Last week lawns signs went up on Elliot St objecting to the proposed medical marijuana facility at Rt 9 and Elliot St (the old Green Tea restaurant).
Tonight I arrived home to find this flyer at my door with the request to go to NoBanInNewton.com to let the City Council know if you were one of the 25,516 Newton residents that voted to legalize recreational cannabis and don’t want the council undermining that vote due to a small group who are in opposition.
I did and I don’t. I hope you do too
I did & I don’t.
I find it appalling that the will of the voters is being flaunted. And I wasn’t one of the 24,000. I happen to not have strong feelings pro or con ref cannabis itself, but I very strongly feel that ignoring that vote is an assault on the democratic process, and must be illegal!
Pat come vote with us, as you mention it doesn’t have to be “your issue” to take away your rights in a democracy.
First they came for the pot smokers, and I did not speak out, because I was not a pot smoker…
I did and I don’t.
Democratic norms and institutions across the nation are being flouted, and I suspect most of our city councilors think that’s a very bad thing. How any of them can justify doing the same on this local issue is beyond me.
I did and I don’t. Let’s hope the City Council does not live up to its reputation as 24 towers of Jell-o.
I did and I don’t.
Is this group also against the ballot initiative to limit the number of pot shops in Newton?
I did and I don’t.
Congratulations to whoever is responsible for gearing up against the prohibitionists!
Hopefully at a minimum Newton’s Cowardly Council will require the prohibitionists to get the signatures that have always been necessary to put a ballot question before the city’s voters. To simply cave in to a bunch of loud mouth NIMBYs and accept their ballot question, as well as a supposed “compromise” question, without signatures, would be a travesty.
Same here- Did/don’t
The nobaninnewton.com web site is registered to one Anthony Will, to a gmail contact and a residential address in Washington, D.C. (Following the previous whois debacle we can safely assume Anthony is *not* a minor!) The contact number resolves to a cell phone with an Indianapolis area code.
After a bit of searching I’ve found a match (name, Indianapolis/DC ties). But I wouldn’t say Anthony Will is a definite. He may have registered the site for someone who doesn’t want to be identified, or someone may be spoofing his identity. If it’s really him, he’s involved in politics but not (insofar as I can see) historically in the MJ debate.
I’m not doing this to out anybody. I want some measure of transparency.
I did and I don’t.
Amy – There isn’t a “group”. The fact is, for all intents and purposes, we don’t have a local media and most people don’t realize there IS a group trying to stop the implementation of the law. OON can fill the chambers and mount email campaigns, but they have yet to prove they are anything but a vocal minority who can “fill the chambers”. Time for the city council to step up to the plate and either make them collect the 6000 signatures or vote down the proposals.
It’s great that someone took the initiative. I’m sure there’s a lot of residents who enthusiastically said “yes” in 2016 and don’t even know that their decision is being undermined.
Is this organization distributing lawn signs? If so, does anyone know how I can receive one?
I did and I don’t.
I don’t have a problem with putting the opt-out question on the ballot because, as I understand it, the law allows for that option. What really disturbs me though is that the question could go on the ballot without insisting the sponsoring party get the 6,000 signatures required to place such a question on the ballot. Nobody waived the rights of the residents who were opposed to Newton North’s site plan; they were required to get signatures. Nobody waived the rights of the residents who wanted to form a Charter Commission. Both groups worked ridiculously hard to collect signatures.
Why does this issue get special treatment?
Did. Don’t.
Did/Don’t
I did and I don’t.
This looks like it’s shaping up to be a great barroom brawl, maybe not on the order of the Charter referendum, but close to it in passion and intensity. The fun’s about to begin and I’m with Mike Striar on this one for reasons I’ve repeatedly stated in past posts. .
I did and I don’t. I shared it too. Thanks to whoever started this campaign.
It would be nice if the web site this flyer references (the same one in the email blasts I’m getting) actually spelled out WHAT action the opponents are taking and exactly what they want the City Council to do. Right now it isn’t clear at all unless you already know what’s going on.
