In front of a passionate standing-room-only crowd Monday, the Newton City Council voted 13-8 against placing a question on the November ballot asking voters if they would like to ban all recreational marijuana stores in Newton. Later, in a 18-2 vote, the council approved a second proposed ballot question that would limit the number of stores to between two and four (as opposed to eight — or 20 percent of the number of liquor stores here — as specified by state law).
Newton Patch story is here. Newton TAB’s take is here.
Opponents of all retail sales in Newton now have just over a month and a half to gather perhaps as many as 9,000 signatures to put the full ban on the ballot this fall; a chore that will be daunting to say the least.
It was the most fascinating and contentious vote and debate before our city council since the votes for Washington Place and Austin Street.
Voting against the full ban question: Leary, Greenberg, Albright, Norton, Brousal-Glaser, Krintzman, Markiewicz, Downs, Crossley, Danberg, Noel, Grossman and Kalis.
Voting to put the full ban on the ballot: Ciccone, Auchincloss, Cote, Kelley, Gentile, Rice, Schwartz and Baker
(Laredo was absent and Lappin and Lipof were recused.)
Which bring us to the second most interesting thing about Monday’s vote: How our seven freshman city councilors were the key to the vote on Monday.
Of Newton’s seven first-term councilors who took office Jan. 1, six (Greenberg, Krintzman, Markiewicz, Downs, Noel and Grossman) voted to keep the question off the ballot. Only one newbie (Kelley) voted “yes.”
Not only did those six “no’ votes cover the margin, I think it’s likely “yes” would have prevailed if the same vote was before last year’s council.
In particular, I’d venture that it’s highly likely that former Councilors Yates and Blazar would have been “yes” votes. I’d also guess that Sangiolo and Lennon would have been probable “yes” votes too. I’m not certain about Harney, but he tended to vote with the others on the “yes” side. And we know that ex-Councilor now Mayor Fuller is on record saying she thought voters should decide.
Among former councilors, that leaves only Hess-Mahan who has criticized Kelley’s position and the proposed question on Village 14 so he would have been a certain “no” instead of her “yes”.
Even if I’m wrong about some of my above guesses, it’s still pretty clear that the council turnover was the difference maker last night.
As the saying goes: Elections have consequences.
And that’s the second most interesting thing about Monday’s vote.
Looking down road, does this mean that councilors who voted against the ban will not resist pot shops in their wards? Otherwise, they will be hypocrites. Right?
Jeffrey: I think you’d have to listen to their often nuanced remarks last night. There were a variety of reasons why our councilors explained their votes, including some who opposed the idea of a 50 signature petition driving a ballot question.
Interestingly, Ward councilors vote 5-2 against putting a ban on the ballot. One of those two (Rice) has announced he will not seek re-election.
Anther interesting tidbit… the absence of Marc Laredo. Missed flight, or political calculation?
@Jeffrey Pontiff: No, I don’t think most of them will resist pot shops in their ward, because they understand that pot shops are not something to be afraid of. Everyone’s lamenting what’s happening to our village centers with the banks and nail salons. Pot shops can bring people to village centers who would not otherwise go there.
Yes, it was an interesting division in the city council. 10/11 women in the “no” camp. I sure am glad I voted the way I did in 2017. One strange exception is Auchincloss. What’s up?
Jeffrey -You really should watch a replay of the meeting. Once the council began discussing the merits of the question, the comments on both sides were, for the most part, thoughtful, reasoned, and on point.
Call me old fashioned, but I’m a supporter of decorum in the council chambers, the mayor’s office, and school committee meetings. David Kalis did an excellent job of maintaining order and quieting things down, but it shouldn’t be necessary. When you’re asked to refrain from applause, then you should refrain from applause. Not asking too much.
I’ve known Marc Laredo through his eight years on the school committee and as a city councilor, and have never seen him avoid taking a position for political reasons.
