you make that decision regarding Scott Lennon,
I would urge you to give him a call. He will definitely give you the time and he won’t bull sh*t you, but he may be able to add some clarity that would impact your decision (either confirm it or revise it)
Mike Striar, what in Scott’s answer was so problematic for you?
My biggest takeaway in comparing SL and RF’s responses is that it seemed true to form i.e Scott is talking about a working group for implementation while Ruthanne is talking creating a strategic plan which seems to be her go to answer for everything
@Mike Striar, this is the first (and only) time I wish I had run for Mayor this election. 😉
I fully support the regulation and sale of both medicinal and recreational marijuana. But my thinking on this has definitely evolved over time. When my kids were young, and remembering my college days, I didn’t think encouraging marijuana use was necessarily a good thing. (In all candor, yes I tried it, yes I inhaled, but I never liked it and haven’t used it at all since I was a teenager.) Even then, I didn’t see how it was much different from alcohol, but as long as it was illegal at both the state and national level, I didn’t want my kids smoking, vaping or ingesting it.
Then, my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. Terminal breast cancer. The kind you where you don’t get better, only worse. She could probably have lived longer but the chemo was too much for her, and she did not have ready access to marijuana to ease the symptoms (and was leery of breaking the law, as someone who never gotten so much as a speeding ticket in her 69 years on Earth). She was always petite, but her treatment made her emaciated. Marijuana might have helped the nausea from chemo and the anxiety of knowing she was going to get worse and eventually die as the cancer metastasized into every organ in her body. She died two days after Christmas 2004 on her first day in hospice.
A couple of years ago, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer and it turned our lives upside down. Fortunately, she survived, has been cancer free for two years, five months and 13 days, and is back to work and doing great. Blessed be.
Both experiences turned my head around about marijuana and its medicinal and palliative benefits. Mike is right and I know that he too speaks from experience. I won’t even go into all of the blatantly racist reasons that marijuana was made illegal in the first place. It is legal now and I promise to oppose any effort to ban the legal sale of marijuana in Newton.
I’m going to miss having your voice in our council, Ted, but hope you’ll continue your outspokenness here!
Thanks Mary Mary Quite Contrary. Outspoken is how I roll.
@Ted Hess-Mahan is anyone proposing a ban? I know Lennon wrote “However, assuming that the city does not ban recreational marijuana dispensaries in Newton, I will implement the will of the voters” but I didn’t interpret that he was supporting or proposing a ban. Are there any efforts underway for a ban, which would seem inappropriate since the people voted to legalize.
@Claire, I read the comments from both mayoral candidates as lukewarm support at best. A number of communities have put the question on the ballot. A citizens’ petition could potentially put this on the ballot in Newton, and lukewarm mayoral support for legal marijuana is pretty weak tea. While a majority of Newton voters supported statewide legalization, NIMBYism might prevail on a ballot question as to whether it should be sold in Newton.
If Scott and/or Ruthanne are, in fact, wholeheartedly supportive of marijuana sales in Newton, I would be very happy to hear it. But I have not heard that yet. Have you?
Ted, thanks for clarifying! But I am still a little confused because I thought it HAD been put on the ballot. Are you saying some citizen’s could try to put it on the ballot again in hopes of another result?
I think that is a fair characterization to say that they both are look warm. I’m guessing Scott is exactly where your where when you had young children. And he did put it right out there that he voted No. I don’t think Ruthanne mentioned her vote but I would guess is was a no. She may have stated her vote elsewhere
At this point, I’m OK with a candidate who is lukewarm about recreational marijuana as long they plan to carry out what the voters want. It might have been a dealbreaker in the preliminary for me, though.