I also think that this attempt to stop cannabis sales in Newton is distracting from education about the new law and about the potential adverse health effects of marijuana (and broadly other substances). Effectively, legalization has removed “just say no” as the primary way to discourage/temper/tailor use. People, particularly kids and young adults moving towards the legal age, should have information to make appropriate decisions for themselves. We need to move away from the “forbidden fruit” stage, where prohibition has its own allure.
We have experience from other states. Here, for instance, is a report from the Oregon Health Authority:
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/PreventionWellness/marijuana/Documents/oha-8509-marijuana-report.pdf
Did and don’t. Willing to compromise. Unwilling to ban.
My friends & I lived the below URLs growing up. Officers in our MA town frequently pulled over teenagers for bogus reasons. Any suspicion and it was stop and search. They’d rummage through the car while you stand or sit by the roadside. If they really didn’t like you, you’d be cuffed, too, or put in the back of the cruiser.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-7rKwG7Ih0&t=28s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC4Y_b5cxsw
(and no, I/we didn’t hang with the kids who smoked pot — we were too busy working!)
Friends, neighbors, fellow bloggers,
Hate Has A Home Here(in Newton).
I’ve been quite vocal over the years about issues here in Newton, and recently it seems that comments i made on another thread about the Marijuana Dispensaries issue have gotten under the skin of a hater.
Everyone please aware that when you post under your name as i have and you share unpopular opinions,
you are putting yourself at risk for retaliation from a hater, even here in hate-free Newton.
About an hour ago, someone drove their car into my trash barrels on the berm, scattering them and the trash inside of them
along the sidewalk and into the street in front of my house. Unfortunately for the individual who did this,
one of my neighbors out walking saw the car and the license plate # on it, and kindly gave me all of this pertinent information. My neighbor also said that it was no accident, the person drove directly at the barrels. Bummer for that driver. It hasn’t been since i ran for alderman in 2002-03? that cowards who didn’t agree with me- a school PTO leader and a boyfriend of the daughter of a local alderman no less- pulled a hateful stunt like this. I may call the police
I may not. Please be aware that i don’t need to contact the police to find out who the owner of that car is and subsequently identify that person in a public forum, should i choose to. That will be my game day decision. That information is but one phone call away.
Fortunately, with the mix of neighbors near me and the mix of our careers and ages and schedules,
there is usually someone around to see something. I would suggest all bloggers/posters and your neighbors look out for each other as we do, especially now in the summer, and especially in these Hateful Times.
If the coward who did this would like to speak to me like a human being, i’m in the book,
otherwise know that i will know who you are, the make of your car and license plate number and depending on how i feel on any given day, i may end up sharing it with the Newton Police and ruin your day.
Have a Happy Fourth Of July 🙂
I did and I don’t
@Paul Green: Please call the police.
@Newton City Council
Respect the law that was already passed by the voters in 2016. Regulate marijuana like alcohol in Newton now. No new ballot initiatives without 6000 certified signatures.
Did. Don’t.
@Paul Green – So sorry to hear that – both for you, and for the city in general.
I’ve had a few incidents over the years and the Newton police were really good in dealing with them … should you decide to go that route.
@Paul. You will have the support of me and every decent person in Newton whatever you decide to do. And hats off to your neighbor for getting the tag number.
@Paul…
I also urge you to call the Police and let them handle this.
Just because you have the plate does not mean the registered owner was the operator at the time…it would be unfair of you to expose the owner without clearly knowing he/she was the operator.
And if this was a direct attack on you, it needs to be documented in the event there are more events that target you.
I did, I don’t, and I am disheartened and discouraged.
I did and I don’t.
Paul – Very sorry to hear that this happened to you. I sincerely hope it has nothing to do with what you’ve said on Village 14. A threat against speech in the public square is a threat to all of us.
One 50-person petition, one public hearing that very few people knew about, and the city council is going to take a vote to put a referendum on the ballot.
This is an action that’s never been taken before in this city and sets a terrible precedent. Citizens have always been required to collect the requisite number of signatures to get a referendum on the ballot. I can only hope the councilors realize the chaos they may be creating for themselves and the city in the future.
