By a vote of 3 – 1 – 2, the Programs and Services Committee voted to recommend to the City Council, that they place an “Opt-Out” Question on the ballot this November. The Council Chamber was packed – standing room only and the balcony filled with residents concerned about the impact and effect commercialization of marijuana will have on children and our community. About 35+ people testified – mostly in favor with a few (maybe 3 – 4) opposed. Councilors debated whether to amend the question and instead ask the voters to limit the number of retail recreational establishments but Councilors Schwartz, Kalis and Rice voted to move the item forward to the City Council with one opposed (sorry – I left before hearing who opposed) and two Councilors abstaining. I posted on my FB page during the meeting. Can you believe I didn’t have Twitter on my phone?
Programs and Services Votes to recommend to the Full Council to place the Opt-Out Question on the Ballot
by Amy Sangiolo | Jun 6, 2018 | Newton | 135 comments
Councilor Susan Albright opposed. Among her points (I didn’t catch them all), is that a 50-person petition isn’t a good precedent to expedite a move to review by full council. But I think it also played in that there were still many open (legal and procedural?) questions about the process. Too many “I think so’s” and “I don’t know’s” from Newton’s present legal team for comfort.
At least that was my impression. Sincere apologies if I misrepresented the issues.
@Dulles – No – I think you were spot on. I was surprised about her 50 person argument and tried to video her statements but my phone didn’t record. She had no problem when citizens came forward with a 50 person petition to put Trump Impeachment resolution on the ballot. And I think she missed the point. The 50 person petition was to get their question before the Council. Council members are the ones to decide whether to put this to the voters and if they don’t, the residents have the ability to collect enough signatures to override their votes.
@Amy – so the question is going to be if the group can get 6000 or 9000 signatures, depending on whether the Council will vote yes or no.
I found it incredible that the pro-ban group requested that the council forgo the requirement of the 6000 signatures (which is the other part that needs to be completed before it can move to a ballot vote if I understand this correctly)! And I hope that they will not consider it. Where do we draw the line when the signatures are needed and when not? Either the rule applies to all or it should be changed – again for all.
Personally I think that it is ridiculous to think that when people voted yes, they didn’t realize that there would be stores as well. What would be the point of making it legal if it can’t be bought? But the law seems to explicitly allow for cities to opt out by city wide vote for those areas where the ballot question was approved, and so I think the committee decided correctly tonight.
To me it seemed that most people who spoke tonight didn’t agree with legalization in the first place, and now they want to do the next best thing – to ban the sale of it, rather than accept the will of the majority. Add to that a good dose of NIMBY, of which there seems to be a lot in this city.
Listening to people speak tonight you’d think that cannabis users are a bunch of shady creatures we need to protect our children from, and that they would buy their drugs, consume them immediately and mow down citizens left and right (even though cannabis consumption in public would not be legal, regardless of the age of the person). Lots of fear mongering for sure.
I hope the city council will make efforts to understand the law and its implications, and share that understanding with us citizens; such as how many stores we could reasonably expect, given our zoning laws and other limitations we could impose. The pro-ban group insists that the law says that we MUST open 8 stores, and I don’t believe that to be true. I sure hope we can avoid another campaign where half truths circle around and people get all riled up if this issue makes it to the ballot.
@Patricia. My thoughts exactly. So much of the present fear in Newton and elsewhere is directly attributable to the inflammatory and utterly false propaganda about the dangers of marijuana that was widely distributed in films and pamphlets from the 1930’s right up to recent times. I’ve never used marijuana and it’s clear there are certain serious health effects from overuse, but nothing like what I and most other Americans were taught to fear and loathe.
FDR was right. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. Fear based on distortion is toxic and persistent.
As a strong supporter of adult use marijuana stores and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in needed tax revenue they’re expected to provide to Newton, I’m appalled that Councilors Schwartz, Kalis, and Rice would cave to the NIMBY naysayers who organized last night’s dog & pony show, actually sending out evites in order to pack the room. Hopefully mainstream voters like me will remember how out of touch these councilors have shown themselves to be with Newton residents as a whole, who voted by an overwhelming margin in favor of legalization in 2016.
However, it may be that the city would be best off allowing this vote so that the issue could be put to rest once and for all. The last thing we want to do is discourage legal marijuana-related business (or any legitimate business!) from seeking to open in one of the multitude of vacant storefronts that proliferate all across Newton. If that’s what’s going to happen then let’s have this vote and get it over with and send the NIMBY naysayers back under their rock. Barring an extremely low turnout, Newton voters are highly unlikely to ban these legal establishments from operating and paying their fair share of taxes into city coffers.
@Amy: Mostly in favor of the ballot question or mostly in favor of recreational marijuana ?
I advocated that OON collect 6,000 signatures (question 4 collected >100,000 signatures to get on the state ballot, and Newton voted in favor by more than a 10% margin. In my opinion this sets a high bar to reverse course fully with an all-out retail store ban).
Many of the speakers stated they supported Q.4, but 8 stores are too many; many more had concerns over specific locations. I think we can satisfy the majority of these concerns by lowering the cap, e.g., to 4 stores, and through carefully considered zoning.
Critics complained that Q.4 was an all-or-nothing deal; it seems hypocrisy to reverse course and force an all-or-nothing retail store ban ballot question, based on a 50-signature petition. So I’d recommend the council find a compromise: Then if OON would like a complete ban of all retail stores, then they can gather the 6,000 signatures to put that before the council.
@Gerry Chervinsky – I am not so sure about your prediction. I think the opt-out campaign will be successful in mobilizing much of the Asian residents to vote for the ban of sales.
Add to that the fear mongering, especially around 8 stores having to be opened (which I think is incorrect – I am having a lawyer friend of mine look at the law to bring more clarity on this issue) and I think there is a chance that Newton will opt out. I fear that NIMBY is going to be a strong factor too.
@Dulles. The 6,000 would not be putting it before the council. If the council votes yes on the petition, then the group needs 6000 signatures to get it on the ballot (they are asking the council to forgo this requirement btw). If the council votes no on the petition, then the group needs 9000 signatures to override that and put the question on the ballot.
@Greg: Mostly in favor of the ballot question. There were quite a few people who said they favor recreational use but were upset to learn that Newton would be required to have a minimum of 8 recreational use shops here in the City. That lead to a discussion amongst the Councilors after the public hearing was closed, about whether they should also consider a competing ballot question or amending the current one to limiting the number of shops allowed in the City – which was confirmed by the City Solicitor – the only way to limit the number of recreational shops in the City is to put it out to the voters.
@Patricia, my understanding is that 6,000-signature level would do the same thing the Program & Services Committee did — bring the measure before the Council.
I am making an artificial distinction here: I feel a 50-person petition should not justify pushing an all-out ban to ballot (seeing how strongly the community already voted in favor of Q4). But maybe it makes sense for the Council to have a debate around a lower retail cap as a ballot question. If OON collects 6,000 signatures I feel at that point they’ve got proven legs to get the Council consider putting an all-out retail ban on the ballot. But I don’t think an all-out retail ban is the first conversation we should be having.
Imagine we have 4 dispensaries in Newton. Can someone explain to me how the city would force four more to open? Do you tell someone who wants to open a pizza shop, that s/he has to open a dispensary instead? This argument for banning dispensaries simply makes no sense and sounds more like a red herring.
@Patricia – the law, as written, does require Newton to allow 8 retail establishments at a minimum or 20% of the package stores in Newton. By zoning ordinance, we can officially limit the number to 8 only. We can reduce that number by a ballot question. The Planning Department will be coming to Zoning and Planning Committee with a draft Ordinance in June to begin the zoning discussion. One of the comments I made last night (sorry it was inaudible) was that I would have preferred to have the knowledge of that proposal before putting forward a ballot question to limit the number of establishments in Newton (I reiterate -the only way to limit below the 20% is by ballot question). However, I’m willing to docket a ballot question to limit the number below 8 to see if that voters want that instead of a total ban. I would note that Town Meeting in Brookline rejected the proposal to limit the number of recreational mj establishments.
When we had a discussion about the marijuana moratorium on V14 earlier this year there was an outcry in favor of immediate retail sales – no moratorium. It surprised me to hear only 3 people speak against the ballot question to ban marijuana sales in Newton.
I do believe that most of the people who spoke last night – and the Chamber was full – were even against the legalization. They didn’t say that per se but their words implied it. The arguments were all about children accessing marijuana and the damage that it can do to the growing brain. I don’t think anyone can argue with the damage to the growing brain. The problem is that these kids are already getting marijuana of questionable safety.
One speaker and one Councilor thought that the retail establishments would be marketing their products directly at children. There is a specific prohibition for this in the State’s regulations which says stores are prohibited from:
3. advertising, marketing, and branding that utilizes statements, designs, representations,
pictures or illustrations that portray anyone younger than 21 years old;
This then becomes an enforcement issue.
Regarding a 50 person petition – I was not on the Programs and Services Committee during the impeachment petition (as I believe former Councilor Sangiolo was)- so i had no choice but to vote on something that the Programs and Services Committee brought to the full Council. Regarding last nights discussion, I was aware that 55% of Newton voted Yes on Question 4. I would have been far more inclined to vote yes on a petition for a ballot question if the group had brought us 6000 signatures on their petition rather than 5o or 60. The petition group made the point that in some towns the number of signatures required was in the 200-300ish range- it should be noted that the population of those towns is only 1/3 the size of Newton ( I believe Lexington was an example). Even 1000 signatures in Newton would have made a better showing than 60.
Finally – we should all be aware that Question 4 was a ballot question during a Presidential election. In the 2016 election, nearly 80% of the Newton electorate voted. In 2014 – comparable to this coming election when there was an open seat for governor roughly 60% of the electorate voted. A smaller turnout can affect the results – one way or another.
If this is voted on in a strictly local election, I think opting out has a good chance of passing. Oh well. The communities that don’t succumb to this madness stand to make a fortune in tax revenues. I’d much rather it be my own city.
“One speaker and one Councilor thought that the retail establishments would be marketing their products directly at children.” It is absolutely baffling to me that someone could think something so illogical.
