A grassroots group sprung up in Newton over the summer in opposition to the impending opening of Newton’s first legal recreational marijuana shops. This isn’t too surprising. In the 2016 statewide referendum on legalizing marijuana the City of Newton voted in favor of legalization by a healthy margin. Even so, there was a minority of 20,000 voters who voted against.
This summer the anti-legalization folks began mobilizing and quickly and effectively mounted a big effort. They blanketed my neighborhood and others in signs. They began organizing, writing emails to their counselors, letters to the Tab and launched a very energetic and successful effort to collect signatures in support of their cause.
With their signature drive they had a choice to make. They could either collect some number (6000?) signatures which would force the City Council to vote Yes/No on putting their proposed no-pot-shops-in-Newton question on the ballot OR they could collect more signatures (9000?) and bypass the City Council and put the question directly on the ballot.
They went for the first option. They collected their signatures with a very concerted effort over the summer. I’m guessing all of you readers encountered at least one of their signature collectors in the past months. This Thursday the City Council will vote on whether or not to add the Opt-Out folks ban-the-pot-shops question on the 2018 ballot. There can always be surprises, but all signs so far indicate that the council will indeed agree to put the Opt-Out question on the 2018 ballot. Congratulations to the Opt-Out folks on an impressive effort. So far so good.
Here’s where it gets complicated.
Under the state law, the City can’t limit the number of pot-shops licensees to less than 20% of the number of liquor stores in the town. Even though the state effort was called the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the state law would allow towns to limit only 1 marijuana shop for every 5 liquor stores in the town. In Newton there are 40 liquor stores so the rules would mean that couldn’t limit to less than 8 pot shops. If the town wanted to allow fewer than that number they would need to have a referendum question on their own ballot. Newton being Newton, the first thing the council did was to enact a moratorium on opening all marijuana shops in Newton. The second thing they did was to hold public meetings and then approved a ballot question to more severely limit the maximum number of marijuana shops in Newton to 2 – 4. The mayor signed off on the this referendum question in July and it is scheduled to appear on your ballot this November.
So now, this week the City Council will be taking up the Opt-Out groups proposal to add a totally-ban-pot-shops-in-Newton referendum question to the ballot in November. That part is fine but what is not fine is that they are very strenuously lobbying the Council to pass new legislation that will take the July (2-4 pot shops) question off the ballot.
Why would they do that? Because they’d really rather say “if you don’t ban pot shops there will be one on every corner” than “if you don’t ban pots there could be a couple of them in Newton”.
From a tactical point of view I totally understand why they’d love to get that existing question off the ballot. That definitely doesn’t mean the City Council should acquiesce in furthering their very political and frankly un-democratic tactics.
Here’s the bigger issue. Back in May-June the Council held public hearings, debated the issue, and after substantial consideration put a ballot question on Novembers ballot that would allow citizens to limit the number of pot shops in Newton. The mayor signed off on that legislation.
At this point, it is an extremely cynical and cheap political stunt to try to get the Council to drop the compromise question off the ballot so that the Opt-Out can run their campaign as “ban-pot-shops vs a total free-for-all”, rather than “total ban” vs ” a few shops”. That ballot question from July to limit Newton pot shops was passed after much consideration by the public, the Council, and the mayor. For the Opt-Out folks to now try to legally un-do it because it would be inconvenient for how they would like to run their campaign is ridiculous.
I urge all City Councilors to resist this cynical move. As the Opt-Out people say “let the people vote”. Councilors: if you do approve the Opt-Out folks ballot referendum, you would be undermining your constituents and your own earlier vote to even consider removing the “2-4 pot shop” question.
To the Opt Out folks: Congratulations on a well run campaign. You did it. You collected the signatures. You’re almost certainly going to get your question on the ballot. Now don’t ruin it by trying to undermine another 100% reasonable alternative ballot question because it may be inconvenient for you. Your campaign was a successful exercise of democracy. Don’t discredit that with a cheap anti-democratic effort.
The only question that should appear on the ballot is the opt out question. The 2-4 limit question is supported by a majority of the Council but there’s no indication it has any support from the public. The same with the 2-8 limit proposal of the mayor’s, which, if it appears on the ballot along with both of the other 2 questions, will likely lead to cannabis supporters splitting their votes on the limit questions, causing the opt out question to ultimately get the most votes. So keep it simple and straightforward and be responsive to those who got signatures. Put opt out on the ballot alone. And then let the majority of Newton’s voters, who’ve already shown that they favor adult-use cannabis stores and the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars they represent, to vote against the opt out proposal and blow it away — in a puff of smoke! — once and for all.
100% agree with Gerry. I was hoping they wouldn’t, but the opt-out folks got their signatures fair and square. Let’s vote on it.
I have missed you, Jerry! I totally agree with you.
Gerry — if compromise has no support from the public as you believe, why the full-court press to take it off the ballot? Let the measure succeed or fail on its own merits. (On a side note, it is not vote-splitting: The ballot questions are separate and self-contained).
In what country does government take an approved referendum back off the ballot because certain factions don’t want it to win the popular vote?
I can’t speak for all 9000 folks who signed the petition, but I know many of us would be supportive of two or even three questions if they could be multiple choice, with the most popular option winning.
However, the city charter doesn’t allow multiple choice questions. Each question has to be stand-alone, and has to get over 50% to win. As Jack Prior has pointed out on other threads, there are 9 possible ways for a voter to vote with 2 questions and 27 ways with 3 questions since you can vote no on both, yes on both, blank on both, yes on some and no on others, etc. Additionally some people will prefer one option and vote for the other as a backup. As an extreme example, if 20,000 voters prefer the 2-4 limit question but all these voters still vote for Opt Out as a backup against the prospect of 8+ stores, and one person votes for Opt Out only, then Opt Out will win with 20,001 votes, even if only one person had it as a first choice. It is inherently confusing and there will be no clarity to the end result. You need a PhD in game theory to figure out how to vote!
Given the constraints in the Charter, it makes more sense to consider these questions sequentially— Do we want retail stores or not? If we decide that we do, then we can later decide if we want to limit the number of stores, either through a subsequent vote on the 2-4 limit or the City Council deciding on their own to limit the number of stores to 8 (no ballot question required on that).