I did not AND I Do NOT.
Those who want to change the vote must get signatures. I will be writing to the CC letting them know that I had my chance to vote and I lost. So the will of the voters cannot be overruled by 50 voters and 24 council members. We have so many things eating away at democracy at the national level. We cannot let it happen here in Newton.
@Jane Frantz – yes, that’s the rule. If I collect 5o signatures I can put an item on the City Councilors’s agenda to have them vote on requiring people to wear flip-flops on Tuesdays. I hope the City Council has the common sense to reject this out of hand, especially since the charter commission, newton north, and the original marijuana referendum all were required to collect the signatures to get on the ballot.
Mayor Fuller: “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.”
Amy – According to the city charter, the city council is the body that has the authority to deliberate and vote on this issue, not the mayor.
.
No one is expressing a concern with a referendum being on the ballot if OON collects the 6000 certified signatures as every other group has had to do.
Not to mention, the optics of this are terrible: a 50-person petition, one public hearing, and a quick city council vote – in July no less. No other council has ever acted on an important issue in such a short period of time, with so little input from the broader community, with virtually no effort to inform the community about the situation. I’d venture to guess that 99% of the voters in Newton don’t even know this is being considered.
Didn’t/Don’t. Voters have spoken. Time to move on.
Glad to see this. I forwarded to people I know.
@Councilor Sangiolo — Anti-MJ advocates criticize Q4 for forcing an all-or-nothing vote. The Council is now in a position to bring options to voters in the Fall. Personally I’d be ok with the Council accepting both or rejecting both proposed ballot questions. But how ironic if a biased Council approves one ballot question and denies the other, denying choices to voters.
One anti-choice argument: two conflicting ballot questions will confuse voters. But when three candidates with run for one or two ward seats, are voters confused by that choice? Newton voters can handle it. Another anti-choice argument: ballot-counting. But Massachusetts law is clear about superseding initiatives. If both pass, whichever receives the most votes takes precedent. If the City’s charter differs from the state, I’m sure it’s spelled out. Superseding initiatives is in the MA state constitution: Ballot box choice was anticipated as part of our regular democratic process.
It would be different if OON brought the ballot question direct to the Council (by collcting 6,000 signatures). But it did not. So we have two proposed ballot questions introduced to the Council by the PSC. They should be given equal weight.
The problem with having two dueling ballot initiatives is not that it causes confusion. The problem is that it would make keeping the 2016 law nearly impossible. Having two different ballot initiatives would require voters to vote “no” TWICE in order to retain the law they already voted in favor of. Neither of the ballot initiatives that are being considered have received the 6000 petition signatures that should be required to put an issue on the ballot. The Council should reject both, and honor the vote that’s already been taken.
I was going to sign the petition but stopped when I couldn’t find any reference on the NoBaninNewton.com website as to who is behind it. I’m guessing it is local people, but who knows.
What Mike said.
@Dulles: I posted the Mayor’s stance on the ballot question from her newsletter which was sent out prior to the Programs and Services vote on the second ballot question – but it appears she seemed to support both ballot questions going before the voters. The vote before the City Council next Monday, will be whether to put either or both questions on the ballot. Please keep in mind that if the Council rejects the Opt-out question, the Opt-out folks can still gather the 6,000 signatures and bring it before the Council again. If the Council again rejects the Opt-out request, the Opt-out group can still gather an additional 3,000 signatures and force the question on the ballot so the opt-out question can still be on the ballot this November.
Thank you @Councilor Sangiolo! The way I see it, the proposals — compromise, ban — go from PSC to full Council basically equal. I’d hope on 9 July the Council either accepts them both or rejects them both.
I’m fine with the proposed ban going to ballot box alone if OON shows critical mass by collecting 6,000 signatures. Outside the two groups, I see wide voter appetite for compromise among friends & neighbors, but it doesn’t attract dedicated canvassers.
-Brian Washburn
@Brian– Where is this “wide voter appetite for compromise” that you’re referring to? Most people I talk to are supportive of the 2016 law to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” Many of them are upset by this revote effort. But that’s beside the point. What I’m really concerned about, is why you feel that there is any need to compromise away the rights of voters who have already spoken quite clearly.