Just because the city is allowed to accept 8 retail MJ stores doesn’t mean that there will be 8 applications. As Jane, no one is forcing anyone to open a retail store. Although I would be ok with having only 4 retail MJ stores.
This ballot question submitted to P&S with only 60 signatures after an enormous anti MJ marketing campaign asking for the council to forgo the 6000 signatures and accept this ban is underhanded. Why should they be allowed to forgo the normal process? The P&S committee should have rejected it outright. There is no reason to allow it to go forward.
After reading Susan Albright’s comment, I’m concerned that a recommendation from a committee means automatic approval from the rest of the council.
Susan, “so i had no choice but to vote on something that the Programs and Services Committee brought to the full Council.”
Why? This seems like a terrible reason to vote differently than you believe is the right thing to do for Newton. Is this a standard practice among councilors? Why even bother voting? My understanding of the process is that a committee recommendation is only that and that the full council listens to each other and uses good judgement on whether to follow the recommendation. Then votes for themselves regardless of a committee allowing it to reach the full council.
@Susan: I’m surprised that you felt like you had “no choice but to vote” on the 50 person petition asking the City Council to support a resolution to impeach Donald Trump. You know full well, you are free as any Councilor is , to vote NO on anything recommended by any of the Committees.
And to all who were unable to attend, the folks who testified in favor of Opt-Out include physicians, pediatricians, and scientists. Dr. Michael Jellinek spoke in favor of the Opt-Out petition.
Last summer it was revealed by a City Councilor on Village 14 that [then] Mayor Warren had appointed a committee called “The Marijuana Working Group.” There were nine members of the Committee, which included several known prohibitionists, but did not include a single member who supported marijuana legalization. It was that committee’s recommendation for a moratorium that Fuller adopted as one of her first actions as mayor…
The special committee held all of their meetings in secret, with no media and no members of the public in attendance. The Law Department subsequently refused my written request to turn over the committee’s minutes and notes. They actually had the audacity to tell me that this specific committee was “not subject to the Open Meeting Law.” If the committee’s notes were turned over today, they would prove that the moratorium was pre-planned, and the objective was to permanently block implementation of the voter approved law…
Guess who was a member of the Marijuana Working Group? City Councilor Greg Schwartz, a known prohibitionist, who last night passed the deciding vote to let 50 people dictate a re-vote of a ballot referendum that was already passed by thousands of his constituents…
We the People can not allow our ballot box votes to be tampered with by elected officials. We can not tolerate office holders like Schwartz and other officials undermining implementation of a legally binding referendum. Vote rigging is a crime when it’s committed before an election, and it should be a crime when its committed after an election as well. The people who have conspired against the voters believe they can do so with impunity. It’s up to those of us who truly value democracy to show them that they can’t.
Amy and Marti – Regarding my vote on the Impeachment petition. A Councilor has the choice to stand outside the rail and not vote or vote something up or down. I’m not a fan of standing outside the rail. In my 14 years on the Council, I may have done that once – but I’m not sure of that. So – I had to vote yes or no. First of all – this was NOT a 50 person petition to put something on the ballot or to change zoning it was purely a request to our Congressional delegation (as I recall) to tell them that Newton favored initiating impeachment proceedings. Remembering that in the 2016 election Newton voted overwhelmingly for Clinton (79%) vs Trump (16%) and agreeing myself that there were enough problems within the Trump administration to warrant impeachment proceedings I felt comfortable voting yes. A no vote would not have been a message to the petitioners to not bring forward 50 person petitions. That message could easily have been sent by the Programs and Services Committee by voting no in committee.
Opting out is nonsensical and against what the Voters in Newton wanted. This group should be required to gather the proper number of signatures, 6000, to be able to put it on the ballot.
Any group can find professionals who will speak out who agree with them, including physicians and scientists. The groups that preach that vaccinations should be avoided also have some of them on their side. Pediatricians can talk about the dangers of MJ on a child’s brain – they can also tell you about the dangers of a drinking and smoking on a child’s brain. That doesn’t mean we should prevent adults over 21 from from doing those things.
Not having retail MJ stores in Newton but available most everywhere else in MA is only keeping money out of Newton. These stores are less dangerous with better security than liquor stores and others that sell cigarettes.
I’m appalled that the P & S committee passed this 60 person petition forward to the full city council. I expect the full council to tell them to collect 6000 signatures or just go home.
This is not my particular issue, although I note, again, that folks in Newton didn’t seem to mind so much when Garden Remedies opened, it was only when MJ stores started to be a possibility in other neighborhoods that folks started to protest.
I’m not a pot smoker. I don’t intend to be a pot smoker, and hopefully I’ll never need medical MJ. But I strongly believe the following:
1) This was voted on by the Commonwealth. It passed. Sensible regulation is fine, obstruction and exempting out is not.
2) If there must be a discussion on exempting out, the petition should follow the usual procedure. You don’t like something that passed via ballot? Get off your butt and get 6000 signatures.
3) Absent full opting out, I expect MJ shops in every village in Newton, subject to any state wide rules put in place. We are one community.
4) Folks protesting the effect of MJ on young folks are missing the point. It is incredibly easy to get Pot. So easy that I know of at least 5 places to get it, and I’m a boring, nerdy, hermit type who hates people. It’s been easy to get for as long as I’ve been able to know what pot is, and no matter what community I’ve lived in. It was far easier to get than alcohol in my experience when I was a teen, and I’m told that remains the same in Newton. Telling me that doctors testify about the negative effects on youth completely misses the point. Look to CO, which hasn’t seen an explosion of youth use.
I understand the NIMBY desire not to have a MJ shop near them. I think it is overblown as an issue, but hey, folks get upset about new things all the time. But don’t cloak yourself in protection of youth. Because if you think banning the sale in Newton does anything except solve the NIMBY issue, I invite you to talk to an honest high school kid and ask them to name how many folks will sell him or her pot.
Again, I don’t care about this particular issue with any passion. But man does hypocrisy annoy me.
I am with you Fignewtonville. This isn’t an issue I care much about UNTIL I see the hypocrisy and NIMBY reaction. Makes me want to get off my duff and oppose the Opt Out crowd
I don’t use weed, although I have at times in my life. And this is not my issue either.
But hypocrisy is.
As Ive said before, to be all NIMBY about marajuana and accepting of alcohol is pure hypocrisy.
Using ‘our kids welfare’ as an excuse is what makes me most angry. Teach your kids how to make good decisions, to have interests goals and aspirations, how to deal with adversity and failure, how to have conversation, and grit.
If you are so afraid of your kid being tempted and influenced just by passing by marijuana store on his way to school, you’re probably not doing a stellar job as a parent.
And by the way, there is a website where people share where they can find marijuana in every city in the country.
Look up Newton … word on the street is if you want to score weed you hang around Newton North.
I just wish all the time and energy being focused on this issue was spent where it would actually make a difference . .. by spending time with our kids.
Many have commented here that the will of the voters should be respected and that the City Council should just implement the law. An important part of that law gives each town and city the right to opt out of retail sales in their town if their citizens so choose. If you want to deny Newton voters the right to vote to on this issue, you should at least acknowledge that you’re asking the City Councilors to pick and choose the parts of the law that you like and disregard the parts that you don’t like. They have an obligation to give Newton citizens the rights that are granted to them in the law. How the issue is placed on the docket, whether from a proposal from a City Councilor or a citizen petition of 50 people or 50,000 people is irrelevant. If a majority of voters decide that they don’t want recreational marijuana stores in Newton, then that is the decision, whether the voters come to that decision from a place that some consider hypocritical or not. If a majority decide that they do want marijuana stores in Newton, then that will be the decision, regardless of their motives, as well.
@Jennifer makes a great point that was presented last evening about voter rights. What we learn from Public Hearings is amazing as the city has many concerned citizens with a strong knowledge base.
The State ballot to legalize marijuana was far more complex than simply saying “yes,” or “no,” to the legalization of the product. To pass the review as a valid question many conditions had to have been met and the actual ballot question was quite lengthy.
One of the “rights” that we agreed to by being a “yes” community, is that the voters could then further decide whether or not to have retail establishments in the city. This is a right that was given by the state ballot when the question passed. To deny this right to the residents of Newton is disingenuous.
The Opt Out group has simply initiated the process for the voters to exercise a right they were given by the ballot. If you voted yes, you gave the voter this right.
Common sense City Council government needs to not dwell on this and try and to be creative. The vote should simply be on the November 2018 ballot and let the voter decide.
Saying we should have fewer, etc, is ludicrous and shows a weakness to govern. The question is simply do the residents of Newton want retail sales, or not. That’s it.
Place it on the ballot and let the voter decide.
@Jennifer: “whether from a proposal from a City Councilor or a citizen petition of 50 people or 50,000 people is irrelevant.”
That is not correct. It is in fact extremely relevant.
Let’s say a 50-signatures petition leads to a council decision, places the question on the ballot and passes a retail restriction November 2018.
Let’s say in January 2019, 50 “Opt (Back) In” signatures petition the Programs & Services Committee to put the the question *back* on the ballot to rescind the restrictions. Do they expedite this request, too, as a level playing field? If not, why not? Why should that group be denied similar rights?
There’s a reason why I’m advocating OON get 6,000 signatures. It is a very high bar, much more resistant to challenge.
I believe many people voted for marijuana legalization, they might not have voted for bringing something used to be illegal into their own neighborhood or even their own backyard. And many would probably only refer to simply legalization in a court setting, guilty or not guilty.
Many towns now then opt out. Why? Do the Newton residents know about this issue? This is probably should make Newton to look at as well.
Judging on that above worth a ballot to hear what people want as permitted by the law.
I found it interesting that there was this public hearing with residents making the concerns. All city councils heard and made their hearing responses except Susan Albright seemed to ignore the hearing from the residents. Her argument had no concern and paid no attention to what the resident’s issues in a public hearing. All she brought out seemed to be the law, the same 50 person petition, law enforcement, hearing more legal advice afterwards…but not hearing the resident.