@Gerry – As Dulles says the questions are totally separate. Neither Yes/No question passes unless it receives more than 50% of the vote.
Also bear in mind that those signatures that were collected had nothing to do with removing an already approved ballot initiative. Opt-Out’s lobbying to remove this question from the ballot is a clear effort to stack the deck in their favor. If they truly want to “let the people vote” why are they trying to remove that question from the ballot?
@Jerry we must have been typing at the same time! See my answer to your question above. You are right that the 2-4 limit question is a perfectly reasonable one. It’s just inherently confusing to have two conflicting questions on the ballot at the same time. The results will be unclear and the issue will remain contentious. Better to have a clean up or down vote on one of the questions and make further decisions later if necessary.
@ Jerry, I should have thanked you for your compliments for Opt Out getting the signatures. Even though experienced hands told us it would be impossible to do in 6 weeks, it was actually easier than we thought. As people started to learn that the law allows each town to vote on local control, more and more people decided that they like Newton the way it is and don’t mind going to Brookline to buy pot in order to avoid potential risks that might come with pot shops. We can always decide to Opt In later if it looks like Brookline has a good thing going, but the opposite is not true.
If you like 2-4, or 2-8, ask yourself, why is that more realistic than allowing a recreational market in Newton or not. If I vote 2-4, what does that mean? It means if I want 2 stores, I have to yield to the councilors authority to have 4 depending on the market. Why are you handing them this authority instead of allowing a vote?
Put a yes or no vote in front of the voter and be done with this madness. Opt out could very well lose. Everyone gets that. But still, you are trying to hedge, just in case you have wildly misread the mandate you believe the voters gave you in 2016.
Respect the voter. Has he changed so radically in 2 years? Is he such a simpleton that a meager citizen’s campaign can control his mind at the ballot? Do you trust his ability to weigh the pros and cons of the recreational marijuana industry? Because the evidence is that you don’t trust the voter. You prefer a contrived option over the option that was part of question 4; to put opt out up to a vote if it achieved the requisite petition signatures. In other words, you don’t even trust your own vote on Question 4. That was part of it, buried in the legalese, to allow an opt out vote under these difficult to achieve circumstances. You voted yes to that.
If opt out loses, you get the full benefits of the recreational market, without the artificial constraints of councilors hedging their bets.
Clean ballot, yes or no. Anything else is contrived by non-representative officials who presumes the will of the people instead of putting it to a vote.
A few points on Jerry’s post:
“the City of Newton voted in favor of legalization by a healthy margin. Even so, there was a minority of 20,000 voters who voted against.”
The result was 25516-20796 – a margin of 2360 voter choices (9% of Yes) for a law that promised that regulating cannibis like alcohol, including being able to limit/ban retail recreational shops. Voters were explicitly promised the option to ban retail shops in their cities and towns (as they can choose to do with alcohol). If 1 in 10 of the 2016 Yes voters voted with an opt-out in mind, then it will pass. You can argue that’s hypocritical of them, but is the reality.
“They could either collect some number (6000?) signatures which would force the City Council to vote Yes/No on putting their proposed no-pot-shops-in-Newton question on the ballot OR they could collect more signatures (9000?) and bypass the City Council and put the question directly on the ballot.”
The charter calls for opt-out to do exactly what they have done (see sec 10.6). They couldn’t submit 9000 directly. Its 10%, then 5% if needed. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/70720
and finally: “they’d really rather say ‘if you don’t ban pot shops there will be one on every corner’ than ‘if you don’t ban pots there could be a couple of them in Newton’.
The concern is that the questions are NOT INDEPENDENT given that having 2-4 not be conditioned on opt-out denies people the option of expressing their 2-4 preference without jeopardizing their opt-out preference. I don’t think either side likes this.
If the city council can put 2-4 on the ballot conditional on opt-out, what is the downside of that?
People vote their opt-out choice and then they vote their 2-4 choice without concern of it overriding their opt-out choice. @Dulles — I think if the questions are truly independent, from 2 competing parties, then it makes sense higher vote count wins, but city council has option to have their question worded conditionally according to law department.
I’m sure it doesn’t appear this way, but I’m relatively neutral on this issue, but would like it to get resolved clearly and democratically, and for facts to be clear. While time left is limited, I think informational campaigns on Yes/No will help public understand the issues better than we all do currently.
I think that having the 2-4 vote simultaneously will decrease the odds of an outright pot-shop ban, for two reasons. First, some of the moderates will feel less pressure to vote for the ban if given the option to limit the number of shops. Second, it is possible that both initiatives win, but that the total number of votes for the 2-4 limit is larger.
@Jack Prior, you are right: having both options on the ballot may distort the 2-4 vote, e.g. by compelling the pot libertarians to vote for limits in order to make outcome #2 more likely. @Jack, the conditional vote you mention still involves complications. Voters may still try to game the system, and the true moderates will be forced to vote for an outright ban in order to get the limited market that they want. There may be no way to make this clean with more than one choice.
Voters who voted “yes” on the 2016 law deserve to have their vote respected. That requires a clear and unambiguous way to reaffirm their vote. Any scenario that does not provide that opportunity is going to be legally challengeable.
I’m in favor of one “yes” or “no” vote. Ballot placement and wording are critical. A “yes” vote should mean exactly the same thing as it did in 2016, with additional language that requires the City Council to fully implement the law. A “no” vote should mean Newton opts out from cannabis shops.
I’m not afraid of a single ballot scenario. Cannabis has a long history of success at the ballot box in Massachusetts. I believe it will prevail again. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to watch these prohibitionists in city government continue to obstruct implementation after we win a second time. That’s why the language of the ballot question is critical.
You know who wants the 2-4? The people who want a duopoly. That’s right Garden Remedies, Green Tea, and the law firm the law firm that represents both of them: Schlessinger and Buchbinder. They are stacking the deck with the 2-4 and the 2-8. Seems that Newton’s City Hall could use some swamp draining.