@Jane– Do you happen to know Laredo’s position on the ban proposal?
“As the saying goes: Elections have consequences”
I think the 7 freshman councilors and their fresh perspective are certainly a benefit – not a consequence.
@Mike
I believe Marc Laredo had a flight cancellation earlier in the day, and had been in contact with council. I don’t recall what time he got there, but it was probably after 11 pm. Marc apologized for his attire as he had come directly from the airport, but did get to vote on the last few items.
Most Interesting: @greg: Kudo’s actually go out to you in your capacity as the head of the Chamber. This was a big business coup over residential concerns and is exactly what you are supposed to do in your job. New members of the Council are neither a benefit, nor a consequence, it is what it is, the results of an election.
The two veteran Councilors with sway over the newer members played their strategy perfectly and just as another recent item that was overturned to the detriment of residents, this couldn’t have been done without so many changes to the Council.
The newer Councils, and in 2 terms, I am a newer Councilor will learn and get better at developing their own focus on who’s the priority. When we become predictable in our role, we are no longer relevant to the process of government.
@Councilor Cote: Flattery will get you everywhere! But the chamber and I can’t take any credit for this. Although I personally had misgivings about the precedent of enabling a 50-person petition drive a ballot question, the Newton–Needham Chamber’s board of directors did not take a position on whether or not to put a recreational ban on the ballot.
What you witnessed Monday night was a genuine, pardon the pun, grass roots effort. Residents on from all corners of Newton — and on all sides of this issue — have been emailing and came out in large numbers.
@Andrea and James Cote – “consequence” is not the opposite of “benefit”. A consequence is something that happens (whether good or bad) as a result of a previous action.
So, yes, elections have consequences. Many of us see this consequence as a benefit, others don’t.
@James Cote – Councilor Krintzman actively worked on this vote as did other brand new Councilors. You underestimate our new colleagues. They are strong, smart and very able to think on their own.
It looks like someone is being a sore loser. Embarrassing.
@Meredith – thank you for the grammar lesson. I will keep it in mind, though to me , the word “consequences” has a negative connotation. Regardless (notice I didn’t say irregardless), I am very happy that we had turnover in the council – though one councilor entered the race in what I believe to be an unscrupulous manner.
Note: I erroneously wrote in my original post that the ballot question which was approved would limit recreational stores to between two and six. It’s actually between two and four. I’ve corrected my original post.
I’m really happy about the compromise measure, and hope affiliates of Opt Out Newton at some point come around to the fact that they had a partial victory on Monday. While I don’t approve of OON’s approach, the organization did raise awareness about Newton’s obligation to license up to eight stores. They got a question on the ballot that will reduce the number of licenses by as much as 75% initially, and will cut the number of licenses in half permanently. I think proposed store limits (unlike the ban) will succeed by a wide popular margin in the Fall.
One of the many things to like about limiting licenses is that the City of Newton can hold beauty contests among multiple bidders, and award a license to whoever has the most merit. If we start with two licenses and maybe add one at a time later, prospective licensees must be extra diligent (like Garden Remedies has been) to put their best foot forward.
No surprise here. I completely disagree with Dulles. This “compromise” that nobody asked for will cost Newton million$ per year, and it’s just another slap in the face to people who voted to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.”
@James Cote – You have a cynical view of elected politics, and a lack of respect for your newer colleagues.
Dulles, opt-out Newton wasn’t interested in a smaller number of stores. They don’t want retail stores selling pot in Newton. I don’t believe any of them went pot legal.
As for the consequences of fewer stores, the Elliot Street location that applied for a medical MJ license when asked about numbers of customers and traffic, they answered that it really depends on how many retail stores open in Newton. So for those worried about such things, the more stores the better.
Councilor Cote, your comment about the new councilors and the veterans who “hold sway” over them “to the detriment” of residents is a particularly nasty one. It’s not up to you personally to decide what’s best for Newton residents. You sound like a very poor loser.