Maybe these doctors, lawyers, students, principal, healthcare workers, housewives, Chinese immigrants not worth to be heard?
To be a better public servant, isn’t it something worth checking out when there is a change from 3 people speaking against the ballot question to a much bigger group?
Maybe it’s simply what I stated at the beginning that people did not know what they voted for?
It’s a fact that in Newton in order to get a petition on the ballot, 6000 signatures are required.
I don’t think the city council should be able to circumvent the established process for any cause. This opt out question or any other.
Otherwise every petitioner will attempt the same thing – and should be able to. It’s absurd to think this issue should not be treated like any other. The 6000 signatures is required for a good reason. Otherwise anything just a tiny percentage of Newton agrees about could wind up on the ballot.
@dulles: To put things in perspective the Opt Out Committee would actually have to gather 9000 signatures in the next 30 days or so to get on the ballot. Compare this to the widely debated Charter which took at least 5 years to gather 10,000 signatures and you can see how ridiculous our Charter is on ballot questions.
A Ward Councilor only needs 75 signatures to be a candidate for City Council, and Councilor at Large requires only 150. The entry bar is set low to encourage candidates and allow everyone that would like to the opportunity to run for office.
So with barely any signatures a Councilor can be elected and set policy for 90,000 residents!!! Now doesn’t 9000 to get on the ballot seem a little much, and by the state law, this is our only year to make this decision!
The City Council itself has the ability to place a question on the ballot, with or without a citizen petition. They rarely do, since most don’t feel that that is the best way to debate complex issues. However, many of the City Councilors are now realizing that Newton citizens have a right in the law to decide whether or not they want to opt out of recreational marijuana establishments in Newton, and that it is therefore their obligation to place the question on the ballot so that they can exercise that right.
Councilor Cote — first, thank you. I sat through to the end of the meeting because I’m interested in the process and everyone’s perspectives as much as anything. If it takes 75 signatures to run for a single Ward, I’d think a citywide ballot question would maybe be somewhere between 75/150 and 6000/9000.
Out of interest I went back to the full text of the enacted law. I refer to Section 3 Local Control, part (b) on “opt out” requirements. I summarize the requirements as: (i) a petition signed by >10% of voters and (ii) conforming to the municipality’s petitions process.
I’m not a lawyer! But it seems spelled out — if we adhere to the official opt-out process specified in the 2016 Marijuana Legalization Initiative, that legally requires a 10+% voter petition threshold to put on the ballot. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s one of the many more questions the city’s lawyers should check.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94G/Section3
@Jennifer – They have a right to collect the signatures to get an issue on the ballot. There is no “right” to require the City Council to place the question on the ballot without those signatures. I’m appalled that any councilors are considering short-circuiting the signature requirement because the marijuana opponents were able to round up a crowd to fill the council chambers and make some noise.
@Jennifer, Thanks you cleared up my puzzlement somehow before my post. Wished there were a way for me to delete my previous post, as now I understand. The council has the right to put an opt out question on the ballot. That opt-out is not compliant to the state law on marijuana regulation, but that doesn’t mean it’s not binding.
In the recent election 25,516 Newton residents voted in support of legalizing recreational marijuana. 20,796 Newton residents voted against.
The other night, 200 of those 20,000 residents who voted no last November showed up at City Hall and voiced their opposition. So now the City Council is considering waiving the citizen ballot initiative process and putting the question back on the ballot themselves? This is frankly ridiculous.”
As Dulles points out – should this go back on the ballot and pass. Will it only take 200 more people on the other side of the issue to go to City Hall, make some noise, to get the City Council to put it back on the ballot again for yet another vote?
There is a clear legal process spelled out in the law of how a city can opt-out of the law that was decided by a referendum vote. For the City Council to overturn that process on an issue that 40,000+ Newton residents have already directly voted on, based on a few hundred people turning up at their Chambers and making noise, is a complete abdication of their responsibility.
Bravo Jerry Reilly.
The people have spoken.
I hope Newton’s City Councilors respect the process.
The severity of the marijuana legalization ballot is very different. It turns someone used to be criminal of some sort to noncriminal. It is a big deal for many. And I don’t think that’s a typical situation like you can park here or illegal to park here or not and just absorb it as like a daily living thing. Do people know what we voted for and the consequence was really the key issue. There were campaigns and debates for elections. People asked questions and decided. I assumed it took years in the making in order to put the marijuana legalization issue onto the ballot. There were many issues never mentioned. People only saw TV ads and voted when the ballot comes.
The question for me was why other towns opt out???
Why is this not like the cities around the country wanting amazon to come?
And why the other towns not wanting to compete to get that tax revenue?
Isn’t this a good time to educate and let the people do their own analysis and come out to vote for this?
@Dulles — People rarely admit when they make mistakes on this blog or any other. I’m impressed!
Councilor Cote, Jennifer, David, the marijuana referendum passed in the state and in Newton. It is now LEGAL everywhere in Massachusetts so it is legal in Newton. The opt out process is clearly defined in the new law and that’s what matters most – not what a timy percentage of Newton voters think, whoever they are. 10% of voters isn’t that high a percentage of voters to require for nullification of an already legal and binding vote.
It doesn’t need other lawyers to read the fine print or to be studied anymore. The law is quite easy to read as Dulles pointed out. The process outlined is the only legal one – gather signatures of 10% of the voters in Newton and the opt out question can be on the ballot. Legally the city council has no right to change the process.
Marijuana has been studied to for decades. It’s been concluded by scientists and doctors that it should not be in the same category as hard drugs. Many prisoners are having their sentences commuted because of the scientific findings.
There’s nothing new that should now preclude it being legal – it is legal – including studies of the effects on children’s brains. Just like alcohol and cigarettes this substance isn’t for children but for adult use only.
So if it’s a tiny percentage of voters, why such hand wringing over putting it on the ballot and letting the voters decide whether we want to have recreational sales in our city? Should be a slam dunk and the issue will be resolved once and for all if you truly believe it will be a small percentage in favor of the opt out option…
I voted yes in 2016 and do not favor an opt out for Newton. The one concern I do have is edibles mistakenly being consumed by small children, due to irresponsible adults. That said, I have seen many more lives negatively impacted by alcohol than by weed.
Agree with Leopold.
@Levin. By the way, the bigger impact is really the other opt out towns causing.
They would rather any incident is in your town, not theirs.
1 incident is too many for Newton.
And speaking of law enforcement, it could be a huge burden. This is not a $20 hour life guard sitting at the pool.
Leopold, no hand wringing – just acknowledgement that Newton has no right to be above the law.
It’s clearly irrelevant to speculate on how the vote would go if the opt question were put on the ballot. It’s breaking the law to put the question on the ballot without the petition having 10% of Newton’s voters’ signatures.
The other opt out towns followed the legal process. It doesn’t matter what their outcome was. It matters that Newton follow the legal process. This is not an emotional (hand wringing) or fear based argument. It’s a legal one.
@Susan Albright –
I can only speak for myself. I wasn’t there and didn’t speak because I assumed that opponents of marijuana sales would have to collect 1000’s of signatures before a referendum question could be put on the ballot – as the enabling law clearly states. I had no idea until I saw this blog post that the opponents were trying to convince the Council to skip that requirement and have the Council put the referendum on the ballot themselves.
I had no idea that the City Council had the legal authority to do that. Even if I did, I would never have suspected that they would consider misusing that authority in that way.
45000 Newton voters already directly voted on a law that contains a clearly articulated process for opt’ing out. Why would the council ever entertain the notion of short circuiting that process themselves?
I’m in the same boar with Jerry. It never occurred to me or anyone I know that the council might try to circumvent the legal process. I didn’t speak out for that very reason.
I have called our law department to find out why they think that Newton’s Charter supersedes State Law. It seems that State Law should prevail. I will let you know what I find out.
Susan, I’m curious. If the ballot measure goes forward and passes, what happens to Garden Remedies?
Listen up folks. We’ve been TRUMPED! While cannabis reformists have played by the rules, the prohibitionists have played us…
Just one look at Jim Cote’s pathetically disingenuous post should tell you all you need to know. Cote’s objective, and the objective of many on the Council like Schwartz, Kalis, and Rice who share his perspective, has been to permanently block implementation of the successful ballot initiative intended to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” They think they’ve found a way to RE-vote the issue through a smarmy political maneuver…
What Cote, Schwartz, Kalis and Rice are doing is disrespectful of the voters and undermines the democratic process. Unfortunately, prohibitionists now control the playing field in Newton. Their like-minded City Councilors have lied through their teeth and played Twister with the law in order to wrangle that control. Like the alcohol prohibitionists of nearly 100 years ago, they are ignorant zealots who are not going to be beaten back by the kind of civil debate that accompanies most issues in Newton. They are literally trying to steal an election, and we must fight back hard, through any means available.
As you can see from the section of the MA law Title XV/Chapter 94G/Section 3 governing local control of recreational marijuana establishments that @Dulles posted above, the requirements for putting an Opt Out question on the ballot are the following:
“A ballot question under this subsection may be placed on the ballot at a regular or special election held by the city or town by a vote of the board of selectmen or by the city or town council, with the approval of the mayor or chief executive officer of a city that does not have a mayor, and subject to a municipal charter, if applicable.”
At the public hearing, we were told that the Newton charter allows the City Council to place a ballot question on the ballot on their own volition or at the request of a citizen petition. There is no conflict between the state law governing marijuana and the municipal charter on this issue. If the City Council decides that Newton voters have a right granted to them in the law to decide if they want to Opt Out of recreational sales in Newton, then they can and should place this item on the ballot themselves.
I think the confusion here is that Question 4 requires a petition of 10% of
a town’s voters to allow a ballot question for marijuana establishments that allow on-site consumption, such as bars, theaters, etc. in that town. That is not what is at issue here though.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94G/Section3
@Dulles thanks for linking the state law. I took a quick look and I think the confusion here is that there are two different subsections of the law that deal with ballot questions. The section you cite, MGL Ch. 94G, Sec. 3(b) covers the procedure for a city or town (regardless of how they voted on Q4) to authorize consumption of MJ on the premises where sold. That provision requires a ballot question following a petition signed by 10% of voters.