@Gerry – First, it is no longer clear that a majority of the Council wants the 2-4 question on the ballot. Frankly, if our zoning ordinance on Cannabis had been passed I too may find it unnecessary. The Council’s draft ordinance states that the minimum allowed by state law (20% of liquor stores) would become the maximum allowed in Newton. This would guarantee that the maximum number of Cannabis establishments in Newton would be 8.
The draft ordinance is going to a public hearing at the end of September and it is likely that it will not pass through the full Council before the November election. This leaves the door open for the OON campaign to ask the question “do you want a pot shop on every corner? if your answer is no then you have to vote to Opt Out” . My guess is that the Opt Out literature will not tell the voters that the City Council has a plan to limit the number of shops to 8. This is why i support the 2-4 question on the ballot. To give voters a clear option to have Cannibis establishments in Newton but the clear mandate that we don’t have a shop on every corner.
@Laurie – Your 50% statement – that nothing can win without 50% is simply wrong. The Charter makes no such statement. Again, here is Ouida’s email to me on this topic:
“Councilor Albright, you answered this question correctly last night. Each ballot question is independent of any other ballot question. A ballot question will pass if a majority of the folks who vote on that question vote in the affirmative. This is why, as you know, if there is more than one question on the ballot and those questions conflict with each other, you need a way to decide which question will prevail. Hence, the instructions to the voters which was approved in P&S last night, that if more than one question passes, the question that receives the most votes will prevail. ”
To make it even clearer – I just spoke with David Olson and he gave me an example to share with you. I asked if I could quote him and he said yes. Here is his example:
“We have 59,000 voters in Newton. If only 10 of them voted on Question X and out of that 10, 6 voted in the affirmative, then Question X would win.”
Your assertion about every question requires 50% of the voters to vote on it is simply spurious and just muddying the waters.
@Mike – you may have your wish because the anti-Cannabis segment of the Council is doing everything it can to stop the 2-4 question from appearing on the ballot. There is a reason for this.
@ Susan, Thank you for confirming that the charter says that at least 50% of the voters who vote on any given question must vote Yes on a question in order for it to pass. Blank votes don’t count towards the total. We are in full agreement in our understanding on that, and I have never said otherwise.
If you will note in my response above, also, I mentioned that the City Council can limit the number of stores to 8 at any time without a ballot question. They could have done that a year ago, in fact. Thanks for sharing that you and others are trying to make that happen in the zoning process. In the future when I make the statement that the City Council can limit the stores to 8, I will include the fact there is an effort to do just that.
@laurie – just to be sure we are on the same page. Your comments that if there were more than one question on the ballot you were concerned that no question would reach 50% and therefore no question would win – is now null and void? BTW – your “50% rule” is not in the charter.
I’ve never used marijuana and don’t intend to start using it now. Still, I’d like to be assured that the opt out side cannot win this with just a plurality of those that vote by giving a bullet vote to the no side while proponents of allowing pot shops in Newton split a majority of the vote that is nonetheless split among two different options.
What I do know is that I was approached by three different people from the OPT out side seeking my signature on the measure to keep cannabis shops out of Newton. All of them lied to me about the health effects of marijuana, the “criminal type” people it would draw to our city and the dangers that having these shops here would pose for young people. The last one to approach me was a grizzled old geezer standing next to his car at the Newtonville Star Market. His car had a giant Trump Pence sticker on the back. I’m an old and grizzled geezer myself and had a baseball cap on that I don’t normally wear with the aircraft carrier I served on many decades ago. He must have assumed he had found a kindred soul because he went into a rant about drugs, liberals and other such nonsense. I got a kick out of telling him that I was a Yellow Dog Democrat and supporter of Bernie Sanders who’s been calling for the legalization of pot for quite some time.
I know the word “lied” has a charged connotation to it, but I consider what they said to me to be quite in line with the lies and distortions about the health and public safety aspects of marijuana use that were jammed down our throats at school, in films and with “public service ads on TV and radio for literally half a century. Many people, particularly the young, minorities and the poor, suffered needless incarceration and disrupted careers because these fear based lies died so hard.
@Susan – is there any way to have a special meeting on the ordinance limiting the city to 8 shops, and have that voted on, soon, even simultaneously with the ballot question discussion? This could help show the intent of the city council and paint a more realistic picture of what retail would mean in Newton.
@Susan, First of all, I’ve never made such statements here on V14, so your accusations are probably confusing people here. I think you’re referring to a letter I sent to you and other city councilors, where I stated that having three questions on the ballot makes it likely that the vote will split three ways , and all three questions will likely lose. I wasn’t going to post that here since that’s not the topic of this thread, but if you are going to insinuate that I am making false statements, I will quote from that letter:
“If there are three questions on the ballot (and a 4th implicit question of NO to all), then the vote will be split and no question is likely to reach the threshold of 50% required by the charter to prevail. To see this more clearly, let’s imagine a likely scenario where 10% of voters want no limits and the other 90% are split between the other three proposed questions. This is how the vote would turn out:
Ban 2-4 limit 2-8 limit
No Limit voters (10%) No No No
Ban voters (30%) Yes No No
2-4 limit voters (30%) No Yes No
2-8 limit votes (30%) No No Yes
Total: 70% No 70% No 70% No
30% Yes 30% Yes 30% Yes
In this scenario, all questions would fail because they didn’t reach the 50% threshold, and the implicit option of No Limit would win even if only 10% of the voters preferred it.”
That’s just basic arithmetic, Susan, so please stop saying the comment is “null and void.” The only way that this scenario would be “null and void” is if people could only vote for one option. However, people can vote Yes or No or blank for all three options since they are stand-alone questions. Obviously there are many different scenarios when there are multiple questions on the ballot (that’s the problem I’m trying to point out), but they all lead to confusion and unclear results. I never said that no question COULD reach 50%. I just pointed out that the more questions there are, the less likely any one question WILL achieve 50%.
As for your last statement that the “50% rule” is not in the charter, I refer to your quote above from Ouida Jones that a question has to get a “majority” of the votes that are made on that question to prevail. How is a “majority” different than at least 50%?