Although a majority of voters statewide supported legalizing and regulating retail marijuana sales, some cities and towns have put it on the ballot within those communities. For example, in September, Milford voted to ban recreational “pot shops.” (Of course, Milford presumably still wants local aid revenue from sales elsewhere.) It could happen in Newton if it gets on the ballot, whether because the city council proposes it, approves a citizens petition to put it on the ballot, or a citizens’ group collects enough signatures to put it on the ballot. I’m not running for Mayor, or anything else for that matter, so I have the “luxury” of telling my truth. And, just to be clear, the reason I was against my kids using it was because it was still illegal, not because I thought it was any more harmful or addictive than alcohol or cigarettes (which I don’t want my kids smoking). Indeed, I have never heard of anyone overdosing or dying from using marijuana, whereas I know people who have almost killed themselves from alcohol poisoning, and people who died from alcohol related cirrhosis of the liver.
@Marti I’m sorry you see such nefarious motives where none are intended. Again, the misattribution generated a lot of comments; it seems only fair to make the correction as potent as the original. That’s it.
Thanks Ted! Now I get it! That definitely could happen in Newton although it sounds like it might be the CC that would have more leverage in that than the mayor. Of course the player in CC will be quite different after Nov even if all of the incumbants running for re-election prevail.
Oh Lynne, if that was true you would have started the thread with just the correction and made a couple of comments. Instead you started out accusing Jake of staying silent, on purpose and not because he didn’t remember as Andy didn’t, and started a blame game accusing commenters of dissing unfairly on Braden and demanding apologies.
As other posters have commented, we did not jump on Braden because of the mistaken credit given to him about signing a ban but because of other things he stands for and has said. You’ve been told by others that your post was more than what was necessary to point out the mistake – not just me.
The list of reasons that I’m not voting for Jake next month is too long for me to enumerate here this afternoon. However, in fairness to him, this mistake is on the Tab. It shouldn’t have happened, and let’s hope that it doesn’t happen again in the future.
When all is said and done, this misattribution should help Braden more than it hurts him. In fact, at the gym today, I overheard a group of retired women talking about how they are not voting for Jake because they perceive him as being a dishonest politician. In all my years living in Newton, I’ve never overheard such a conversation.
@Tom Davis, I’ve watched Jake on video footage from CC and in a recent debate and he comes of very articulate and bright…probably because he is.
But I find him very stand -offish and cold and even a little arrogant in person. I still may vote for him, but I really don’t like him.
@Claire: I appreciate you sharing this with us.
In defense of Jake, for a variety of reasons, there are plenty of people out there who will vote for him. They like that he vocally supported Question 2, despite it being opposed by our School Committee because of how it would have hurt public school students. They like how he singularly pushed for a “free speech” resolution in response to a student discipline issue at Newton North High School, which, for issues I’ve tried to debate him on, he had no business getting involved in. They like that three short years ago, he was a paid GOP political operative, proudly helping to defeat Democratic candidates. They like that he opposed Austin Street, depending upon on whom he was speaking with. And most currently, they like that he opposes marijuana.
In my opinion, Jake is a typical product of the immense privilege that he was born into.
Tom,
Or they will vote for him because he’s much better than the alternative – Braden Houston who opposes building workforce and affordable housing by increasing density in village centers. Business owners complain that there is a hiring crisis because their employees need a place to live ideally close to the amenities they use, seniors need a place to downsize and Newton needs more affordable housing. Braden talks about Newton’s “naturally affordable housing.” On that Braden and Emily Norton are in total sync.
I only heard Jake talk about supporting walkability. I have heard that he told some people he didn’t support Austin Street but have no confirmation. It would be great if he would take a stand on issues publicly before they reach conclusion instead of afterward – such as on the subject of keeping custodians’ hiring in-house.
@ Tom Davis
Can you share the long list of why you won’t vote for Jake?
I don’t know the candidates other than what they said the one debate I had the chance to attend. I also don’t have the time to dig through all the documents that would give me a clearer picture on their voting record.
From a later post I understand that he supported the Charter vote? And that he worked for the GOP (as what, and is there a link where I can read more about it?). I’d love to get a fuller picture.