The section covering the ability of cities who voted YES to limit or prohibit MJ establishments is Sec. 3(a)(2) which provides that if a YES city wants to limit, it can only do so by approval of voters according to the procedure of Sec. 3(a)(2)(e). Sec. 3(a)(2)(e) provides that, among other things, “[a] ballot question under this subsection may be placed on the ballot at a regular or special election held by the city or town by a vote of the board of selectmen or by the city or town council, with the approval of the mayor or chief executive officer of a city that does not have a mayor, and subject to a municipal charter, if applicable.”
So it does seem that opt-out is a ballot question to be governed by our charter. But the revised state MJ law is no model of clarity (or consistency), and I look forward to hearing back from Councilor Albright and the law department.
@Laurie, @Kathy Winters – Thanks for the clarification. That was definitely not my understanding, which is why I didn’t pay much attention to the meeting this week.
I’m heartened to hear that the Council is not considering circumventing a clear requirement of the state recreational marijuana law. While I still firmly oppose any OptOut referendum I do apologize for going off half cocked with my facts wrong (not the first time ;-)) It appears to me that the Council is not overstepping its bounds so I retract my righteous outrage and replace it with disappointment. My disappointment is that the council seems to be unduly moved by a small group of vocal opponents. When the losing minority of last Nov’s referendum is 20,000 Newton votes, its not hard to fill the Council Chamber with a few 100 people.
That being said, that is the game with public hearings, so shame on us proponents for being asleep at the switch for this week’s hearing.
@fignewtonville – No one knows the what would happen to Garden Remedies if a Ban was voted. It might have to be answer in the courts.
I’m glad that others found the answer regarding the 10%. Here is the answer from the Law Dept.
The part of the statute “Dulles” refers to is MGL C. 94G, Sec. 3 (b). That section, which does require 10% of the city’s voters to sign a petition, is specifically limited to a ballot question on whether the city or town will allow the sale of marijuana for consumption on the premises where sold (on-site consumption of marijuana such as a pot café).
Ballot questions to ban marijuana or to limit the number of establishments to below 20% of retail liquor licenses are governed by a different section, MGL c. 94G, Sec. 3 (a), which has no requirement that 10% of voters sign a petition. These ballot questions may be placed on the ballot by a vote of the city council, with the approval of the Mayor, and subject to a municipal charter (if any).
Why would anything happen to Garden Remedies, a medical marijuana facility, if there is a ban on recreational establishments?
“…with the approval of the Mayor…”
A defining moment for Mayor Fuller. As a City Councilor she voted to block MEDICAL marijuana. As Mayor she signed of on this recent moratorium to block adult use marijuana. If Vegas would give me odds, I could make a fortune betting that Fuller will put this on the ballot.
@Tricia – Nothing would happen to the Medical Marijuana part of Garden Remedies. As you may know, Garden Remedies is seeking a special permit to sell recreational marijuana. If this permit were to be granted – it is not clear what would happen if a ban were voted on a ballot question.
I am not looking to debate marijuana use. I have no problem with whatever anyone wants to do at home or with friends. It is legal and that is everyone’s right and nobody wants to take that away. Opt out is just looking for the same respect of the law that people on this site are quoting. If you voted yes to legalize, you also voted for a community process to opt out. I submit for your review the following.
Yes on Q4 Communities:
Communities with “Yes” on Q4 majority votes in Fall of 2016 are required to prevail on two votes to OptOut locally:
a vote of the voters at the ballot box, enabling:
a vote of the local legislative body to approve a general bylaw or ordinance and (optionally) a zoning or bylaw Opting Out.
On opting out in a Yes on Q4 Community, the MA Municipal Association opinion of their lawyers is that based on the law (House 3818), passage of a ballot question is only an “enabling” action, that gives authority to the local legislative body to go through the process of adopting a zoning by-law.
Their opinion, and that of MA town counsels, is based on subsection (e) of Section 3:
(e) If an ordinance or by-law must be submitted for approval pursuant to subsection (a)(2), the following procedures will be followed:
(1) The city solicitor or town counsel shall prepare a fair and concise summary of the proposed ordinance or by-law which will make clear the number and types of marijuana establishments which will be permitted to operate under the proposed ordinance and by-law and shall be included on the ballot.
(2) A ballot shall be prepared asking “Shall this [city or town] adopt the following [by-law or ordinance]? [solicitor/counsel summary] [full text of by-law or ordinance]
(3) If the majority of the votes cast in answer to the question are in the affirmative, the city or town may adopt the by-law or ordinance, but if the majority is in the negative, the city or town shall not adopt the by-law or ordinance.
A ballot question under this subsection may be placed on the ballot at a regular or special election held by the city or town by a vote of the board of selectmen or city or town council, with the approval of the mayor, and subject to a municipal charter, if applicable.
@Lisa Gordon– Of course you “don’t want to debate marijuana use.” You’d lose! The ballot initiative was called the CAMPAIGN TO TREAT MARIJUANA LIKE ALCOHOL. Something about that you don’t understand?
@Tricia– It’s a point of debate among attorneys representing cannabis industry clients as to whether or not a currently licensed medical dispensary is entitled to an adult-use Special Permit by-right, since they already met the same State criteria when they applied for their initial [medical] approval. I’m told that the prevailing thought is that medical dispensaries do in fact have that right. The brilliant minds on the City Council have created a scenario where Garden Remedies may very well have the exclusive right to sell adult-use cannabis in Newton. At least until home delivery is approved by the Cannabis Commission as expected next year. At that point the prohibitionists can complain about all the delivery vans with big marijuana leaves painted on the side.
@Lisa Gordon – Your tactics are disingenuous and extremely manipulative. You went so far as to call me directly to avoid debating the issue online a few weeks ago.
You think that marijuana shops will be a hazard to kids walking by them to a from school and you also think that they will cause more litter! (of all things) I know this because it’s what you told me on the phone!
@All – This group wants to avoid discussion and debate at all costs.
Lisa, you write “Opt out is just looking for the same respect of the law that people on this site are quoting.”
Lisa, The Law is the law. It will be followed or decided by a judge. Opt out is looking to stop marijuana shops coming to Newton. Come on, say it. I dare you.
As I said in a previous post, you should be more concerned about your kids walking by Newton North than a legal marajauana shop.
A big *thank you* to the Councilors for the follow-up, and to the City’s legal experts for the clarifications. I am grateful for your explaining the finer points of the law. It seemed there was some other process in play but I couldn’t find it.
@Jennifer, thank you. I may disagree with OON goals and voice strong concerns over the short-cut process. Different beliefs aside, we remain one community. We each believe we’re doing the right thing. I respect that, and we shouldn’t lose sight of it.
I await whether advocates of “Remain In” will find a similar passionate voice for its viewpoint, or whether it will remain largely silent.
I stand corrected on the procedure for putting a marijuana question on the ballot. I am confused as to how I thought the process called for 20% of Newton voters and apologize for being adamant about what I incorrectly thought was the legal process. Thanks to all who set me straight.
I have been reading and rereading the law on the procedure. The term “opt out” is being used by anti marijuana groups instead of “ban” as a persuasion tactic. According to the law, the procedure below can be used to do many things outside of an outright ban. It can be used to just limit the number of MJ recreational shops to under 20% of the number of retail stores that sell liquor.
NONE of these procedures HAVE to take place at all and certainly not because a tiny percentage of residents signed a petition. Have these signatures been verified? Are they all Newton voters? After a major push throughout Newton to sign this petition, only 60 did.
The Newton City Council and our Mayor SHOULD NOT FORCE Newton voters to vote again on recreational marijuana sales. The vote was taken and the bill establishing recreational marijuana was passed. I am expecting them to do the right thing and deny the petition, including writing any ordinance limiting retail sales and putting it on the ballot.
The procedure that a city that voted in the affirmative must follow to:
“(i) prohibit the operation of 1 or more types of marijuana establishments within the city or town” (or to ban adult use marijuana retail stores in a yes city, such as Newton)
Or “(ii) limit the number of marijuana retailers to fewer than 20 per cent of the number of licenses issued within the city or town for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages”
Or “(iii) limit the number of any type of marijuana establishment to fewer than the number of medical marijuana treatment centers registered to engage in the same type of activity in the city or town”
Is
“(1) The city solicitor or town counsel shall prepare a fair and concise summary of the proposed ordinance or by-law which shall make clear the number and types of marijuana establishments which shall be permitted to operate under the proposed ordinance and by-law and shall be included on the ballot
“(2) A ballot shall be prepared asking “Shall this [city or town] adopt the following [by-law or ordinance]? [solicitor/counsel summary] [full text of by-law or ordinance]”
“(3) If the majority of the votes cast in answer to the question are in the affirmative, the city or town may adopt the by-law or ordinance, but if the majority of votes cast is in the negative, the city or town shall not adopt the by-law or ordinance.”
“A ballot question under this subsection may be placed on the ballot at a regular or special election held by the city or town by a vote of the board of selectmen or by the city or town council, with the approval of the mayor or chief executive officer of a city that does not have a mayor, and subject to a municipal charter, if applicable.”
Lisa Gordon is being deceitful in saying she has no problem with marijuana use.
It’s telling that the info she posted is from a site that has as it slogan “Prevent Don’t Promote Marijuana Use” and is against all marijuana sales. It’s under “Commercial Recreational Marijuana Opt-Out Action Plan.” The site includes every reason under the sun to ban marijuana. http://marijuana-policy.org/massachusetts-commercial-marijuana-opt-westborough-action-plan/
Jennifer, your comment that includes “However, many of the City Councilors are now realizing that Newton citizens have a right in the law to decide whether or not they want to opt out of recreational marijuana establishments in Newton, and that it is therefore their obligation to place the question on the ballot so that they can exercise that right.”
No. There is NO obligation for the Newton city council or our mayor to write and approve any ordinance to place on the ballot because 60 people signed a petition to do so or that a number of people showed up who are against marijuana use. That’s a remarkedly incorrect statement.