The chart that I tried to type above didn’t line up well on this thread, but hopefully you get my drift. On the example above:
10% of the voters would vote No to all three questions;
30% of voters would vote Yes on 1 and No on 2 and 3;
30% of voters would Yes on 2 and No on 1 and 3;
30% of voters would vote Yes on 3 and No on 1 and 2:
This leaves each question with 70% No and 30% yes. These numbers will obviously vary depending on how many voted Yes for each option, whether some people voted Yes on multiple options, and whether some people voted blank on some. But the more options there are, the more likely it is that all will fail, and the more likely that everyone will be really confused.
@Councilor Albright– I have tremendous respect for your effort to thwart off a total prohibition on cannabis shops in Newton. I do not believe your “compromise” is the right solution, as it both muddies the water and concedes too much ground to the prohibitionists unnecessarily. Why hand them a partial victory with a compromise that they haven’t earned? And what happens should the compromise win? The same obstructionist councilors are going to block every applicant who knocks on Newton’s door. No thanks!
Let’s have a straight up or down revote, and let’s make sure it’s fair. As long as the ballot question allows voters to reaffirm their “YES” vote from 2016 I believe we will win again. It is imperative that a second ballot box win carries with it some assurance that the City Council will be required to fully implement the 2016 law. No more games!
>>>Recreational marijuana stores in Newton and thoughts on 3 question ballot<<<
After giving some serious thoughts on the proposed 3 question ballot, I want to share my analysis with you.
Given that the questions are separate and each question is voted on independently, as suggested by the Mayor's proposals, we have to take voters’ psychology into consideration. Suppose a supporter of opt-out will vote YES on question 1. And, out of fear that opt-out vote may lose, this person might vote YES on question 2 as well because having 2-4 stores is still better than having 2-8 stores, which achieves the lower limit to avoid as many as 8 stores if opt-out were to lose. Similarly, recreational marijuana establishment proponents who fear that opt-out might win will vote YES on both question 2 and 3 in hoping that this approach maximizes the chance for them to succeed in having at least some stores in Newton.
The net result of 3 question ballot will likely inflate the votes for question 2 than that it actually deserves. Therefore, this approach increases the chance, unjustifiably, for passing question 2 than passing either question 1 or 3.
Another possible scenario is that no question gets more than 50% of support and so none passes. Then what? A wasted ballot initiative?
Psychologically, a voter will try to gauge the winning odds of each question and act accordingly. Although the intent, as stated, is to treat 3 questions separate and independent. However, in reality, these questions are connected and interdependent when voted on. You can't possibly separate them in a voter's mind when they are on the same ballot.
The only way to separate them is having these questions on different ballots with an up or down vote on opt-out and another possible follow-on vote on number of stores if opt-out fails.
@George Shen– No third bite at this apple. Cannabis has won once already. Winning a second time must assure that the City Council fully implements the 2016 law. End of story!
@John White – “the conditional vote you mention still involves complications. Voters may still try to game the system, and the true moderates will be forced to vote for an outright ban in order to get the limited market that they want. There may be no way to make this clean with more than one choice.”
I think you have it reversed. If 2-4 is conditional on opt-out, the moderate votes no on opt-out and Yes on 2-4 and they vote their interest. They wouldn’t vote for 0 in any case unless they felt that 4 is absolutely perfect and 8 is far far too many.
@Susan and @Laurie — I think confusion is % of total voters that day and % of voters that don’t blank the question. A question needs >50% of the voters that don’t blank the question to pass, but that could be <50% of total voters entering the polls.
@Jack Prior I’m not confused about how the >50% votes are calculated, but there is a City Councilorwho has been accusing me privately of making incorrect calculations and statements in this regard. Why this councilor elected to make these false accusations against a citizen in a public forum with no evidence is baffling.
I sincerely hope the City Council will be thoughtful in wording the ballot question as Mike Striar has suggested. The question should be a “Yes” we want recreational marijuana/cannibis shops in Newton or “NO” we don’t want any recreational marijuana/cannibis shops in Newton. I hope there won’t be any other question on the ballot. Additional questions just create more confusion and our residents (no matter which side they are on) deserve better.
I’ll also just reaffirm my disappointment that the City did not act quickly to create the zoning ordinance. We knew after the ballot question was passed, that we needed to create zoning.
This is what I know after attending the tow city council meetings last week:
1. When Barbara Brousil Glaser gave her reason why she believed that the 2 -4 option should be retained on the ballot, the people in red shirts (Opt Out) booed her. I do not know what their reasoning is at this point, but the group wants the 2 to 4 option off the ballot. That concerns me and should concern anyone who believes that adult cannabis establishments should be permitted in Newton.
2. The two questions and the instructions for how to vote on them that were discussed at the Programs and Services Committee meeting are written at approximately the 4th grade level. The entire item could not be clearer.
3. Since medical cannabis establishments have been legal in MA, 24 have opened up in the entire state. That’s because they are so highly regulated.
4. Regulations for recreational cannabis establishments will be even higher than those for the medical dispensaries.
5. Anyone who thinks there’s going to be even 4 adult recreational cannabis shops in Newton in the next three or so years has never attended a city council land use committee meeting. It is HIGHLY unlikely that a special permit will be granted to 4 establishments in the next few years.
6. Therefore, the 2 to 4 option is a reassurance to those residents that do not object to the presence of establishments in Newton, but may actually believe the “there’ll be a pot shop on every corner” argument.
7. If Newton votes for the ban, then Newton residents will be buying in Brookline, Cambridge, Framingham, and the revenue will go to those cities. That amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars per establishment.
8. We have a very tight budget season coming up and not enough revenue.
OK — Here is an analogy. A family of 5 is living in a house. The current house is red. They are going to vote on two questions:
1. Move to a new house
2. Paint the current house orange.
People are most passionate about the move choice.
3 of the 5 want to move to the new house, but want the current house orange IF they have to stay in it.
1 of the 5 want to stay in the house and keep it red
1 of the 5 want to stay in the house and paint it orange.
Scenario 1. The house color vote is conditional on the outcome of the move vote.
Strategy 1. People vote their primary interests. New house wins 3-2. Orange current house wins 4-1 (moot).
Outcome 1: New house.