A few comments on this issue. First, here is the best info I could find with regard to what was presented to voters is available here:
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf
Ballot measures allow each side to summarize their case in a concise 150 word argument. YES spent over 10% of their argument on this statement: “Local cities and towns can limit or ban marijuana businesses, and will govern operating hours, locations, and signage.”
I imagine this assuaged the concerns of voters who wanted to “permit the possession, use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana in limited amounts by persons age 21 and older and remove criminal penalties for such activities” but perhaps didn’t see decriminalization as requiring a move toward a convenience store model.
What seems to be left out of the arguments in comments above is that the City Council is considering giving Newton VOTERS a chance to state their will. A signature drive can force action but its not required.
The councilors will have to determine a course of action based what they think is best for city and how they believe they can best represent their constituents and will live with consequences of their vote on the issue in 2019.
I personally voted for question 4, but don’t see a subsequent referendum on limits being anti-democratic given how Question 4 was summarized above by its supporters.
As I recall there was concern with putting council composition on the ballot for 2018 due to that parallel state election having early voting while a city election would not. Is that an issue for this proposed vote?
That is the explanation of the “LAW” voters voted for.
last sentence belongs below 2nd paragraph…
@Jack: If city councilors put this question on the ballot without the requisite number of signatures, I think they’re setting a bad precedent. Why this question and not others? If I were part of the anti-leaf blower group, I’d collect 50 signatures and ask the council to put a related ban on the ballot, just to see what happens.
Ballot questions can be expensive and divisive. I hope councilors are not cavalier with their decision about this one.
Would 50 signatures convince the City Council to put a referendum question on the ballot to make Newton a dry town? … just wondering
@Mike – I chatted with neighbors, in-town acquaintances/friends who might lean either way. The conversation framework:
1) Opt Out Newton is trying to get a ban to ballot against recreational retail marijuana stores. I think it’ll fail at the ballot box. It might succeed.
2) There is an option that can give City Council control over the number of shops. That means people who want shops still get them, just not as many. But always at least two. For people who don’t want shops there will be fewer, meaning better chance they’ll be zoned outside of places like village centers.
3) I believe this “limit and control” option can pass because it addresses some of the biggest concerns for people who lean both sides of the debate.
There’s a moment of ‘awkward’ — a neighbor talking about pot? My neighbors seem to be leaning near the center of the debate; they mostly say it’s a great idea.
-brian
PS: based on what other posters have said here, I agree that the 6,000-signature route is probably the most sensible. But if the City Council chooses to move the PSC proposals to ballot, I would hope they would bring both options to voters.
@Brian– Thanks for the reply. You get feedback based on the questions you ask. The voters have already spoken. It’s disrespectful for the City Council to put ANY superseding initiative on the ballot without the required 6000 certified signatures.
Amy-The city council has authority to decide whether to approve an opt out referendum without the 6000 signature collection. I’m not sure why you keep referring to the mayor.’s statement. I’m concerned with where the councilors who have the responsibility to vote on these proposals stand.
The city council should have slowed down the process and gotten a broader sense of where the community stands on this issue before proposing a referendum to ban the legal sale of regulated marijuana. A ban would merely continue the status quo – the underground sale of unregulated marijuana by drug dealers who will be pushing highly addictive drugs as well.
@Jane: I’ve never stated that the Mayor has the authority to make the decision of whether to put this on the ballot or not. That Mayor, however, seemed to be expressing her “support” for the Council to put the question of having a ban or limiting the number of retail establishments before the voters so that the voters can decide. Kind of like an endorsement or letter of support.
Was the hearing closed at the end of the first session? If it was, is there still time for another hearing to be scheduled for the July 9th council meeting? As I understand it, a hearing requires 48 hours notice, but that may not be accurate information. If the hearing is still open, does the city council intend to provide residents with an opportunity to speak at the July 9th meeting?