If the only argument opposing placing “Opt Out” on the ballot is that you are afraid Opt Out will pass, then why have any elections at all?
The voters in Massachusetts voted to legalize marijuana, that doesn’t change, the voters further voted in mechanisms to ensure that the residents of a city have the final say. This is called voters rights, and you cannot be selective about the right to vote.
Note that “D” Day just passed and all of those folks fought, and many died, to maintain your democratic government.
Marti is on to something, the idea that the state law provides a mechanism for an opt-out referendum is misleading. Even the title of this petition (“Citizens Petition requesting ballot question on recreational marijuana establishments with exceptions”) is misleading.
The state law simply restricts the ability of a YES city or town to limit permitting of marijuana establishments by adding the extra step of voter approval. It remains up to the city council and mayor to decide whether to adopt a limiting or prohibiting ordinance. Such an ordinance would then require voter approval in order to take effect.
The issue before the city council is whether to adopt the proposed ordinance, not whether to submit a ballot question to voters.
I hope the City Council will decide that issue as they would any other proposed ordinance, and not simply punt it to the voters because of the extra step required by state law.
I believe there are many residents/voters have no idea about what has been going on this matter.
I’m just one of them and others that I spoke with.
As far as the laws goes, I probably don’t have much idea.
But now that many nearby towns exercised their rights to do something about it.
There is a direct impact on our town.
And now that there were people starting to flood the town house for whatever the reason.
Our town should spend the time and look into it.
What is the cost benefits vs risks to be taken?
Why do many towns opt out?
I heard on the news about Police(maybe Boston) did not have clear way on what to do with marijuana overdose judgement like a couple of months ago.
There are laws and there are people who drive under the influence of alcohol regardless of the laws.
There are laws and there are and there will be people driving under the influence of marijuana.
But then, it becomes very close related when out of town people coming in our town centre for that recreation.
What’s the cost beneift if a group of people coming to do it in out town and caused issues, accidents?
People from out of town will come here for entertainment and want to be free and people often forget responsbilities and laws in that state of mind.
Do our tax money goes to fixing problems and law enforcement that they come?
How much tax are we getting out of that?
When do Newton spend money to prevent or fixing potential problem? After some kind of bad accidents due to that cause? Or now?
What if that brings down our house values especially in our prestigious Newton Centre neighborhood?
It might have a serious long term effect if our town do not act and ignore.
And our tax goes up with house values go down?
I’m sure it is not going to be hard if Newton or any town wants to opt in if we are missing the boat.
But once we opt in and we might have to carry the burdens with our tax money for long long time and the residents of Newton should know now.
As a responsible city council, he/she cannot just ignore that aspect.
Kathy, thanks and I agree.
Councilor Cote, I respectfully disagree. The voters did not vote to ensure the voters have another final say. The very term “opt out” is misleading. It matters not what the vote outcome would be; it matters that a few councilors and a few residents want a ban on retail marijuana shops and can not demand any such ordinance be written, approved by the mayor and placed on the ballot. You and the other councilors who are against marijuana are attempting to both persuade voters and use heavy handed tactics to attempt to force the city council to write an ordinance banning marijuana and putting it on the ballot.
The regulations put restrictions on the zoning ordinances, by law changes, and general ordinances that city councils, with the mayor’s approval, can enact. Those restrictions require any new ordinance or by law that infringes on the new regulations be voted on by the residents in the city. It’s intention is to restrict what a city council with mayoral approval can do.
There is no obligation for the city council to act on either approving the ordinance submitted or to write another one. Surely most city councilors realize that doing so just to please a few would be an act against the majority of Newton voters who thought this was settled in a previous vote. That’s voters’ rights.
David, “And now that there were people starting to flood the town house for whatever the reason.“ huh?
All of the things you mention have been studied for decades. It really doesn’t matter why other towns have banned marijuana. If they voted no in the referendum and did it before the new rules were amended, before July, 2017, there was an easy process to ban them and many did. Brookline did not. So all neighboring towns did not.
In 2016, I voted Yes to ballot question 4 to legalize recreational marijuana in Massachusetts. My rationale at the time was to decriminalize people using marijuana for recreational purposes because I was and still is sympathetic to those who get penalized severely for something they choose to do at their own discretion without violating or infringing my freedom (of not doing it).
Unfortunately, some advocates of marijuana, including a few Newton City Councilors, interpreted or assumed, incorrectly, the message of the people who voted similarly in 2016 as our support for commercialization of recreational marijuana in Newton, potentially resulting in as many as 8 stores and even selling marijuana infused candies and bars in our community. Now the issue hits home. Just to be 100% perfectly clear, THIS IS NOT THE INTENTION OF MY YES VOTE IN 2016. I don’t support opening any new recreational marijuana store in Newton, let alone eight, or selling any marijuana products which could be remotely enticing to children or under-aged teens. In order to know the precise number of the population who supports not only decriminalization but also commercialization of recreational marijuana, there must be another public vote which addresses this serious question.
Bottomline is a Yes vote in 2016 to legalize recreational marijuana doesn’t automatically imply any agreement to opening stores and selling it commercially in Newton. There are two different issues. Newton City Council should let Newton voters decide and have a final say on whether to opt out marijuana stores in Newton. Anything less than that would be undemocratic. The City Council should vote Yes on 6/18 to let Newton voters decide in November.
Hmm…I may not be that interested in MJ policy, but boy am I interested in voting rights. So let me just point out that NOTHING about this scenario is undemocratic or unfair.
The rules are the rules. If the law as written allows the city the right to put the sale of MJ for recreation use to a ballot vote after just a simple vote of the City Council, so be it. But if the city council decides NOT to put it to a city wide vote, that’s not undemocratic or unfair. That’s the choice to which we ELECTED them. Don’t like that choice? Vote the bums out.
Now you could make an argument that hey, every major decision we make should be via a ballot. Some communities do that via town meeting. But hey, we just had a freaking multiple year discussion about changing our charter, we voted that down and this form of government is what we’ve got.
This goes for both sides btw. If it passes city counciland gets to the ballot and the rules were followed, well, that’s our system. We vote and live with the consequences. Now you certainly can have righteous anger at the city council, but again, your answer there is the same ballot box in 18 months.
And a shout-out to City Councilor Jim Cote: He wrote:
“If the only argument opposing placing “Opt Out” on the ballot is that you are afraid Opt Out will pass, then why have any elections at all?
The voters in Massachusetts voted to legalize marijuana, that doesn’t change, the voters further voted in mechanisms to ensure that the residents of a city have the final say. This is called voters rights, and you cannot be selective about the right to vote.
Note that “D” Day just passed and all of those folks fought, and many died, to maintain your democratic government.”
Two items:
First, Jim, I welcome your dedication to the right to vote. I’m wondering how far it goes though. Would it extend to putting a zoning proposal in front of the Newton Ballot box? How about moving permitting procedures from the City council to a professional planning commission picked by the mayor? How about a procedure to limit ward councilors from holding leadership positions? I can go on, lots more things that I think would pass the wider city but are held up by a limited minority for folks. Isn’t that undemocratic? Doesn’t that impact the right to vote on this issues?
I’ve got no desire to see every issue litigated at the ballot box through referendums. I find that to be a bad way to govern. I’m guessing you would as well, on the issues that you care about. This isn’t about the right to vote. It is about the right to vote on your particular issue. (And for a good portion of folks, it is about the right to vote on your particular issue to help deal with the fact that on the last right to vote on your particular issue you lost the vote, and want at least a second bite of the apple. But hey, I’ll leave that issue to Mike S.)
Second, as someone with family members who served, I certainly respect the service of those who served and especially those that made the ultimate sacrifice. But I don’t think this particular issue has anything to do with voting rights or restricting the rights of folks to vote. The City council has a choice to make, which is the right that our system of local government gives them. And we elect the city council. So to cloak this local dispute in the very real issue of voting rights (especially when so many voting rights are being restricted in states to the south of us in ways that would boggle the mind if most folks up here knew about it), and then to wrap it in a patriotic reference to Dday, in my humble opinion dilutes the very sacrifice you meant to honor with your post. I’m sure folks could have different opinions about this, but I wanted to relay how your comment struck me, even if it was unintentional on your part.
@George Shen– You claim to have voted “YES” on the ballot initiative. I’ll take you at your word. The initiative you voted for was called “THE CAMPAIGN TO TREAT MARIJUANA LIKE ALCOHOL.” You may have voted “YES” based only on the fact that you felt criminal penalties for marijuana were too harsh. But that does not change the overall intent of the initiative, which was to… treat marijuana like alcohol.
What is the truth on this point:
Will Newton be mandated to have at least 8 marijuana dispensaries?
-or-
Will Newton be mandated to allow up to 8 marijuana dispensaries?
Allow
People don’t realize – That’s the sort of subtle misrepresentation of language that breeds distrust and loses campaigns. It’s the same sort of thing the YES campaign did last fall that motivated me to rail against them.
@Amy Sangiolo – The pediatricians and OBs all spoke out about the dangers of cannabis and children. Which has nothing to do with the sale of cannabis to adults 21+ in the city of Newton. The teens who want to illegally consume cannabis are already doing so; just walk through Cabot woods, where they often hang out. Or ask any student at Newton North.
After reading all the posts here so far (thanks for clarifying the law, Susan) I think that the argument must be made for allowing the ballot question since it is written into the law. I don’t agree that the procedure on how to get there (i.e. the 6000 signatures) should be waved, as it is also the law. I don’t think at all that it compares to the impeachment resolution, since the latter was a call for action, not making something possibly into city law.
However, I would (and I will) encourage the city council to add another ballot question in November that would entail a partial opt out – to limit the amount of dispensaries to a lower number.
I feel that an all opt out would pass only because people are not comfortable with 8 dispensaries (although in a big city like Newton that doesn’t sound all that high to me – it’s basically one dispensary per ward), not necessarily with NO dispensaries. After all, when people voted yes, it would be silly to assume that people wanted to make it unavailable. And “not in my backyard” is not really an ethical argument, IMO.