Scenario 2. The questions are “independent”. They need to get >50% of votes cast for/against them to pass. If both get a majority then the one with the most votes wins.
Strategy 2a. People vote their interest on each “independent” question:
Vote 2a. New house wins 3-2, but orange current house wins by more 4-1.
Outcome 2a. Orange current house (majority is unhappy)
Woah — movers (with good polling) realize they need to be strategic here:
Strategy 2b. Movers vote their interest, but vote red (against their interest) for current house.
Vote 2b. New house wins 3-2, red house wins 5-0.
Outcome 2b. Red current house (vast majority is unhappy)
Woah — that would be over doing it. Change political strategy firms.
Strategy 2c. Movers vote their interest, but mostly blank vote color
Vote 2c. New house wins 3-2, orange house wins 2-1 (2 blanks).
Outcome 3c. New house (majority happy)
Meanwhile the “stay” folks see this coming and see a path to victory.
Strategy 3d. Red “stay flips to orange. Meanwhile one mover forgets to blank.
Vote 3d. New house wins 3-2. Orange current house wins 4-1.
Outcome 3d. Orange current house (majority unhappy, but at least they got an orange house).
Strategy 4d…. you get the picture….
I need to know why councilors (and formers) don’t have more respect for the intelligence of voters when the questions are written at such a low reading level.
@Jane Frantz, when you’ve collected 6000 signatures for your 2-4 question, you will not only have the ability to say 2-4 is clear, but the public support for a vote to back it.
Until you do, you simply join the ranks of non-representative officials who have precisely this much esteem for those 6000 signatures: 1 of 3 options on a ballot question nobody asked for.
But please keep assuming the will of the people, it’s worked wonders for opt out support; all of these councilors and pundits talking down to them about what’s best for the city.
Lets not forget this grassroots organization paid a man to collect signatures. I guess it should not surprise me they got so many signatures but I am surprised they got them so fast. Is anyone else a little skeptical that all the signatures are real? I may just be feeling a bit paranoid given all the shenanigans going on in Washington and around the country with elections.
I think they had an easier time getting signatures because they scared people into signing by lying to them. Like what Bob was talking about up there.
@Alicia — 20796 certified Newton voters against legalization in 2016 — is it not plausible they found just over a quarter of them and perhaps some who didn’t turn out in that vote?
The opt out petitioners bullied, badgered and lied to get signatures. That tells me a lot about their base of support. It’s the width of a postage stamp and about the same depth. Time to drive a stake through the heart of these prohibitionists…
The elected “leaders” of this city have bungled legalization. They just don’t get it. We have 24 City Councilors and not one of them has supported the law passed by voters. Their arrogance is astounding. Time to give these obstructionist politicians a good whack upside the head…
Keep your eye on the prize. It’s the LANGUAGE of the ballot initiative that matters. Give people who voted “yes” in 2016 the chance to reaffirm that vote. Make sure a “yes” vote this time requires full implementation of the law in Newton.
James – Twelve years ago, I organized an all volunteer 4000 signature collection in 21 days, so I know what it takes to collect signatures. In fact, I actually like collecting signatures and have made several really good friends collecting at the Newton library for any number of candidates, ballot questions, and causes over the years.
It should be noted that according to the city charter, after November, no group will be allowed to pursue a referendum on this issue for two years. It’s one of the reasons why I think it’s important to make sure the city doesn’t take too drastic an action, one way or the other.
@Jane that’s a very impressive accomplishment, especially in the less-communicative days. To get 4000 signatures is a massive victory.
It’s important that people stop dismissing what opt out accomplished. All this effort was not even to ban recreational marijuana. It was to put as a question directly, not as a legalese footnote, or as an option on a multiple choice question before the Newton voters. To put the question directly to them.
Imagine if your effort ended up in the hands of councilors who put it as one of three choices. All that hard work, all those people who scoffed at you, yelled at you, carrying on despite all that because you believe in what you are doing, which is to ask Newton a question in a clear explicit way that did not obfuscate their intentions, and now these council games?
It’s perplexing to me that you, having accomplished such a respectable feat of 4000 signatures, cannot see why what you are saying here reads as so dismissive. You know it’s hard to get those signatures. You have direct experience, and you are still saying that 2-4 is the better option?
I think you’ve forgotten. You remember the connections you made, and the energy, and the victory, but you’ve forgotten why people collected. They collect because they believe in the question. Not your question, not 2-4, not 2-8, they believe in the question of the petition they are collecting for.
Just an observation V14 Moderators. How did “James” get 19 likes on a comment. Fake “likes”
@Claire…okay, I confess, it’s my army of Russian bots.
These bots can not only click like on local news sites, they can also go out in public to collect signatures. And they can also send mass emails to councilors causing certain 2-4 questions to lose popularity.
They were built by the man Bob Burke is describing above, who is also a Russian operative.
As of now they cannot yet vote at a ballot because they are not human looking enough, but I understand that’s being worked on, and hopefully in time for November.
They are very expensive, but well worth it the hilarious paranoia that ensues.
Not paranoia at all. Just calling bull on the continued tactics of the Opt Out crowd. Assuming that the ballot questions are presented in a fair manner, I have confidence that Newton voters will not vote to ban recreational MJ sales. And I have no worries that your 19 “likes” will materialize into votes.
I personally don’t consume cannabis in any of it forms, nor do I anticipate that I will. But the tactics of the Opt Out are frankly offensive and not only will I vote to defeat their efforts, but I am actively communicating to persuade others to do the same.
Hey Opt-Out folks – your message has always been that Question 4 allowed for individual cities and towns to “opt-out” or restrict by following certain protocols. One of those methods is by getting a certain number of signatures for a ballot referendum. You asked people to sign a petition for a referendum for the question you want to ask, you got your signatures, congratulations. Another method allowed by Question 4 is by the city council directly putting a question to the voters. It’s not an either/or. You got your signatures for *your* question, but that doesn’t mean you get to control the process.
P.S. there is clearly a new army of lurkers here “liking” certain comments, and it’s not fooling (or influencing) anyone. Have at it – like lawn signs, likes don’t vote.