@Gail and @Jerry — You already had 20,000 registered certified Newton voters voting against legalization recently, so it seems redundant to need to go back and find almost half of them in person door to door to reaffirm that stance beyond making opt out supporters pay their dues. That’s different than the new high school issue or charter issue where the council might be against a stance and need to be forced into it by a petition.
@Mike S — The voters voted for what the ballot question provided to them. It said cities could limit/ban and didn’t mention any petition requirements for do as such. If they were banning without letting voters speak you’d have a case.
@Jack Prior – You’re making my head spin with that logic Jack. By that logic, as soon as we finish a new referendum the Council should put another referendum on the ballot on the same issue, ad infinitum.
Let’s do the same thing on the Charter vote while we’re at it.
@Jerry — The 20,000 presumably wanted continued illegality and/or no retail. Of the 25,000 voting yes, some likely wanted highly restricted/regulated decriminalization and some were open to lightly regulated and widely available retail establishments. The referendum is not revisiting the “same issue” again.
@Dulles is probably on the right track with thinking what the average voter wants in terms of compromise. The council could put that on the ballot and let the optout folks get signatures if they want full ban on the ballot. What would a ban also apply to eventual delivery services? I wonder a bit about how delivery would impact retail in any case. Would there be a need for 8+ shops with that option available? Would people opt for discreet delivery over coming and going from a retail store.
The 50 vote petition doesn’t force action. It just forces the council to take tough votes that they might not take on their own initiative. Imagine if we could do the same for congress on things like gun control.
@Jack Prior– You can play Twister with logic all you’d like. The stated intent of the 2016 ballot initiative was to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” There is an opt out provision. It was intentionally made difficult–even more so in municipalities that voted in favor of legalization. The Mayor and a small group of like minded City Councilors who oppose cannabis legalization, found a way to game the system by using a provision from the City Charter that was not provided nor envisioned by the 2016 State law. Respecting the vote and playing by the rules would require 6000 certified signatures.
Jack – The average voter most likely doesn’t even know this issue is on the city council agenda. One advantages of the 6000 signature collection is that residents will become aware that the issue may come to a vote, thus providing them with an opportunity to become active or register their concerns one way or another. With the current set of circumstances, the city council will vote on a matter – in July, after one public hearing. As a point of comparison, the council held seven public hearings before voting on the Austin St. development and provided for multiple opportunities for comment on the Orr Block project.
I’d suggest this is not a tough vote. No other city council has ever voted for a referendum after a 50-person petition. If the council votes for this referendum, the tough part will be in the explaining why the it won’t vote for a referendum when presented with the next 50-person petition. What’s to stop the proponents of a complete leaf blower ban from coming back with a 50-person petition and calling for a referendum? Or dog park opponents? Snow shoveling of all city sidewalks? The list is endless.
@Jane — The city council always has the option to vote down any petition placed before them correct? And in this case the action is to put a question in front of voters, not decide the issue themselves as they needed to do with Austin St. and the Orr Block.
People have the option to petition for all the items you mention (leaf blower ban, dog park ban, snow shoveling, trump impeachment investigation) and council has the option to dismiss them based on what they think is best for city and constituents and then to live with consequences of their votes when they seek reelection. In most cases they can make final decisions on requested legislation without ballot questions.
@Mike — Here is what the Globe had to say about how communities might opt out before the vote:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/02/the-lowdown-question/jLs2fGkjyTc2vq7kVBi2PI/story.html
” Will my community have a say about pot shops?
You bet. YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN CALL A REFERENDUM, and voters can decide whether to ban recreational marijuana businesses. But unlike in Colorado, where communities had to opt in to welcome marijuana businesses, the Massachusetts ballot question would require local voters to opt out of having any marijuana stores, cultivation facilities, and product manufacturers in their city or town.”
It doesn’t say “You Bet. You can organize an effort to try to collect 1000’s of signatures….”
I find your logic a bit twisted to say that proposing to put this advertised provision of the law before the voters is denying the will of the voters.
Jack – We’re all in agreement about the process as it is clearly outlined in the Newton city charter. The disagreement is how the process should proceed moving forward: should the petitioners be required to collect 6000 signatures (or whatever the number may be) as every other group of petitioners has been required to do up to this point, or will the council put the referendum on the ballot after just one public hearing that very few people knew about. For all the reasons stated above (setting a bad precedent, the lack of publicity before the council vote, the timing of the vote, etc), people who oppose the actions the city council has proposed are now expressing their concern. That’s all that’s happening.
I don’t hear anyone objecting to a referendum if a group collects the signatures as outlined in the charter.
“The voters have already spoken” argument is an outright lie debunked numerous times. The voters have spoken about a distinctively different matter. What a nerve and disrespect to the opponents one needs to repeat this lie over and over again.
The other argument against the petition is the number of signatures collected. People are worried about a bad precedent. “Why this question and not others?” The answer is: because the council within its legal boundaries can and should promote a petition at their discretion based on its merits. We elect them to make good judgements.
@Jack Prior– The language you’re quoting is from a newspaper story. None of it is from the 2016 ballot initiative or the law itself. But you go right ahead and keep playing Twister with yourself. Meanwhile, here’s an actual quote from the 2016 ballot initiative itself. Please note the signature requirement…
“The city council of a city and the board of selectmen of a town shall, upon the filing with the city or town clerk of a petition signed by not fewer than 10 percent of the number of voters of such city or town voting at the state election preceding the filing of the petition and conforming to the provisions of the General Laws relating to initiative petitions at the municipal level, request that the question of whether to allow, in such city or town, the sale of marijuana and marijuana products for consumption on the premises where sold be submitted to the voters of such city or town at the next biennial state election.”
@Mike — Here is link to the law again for reference: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2016.pdf ).
Section 3a says “A city or town may adopt ordinances that … limit the number of marijuana establishments in the city or town, except that a city or town may only adopt an ordinance or by-law by a vote of the voters of that city or town…”.
Section 3a doesn’t say that the vote needs to be created through a petition process; just that the voters must approve.
You quote Section 3b which if you read your quote carefully is in regard to “the sale of marijuana and marijuana products FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES WHERE SOLD”. Different issue. Different vote. Different requirement for triggering the vote…
Again, I voted for 4, and I’d probably vote against opting out fully from dispensaries and deliveries, but the case should be made with proper facts.
No, Jack. I can understand why you’re confused. But you’re misreading the law. The portion of the ballot initiative I quoted describes the signature requirement to opt out under Section 3, Local Control. You’ll note that it’s the only mechanism for opting out described in that entire section. It controls both the “sale of marijuana AND marijuana products for consumption on the premises…”
Mike — I know you are immersed in this and understand the issues in detail, but the portion of the ballot initiative you quote describes the signature requirement specifically to OPT-IN to social clubs. It controls the sale of marijuana (and marijuana products) for consumption on the premises…”
Enacting a full opt-out or establishment limitations can be done by town or city in a regular or special election. Opting in to social clubs requires a 10% petition and can only occur in a biannual state election.
This is the best clarification I could find:
https://legiscan.com/MA/bill/H3818/2017
379 (2) limit the number of marijuana establishments in the city or town, provided, however,
380 that, in the case of a city or town in which the majority of voters voted in the affirmative for
381 question 4 on the 2016 state election ballot, entitled “Legalization, Regulation, and Taxation of
382 Marijuana, and, after December 31, 2019 in the case of any other city or town, the city or town
383 shall submit any by-law or ordinance for approval to the voters pursuant to the procedure in
384 subsection (e) before adopting the by-law or ordinance…
(e) If an ordinance or by-law must be submitted for approval pursuant to subsection
414 (a)(2), the following procedures will be followed:
22 of 75
415 (1) The city solicitor or town counsel shall prepare a fair and concise summary of the
416 proposed ordinance or by-law which will make clear the number and types of marijuana
417 establishments which will be permitted to operate under the proposed ordinance and by-law and
418 shall be included on the ballot.
419 (2) A ballot shall be prepared asking “Shall this [city or town] adopt the following [by420
law or ordinance]? [solicitor/counsel summary] [full text of by-law or ordinance]
421 (3) If the majority of the votes cast in answer to the question are in the affirmative, the
422 city or town may adopt the by-law or ordinance, but if the majority is in the negative, the city or
423 town shall not adopt the by-law or ordinance.
424 A ballot question under this subsection may be placed on the ballot at a regular or special
425 election held by the city or town by a vote of the board of selectmen or city or town council, with
426 the approval of the mayor, and subject to a municipal charter, if applicable.
Jack, the relevant parts for this discussion are:
Procedures for restricting the number of stores are subject to a municipal charter.
1. The city council can prepare a general or zoning ordinance or by-law, have it approved by the mayor, and then must put it on the ballot for voters.
2. Following the Newton charter, an initiative or group petition with 10% of the registered voters in the last election, 6000 – 8000, verified signatures registered with the clerk of the council will get a question on the ballot.
No where in the ballot question or the regulations does it mention the tern “opt-out.” This term is used by anti-marijuana groups as propaganda to convince voters that the law provided an easy option to restrict the number of stores.
Instead the law, particularly as modified in 2017, is intended to place difficult restrictions on citizens and a city council to be able to get a question on the local ballot in order to be able restrict the number of adult-use marijuana retail stores to less than 10% of the number of liquor stores in the city. It isn’t the right of the non-voters or those who voted against legalizing marijuana to ban (opt-out) marijuana stores or require the voters who have already spoken to vote again.
Newton has already voted to legalize adult-use marijuana which would require there to be access through retail stores. Suggesting that many of the voters who voted “yes” to legalize did not know that access by adults would be required is patronizing at the least.
Allowing a petition signed by 60 people wanting a retail store ban question on Newton’s ballot (was it registered with the clerk of the council and the signatures verified as registered voters in Newyon?) to be moved forward for deliberation by the full city council is not following any procedure allowed by either the CCC or the Newton charter or ordinances. It is an attempt at a sneaky end around the system and should be stopped abruptly by the city council.
The fact that Mayor Fuller issued a statement called “Let’s Vote …” supporting putting the question on the ballot banning retail stores before the full city council has done its deliberations is not only not standard procedure in Newton but in effect is telling the city council how the mayor intends for them to vote. This is overreaching and should not influence the city council at all.
The city council must vote to dismiss this question called for by only 60 people who signed a petition.
Marti — Opt-out and Opt-in are just short hand for phrases for portions of the law. The text of the law is above in various quotes and links.
Perhaps the issue is confusion #1 and #2 in your list above? As you say per #1 the council can put the issue on the ballot themselves following the process on line 415 in the law I copied in above, which does not say anything at all about needing a petition to start the process. Can you provide link to where the law says they need to follow more difficult restrictions? The difficult restriction is the need for a voter vote to opt-out rather than just council doing it or restricting things defined thresholds. The council in our case just happens to be forced to take up a decision/deliberation on a controversial issue in a timely fashion by the citizens petition, and this is provided for in our charter.
The council can choose to vote no action on the petition next week and instead vote to put a say 2-store limit ordinance on the ballot. They are independent things. If the council chooses to not put an opt-out on the ballot themselves, the Opt-out folks can then choose to get signatures to put the more restrictive ordinance on the ballot.
I noticed that the language in the social club opt-in section says 10% of voters who voted (46222 for Newton). The Alcohol-related law on state website says 10% of registered voters at the time of last election(59046), so they are different. In any case its not above 6000 beyond the need for safety buffer.
@Marti Bowen and @Mike Striar: Thank you for writing to the Tab this week. It’s time the other side is represented too.
@Mike Striar: I’ve been thinking about what you wrote regarding the mayor’s statement. You are correct that if she had said anything like that before the election the race might have played out quite differently. Too bad this was not an “issue” on anyone’s radar.
Jack, obviously I disagree with you on the use of the term “opt-out.”
The restrictions are so a “yes” city and later any city cannot easily put a question on the ballot banning or restricting the number of retail stores easily.
There is no confusion in what I wrote. In #1 the city council can act alone in creating an ordinance or by-lay, get approval from the mayor and then must put it on the ballot.
#2 is the other route for getting a question on the ballot following the Newton charter and ordinances which is collecting 6000 signatures on a petition, registering that petition with the clerk of the council, and waiting for the signatures to be verified.
A 60 signature petition has never been a route available to put a question on the Newton ballot. The city council should vote no action necessary on this ban question and tell the petitioners to follow the correct procedure.
@Marti — OK, so perhaps the petitioners should just have simply petitioned to say “We ask the city council to hear public testimony, deliberate, and vote on whether the council should submit an ordinance banning rec mj shops in Newton” on the premise that this is a difficult item the might not want to simply docket themselves and vote on? Framed that way the 50 person petition is not putting the ordinance onto the ballot (unless majority of council agrees) directly the way a 10% signature petition would.
I’m still unclear what “the restrictions” are beyond preventing CC from banning/limiting without a voter vote.
And again, I’m not signing up on either side of this ballot question debate, just trying to clarify the distinctions between what the council can/should/ought to do under the governing laws and the charter.
Jack – Yes, the city council can vote down the petition. But that’s not what’s happening. This Monday, the council is going to vote on whether to place two questions to place on the ballot without allowing/encouraging input from the larger community. This is significantly different from how the council has handled other issues of interest to the larger community. With the Austin St. project, Marc Laredo was very clear that it was important for a wide spectrum of residents to have an opportunity to speak before the council before the vote and that was why he scheduled seven public hearings. Now that people are beginning to hear what’s going on with the possible ban on dispensaries, why not schedule additional public hearings before the council votes on the two questions?
I simply don’t understand why the council is taking an action that it has never taken before – calling for a ballot question, and maybe two, as the outcome of a 50-person petition. Let the group collect the 6000 signatures and the controversy goes away.
@Jane: You can’t know for sure how the Council will vote on either ballot question. The Programs and Services voted to recommend approval of both ballot questions so the Council could move forward with their debate on this issue. As I keep mentioning, the Mayor has put forth her support for voters to weigh in on both ballot questions. Like it or not, the City put itself in this position by 1) not being on top of the zoning of these facilities once recreational use was legalized last November, and 2) voting for a moratorium.
Amy – I’m not hearing a crucial issue being addressed: why is the CC doing ANYTHING besides implementing the will of the 24,000 voters?
@Pat: The CC hasn’t done anything yet. A committee recommended approval of both ballot questions so that the CC could deliberate and vote on them. The City had an opportunity to move forward with zoning regs without imposing a moratorium but did not and is only now offering zoning regulations which is under consideration. I think I posted a link on a previous post but you can scroll down to the end of the agenda here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/90539/06-25-18%20ZAP%20with%20Memos.pdf
Amy – don’t you think it’s wrong for the city to even consider doing anything except enact the will of those 24,000? What would that look like? As a previous poster said, what the CC is considering will make it virtually impossible for the law to be implemented. So what should they be doing instead?
Pat – I think the City should have enacted zoning regulations and been ahead of this.
Yes, I get that. What should they be doing now, if anything, to honor the will of the voters?
@Pat: They need to decide whether to force the Opt-Out folks to collect the requisite signatures or forgo the signature requirement and place a question on the ballot. They may already be amenable to forgoing the signature requirement since they are considering placing a question on the ballot originated by their members to limit the amount of retail pot shops
Amy,
The signature requirement is for an initiative or group petition to be able to put a question on Newton’s ballot such as the ban on retail stores. It should be voted no action necessary.
The city council, on its own, can write an ordinance or zoning by-law restricting the number of adult-use marijuana stores and if approved by the mayor must then put the question of whether or not to adopt it on the Newton ballot. I believe that has been accomplished by the two councilors who docketed the second ballot question.
To actually support the will of the Newton voters, the law should be carried out as is.
It has come to my attention that the anti-pot side has quickly organized and now is in the process of “educating” Elliot St. neighbors, as well as distributing a large amount of yard signs to the surrounding area. Is anyone aware of yard signs being distributed by the pro-marijuana side? Is there a more comprehensive website or is https://p2a.co/XPNB4GC the only resource created so far?