@Michael Ciolino – the latter of course!
@Susan Albright – I just reread your post – are you saying that since the Programs and Services Committee voted yes, the full Council has to consider voting on it without more signatures? In other words, did the fact that the P&S Committee votes yes wave the 6000 signature requirement? I tried to find information on the Newton City Hall website but couldn’t find anything.
@Michael Ciolino – sorry, my mistake – neither. The law, if I understand it correctly, states that cannabis has to be regulated like alcohol and that the city may not limit that. Which means that the city would have to allow 8 dispensaries, IF there are that many applications.
Hi, for those still monitoring this thread, I’ve heard enough refrains of: “I voted yes, but not for 8+ retail stores” that it’s worth testing the appetite for a compromise.
How do we do that? I propose we give City Council discretion to shift the retail licensing cap, putting a ballot question to the voters (using the very same process that Opt-Out Newton proposes not to ban, but to limit). Here’s the link to an online petition:
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/city-of-newton-give-city-1?source=c.em.cp&r_by=20221702
Here’s the text: “We the undersigned advocate for a ballot question put to the voters to give Newton City Council discretion to lower the number of licensed retail marijuana stores below 8, provided enough licenses are awarded to foster sufficient local market competition.”
What is the definition of “sufficient local market competition?” We leave that to the City Council to debate and decide. Clearly more than 0, fewer than 8.
Please let your friends, peers, neighbors in Newton know and let’s see how many signatures this online petition accrues. I am hopeful that we can find common ground.
If you are _for_ retail marijuana, please sign out of respect for our concerned neighbors who do not want a store in every village.
If you are _against_ retail marijuana, please sign as a way to minimize the retail marijuana presence in the City of Newton, recognizing a compromise is likelier to succeed, and an all-out ban is a big gamble at the polls. If the City Council can both limit licenses and restrict zoning, it should have the tools to keep retail marijuana shops out of residential neighborhoods.
Dulles (aka Brian Washburn). Disclaimer: Not affiliated with either the MJ industry or anti-MJ factions; neither “pot head” nor prohibitionist.
Dulles – some of us are working on just such a compromise. Doing the research at the moment.
Thank you Councilor Albright.
Brian Washburn (aka Dulles – adding my real name since we’re now spilling over into real, actionable events).
I don’t know whether it’s a silly or not silly thing about the lawsuits.
https://www.fox25boston.com/news/businesses-suing-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-over-decreased-property-values/739100125
And what value does it bring to our town for something like that?
I don’t know what we got to lose to bring it out to the ballot and let the people be cleared about it and decide. The impact of the town future is important and it’s not fair for the city council thinks that’s just a small group of people and brush over it.
The mandate is “UP TO 8” meaning 0 OR 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 – depending on how many businesses apply and qualify. As of June 5th, there were only 5 applications in all of Middlesex County. Does anyone really think Newton will be able to support 8 marijuana dispensaries? This is really just a lot of fearmongering.
@Lisa Gordon It’s NOT ‘at least 8 marijuana dispensaries’
@Dulles It’s NOT ‘8+’
Enough with the lies.
Well this is bizarre… moveon.org has the same petition is two different places.
Rather than split responses, please sign the petition to give City Council control over the retail marijuana cap with the below URL!
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/city-of-newton-give-city?source=s.fb&r_hash=CCP4ObyCh
Brian Washburn (Dulles)
Hi Mike,
Correct. The mandate is 8 licenses (20% of our liquor store count). However, nothing stops the city from issuing more than 8 licenses.
The # of recreational retail licenses the city can support is an open question. We could see stores someday where recreational MJ is not their only business, so it might not depend entirely on sales of MJ products.
I think it’s a good idea to craft a compromise for residents concerned about topping out at 8 shops. What is the appropriate number for the City of Newton to balance availability and competition against residents’ concerns? 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8? I trust the City Council to come up with the answer.
Compromise is a safe bet for everyone — optoutnewton has a good chance of losing at the ballot box, but recreational MJ advocates aren’t guaranteed a victory either. This compromise means everyone is certain to get at least something of what they want.
So I would encourage you to please sign:
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/city-of-newton-give-city?source=s.fb&r_hash=CCP4ObyCh
I appreciate the spirit of compromise. But in this case it’s naive. The City Councilors who passed a “temporary” moratorium on recreational marijuana by claiming they needed more time to address zoning issues, were simply buying time to put this RE-vote scheme in motion…
In large part this is the same group of councilors who pushed the moratorium on MEDICAL marijuana. That particular moratorium resulted in a three year delay in medication for patients. It forced thousands of people, many with debilitating and terminal illnesses to travel outside the City of Newton in order to fill their prescriptions. These Councilors will talk “compromise,” but they will not actually compromise. Their goal is to permanently block the voter initiated law from being implemented in Newton…
The way to defeat this RE-vote effort, is to keep the issue from going on the ballot a second time in any form. Not through compromise with councilors who are anti-marijuana zealots, but through political pressure on Mayor Fuller to not approve this ridiculous RE-vote. It’s my understanding that the ultimate decision rests in Mayor Fuller’s hands. A petition should be directed toward her. We’ve already seen that the anti-cannabis crowd can only raise 60 signatures. The “pro” side should make this a signature battle to keep it from becoming a ballot box RE-vote. Show the Mayor enough political downside with those signatures and she may just do the right thing…
If someone else initiates it, I will personally pledge to raise 150 signatures toward this effort
A compromise is a weak demonstration of leadership. The Residents are asking to exercise their right for a ballot vote to Opt Out. Should the voters elect to have Retail sales, then the numbers and locations will be determined by zoning and special permits as required by law.
As a City Council we cannot be fair to all aspiring business owners if we allow only those that are now ready to open for business, and thereby ruling everyone else out. This favoritism will result in the same problem created with limited taxi cab medallions and liquor licenses.
The Council action is simple we lead by voting to put the item on the ballot, or we vote to keep the item off the ballot.
Councilor Cote: This issue aside, I hope you don’t really believe that.
@Mike: I think you best be collecting those signatures — or mobilizing folks — fast. The optout group is clearly well organized and likely to sway the council next week to put this on the ballot. Waiting will be too late.
Councilor Cote, again the term “opt out” is a misleading term and is nowhere in the cannibis legislation or regulations. It’s a term made up by anti marijuana groups because it sounds better than wanting a ban.
The MA cannibis regulations on local control were rewritten in July, 2017 specifically to add restrictions on first towns or cities who voted yes and in 2019 on all towns and cities. These restrictions are to make it HARDER to change an already voted on and passed law.
Residents of a yes city, Newton, have NO RIGHT FOR A BALLOT VOTE to disregard the law. They have NO right to demand a ballot question banning retail sales of marijuana be voted on. They do have the right to ask the city council to write an ordinance or by law for approval by the mayor – and if such approval is given then the ballot question can go on the ballot.
The CITY COUNCIL IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION to write an ordinance or by law for approval by the mayor just because you, a few other councilors and a few residents want them to do so. This is absurd.
It’s confounding that as a city councilor, you continue to misrepresent residents’ rights and press on with incorrect statements to convince some residents that they have rights they do not have and try to sway other councilors that they must do your bidding.
@James Cote –
As I understand it these residents have no specific “right for a ballot vote to Opt Out”. What they have is a city process by which then can collect 50 signatures and petition the City Council to take up ANY matter. The City Council is then obligated to hold a public hearing and take a vote. Do I have that correct?
The Council is under no more obligation to put a question on the ballot then if I collect 50 signatures and petition the Council to put a binding referendum question on the ballot to change the name of the city to Disneyland.
From where I’m sitting, leadership from the Council would be to require a high bar for any group that wishes to change the law for something that the citizens of Newton just voted by a significant majority. If you’re saying the Council should approve anything for referendum if you can get 50 signatures and a few hundred people to fill the Council chambers, even if 23,000 Newton voters have already made their voices heard on the issue, then I think we’ve got a problem with leadership.
@Jerry. Maybe the whole of Disneyland couldn’t produce a groundswell, but “Fantasyland” just might.
What’s best for Newton?
Seeing the argument of potential long term impact to our town being raised.
We can talk about the la la land but with our tax $ impact for long term.
It’s best for sleepy voters to get inform and see if they continue to sleep.
We get robo calls when no trash pickup.
This is more important that trash pickup and it’s better for all the tax payers to know.
The moratorium passed without a dissenting vote. So this RE-vote proposal is going to pass in the City Council. This is exactly the kind of scenario I’ve been cautioning people about for months. It’s why I was so vehemently opposed to the moratorium, while others bought into the lie that the Council needed more time to structure zoning. Now, people should recognize the inevitability of the Council vote and put Mayor Fuller squarely in the hot seat. Do we have a Mayor who is willing to defend the rights that people already won at the ballot box, or was she part of this cheap political scheme to steal the vote?
@Jerry. The Cannabis Law includes a provision where residents in areas that voted YES to legalize can opt out of sales via referendum. Since the law itself includes that option, IMO the city council should put the question forth in November for residents to decide. I am still not clear about the 6000 required signatures – whether they are still needed now that the committee cleared the path to a vote of the entire council.
Personally I am in favor of sales in the city. We voted yes by a big margin and I can’t stand the NIMBY attitude. Plus I think we can use the revenue.
If the petition goes forward, I would appreciate another ballot question from the council that would allow sales, but less than 8. The opt out crowd wants us to believe that people didn’t understand that their yes vote in 2016 meant legalization as well as treating it like alcohol (which could mean 8 businesses IF that many were to apply for a license).
If that is true, then some of those voters might feel that 8 possible stores would be too many. Although I would not know how low the council should go, and how it would go about figuring that out. Newtonites don’t seem to mind the liquor stores, or at least I have never heard from anybody who collected signatures to get rid of them, claiming that they put their kids at risk, create a dangerous environment to send kids walk by, or affect their home prices.
I also hope that Garden Remedies will be granted its license to operate as a regular sales facility, even if that could be revoked at a later point. I think all residents of Newton could benefit from seeing how recreational sales will affect the city and be able to make a better informed decision come November.
@Marti Bowen:
“This year’s Question 4 would require cities and towns to take the extra step of holding a vote to opt out of allowing commercial marijuana sales.
“There are many cities and towns that are struggling with that issue,” said Will Luzier, campaign manager of Yes on 4. “This allows the question to be put to the people rather than to the executive or legislative body of the city or town, because it is essentially a more democratic process.”
Luzier pointed to top state officials who oppose legalizing marijuana, including Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura Healey and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, as a reason to require towns to have votes to opt out.
“They have their right to their opinion, so we are going to bring this to the people. That’s another example of powering the people in the democratic process,” he said.”
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20161106/opting-out-of-marijuana-not-so-easy
As I said before, it was written into the law with opponents in mind. If voters were really misguided and didn’t understand that legalization also meant commercialization in their backyards, then let’s put that to a rest. I really, really hope that our city is not populated by NIMBY people and that they do not buy into fear mongering by the Opt-out activists, but take the time from now until November to educate themselves. There is so much useful information out there on the communities where cannabis sales are legal for a while.
Interestingly enough, the article also says this: “According to Question 4′s wording, at least 10 percent of registered voters in a town or city must sign a petition against the sale and consumption of marijuana. If that threshold is met, the question can go on the next biennial election”.
That brings us back to about 6,000 required signatures.
@Mike Striar and @Mike Ciolino, I’d invite you specifically (and others generally) to reach out to me privately at brian (at) may (dash) apple (dot) com if I can maybe convince you to accept this compromise as the right position for our community and sign the online petition? I’ve got your attention; if I have to convince you individually I will try. I need (and think I can get) the buy-in of influential community members.
Again I implore folks looking for a safer and surer alternative to consider signing the online petition:
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/city-of-newton-give-city?source=s.fb&r_hash=CCP4ObyCh
People who want retail stores: do you really want to roll the dice risking a total ban? Ensure we get to keep retail stores, just maybe not in busy downtown areas.
People who don’t want retail stores: if the gamble on a full ban fails, you get the eight licenses mandated and no do-over?
I urge folks on all sides to sign the petition, stop the all-or-nothing gamble and endorse a compromise position that will pass and give an ongoing right to regulate. We have common ground on this issue.
@Dulles, I applaud your efforts to reach a compromise, but before you put too much effort into it, you should read up on the rules for submitting a petition to the city council. I believe you have to meet with the city clerk to develop language that passes legal muster, and then get signatures with names and addresses on a paper petition. After you submit it to the city clerk, they then go through the voter rolls to verify that each person is a registered voter in Newton. They won’t accept online petitions.
You can always submit an online petition to someone unofficially, but I don’t think politicians pay much attention to those any more because they are so common, and it’s impossible to verify who signed it, how many times, and whether they are registered Newton voters.
Good luck!
Thank you for your concerns @Jennifer! The intent is not to submit a formal petition with legal language to the Programs and Services Committee, but instead to use this to present to the City Council the appetite for a compromise.
Just from a chat here, an email there with a few friends and neighbors over the weekend, people I approach say: “sounds like a GREAT idea” and sign. That is from people who lean BOTH sides of the issue; many are parents with kids in Newton’s public schools. I believe in the mainstream there is a strong appetite that we don’t screw this up with a risky all-or-nothing vote. A sure-to-pass compromise ensures the community gets control over licensing. That’s why I urge you and any members of Opt Out Newton, as well as pro-MJ advocates, to sign. Ensure the City Council gets control over the process.
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/city-of-newton-give-city?source=s.fb&r_hash=CCP4ObyCh
-brian
@Dulles Thanks for the invitation. I am now out of town on business and won’t be able to focus on this issue for a couple days. I promise I will take a look then.
@Dulles– I’m glad to be on the same side of this battle as you. Your posts have been outstanding…
I became involved in the marijuana reform movement in 2009, after my wife [a terminally ill brain cancer patient] was arrested at LAX when TSA found a small amount of medical cannabis inside a checked-bag containing her chemo-therapy drugs. That awful incident prompted me to reevaluate marijuana laws and support the marijuana reform effort here in Massachusetts…
There are many people who have sacrificed for this movement. Neither you nor I have the right to compromise any of the rights that they won at the ballot box. This latest effort to revote the ballot initiative is a manipulative and cynical display of sheer ignorance and idiocy from the same group of people who wanted to deny my wife a decent quality of life during her final months on Earth.
City Councilors like Jim Cote, Greg Schwartz, John Rice and David Kalis, are die-hard marijuana prohibitionists. Despite all the evidence, they don’t even acknowledge the benefits of medical marijuana. Rice actually attended an anti-medical marijuana rally a few weeks ago. Schwartz was a member of the committee that met in secret to put the latest moratorium in place. These Councilors are never in a billion years going to vote for any compromise that allows recreational marijuana in Newton…
The best way to turn back this misguided attack on personal freedom is to put Mayor Fuller in the hot seat by asking her to veto any revote. She is the one person who could derail this blatant attempt to steal an election…
If Fuller sides with the prohibitionists we’ll just have to take our chances with a revote. The prohibitionists may end up blocking retail stores from Newton for awhile, but they cannot block cannabis businesses and consumers from spending their money in more progressive municipalities. And they have no legal means to block home delivery of cannabis in Newton, which the Cannabis Control Commission plans to allow in 2019.
@Mike Striar — I apologize for this, but while we have some similar perspectives, we are not exactly on the same side on this issue. I understand and sympathize with your position, which is why I’d hope to engage with you personally by email to discuss and see if I can get you to reconsider.
I attended the Program & Services Committee hearing start to finish. Whether or not I agreed with individual statements, I recognize that there is a contingent of Newton residents who have strong concerns. In the end I meant what I said to Jennifer, that despite our differences we come together as one community.
I believe in a legal but regulated market; and believe a strong majority of Newton voters would approve a compromise that satisfies everyone’s strongest concerns. Moderate voices have not been heard in the all-in vs. opt-out discussion.
I don’t want to keep making this thread bigger because I think we’re not adding anything new to the discussion at this point, but would be happy to continue offline.
@Dulles–
[email protected]
Dulles, Councilor Krintzman and I have docketed an item to put a question on the ballot that asks the voters to allow the city council to limit the number of recreational marijuana establishments to fewer than 8. Right now the docket item suggests a range; no new fewer than 2 and no more than 6. This will be debated in the Programs and Services Committee later in the month. We have been assured that both ballot questions can appear on the ballot. This would give voters a choice of an outright ban (if the full council votes to have this questioni on the ballot), allow the city council to limit the number to something less than 8 (if the council votes to put this on the ballot) , or leave the results of the vote on Question 4 as it appeared in 2016 as is – by voting no on both questions.
Dulles,
Councilor Krintzman and I have docket an item that will go to Programs and Services later in the month. This item asks the council to put a question on the ballot that would ask the voters if they want the council to limit the number of recreational marijuana establishments to fewer than 8. As worded before the debate – the ballot question presents a range – no fewer than 2 and no more than 6. We have been assured that both ballot questions can appear on the ballot.
sorry for the double post
Thank you Councilor Albright! I’ll keep pointing people to the petition (now just to follow through). Based on just the few neighbors, friends and community members I’ve personally reached out to so far, people broadly favor a measure that gives the City Council control over the number of retail marijuana licenses.
-brian
This came out in RAF’s newsletter this evening:
“In 2016, Newton voters supported the Commonwealth of Massachusetts legalizing adult-use marijuana establishments with 55 percent of the vote. Notably, this ballot question specifically stated that local municipalities retained the right to “adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of operating marijuana businesses and to limit the number of marijuana establishments in their communities.” Having the voters of Newton decide on an outright ban or limit on the number of establishments to be allowed is appropriate, as this is an important and potentially long lasting decision.
I’m comfortable with the City Council voting to put this question on the ballot in November and having all of us together, as a community, deciding the question of whether to permit adult-use “recreational” marijuana stores here in Newton.”
@Jack: Just made a new post!
@susan: Having both questions on the ballot will settle the matter once and for all. At least in this generation of voting.
I hate the idea of dueling ballot initiatives, unless one of them requires the City to “regulate cannabis like alcohol,” on the same timeline as they were instructed to do by voters in the 2016 statewide ballot initiative…
Two ballot initiatives, BOTH CURTAILING THE INTENT OF THE LAW, is a de facto violation of voter’s rights, as the presence of both would indicate there are only two choices, and no possible election result would provide for full implementation of existing law…
Please folks, don’t be in such a hurry to find a compromise that requires you give away rights already won at the ballot box. The weakness of the prohibitionist’s position is evident by the cheap political tactic a handful of City Councilors [Schwartz, Rice and Kalis] used to push this revote scheme. The ignorance of their mindset is made clear by on-the-ground results in states where recreational cannabis has already taken root.
Recreational cannabis is coming to Newton, and there’s not a damn thing the prohibitionists can do to stop it. They have already cost the city money and jobs. They may still delay the opening of cannabis stores in Newton. But in the long run, the prohibitionists are gonna get smoked.
@Mike Striar And I supported your mayor run! I don’t want to debate because I have no problem at all with whatever anyone wants to do with pot. Since you don’t know me, you should not make assumptions. I will say that I am not a fan of big business, and I believe the marijuana industry is just that.
@Marti Bowen. I am certainly not being deceitful when I say I have no problem with adults using marijuana–again, I just don’t want the shops in Newton. I’m sure Brookline will deliver to those who want it. And because I posted information from an informative site, again, does NOT mean that I endorse everything they say. Surely you must know that.
Lastly, @Michael Ciolino, you know that you’re misrepresenting our conversation.
Beyond that, you write: “Lisa, The Law is the law. It will be followed or decided by a judge. Opt out is looking to stop marijuana shops coming to Newton. Come on, say it. I dare you.”
So, here I go:
Opt Out is most definitely looking to stop retail marijuana shops coming to Newton! 100% correct. And, the law and the intent of the law means that Newton is obligated to have this discussion. And it’s too bad that we can’t have it more respectfully when we disagree. Democracy is about healthy debate.
I spoke earlier this evening with the Chairman of the Programs and Services Committee. He asked me to post that at next Monday’s full Council meeting, he will ask to hold in Committee the vote on the ban ballot question. At the next Programs and Service meeting, next week, the Committee will discuss the 2nd ballot question to limit the number of recreational establishments. If that passes in Committee, both ballot questions will be taken up together at the full Council at our July meeting, which I believe is July 9th.
So – the ban ballot question Will NOT be discussed by the Full Council on Monday, June 18th
What happens if both proposed ballot questions pass?
@Mike Striar
“City Councilors like Jim Cote, Greg Schwartz, John Rice and David Kalis, are die-hard marijuana prohibitionists”
Please do not post lies. This is a false statement and if you decide to continue posting what you think others believe, it would be best to speak with those people first. I am not a prohibitionist, am not trying to deceive anyone, but want to ensure commercialization reflects the will of Newton. You may not agree with others regarding compromise or limiting commercialization, but I, personally, am listening to all opinions equally.
@David Kalis: Thank you for responding. I do not like Mike Striar’s style, which I find not only offensive but also counterproductive.
Could you please clarify your position on the issue at hand? Not whether we should have a vote or on what exactly we should vote, but the real issue: Should we allow marijuana retail in Newton? Your very own opinion on the issue. I would be happy to hear from other councilors as well. Too bad this was not (or barely was) an issue during the last city election.
@Newtoner
As I stated in committee, I voted for legalization but believe most others who did, did not understand the commercialization implications. I think some commercialization is welcome (and am looking forward to seeing Councilor’s Albright and Krintman’s suggestion), as I’d prefer a compromise – possibly a gradual increase in the number of stores so we can learn as we go.
@Councilor Kalis,
I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying about commercialization. Is it your belief that Newton residents voted to legalize recreational marijuana without understanding that a yes vote meant that it would be legal to sell marijuana in a retail capacity?
@David Kalis– You voted to ban medical cannabis in Newton. You voted to ban recreational cannabis in Newton. Those two facts alone make you a prohibitionist. The only ones who are lying here are the elected officials like you, who lied about the purpose of the latest moratorium by claiming the Council needed more time to effectuate zoning. So take a good look in the mirror if you want to see a liar.
@Greg According to the Law Department, our Charter says that if two conflicting ballot questions win – the one with the highest votes wins.
That’s REALLY unfortunate because someone who wants the full eight stores to be allowed might strategically feel compelled to vote for the fewer stores option just so that option (really their second choice) prevails over the no stores total votes.
That was my earlier point exactly, Greg. I’m opposed to a revote. But any new ballot initiative must provide the opportunity for the vote that already won in 2016 to be fully implemented. If dueling ballot initiatives preclude that possibility, than the voter’s rights [in the 2016 vote] are being violated.
@Mike Striar – you are simply wrong on both counts, and I’ll leave it at that.
@Gail – No, I think people knew it would be sold in Newton and were fine with that. It’s the number of stores that I think is the question.
@David Kalis– If I’m wrong, please correct me. I don’t want to accuse you of something unfairly. And if I’ve done that I will publicly apologize…
Did you not vote in favor of the medical marijuana moratorium?
How about this latest moratorium on adult use cannabis?
And didn’t you just cast a vote in Programs and Services that allowed a tiny group of prohibitionists to avoid raising 6000 signatures for this ridiculous revote?
@Greg- assuming one would be able to vote NO on both measures- which is what I would do.
@Greg Reibman – My (pedestrian) understanding is that if there are two ballot questions, people are not forced to vote for just one of them. They can vote for one, both, or neither.
If Opt Out is more popular than compromise and gets more than 50% of the vote, it wins fair and square and the ban is enacted.
Everyone who has voiced to let the people decide, should be in favor of this moderate alternative. Let the people decide! Do we want a ban, do we want to reduce and regulate, or do we want to leave things be.
I still encourage anyone in favor of a moderate position to sign the Moveon.org petition.
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/city-of-newton-give-city?source=s.fb&r_hash=CCP4ObyCh
From the conversations I’ve had, Newton voters favor a petition that we can pass (ie. a compromise) that controls the number of retail marijuana licenses. Given that recreational marijuana was voted in by more than a 10% margin in Newton, the all-out ban is an extreme position that has little chance of succeeding at the polls — at which point we have no additional control over licensing.
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/city-of-newton-give-city?source=s.fb&r_hash=CCP4ObyCh
Ah @Greg Reibman, took me a second read to see what you were getting at.
The easy answer is to vote compromise only if you believe in compromise. Both “Opt Out” and “Keep 8” believers should *not* vote compromise. If “Opt Out” and “Limit & Regulate” both fail to break 50%, we keep 8 licenses, right?
Clearly folks should only vote compromise if they are ok with compromise. But from my conversations with folks, there is a broad majority for a “limit & regulate” option. Seems clear to me we should reflect an option for the majority of Newton’s voters who are not caught up at either end of the marijuana debate.
@Dulles: No because, it’s not a three part question: It seems like it would be two separate ballot questions:
First Question. Optout: Vote yes or no
Second Question. Compromise: Vote yes or no.
We already voted and approved on keep 8 two years ago, so I don’t believe that’s a third question.
So if I really want 8 but also really want to make sure opt out doesn’t get the most votes, then I kind of feel pressure to vote yes on compromise so as to make sure optout doesn’t get the most votes.
Of course the optout camp will have the same (opposite) delima so oddsmakers will likely favor “compromise”
Which of course makes this whole thing even more ridiculous given that voters approved this by 55%
…And of course in a couple years, everyone (and their kids) will be able to order their pot from Amazon, so all that really happens is we lose the tax revenue and local employment and potentially eight property tax paying businesses.
@Greg Reibman, yes I think you’ve summed it up fairly.
But I would add two factors.
1) A compromise measure is the only one that empowers the City Council. It doesn’t mandate 8 licenses or an all-out ban. I don’t think it’s “ridiculous” to let the City Council decide how many licenses to issue with the instruction to provide “sufficient local market competition,” and for carefully considered zoning.
2) At the PSC meeting, many of the OON speakers stated they voted in favor of recreational, but don’t want 8 retail stores. The compromise meets the concerns of these speakers, and also appeals to many other folks (including myself) who fall on both sides of the issue. I believe we have as much of a right to ask for a compromise as Opt Out Newton has to ask for a ban. Altering the cap, just like opt out, is written into the law as an option.
You believe the ball is in the “Keep 8” court to compromise. I see it the other way ’round: every believer in Keep 8 is free to vote no on both measures (I’d rather we’d all come together, but it’s your vote). If OON chooses a hard line and refuses to embrace compromise, then nobody gets enough votes to pass anything and “Keep 8” stays. We get retail shops at South Pacific, Murray’s Liquors, on Rt. 9, on Washington Street, and 4 other locations near you.
If you *don’t* want that future, sign the moveon.org petition and build a compromise coalition to let City Council regulate the number of licenses.
@Dulles– Quick, tell me how many liquor stores there are in Newton? Most people don’t have a clue. The “8 is too many” argument is nothing but a canard. Most people couldn’t come close to guessing how many restaurants serve alcohol in Newton. The “8 is too many” contention is part of the prohibitionists strategy to get that number down to zero…
Again Dulles, I think you’re giving up ground too easily by compromising now. The City Council is going to face a lot of angry, pro-cannabis voters at their next meeting about this ridiculous revote. Newer Council members like Brenda Noel, may realize she’s been manipulated into a situation she didn’t envision, by a handful of veteran anti-cannabis colleagues…
But if the Council continues to suffer from collective insanity and they decide Newton must revote a state-wide ballot initiative, the important thing is to make sure the prohibitionists face a serious downside risk. I want to make sure that after we kick their behinds at the polls again this November, they are forced to fully implement the 2016 ballot initiative. If their downside risk is some wishy-washy compromise because there are two dueling ballot initiatives, that would be doing a real disservice to the people who want the 2016 law to stand.
Point of information –
It seems to me that any outcome allowing zero retail dispensaries violates the referendum we voted on.
However, it does seem reasonable that a referendum could be overturned if a group does the hard work of collecting the signatures.
Assuming that a referendum gives residents a legal right to expect the results to be honored, does the waving that requirement by the city council breech that right?
My question: Is a referendum question legally binding, and can a legal complaint be filed against the City Council for breaching this right?
Hi Mike,
I think this is again a point where we differ. I attended the PSC meeting from beginning to end because I wanted to listen to the concerns of the speakers, the statements by councilors and the discussion with Newton’s lawyers. I spoke at the meeting, too, because I have criticisms over the process.
And I also listened to our neighbors who are afraid. Whether or not that fear is rational, I am sympathetic. Taking the middle ground (allow retail stores but give the City Council stronger controls to limit licenses) is not capitulating to an enemy. We’re all neighbors, after all! If we do get a compromise ballot option, people who don’t believe in that on both sides of the issue can always vote “no” and the measure will fail.
I’ve taken flak from people at both ends of the issue on this site — but when I talk to regular folks in my neighborhood, it’s just about universal. They like and are willing to support a measure that gives Newton City Council greater leeway over licensing.
Dulles. I don’t understand how your response answers my question.
And so your clear, Ive done comparable due diligence to yours. Regular people I know aren’t scared, they ask, didn’t we already vote on this?
For me, regulating to zero is unexceptable because it erodes voter’s trust in the process and could even be illegal.
I’m fine with any other number 1-100. You can’t use your logic on me because I’m not for or against this issue.
I don’t use marijuana so it’s not going to affect me either way
I’m for fairness and the rights of Voters.
@Dulles– Social change makes some people uncomfortable. Education works better than appeasement. You’re entitled to your opinion and any course of compromise you’d like to follow. Personally, I’m committed to seeing the voter’s 2016 law enacted. That’s what a majority of voters in the state and this city have already said they want. As long as any revote effort leaves that possibility on the table, I am confident the 2016 law will prevail in the end.