Over the summer my college age son posted an ad on a local online group looking for temp work for a few weeks before heading back to college – helping people with yard work, moving stuff, clean outs. The opt out folks contacted him and offered him a job soliciting signatures. He said politely declined but the opt out tactics sure seemed dubious (at best) to us.
James – Trust me, I haven’t forgotten a thing about that referendum question campaign and the vile lies spread about me. It was incredibly ugly – to the point that after the election, we sold our house and spent a year looking for another community in which to live. The election was in January and we were out of our house by July. That is no joke – it was truly a dreadful experience.
As it turns out, we sold our house at the point when the the housing market crashed and the inventory of properties on the market dried up. That gave us time to reflect, make amends with all but a handful of people, and I learned to question issues as they arose rather than waiting for a crisis. So we began a search again and in short order found the home we now live in. We’ve been very happy that our original plan to leave the city didn’t pan out.
At that time, I decided to put my efforts into electing new people and I’ve been a supporter of just about everyone on the council at this point. But once again, it’s getting ugly – one councilor who wants the 2 to 4 option removed used the term “pro pot” to describe those who supported this position.
As we move forward, please be assured that no ad hominem attacks will come from me, nor any comments about people from other communities. That said, I expect the city council to act with transparency and when that doesn’t happen, I will let councilors know what I think with a clear voice.
Being part of OptOut signature collecting group, I’m very upset to see someone here saying those signatures are fake. During the whole hot summer days, our volunteers managed to show up in every corner of Newton, in every event, in every grocery stores, and try to talk to everyone they can reach out to. If you pretend that you haven’t seen any of these, I have nothing to say to you. Let’s just wait to see the voting results.
@Yeeyoo I don’t believe anyone on this thread said that the signatures were fake. What I said is that the “Likes” on James’ comments are fake and I stand by that assertion.
Additionally no one is saying that they don’t think Opt In worked hard to get the signatures or that we didn’t see people getting signatures. What may of us are saying that we found both the actions of those signature gathers overly aggressive and in some cases belligerent and the talking points full of misinformation and in some cases outright lies. And I am speaking from personal experience and that experience has completely motivated me to help defeat Opt Out.
It’s really distressing that Opt Out even had to resort to such behavior. I don’t know why so many of them were relying on the “they’re going to market to our kids!” angle. It’s dishonest but also easily debunkable. But it worked, because I know two people who signed the petition because of that.
@Claire, I’m confused about how someone could fake “likes” on this site. When I accidentally “like” something twice on this site it just removes my previous like. Please explain the method.
Yeeyoo – I also don’t see anyone saying the signatures were fake. Like any signature collection, a significant number weren’t certified, but that’s to be expected. Typically, you have to collect 50% more than the required number to hit the mark.
Likes on this blog can be from one person who signs in incognito. That’s why Claire said they are likely not informative. Not to feel bad about that – it happens all the time here. The number of Likes is pretty meaningless.
Alicia called out the signatures suggesting they may be fake above:
“I guess it should not surprise me they got so many signatures but I am surprised they got them so fast. Is anyone else a little skeptical that all the signatures are real?”
@Jane, Claire didn’t say the “likes” are meaningless (though that’s easy for someone with few likes to say). She said they are Fake. I’d like her to explain how that can happen. Try liking a comment here multiple times and see what happens (incognito or otherwise).
@Sarah – Yes Jane is correct. The Like button is just a bit of fun to liven up the site. If some one was motivated enough there are relatively straightforward ways for someone to jack up those likes. There is no point in describing the mechanics since that would just encourage the activity.
That said, I don’t have any reason to believe that anyone has been playing around with the Likes in this case. The Opt-Out folks are organized and they’ve just finished collecting 1000’s of signatures so a few totally legitimate clicks of the Like button from Opt Out supporters is the simplest explanation.
In any case, number of Likes is not a reliable measurement of anything significant since it is relatively easy to game the system.
I’ll resist the urge to give myself 50 Likes 😉
It is shocking that there are still people not willing to admit the achievement of
our volunteer group.
There are over a thousand real person in the group, 19 likes really didn’t reflect the true number!
@ Sarah, I don’t completely understand how it is done. Someone posted the how here a few months back. I think it had to do with clearing cookies and using different urls. As has been said, the number of “likes” really is meaningless, except for the fact that one poster here seems to be a real outlier in spite of having fairly uninspiring comments that don’t cover any new ground
I think it was a comment meant more as a takeoff on what’s going on at the national level.
One of my goals for this campaign is for the community to emerge from this campaign as a community that can move forward together. One important element to achieving that goal will be a mindfulness of the language we use.
@Claire the moderator above said there’s no indication that the “likes” are fake, but if you want to continue to make that claim, so be it. Or I guess you can change your tune and just say they’re “meaningless.” Or you could admit you made an accusation with no basis in order to belittle people you don’t agree with.
I agree wholeheartedly with Jane that we should be mindful of the language we use.
We should change the tone, lets all have some fun and post predication of result. We can revisit after the vote
Opt out: 60% in favor
2-4: 20%
2-8: 20%
Reasoning: familie with young children, religious individuals and tiger moms will drive the opt out votes
Perhaps open a new post so we can revisit for prosperity?
@Bugek– There’s no “fun” in a group of fear-driven people trying to take away the hard fought freedom of others. Particularly when that freedom was won at the ballot box. Do you think we’re playing some game here? This is about FREEDOM.
Oh, please.
“Youngenaration” – I admit that the Opt Out group achieved their goal. But I think it’s a shame that they resorted to bad tactics to do so.
People will have the FREEDOM to vote to opt out in Newton as provided by the law passed in 2016. If we vote to opt out then people who want weed will have the FREEDOM to go to Brookline, Cambridge, or anywhere else in Massachusetts to get their fix… The big weed money syndicates will have the FREEDOM to make plenty in the other towns and cities.
Bugek – you realize that every voter gets to vote on all 3 questions, right?
An Opt-Out ‘volunteer’ (maybe paid, who knows) tried to get me to sign their petition outside of the West Newton Whole Foods. I told him that not only did I not want to sign his petition but that I’d be calling up my local Newton drug dealer to buy some weed, roll up a joint, and smoke it while thinking of him.