Greg,
I can’t speak for Dick Blazer nor can I factor in the benefit of debate and discussion but you’re probably wrong about my vote on the total ban of marijuana shops. I probably would have been swayed by the argument of respecting the voters choice and voted yes. However that doesn’t mean that the proposed sites make sense. The Elliot Street site is across the street from a residential district that stretches around the corner onto Boylston Street and down Elliot Street on the other side of the T Bridge. It’s not unreasonable to allow for the liklihood that s pot shop in the Green Tea location might generate a lot of conflicting traffic. The same likelihood seems true to me for the South Pacific site on Beacon Street–a lot of in and out traffic gumming up an already difficult area.
I would suggest that the pot recreational shops be directed to areas that already have a lot of in and out traffic or that need some. Specifically, I suggest that the Green Tea shop would be better located in one of the numerous vacant storefronts on Needham Street with in and out traffic previously allowed. The Welles Avenue area has been cited as place where more youth oriented uses both day and evenings would be appropriate to broaden the appeal of the Avenue. Medical marijuana and perhaps recreational marijuana would seem to fill the bill..
The new health care center in place of the Chestnut Hill Atrium might be a good place for both medical and recreational marijuana.
Listing recreational marijuana as an allowed use in the Business 5 Zoning District (Welles Avenue) and in the Mixed Use 1 District (half of Needham Street) might be an interim step to solving this issue.
What can we learn from the creation of legal but never used sites for Sexually Oriented Businesses more than a decade ago? Clearly the dynamics of the new
issue are different but perhaps we can learn from the previous case.
@Brian Yates: Interesting to know how you might have voted. Thanks for sharing!
I do, however, disagree with your cited objections to the Route 9/Elliot St location. The location already has a lot of the “in and out traffic” that you suggest is a good criteria. It has ample parking, abuts the MBTA tracks and a gas station at an intersection well suited for vehicles (did anyone complain about too many cars when the CVS was a grocery store?) Yes there are residents across the street, but that’s not a street that’s easy to cross or already doesn’t abut a busy strip mall/gas station.
Also, I’d urge you to reconsider your assumption that the customers for this business is necessarily “youth.” Teens and other young folks already know where to buy pot. But I know a lot of boomers who are looking forward to being able to enjoy legal, dosage-controlled, safely-produced marijuana from a licensed and inspected retailer.
Dear Greg,
You’re missing my point. The fact that the Green Tea site is on a street that already “not easy to cross ” and that has a neighborhood retail center (not a strip mall!) means that it would aggravate existing traffic problems that have in fact existed since the CVS site was a Purity Supreme. Do you have any comments on my suggestions that recreational pot shops would be a benefit on Needham Street and Welles Avenue when they might be a detriment on Elliot Street or Beacon Street? I thought eternally youthful boomers would be part of the market for the shops.
The issue right now with Wells Ave. is that it has a number of educational institutions, many of which are for profit (Russian School of Math, Schecter, Exxcel Gymnastics, and another school potentially moving in). My guess is that there would be some question of whether they would qualify as a “school” in the sense of the law. So I would argue that we may need to wait-and-see about Wells.
It is possible that Needham Street would make sense. There is retail space there and existing traffic capacity. As far as I’m aware, none have been proposed. That would be up to a deal between a property owner and a retailer.
@Brain Yate – strip mall, noun, “a shopping mall consisting of stores and restaurants typically in one-story buildings located on a busy main road.” – sure sounds like the CVS plaza to me.
Jerry,
I believe a mall is defined as a group of stores under a common roof so that shoppers can go from one to another without going into the weather. That’s not the CVS plaza.
by the way, you got my first and last names wrong.
BRIAN YATES
@Brian – you may be right about what a mall is, but a strip mall isn’t a mall. Jerry is right about what a strip mall is. A perfect example of one is the collection of stores where Dunkin’ Donuts is on Beacon St. at Four Corners.