Tonight, September 5, 2018 City Council meeting docket includes the following items – below.

Council President Laredo’s memo to the City Council on August 28, says in part:

There are also several other marijuana-related ballot items that have been docketed. At our meeting on September 5, I will ask that all of the marijuana-related ballot items be accepted on the docket and referred to the Programs and Services Committee so it can consider all of the items simultaneously and then make its recommendations to the full Council for decision.

According to the first two items docketed below, #468-18 and #469-18, it would take a majority vote to refer these items to Programs and Services because they were acted on by the City Council less than 12 months ago. Something seems amiss here. On #469-18 Councilor Laredo is a co-docketer, among 9 Councilors, who wants to overturn the council’s recent previous decision and put the ban question on the ballot. If these actions are approved as is, the question banning marijuana retail stores would go on the ballot but not the question to regulate the number of retail stores. This scenario would mean the ‘Initiative Petition would not need to be discussed at all and there would be no need for Councilor Laredo to submit #471-18.

Docket:

The subject matter of the following item was disposed of during the preceding 12‐months. Council Rules, Article I, Section 3. D, requires a majority vote of the Council to be referred to Committee:

#468‐18 Request to remove the Question regulating the number of recreational marijuana establishments from the November ballot.
COUNCILORS COTE, NORTON and KELLEY requesting that the City Council remove from the November 2018 special election ballot the question as to whether the City of Newton shall limit the number of retail recreational marijuana establishments operating in Newton to no fewer than two and no more than four, which was approved by the City Council on July 9, 2018.

The subject matter of the following item was disposed of during the preceding 12‐months. Council Rules, Article I, Section 3. D, requires a majority vote of the Council to be referred to Committee:

#469‐18 Requesting the City Council place a question on the ballot prohibiting retail recreational marijuana sales in Newton.
COUNCILORS BAKER, NORTON, GENTILE, KALIS, COTE, CICCONE, LAREDO, KELLEY and SCHWARTZ requesting reconsideration of item #312‐18 so that the Council can place a question on the ballot that would prohibit retail recreational marijuana establishments in the City at a November 2018 Special Election.

#470-18 Initiative Petition requesting a ballot question prohibiting recreational marijuana establishments with exceptions
SUZANNE BENDER ET AL., submitting an Initiative petition pursuant to the City of Newton Charter and signed by 10% of the registered voters, requesting that the City Council place a question on the November 6, 2018 ballot as to whether the City of Newton will adopt the following ordinance:
“Operation of recreational (non‐medical) marijuana establishments as defined in M.G.L. Chapter 94G is prohibited in Newton, provided that a marijuana establishment that was licensed and approved to operate as a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (Registered Marijuana Dispensary) in the City of Newton prior to July 1, 2017 may, if otherwise allowed by zoning, (a) cultivate non‐medical marijuana; (b) manufacture and/or produce non‐medical marijuana related products; (c) test non‐medical marijuana and the products derived therefrom; (d) engage in wholesale distribution of non‐medical marijuana and non‐medical marijuana products, but not to include retail sales thereof in the City of Newton.”

#471-18 Provide a means for voters to determine which marijuana question prevails if both are approved
PRESIDENT LAREDO requesting discussion and vote on a means to enable Newton voters to determine which of two ballot questions limiting retail marijuana sales will prevail if both appear on the November ballot and both receive a majority vote of the electorate, recognizing that a subsequent implementing ordinance may still be required.







Pin It on Pinterest