It’s a shame I’m not able to both support local businesses and contribute my tax dollars to the community, but this is the world Opt-Out wants to live in.
In consideration of the question of – if shops are allowed – how many to allow…
…and in consideration of the low-risk – but surely possible – scenario of a “pot shop on every corner,” likely resulting in thousands of new businesses in the town,
…I am curious: has anyone studied, from a purely economic standpoint, what the “likely” or “idea” number of shops in the town would be?
There is a number of shops, I have to imagine, beyond which local economy would not be able to sustain.
Has it been considered what that ideal number of shops, then, is? Is it even as many as eight?
Jims Bigenfield – This being a capitalist country we generally let the market figure that out. We don’t generally ask our city government, for example, to determine the optimum number of pizza shops and then pass regulations limiting the number.
I completely understand the thinking of people who don’t approve of pot, voted against it in 2016, and are trying to ban it Newton today. That’s very straightforward.
I’m completely perplexed though by the folks who supported the 2016 initiative, don’t mind having pot shops in Newton but think that the City government needs to micro-manage the number, siting, and operation of these shops in a way that we don’t do for any other businesses.
I guess its similar to the way that 100 years after prohibition this state micro-manages all sorts of obscure details of the liquor industry in ways that other states don’t.
Did anyone else get a call from a polling company today/tonight asking for answers to the same questions that would be on the ballot if the City Council decides to put them there? I asked the caller what group paid for her services, and her answer was that she just works for a third party polling company, and was unable to confirm or deny if the Opt-Out group was behind it. I couldn’t tell if it was the Opt-Out group, or a political organization. However, it was fascinating that she specifically asked me: How did I vote in 2016? How would I vote if that question was on the ballot now? Would I vote to ban recreational marijuana? Would I vote in favor of a limited number of dispensaries? What number would I be satisfied with? What is my date of birth? Some organization is working hard to collect this data now even before the City Council meeting on September 13th.
Very interesting, Jo-Louise! I can unequivocally say that the Opt Out group had nothing to do with any surveys. Wish we could afford it! I’d guess either that Respect the Vote group or the Mayor, both of whom have a lot of cash.
I don’t do polling, but I do have a crystal ball. I see more obstructionist shenanigans spewing from City Hall over the next few days. The prohibitionists on the City Council are working overtime to stack the deck against cannabis. The language of any ballot proposal means everything. People who voted “yes” in 2016 need a clear way to reaffirm that vote. If that option does not present itself, my crystal ball sees a legal challenge in Newton’s future.
@Laurie Palepu, are you suggesting that the Mayor is spending money to pole that vote? Whose money are you suggesting the Mayor may be using?
The mayor or another politician could be polling for their own political interests. If so, the spending should show up on their ocpf spending reports.
No ballot committee form has shown up on the city campaign finance website suggesting it has been registered with city yet on the “pro” side of this issue, so if its not a politician doing the polling, then they may have an issue:
http://files.ocpf.us/pdf/guides/guidemunibq.pdf
” If you are thinking of undertaking any activity related to a
ballot question, we urge you to contact OCPF or your local
election official (city or town clerk or election commission)
prior to doing so, because expenditures made before a question
is placed on the ballot may be subject to the provisions of
Chapter 55. ”
I have no idea how a committee registers their purpose clearly for a multi-question situation.
At this point, I could care less about MJ. This issue has become a mockery of the 2016 vote and Newton politics in general.
I will be voting against the Ban. And depending on how things go between now and Nov, voting against every incumbent I am eligible to vote on.
The like button is basically just for fun. You can run up a 100 likes in about 5 minutes if you clear your cookies. No one should really pay attention to the likes, it is like polling where you can take the poll 10 times. Fun, but functionally useless. It is an added appendix to the body politic of Village 14. Take a deep breath folks.
I’m looking forward to voting on this issue and having it go away for a while. I just wish this level of passion and dedication could be harnessed to deal with our pension deficit problem, our underfunded parks, our poor care of our streets and sidewalks, and our lack of zoning reform.
In the end, what gets me is that cannabis is legal in MA. And in 10 years, I’m guessing that the “opt out” cities will slowly end up permitting sales of cannabis just like the “dry” cities/towns did with prohibition. And if folks in Newton need to drive to the next town to buy cannabis, they will survive. It isn’t ideal and I don’t personally think it is fair, but life will go on.
This is why this feels like a NIMBY issue wrapped in a morality play, swaddled in a children’s health issue. I’m not really sure what this solves for people if cannabis isn’t sold in Newton. Normalization will occur pretty quickly, and it is already pretty normal for a lot of folks. Absent a completely statewide reversal, the Cannabis battle has been decided. And folks don’t have to buy cannabis is super small quantities. For many folks, one visit to a seller will last them quite a while.All we seem to be arguing about is real estate placement, and the length of the drive to get it. And once folks get used to have it be legal, market pressures will eventually open up the various local markets. It might take a while, but there some good data from states that already legalized it.
Cheers to all.
Best quote ever: “This is why this feels like a NIMBY issue wrapped in a morality play, swaddled in a children’s health issue.”
Ultimately this is what this issue is all about.
Is Newton a community of progressive, open-minded and accepting of change, or Mayberry USA dressed in Democratic blue trying to keep out the “bad element” sigma associated with cannabis?
I guess we’ll see in November.
And lastly (I promise) from an adjacent Village14 post…different topic but hits the nail on the head:
“Too many people in Newton want to ban something popular that’s not personally important to them: cannabis, leaf blowers, drones, styrofoam, drinking straws, plastic bags, even “Snout Houses” (homes with garages in front). We can influence how, and whether, people use these things without banning them.
I see Sean’s post as the latest in a disturbing trend in Newton. I’ll call it the Banner Movement. These “Banners” consider themselves very liberal, but the bans the promote are deeply illiberal.”
Well said @ Michael Singer
We’ll see in Nov what kind of Newton we really are. #nimby
I have a very busy day ahead of me, but wanted to let people know that the paperwork for a ballot committee to support the opening of retail cannabis establishments in Newton was submitted to City Hall on Monday morning. The committee is named “Responsible First Step Newton” and I am the chair of the committee. I’m unable to provide more information right now as I’m leaving very shortly until at least 8:00 this evening.
It is my sincere hope that we’re able to have a respectful dialogue over the next eight weeks and emerge as a community that feels passionately about issues but can remain good neighbors to one another even when we disagree.
Thank you, Jane!
This is not the time for compromise. The people who already won the 2016 vote must have the courage of our conviction. I continue to urge no concessions to the the prohibitionists. They don’t have the votes to win. They are driven by fear and ignorance. Please don’t hand them half of our hard won gains when they’ve earned absolutely nothing.
As far as some Kumbaya moment after the November ballot… It’s not going to happen, and it shouldn’t happen. Mayor Full-of-it and like minded prohibitionists on the City Council gamed the system in order to steal a vote after it took place. If the voters don’t make them pay a price for that in the next two city elections, then we are just fools.
Here is Jane’s filing on the Newton campaign finance website: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/91511
The stated purpose is “Advocate for legal sale of cannibis to adults in Newton, MA”.
So two questions come to mind:
1. When, in the next 2-3 weeks, the city has to name a group to write 250 words against LIMITING Newton to 2-4 dispensaries, your group would logically write that as you are advocating for legal sale right? It seems clear that since these are INDEPENDENT “4th grade level” questions, a group raising funds to promote legal sale, would be advocating against that legal sale being limited to just a couple of locations in the city, correct?
2. Did the (potentially ~$10K) of phone polling mentioned above come from your group?
@Jack– It’s a darn good thing we have 24 City Councilors, or else they might have screwed this thing up. lol
@Mike — Its not screwed up yet.
Looking forward to a response to question #1 above that is consistent with the “straightforward democracy” the post’s title alludes to.
Jack – I answered your question on another thread, but will do so again very briefly. The decision as to what questions go on the ballot is completely the responsibility of the city council at this point, as is the number of retail establishments in the long run. The parameters are included in the updated zoning ordinances that it will vote on in the coming weeks.
What’s with the telephone poll that Newton residents are getting? Who is paying for it? It’s a biased construct.
The way the questions are constructed is unfair and confusing. The poll does not allow you to express your views clearly. If you favor opting out / zero recreational pot shops in Newton you end up being driven by the question stucture also to say that you prefer 2-4 stores rather then 8, or more, not simply none.
The poll demonstrates the exact problem with the proposal to have 2, or even 3, conflicting questions on the November ballot. Voter confusion and unclear results that will result in festering recriminations.
If there is a genuine desire to find out what the voters want and give them choices, the answer isn’t a poorly constructed poll (or as tRUMP — not a typo BTW— would call it: “rigged”) or a confusion ballot of conflicting questions and an arcane voting rule on which will prevail.
Since we are not allowed to have a ballot that “links” conflicting questions (“If opt out does not pass, then do you want 2-4 stores?), the best way to give voters a real choice and an opportunity to speak clearly is to present the questions sequentially: A CLEAN BALLOT in 2018 with Opt Out up or down and, if Opt Out does not pass, another CLEAN BALLOT in 2019 on 2-4 stores.
The telephone poll is wack.
I also just got that telephone poll and the second time they asked if I would prefer a ban or a limitation (they asked it twice) was written in such a confusing way that neither I nor the pollster could figure out how to respond. Did Jane Frantz ever answer the question from Jack Prior above about whether her new Pro-Cannabis ballot committee was behind this poll? Is the Mayor behind it? There’s nothing wrong with doing that, but I’d be interested to know who is wasting their money on a such a poorly designed poll.
@Sarah — Either Jane’s ballot committee is behind the poll or its a campaign finance violation by another entity. Jane didn’t disavow the poll so it would seem to be the Responsible Start ballot committee. The mayor’s campaign fund is at ~$25K on ocpf, so maybe not the best use of her campaign’s funds.
It is impressive that Responsible Start could raise $10K in a day without a visible push for fundraising. It might make one think they were backed by a large $$$ special interest, or perhaps pollster was willing to do poll on credit. We will have a sense 8 days before election when initial finance reports are published.
So at this point “Responsible Start” has a very good sense of the starting position from their polling. If they know they can win, then no need to obfuscate the ballot questions. If not, then they know to push for complexity tonight and start campaigning for the need to limit the dispensaries to 2-4 as a “start”.
As Councilor Krinsman has pointed out, the council won’t need resident approval in the future to raise the limit from a 4 “start”, or on the same logic, to undo a “ban”.
My recommendation to the council would be to put 2-4 (or 2-8) on the ballot as conditional on the opt out vote. While competing independent petitions are resolved by higher vote count, there is nothing preventing the council from writing theirs as conditional on opt-out. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/91381
That will allow everyone to campaign and vote their interests rather than this convoluted world where opt-out campaigns for opt-out AND no-limits and the pro Cannibis group campaigns for 2-4.
There is a lot of education to be done in the next 54 days. Opt-Out needs to air their concerns and have them debated. Responsible Start needs to educate the city on the merits and address perceived risks of retail dispensaries. Clouding that discussion with prisoner dilemma/game theory stuff will not land the city in the right place.
Or hypothetically, the poll was done by an entity for another purpose. For example, a media organization. Or a business looking for help deciding if they should invest in a recreational operation. Or, as some have speculated, an elected official who will eventually have to report it. Or, umm, somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds?
I’m not saying it was any one of those. Just that it’s not an absolute violation. We just don’t know.
@Jack Prior — right you are. I forgot that the ballot question issue is now being advance by councilor motion, not ballot initiative.
Ballot initiative questions cannot be linked but in this situation the rule on which question prevails if there are conflicting questions CAN be decided by the council.
Unfortunately, that’s is exactly why Councilors Albright and Krintzman and other propot councilors pushed at the P&S commitee for a voting rule that would have voters left in the dark until after they vote and put the to the dilemma of having to vote against themselves (ie vote for both opt out and 2-4) to avoid ending up with 8 or more stores.
Vintage Albright and Krintzman shenanigans
Very late to the discussion here, but there is some interesting mathematics in voting such as the Condorcet paradox. Check out this PBS video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoAnYQZrNrQ