Here’s Greg Reibman’s column about the potential fiscal impact of a proposed ban on recreational marijuana stores here, as it appears on the Newton-Needham Regional Chamber’s website.
A ballot referendum that would ban the sale of adult-use recreational marijuana in Newton would result in the loss of millions of dollars annually in local tax revenue, according to city projections.
Given the nascent nature of the marijuana industry, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how much revenue could be on the table. However, the revenue from a three percent local recreational marijuana tax and up to three percent in local host agreements could yield over $2 million and perhaps more, said Jonathan Yeo, chief operating officer for the City of Newton.
“These new dollars could potentially equal or exceed the [$1.95 million] Newton now collects annually from the local meals taxes from 400 restaurants,” Yeo said.
But that revenue stream (representing the city’s largest new source of new, non-property tax, revenue in a decade) is now in doubt following an effort by a citizens group, Opt-Out Newton, to ban all recreational shops at a time when the Fuller Administration is looking for funds to cover pension liabilities, expand to full day kindergarten and is in the middle of contract talks with nearly all of the city’s unions.
Opt-Out Newton spent much of this past summer collecting signatures for the purpose of asking the Newton City Council to place a recreational store ban on the ballot. After submitting more than 7000 signatures, the council agreed to place a nonbinding question about a recreational ban before voters on Nov. 6.
The council also decided to place a separate, second, nonbinding question that would cap the number of adult-use recreational stores in Newton to between two and four, instead of the eight that would otherwise be allowed under state law.
As a result, there will be two separate questions about recreational marijuana sales before voters next month.
Yeo stressed that Mayor Ruthanne Fuller is not presently endorsing any position on either ballot question and acknowledged that factors other than municipal revenue need to be considered.
“We’re not taking a position on this one way or another, but we’ve been asked to estimate the potential revenue.These are our best estimates based on projections,” Yeo said.
This will not be the first time Newton voters have been asked to weigh in on marijuana use. In 2016, 54 percent of Newton voters approved of legalizing adult use recreational marijuana though a statewide referendum. Voters in Newton also supported legalizing medical marijuana in 2012 and endorsed a 2008 question to reduce possession of small amounts of marijuana from a criminal to a civil penalty.
The last time a new revenue stream was introduced in Newton came in 2009 when — during the height of the financial crisis and state budget woes — the state legislature approved local options for a meals and hotel tax. Newton presently receives about $1.95 million in tax revenue annually in a local option meals tax from the city’s 400 restaurants and an additional $2.5 million in revenue annually form the hotel/motel tax.
The only local estimates the city has for potential revenue from marijuana sales comes from Garden Remedies, which has been operating Newton’s only medical marijuana clinic at 697 Washington St. for the past two years.
Presently Garden Remedies is estimated to pay Newton $200,000 annually as part of its medical marijuana host agreement with the city. But Garden Remedies has just received a special permit from the City Council to expand to adult-use recreational, providing that “Opt-Out” does not prevail in November. If approved, the company estimates it will pay a minimum of $750,000 annually to Newton for the combined three percent local options tax and host agreements for both medical and recreational sales at their single store.
On Oct. 1, the Newton City Council approved a special permit for what would become Newton’s second medical dispensary, operated by Cypress Tree Management Inc., at 24 Elliot Street.Cypress Tree and the city have yet to negotiate their host agreement. Cypress Tree has also expressed interest in being allowed to sell adult-use recreational marijuana.
Under state rules, host agreement funds must be earmarked for the purposes of addressing the public health, safety, education, administrative, infrastructure and other effects or impacts of marijuana while the three percent local sales option can go into a general fund to pay for street and sidewalk improvements, schools or other pressing needs.
The total yield from additional shops in Newton would undoubtedly depend on the final number of approved stores and a still unknown consumer demand, both here and in Greater Boston.
But based on Garden City’s projections, it’s easy to see how the Fuller Administration’s estimate of over $2 million or more in tax revenue — even for just four stores — is a safe estimate.
While there certainly are other considerations that must go into deciding if Newton should allow or limit the number of recreational marijuana stores, the municipal finance downside of a retail store ban in Newton would not make the city immune from the social and public safety effects of recreational marijuana use.
That’s because Newton residents could always drive to Brookline, Boston or another community where recreational merchants are expected to operate and pay taxes that would benefit that municipality instead.
This just in – the president of the chamber of commerce supports commerce. I’m all for regulating weed like alcohol – when we figure out how to. Newton is blindly rushing into it, when there’s literally no concrete way to test if one is driving while high.
@Jim your point that there is no way to test if someone is driving while high is off the mark for debating whether Newton should have retail sales. Retail sale is legal and people will be able to buy in Natick, Brookline and Boston and drive in Newton.
These tax estimates are highly speculative and probably wildly overestimated. First of all, half of that $2 million figure is a temporary amount agreed to in the host community agreement with Garden remedies which will end in five years. So the long term 3% marijuana tax would be half that.
Additionally, the Massachusetts Department of Health released a report this summer estimating that the median towns and cities in Massachusetts would see between $74,000 for smaller towns and suburbs and $592,000 for densely populated urban areas in taxes OVER 2 YEARS. Does Yeo think that Newton consumption will be 4 times the median? If so why?
Do we really think Newton consumers are going to consume as much in pot as they do in restaurant meals? If so, we have a BIG problem.
Another way to look at Gatden Remedies tax “estimate”: In order to pay $750k in taxes, they would have to sell $12,500,000 annually at their Washington St location. That equates to $6,578/square foot in sales. The #1 retailer in America, Apple, has $5,546/square foot in sales at their Apple stores. Our little GR is going to take the crown from Apple for being the most profitable retailer in America? Really?
Yeo is desperately trotting out Big Marijuana’s elevator pitch: money!
Which is appropriate because it is nothing more than a greed-sick industry.
The other point which quickly follows is regulations, which are promised thickly and resolutely. By golly, we’ll slap so many labels on these pot brownies children will be hiding from them! And dispensaries will fear the iron fist of the CCC!
As though the moldy pesticide ridden flower being sold to customers looping to and fro the “medicinal” dispensaries to acrue more than their ounce limit isn’t the present reality.
This is what the regular on village 14 want. They want a corrupt industry with defunct regulations in Newton no matter what.
The mayor hasn’t taken a position? Well, her right hand man just made the industry’s pitch and she has done everything short of veto the opt-out ballot question to ensure it has a dank, moldy future in Newton.
Prohibition: where all sanity goes out the window.
People have been smoking pot in Newton for 100 years and will continue to do so. People have been buying and selling pot in Newton for 100 years, and will continue to do so.
The only thing the prohibitionists can ban is the tax revenue this commerce could bring. You aren’t going to “save” the children, you aren’t going to make an entirely mainstream source of medicine and pleasure taboo.
But at least a few storefronts in our lower end strip malls will stay vacant.
1)- What % of Newton adults do you think smoke pot now?
2)- What % do you believe it will be 10 years from now?
My uneducated guess.
1) 1.5%
2) 2%
@Craig a hundred years ago people werent chewing THC gummies.
How far back are we going in the pot-history of the world to normalize the present? Are we going to uncover a fossilized stash of tree-gum mixed with cannabis oil on this excellent adventure?
Mentally, people were also much healthier years ago because they had no contrived online personas to maintain.
Present day, society is not in good shape and recreational drugs are not helping. And residents of towns are responding to that reality.
I do support the legal sales of pot in Newton, especially
medical marijuana. I do not support the Garden Remedies
parking lot expansion. This is inappropriate for the location and
negatively affects the Court St. neighborhood.
The Newton Upper Falls residents oppose pot sales near their
community. Where to put these shops is a BIG problem in
Newton, especially if they become very busy. For this reason I
shall vote for OPTOUT. Not because I disapprove of pot sales here;
but rather I fear the consequences of high volume commercial
sales and its negative impact on residential families.
Bugek: Nearly a quarter of Americans have smoked pot once or twice in the past year. There is no reason to expect that Newton would lag this average, especially as pot’s use as a sleep aid/stress reducer has increased so much over the past decade.
Just because the people you know don’t talk about, don’t think they haven’t done it.
Bugek, your naivete is showing. Smoking weed is very common! You don’t realize it because there’s no way to tell who enjoys an occasional hit. We’re talking adults who are active and productive members of our community.
@MMQC the argument you are making is “pot is common, I’m doing fine, ergo everything is fine.”
Take a look at the industry you desire for Newton. Does it resemble in anyway what you’ve grown up with? Were people innovating strains for evermore potent thc counts? Were edibles the fastest growing trend among users? Was there a Medicinal marijuana dispensary in town blending recreation and medicine? Was teen use rising dramatically? Were people talking about marijuana DUIs? Were people talking about government regulatory bodies? Were they talking about synthetics? Were marijuana apps targeting kids available to download? Were supermarket magazine covers plastered with marijuana leafs? Were people vaping?
And regulations have not solved a single problem. They have merely provided advocates with cover for the shameful disfunction of the industry they champion.
To answer your questions:
Does it resemble in anyway what you’ve grown up with?
– No, because when I was younger I would get pot from shady people.
Were people innovating strains for evermore potent thc counts?
– Yes.
Were edibles the fastest growing trend among users?
– I don’t know, but homemade edibles were common among people I knew.
Was there a Medicinal marijuana dispensary in town blending recreation and medicine?
– No, but I wish there was. Maybe it could have helped with my mental health and insomnia.
Was teen use rising dramatically?
– Possibly. Almost every teenager I knew in high school and college smoked weed at least occasionally.
Were people talking about marijuana DUIs?
– Yes.
Were people talking about government regulatory bodies?
– I thought you were asking about when I was growing up. I don’t recall teenagers talking about government regulatory bodies, so no.
Were they talking about synthetics?
– Yes.
Were marijuana apps targeting kids available to download?
– Since apps didn’t exist yet, no. But I’ve never heard of marijuana apps that target kids. I just spent a few minutes Googling and found nothing of the sort. Asinine scare tactics.
Were supermarket magazine covers plastered with marijuana leafs?
– No, but I haven’t seen such a thing today, either.
Were people vaping?
– No, this wasn’t a thing yet.
I can’t believe I just wasted part of my day answering your stupid questions. You’re buying into ridiculous scare tactics and you’re living in a fantasy world. I haven’t even smoked pot in close to a decade, so my point is “pot is common, I’m doing fine, ergo everything is fine.” But yes, pot is common and everything is FINE.
Can someone clarify for me the medical marijuana? I have a colon disease that causes a great deal of pain. I will not take opioids because I’ve had this disease my entire life, so I don’t want to be on opioids forever. I asked my dr about prescribing medical marijuana and he said he would not because it is federally illegal. So, can someone clarify medical marijuana for me? All this time I thought it was something you got a prescription for?
Craig and MMQC are speaking truth to prohibitionists.
Marijuana adult-use retail stores sited in Newton will not change much except for the revenue will go to Newton. Brookline has one planned for Route 9, Boston, Waltham, Belmont, Framingham and other municipalities surrounding Newton are moving toward approving them. The folks who live there drive through Newton.
The other fear based rumblings have nothing to do with whether marijuana is sold in surrounding towns or in Newton. That said, edibles, as in homemade brownies and other baked goods, were around when this baby boomer was growing up – I’m sure they still are. Adults have found ways to keep alcohol out of the hands of children; I’m sure they can keep edibles from them too as they have for decades. Pre packaged drinks containing alcohol look almost like safe power drinks. Marijuana edibles are not new. Gummies are new but not much more desirable to kids than brownies.
Parents and adults in general are being dealt a disservice when prohibitionists claim they can’t devise ways to keep edibles away from children. Of course they can.
Newton Runner, it is up to the individual doctor to decide to issue prescriptions for medical marijuana. It’s infuriating but true.
Let’s get one thing straight… Newton has ALREADY lost millions of dollars because our elected “leaders” were unprepared and unwilling to implement the 2016 law. As I’ve mentioned previously, one state licensed cannabis grower wanted to buy the old NE Mobile Book Fair building on Needham St. They were willing to pay the city $1.5M per year through a Community Host Agreement for a processing center and retail store. The attitude of the City Council scared them away, so they took their investment [and nearly 50 jobs] to another more welcoming community…
The Prohibitionists know absolutely nothing about cannabis. They make up pretend math in an attempt to diminish the amount of revenue Newton would receive from cannabis shops. Their arguments are all based on ignorance, and they traffic in fear. It’s embarrassing that any of Newton’s elected officials are dumb enough to believe this crap.
@Marti, did you have the following labels on your brownies? (see below)
No, you didn’t. And the reason you didn’t was that the pervasiveness of edibles was at most an small aspect of a subculture you grew up with, which for your arguments sake (the scary prohibitionists!), you have scaled up to our state-wide present-day legal industry.
(https://www.leafly.com/news/industry/a-state-by-state-guide-to-cannabis-packaging-and-labeling-laws)
(1) Marijuana shall be packaged in plain, opaque, tamper-proof, and child-proof containers without depictions of the product, cartoons, or images other than the RMD’s logo. Edible MIPs shall not bear a reasonable resemblance to any product available for consumption as a commercially available candy.
(2) Labeling of Marijuana (Excluding MIPs). The RMD shall place a legible, firmly affixed label on which the wording is no less than 1/16 inch in size on each package of marijuana that it prepares for dispensing, containing at a minimum the following information:
(a) The registered qualifying patient’s name;
(b) The name and registration number of the RMD that produced the marijuana, together with the RMD’s telephone number and mailing address, and website information, if any;
(c) The quantity of usable marijuana contained within the package;
(d) The date that the RMD packaged the contents;
(e) A batch number, sequential serial number, and bar code when used, to identify the batch associated with manufacturing and processing;
(f) The cannabinoid profile of the marijuana contained within the package, including THC level;
(g) A statement that the product has been tested for contaminants, that there were no adverse findings, and the date of testing in accordance with 105 CMR 725.105(C)(2); and
(h) This statement, including capitalization: “This product has not been analyzed or approved by the FDA. There is limited information on the side effects of using this product, and there may be associated health risks. Do not drive or operate machinery when under the influence of this product. KEEP THIS PRODUCT AWAY FROM CHILDREN.”
Ya know what’s always scared the heck out of me… rum cake. What if a child was to get hold of a slice? We really should ban rum cake…
Oh, ya know what else we need to ban… gummie vitamins. Parents know their kids should only eat one Flintstone character per day. But what would happen if their child snuck off with a whole bottle? Those things don’t even have safety caps…
Also, let’s not forget candy flavored prescription medications. Pharmacists are trying to corrupt our youth with a message that medicine is really candy. Time to ban all flavored medicines in Newton…
I could play this game all day.
I respect folks — including many in the Asian American community — who object to recreational marijuana for social/cultural reasons. I also understand concerns about these adult products falling into the wrong hands or the lack of a proper testing to determine if someone is driving under the influence.
Those are solid, persuadable, perspectives. I’d advise the opt-out proponents to focus on those issues.
But I have a problem when those same people then attack the economic impact arguments just to bolster their other objections.
The truth is no one knows how much tax revenue is at stake here because this is a brand new industry; we don’t know what the demand will be; and we don’t know how many stores will open near-by. But recreational marijuana is legal in Massachusetts. Retails stores are coming. That’s not changing no matter what happens Nov. 6. If we ban stores here, we’ll still have adults legally purchasing recreational marijuana in Brookline, Waltham, Boston and other municipalities.
Will it one million in new taxes? Two million? Nine million? I believe Jonathan Yeo’s informed guesstimate is in the right ballpark. But even if he’s off, it’s still revenue we’re otherwise giving to other cities and towns.
And that fact doesn’t change just because you have your own good reasons for opposing adult-use retail stores.
As long as we’re in the why-not game, why don’t we start allowing strip clubs, casinos and other things that are legal but not allowed in Newton? Lots more tax revenue available from those. Open them up next door to the pot shops, and we’d have a real money maker!
@Sarah your comparison to Apple stores is interesting. According to this skunkweed industry publication, the averages sales per sq ft for a skunkweed store is $974/sq ft per year v $4,799/sq ft per year for an Apple Store.
https://mjbizdaily.com/chart-of-the-week-cannabis-retailers-excel-in-key-revenue-metric/
According to Greg Reibman, the zoning ordinance will limit skunkweed stores to 5,000 sq ft. So $1,000/sq ft x 5,000 sq ft = $5,000,000 sales x 3% local tax is $150k per store. So 4 stores will yield a whooping $600k in local taxes, a far cry from Jonathan Yeo’s $2 mm guesstimate. Unless he gives his methodology and assumptions, I say he pulled that number out of thin smoke.
@Newton Runner– I suggest you contact Canna Care Docs on River St in Waltham. Make an appointment, bring documentation of your condition, meet with a physician and they’ll help you get a medical marijuana card. The cost is fairly low, and some dispensaries [like NETA in Brookline, or Revolutionary Clinics in Somerville and Cambridge] will give you a store credit equal to your cost.
@Mike, you should host a new show where instead of rock legends, you can have an array of edibles and mock the CCC’s labeling with a post-ironic teenage audience.
“No cartoon characters?! Everyone knows Yogi bear blazed and had to steal picnic baskets to satisfy the munchies.”
…It’s just that you might have to wait until the whole brouhaha about Big Marijuana marketing to kids dies down, because even non-prohibitionist types still take some of these things seriously.
@Greg you are right that nobody knows what the tax revenues will be, nor do they know what the incremental costs will be for law enforcement, addiction services, etc. Given that, it seems premature to announce that the city stands to lose “millions” if we don’t have stores.
There’s no first mover advantage here. Why not see how things go in Brookline, and re-assess in a few years?
@Sarah: For starters, I believe it will be “millions.”
Garden Remedies is already in line to give Newton taxpayers $200,000 annually for medical as part of a host agreement. We should realize at least that amount for their recreational host agreement. On top of that, we will get 3 percent of all adult use recreational sales and its easy to see how that number becomes a minimum of their $750,000 estimate.
Add up to three more stores and that goes up, perhaps not proportionally. But shouldn’t it at least double ($1.5M)? Or triple ($3M)? Or split the difference and we’re at $2M. Allow eight stores and that number keeps growing.
But let’s look at it another way: Let’s say that it turns out that demand for adult use marijuana is far lower than that. If that were to happen, we’d probably see stores leaving this market, which is something I presume opt-out folks would want to see happen.
@Sarah– Because people voted to LEGALIZE adult use cannabis in 2016. Not to “re-assess in a few years.”
“We’re not taking a position on this one way or another” Yeo said.
Who are “we”? Three city key operatives with the most relevant jobs are among Opt Out supporters:
Chief David MacDonald, Newton Police Dept
Chief Bruce Proia, Newton Fire Dept
Deborah Youngblood, PhD, Commissioner of Health & Human Services
That these three people chose to include their position on a endorsement list of a political group in the city is quite controversial to my mind. If they want to list their names as individuals that’s fine, but to list their position undermines their credibility as independent of political influence. My entire first family were public employees and I was raised with a mantra that I heard over and over that within your professional capacity, you never align yourself with a political group.
Let’s keep the focus on the revenue, as that’s the issue at hand. The Cato Institute, which is not known for its liberal bias, has issued a report that stated that predictions for the amount of revenue off and was significantly higher than expected in Washington and Colorado.
@Jane, can you tell that to your friends on the School Council?
https://i0.wp.com/optoutnewton.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2018-10-08_9-06-56.jpg
Anyone know where I can buy weed around here?
Because I’ve been looking for a long time now. Very hard to find. I thought it was legal but I cannot buy it anywhere near my home, which is a shame because that means I have to use my polluting automobile to drive out of the town I live in in order to buy something that should be available within walking or biking distance.
No non-elected official (including heads of the police department, the fire department, or the commissioner of health and human services) should be allowed to take a public position in their official capacity. It opens up far too many opportunities for conflicts of interest and potential corruption.
“@MrButch”: I used to hang out with Mr. Butch outside of the Rat. I knew Mr. Butch. Mr. Butch was a friend of mine. You are no Mr. Butch.
Deborah Youngblood was unhelpful when some of the public schools were dealing with lead in the drinking water. Pardon me if I can’t take her views on public health seriously. Lead in bubblers in elementary schools are a far bigger threat than regulating marijuana like alcohol. I think she plays politics.
Newton Runner – In answer to your question about medical marijuana, here’s the sorry truth: you cannot get a prescription from any doctor associated with Partners Healthcare (MGH and Brigham and Woman’s Hospital). Lahey Clinic, or many other hospitals.
You have to find an independent doctor who will prescribe medical cannabis for you. This visit is not covered by insurance and typically costs $250. Then you have to place your name on a public health list that is controlled by the State of Massachusetts (https://www.mass.gov/how-to/register-as-a-patient-with-the-medical-use-of-marijuana-program).
Many patients who would benefit from medical cannabis are reluctant to place their names on this list for fear of exposure or future repercussions. The most troubling aspect of the process to me is the reluctance of veterans to place their name on this list. So we’re willing to ask people to go fight wars in other countries for us, but we’re not willing to provide access to a medical intervention to deal with the the physical and psychological consequences without placing their names on a government controlled public health list.
My son developed a very serious GI problem that at the age of 29 prevented him from working for two years. At the time he was diagnosed, medical cannabis was not available in Massachusetts. The doctors at a highly regarded Boston hospital had only three solution to relieve his excruciating pain: opioids, deep breathing, and meditation. Since that time, medical cannabis has enabled him to return to work and lead a normal life. He’s now married and has a son he adores. You may not like to hear it, but he’s clear that the edibles are the most effective form of medical cannabis
Then we come to the most troubling end to this story: it’s widely accepted that stand alone medical cannabis dispensaries will be a thing of the past once retail shops open up. The co-location of retail and medical will become the accepted model so the people who need medical cannabis to lead a normal life will no longer have convenient access to it.
James – Elected officials are not Newton employees. They are your elected representatives and are expected to take a stand on political issues, express their opinions on issues related to the city, and often place their names on endorsement lists to let voters know where they stand.
Newton employees work in a designated department (NPS, DPW, Planning) and receive their entire salary and benefits from all taxpayers, not just those of a particular political position.
Just a thought…maybe irrelevant… while many towns opt out and if the value of the real estate loses its value by say 10% due to some whatever impact by that retail industry…and I wonder how much money the city would lower the assessments and would that M-tax cover that? I can image if the house value goes from 1,000,000 to 900,000 is not something impossible…of course…to many things we can argue…
@David: I’m not really following your comment. But I’m guessing you are saying that properties adjacent to a an adult marijuana shop will lose value. I’d actually propose the opposite. Properly located stores would likely bring new foot traffic into a village center. Certainly it would do more to generate foot traffic in Newton Center than another bank or nail salon. And before everyone cues up the munchie jokes, I’m really talking about benefiting small retailers and services since there would be no marijuana consumption in the stores.
Big tobacco company “altria” in talks to buy weed company “aphria”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cigarette-maker-altria-in-talks-with-cannabis-producer-aphria-says-report-2018-10-10
Big tobacco would like to thank Newton residents for lining the CEO pockets…
@Jane
“That these three people chose to include their position on a endorsement list of a political group in the city is quite controversial to my mind. If they want to list their names as individuals that’s fine, but to list their position undermines their credibility as independent of political influence.”
Is the distinction being a public employee? Or how about the simple problem of being A) on the school committee, while B) being for pot stores, while C) 30% of marijuana related calls to the police are coming in from schools.
It could be that parents will appreciate the distinction you are making between a public employee and an elected rep. Or maybe they’ll look at this list, see people with the ability to bring down drug use in schools situated prominently on a list of names in favor of cannabis stores.
Looks like a bad use of political position to me, but let’s see how it plays out with parents.
I took a look at Jane’s group, and noticed no PhD neither MD designation on the list, unlike many among the Opt Out supporters. NOBANNEWTON, you don’t be so humble, your credentials are very relevant to the issue.
@Greg,
You write “there would be no marijuana consumption in the stores”.
Why? The Cannabis Control Commission’s “Guidance for Municipalities Regarding Marijuana for Adult Use” provides for Marijuana Social Consumption Establishments for “consumption on the premises”. See https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/010918CNB-Guidance-Municipalities-Adult-Use.pdf.
Anatoloy: Here’s why
Greg, liked you last post. Wish I could add another like.
Thanks Anatoly. I know that this marijuana issue is stressful for many folks. Have you considered trying some?
Seriously, whether or not we end up having adult recreational shops in Newton, this is still going to be a great place to live, with terrific schools, vibrant villages, cool restaurants, nice parks and gardens, world class institutions and really great people.
Anatoly, most folks don’t list their “credentials” or degree title on lists unless they have a good reason. I don’t know anyone who does; I certainly do not. On the other hand, there are many very intelligent people without “credentials” or degree titles. It’s really an arrogant comparison.
James, there are not generally labels on homemade bakery goods. The labels you referenced are a good thing – aren’t they.
Again, the only relevant difference that will be seen in Newton when marijuana adult retail stores are opened, will be the increased revenue. Everything else being mentioned will occur whether they are here or not.
Greg, I posted the marijuana adult retail store draft zoning ordinance, including the map. Village centers are not included. In fact they will be located in very few areas in Newton.
Jane, the retail stores will make marijuana accessible without finding an independent doctor, having to register or having a medical marijuana card.
Thanks for all of the information. My disease is very rare (paradoxical pelvic floor dyssynergia) so without my own doctor (who is one of the few who treat this disease) I don’t see how a new, separate doctor could fully understand my needs and could help. I’d have to get all of my medical records and I am pretty sure another doctor would not understand this particular condition since it is so rare.
@Newton Runner– It’s not an intimidating or complicated process to get your card. Try Canna Care Docs in Waltham. The doctor there doesn’t need to review your entire medical history. In most cases they’ll just talk with you about your symptoms. Like medical marijuana dispensaries, the doctors at Canna Docs are focused on helping you find relief. You sound like an excellent candidate to benefit from medical marijuana.
Greg,
I tried once. Result? A bunch of hungry kids after I consumed all pizza brought for them to the party. Ashamed for the rest of my life. Dangerous stuff indeed.
Seriously, let’s face it: we have different vision for “a great place to live”. You prefer “vibrant villages”, I – “bucolic neighborhoods” as councilor Auchincloss so eloquently puts it. I didn’t move to Newton for a vibrant city life. I think living in a quiet and safe village and being able to go quickly to Boston for its vibrant city life is an ideal and unique set up. We are not going to have the Museum of Fine Arts or Symphony Hall in Newton anyway. So what are you aiming at? Pot shops and “cool restaurants”? Don’t know about the former, but I’m afraid Newton is not going to have the latter ever.
This is not a political debate. Just a matter of personal taste, but it would be much better if everybody was honest in it.
I’m a big fan of using evidence and data in policymaking. However you’re voting on marijuana, we should be operating from the assumption that projections drawn up by the Mayor and our excellent COO (who by the way has a long, bi-partisan history in government administration) are as accurate as possible.
Many people in Newton lament the politicization of science and evidence-based policy-making at the federal level. If there is alternative data that show a different result, lets bring it forward and debate how the different assumptions would effect the policy. But innuendos about bad motives by our Mayor and COO (who are both not taking a side here) just hurt the debate and our local democracy.
Bitches please. Marijuana was made illegal because it was black people’s drug of choice and white people had to find a way to put a stop to that. You folks have been watching too much <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjHOBJzhb0"Reefer Madness. You are the mimicking the worst part of our Puritan heritage. Somewhere, somehow, someone is having fun. And you must put a stop to it.
Twenty-two percent of Americans currently use pot regularly. So I would guess 1 in 5 Newtonites are also using pot. And believe it or not, the Earth has not spun off its axis into the void.
I’ve got no dog in this hunt since I don’t smoke weed. But 1 in 5 people are going to continue to smoke pot and I would prefer that it is safe, regulated, and taxed.
Very different but both excellent comments from Bryan and Ted. (Pop quiz for newcomers to Newton politics, can you guess which one is a former city councilor and which one is a candidate?)
@Anatoly: No matter how many pot shops Newton has or if we have none, the MFA will still be 5.7 miles from Newton Centre.
Bryan Barash wrote:
“If there is alternative data that show a different result, lets bring it forward and debate how the different assumptions would effect the policy”.
There is. Massachusetts Department of Public Health released in June “Marijuana Baseline Health Study Report of Findings”. The study was produced by UMass , Mathematica Policy Research Inc., and JSI Research and Training, Inc. This is the only scientific study on the subject applicable specifically to Massachusetts municipalities.
RFSN does not include anyone’s academic or professional credentials on its endorsement list. In fact, I’ve never seen an endorsement list that does include either type of credential.
Endorsements lists typically include the current or former position held by an elected supporter of a candidate or ballot question because residents of the city elected them to represent them and are interested in knowing where they stand on various issues. The former electeds are well known leaders in the community.
Thank you to Mike Striar for pointing out how to obtain a medical marijuana card. It’s unfortunate that Newton Runner can’t go to his/her own doctor to obtain the card.
RFSN is not Jane’s group.
@Colleen Minaker –
Like the rest of the city, Upper Falls has residents who both support and oppose recreational marijuana. Speaking as an Upper Falls resident I can tell you that there are lots of Upper Falls folks who support recreational marijuana and there is definitely a very vocal contingent that oppose it.
I’d guess that the pro/con is roughly the same as the last referendum results – i.e. a majority of upper falls residents support it and a sizable minority are against.
We’ll know for sure come election day.
It’s not the first time that Ted Hess Mahan and I have been on the same page and I trust it won’t be the last.
FDR had the quote for all times. It’s been restated numerous times, but it always bares repeating. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Greg, love the pop quiz.
Ted, as usual, swoops in with an off beat, true comment. It’s a great one.
What Bob said. In general if many more people in this country believed FDR’s comment we would not be so divided. Instead fear mongering works at many levels.
Whatever the monetary gain is for Newton, it’s more than nothing. Why should it go to Brookline , Waltham and Belmont, our close neighbors, when it could go to Newton.
I don’t believe the headaches being predicted by those in opposition to siting marijuana retail stores in Newton will happen. Young people will have no more access than they did before, which is plenty. The only difference will be where the taxes and impact fees go.
I know that some people have valid reasons for not wanting marijuana stores in Newton for personal reasons relevant to them. Many of those do not want marijuana to be available in MA to any but folks in medical need.
My personal reason for wanting marijuana stores in Newton is purely to inact what the majority voted for and to gain the revenue. I don’t imbibe.
I did twice when I was in my early 20’s during Vietnam Nam while living in Virginia Beach where my husband was stationed in the Navy (Norfolk).
I was very involved in the DC protests to end the war and to find and bring the MIA’s home. I never understood those who included in their protests the military personnel following orders, fighting and dieing in miserable conditions in Vietnam Nam. I did not.
I wore three different copper bracelets imprinted with the names of soldiers (basically very young men) who were MIA. When the first two were found and sent home, the copper bracelets went to them. Tragically, the third one was never found so I just sent it to the grieving family.
The kicker is the two times I imbibed, one a joint and the other a brownie, was at parties on the beach with Navy officers and their wives and girlfriends – not when I was with the protesters. At that age, I was so naive and idealistic I attended many of those get togethers having no idea what the real reason was that they asked me to bring incense until later. Alcohol and marijuana use was heavy among those stationed there. I know many who had to “get sober” after leaving but no one who had problems with marijuana use afterward. I know the above is my own personal experience and am not trying to broaden its scope. Just explaining where I’m coming from on this issue.
James commented, “Or maybe they’ll look at this list, see people with the ability to bring down drug use in schools situated prominently on a list of names in favor of cannabis stores.”
The school committee and all NPS personnel work diligently to attempt to “bring down drug use in schools.” It’s clear the SC does not “have the ability” to stop teens drug use. Supporting marijuana stores in Newton should have no effect on teen drug use, as it hasn’t in other areas. Teens know where to get it now.
The 30% of marijuana related calls to the police – if that percentage is correct – should remain the same. Unless you include how many marijuana related calls were made to the Newton police and the type of incident, the 30% means nothing.
There is a distinction between elected officials and public employees. Public employees, in their official capacity, should refrain from partisanship and taking sides on issues. Since the 2016 presidential election, more and more public employees are violating that standard, but it doesn’t make it right. It still creates a conflict of interest.
Elected official can be voted out.
I respectfully disagree with Jerry Reilly’s assessment of the likely support for marijuana shops in Upper Falls if the zoning changes proposed by the Planning Department are adopted without amendment. These changes are based on an outdated concept of the existing zones. For Instance, the allowance of shops in Business 2 Districts is based on the incorrect assumption that they are all on sites that are strictly business, can accommodate additional traffic and are isolated from residential less-traffic intensive uses. The Elliot Street proposed site is across the street from several homes, down the street from several homes, and around the corner from several homes. More importantly, it is subject to the through traffic trying to access the Route 9 intersection (much of it from Needham, Wellesley, Dover, and Beyond) To add plentiful turning movements from and to Elliot Street will make this frequently tied up intersection intolerable to those with no easy alternatives. The gas station and drug stores at this location would suffer significantly as well ( though maybe the drug store on Needham Street and the gas station on Chestnut Street would benefit from traffic diverted from these establishments.)
According to the Zoning map attached to the report, there are at least two Business 2 sites in Upper Falls proper. The degree of support in Upper Falls might be severely impacted if these sites come into play.
The Business 2 site on Beacon Street adjacent to the Four Corners Business District may have similar defects. It’s on a major commuting route into Boston though the street was designed as primarily residential.. It’s near the site of a massively enlarged elementary school that now serves students from Newton Highlands, and Newton Centre as well as Waban and has the major traffic problems that should have been expected when schools serving those neighborhoods and others were closed.
The only factor that might reduce traffic in the area is when Farmer’s Market customers who now park for blocks on Beacon Street either add the new shop to their destinations six or months a year or switch their patronage to the Elm Street Farmers’ Market until the possible replacement of the Police Station brings too much traffic to West Newton.
There are probably traffic and parking impacts of other Business 2 sites across the city. The only prudent course is to eliminate either the shops as permittable uses in Business 2 Districts or to rezone the current Business 2 sites to districts that are more compatible with their neighborhoods.
Shops belong in the vacant sites on Welles Avenue and in the sites on Needham Street that are currently vacant except for the pictures of shoppers in their windows.
It’s naïve to propose shops as an allowable use in the old Manufacturing Districts. Many of these sites are in the heart of villages where the workers in the factories could afford to live.
I hope that the City Council will give the details of the marijuana relateded zoning changes more than the cursory scrutiny than they have received to date.
A laundry list of uses that will almost certainly not be practical in Newton is not the same thing as a careful examination of the likely consequences of the proposed changes.
Brian Yates
Member for thirty years, Zoning and Planning Committee, City Council/Board of Aldermen
Nearly every reason people give to suppress MJ (plus some unique and worse things) could be said about alcohol (and maybe also “sugary beverages”).
Yet, if you put forth an initiative to limit liquor stores or ban alcohol sales with the same passion, you’re more likely to be labeled a “crackpot”.
This hypocrisy is regretfully blatant.
All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
How many people here who support the ban or limit would also support it for alcohol?
@Brian Yates– I’m soliciting your personal opinion. Do you feel there are more challenges associated with cannabis stores than liquor stores? Why is it okay for liquor stores to be allowed in the two plazas you mentioned, but not cannabis stores?
“It’s naïve to propose shops as an allowable use in the old Manufacturing Districts.” The proposal specifically states that shops not be in our very limited manufacturing areas.
Add Watertown to the list of neighboring municipalities that will have adult-use recreational stores and reap the benefits of tax dollars from Newton if we ban shops here, without lessening any social or public safety issues that might come with adult recreational use.
So now the nearby communities that will benefit from the local revenue include Brookline, Belmont, Framingham, Marlboro, Cambridge, Somerville, and Watertown.
Watertown can have that whooping $300-600k a year.
Bruce, why exactly? Newton will still have to deal with any problems that might arise. What shouldn’t we also receive some monetary gain to offset any impact and add to the general fund?
@Bruce: Can we count on you to be as politically active supporting Newton’s next tax override as you are opposing this tax revenue stream?
If people are so concerned about people driving while high, how do they feel about people driving to neighboring communities for their weed? Wouldn’t it be better if the stores were in neighborhoods where people could go by foot?
Many of these “concerns” are just NIMBYism with people trying to mask that in faux concerns that don’t really make sense.
@Greg I’m never categorically for or against tax overrides. It will depend on Newton’s fiscal situation and needs at the time. I’ve usually voted in favor of local tax overrides as I have been fortunate to live in communities with good local government.
@Marti One of our fundamental differences between our two sides is whether skunkweed consumption will go up if we host stores. Why not wait to see what happens in Brookline and Watertown to see if it’s right for Newton?
Re: NIMBYism. Have we heard anybody on this blog saying “I want a pot shop in my backyard”? I think the best question on the ballot would be “Do you want a pot shop in your precinct”? Then the city could place the shops accordingly to the people’s will.
@Anatoly Kleyman –
Why yes, I have. I live in Upper Falls, one of the proposed locations for a shop at Elliot and Route 9. I know many people in my neighborhood who have absolutely no concern about the shop opening there. They welcome what they hope is a new thriving commercial business in what’s now an empty storefront.
Yes, there are people in the neighborhood who strenuously object but there are also lots of folks in the neighborhood who are truly mystified as to why anybody is alarmed about this but not alarmed by the liquor store (with its store front advertising) next door.
The figure of up to $2M in revenues that is mentioned in this post is highly misleading. The only tax that is eligible to go into the general fund is the 3% tax on recreational sales (not on medical sales), which is roughly 1/3 of that figure, if Yeo’s estimates prove accurate. The City has negotiated additional Community Impact fees over and above the statutory 3% sales tax of 3% of medical sales and an additional 3% on recreational sales (for a total of 6% on recreational sales). However, these Community Impact fees can only be used for expenses directly incurred by the city that are related to the operation of these stores such as inspections, police traffic details around stores, prevention programs during initial years only, etc. These additional Community Impact fees, which equal roughly 2/3 of the $2M figure quoted above cannot be used for other city purposes. If Newton doesn’t have that much in direct expenses, then we won’t be able to continue to collect the Community Impact fees. You can see more in this Guidance from the CCC.
https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Guidance-on-Host-Community-Guidance.pdf
I have no idea how much tax revenue the proposed shops are likely to bring in. Anybody’s numbers are at best just educated guesses
The thing that seems to be getting lost in all of this though is that whatever the numbers, these shops will be the only retail stores in the entire city that pay direct taxes to the city of Newton – liquor stores don’t, drug stores don’t, pizza shops don’t.
Why we wouldn’t want to encourage these new, clean, highly regulated kinds of retail stores to fill empty storefronts and pay dedicated taxes to the city is beyond me.
@Jerry You bring up an interesting point. It’s clear that alcohol imposes negative externalities. We should impose a local sales tax on the liquor stores.
@Laurie Very interesting that 1/3 of that $2 million is almost exactly the same as my $600k estimate. So Jony Yeo did not pull that number out of thin smoke. My estimate was based on solely the 3% for the general fund and not direct community impact. The indirect community impact will overwhelm $600k is my opinion. The pro-skunkweed folks here don’t think use will increase. We will have to agree to disagree on that point. Even if use did not increase, $600k strikes me as not just a Faustian bargain, a bad one at that. At least Faust got unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures.
Seems like the title to this post (and the post on Newton/Needham Chamber’s website) should be changed to “Pot Shop Ban could cost city hundreds of thousands in lost taxes.”
@Bruce Wang – (I believe) The city is not allowed to levy local sales taxes
A clarification to my note above – I was referring to direct taxes from businesses to the city.
All retail businesses (including cannabis shops) pay indirect property taxes via their rent to the landlord as well as state tax – a small portion of which is passed through to the City.
Could we please see the data and methodology used to reach the $2 million Yeo’s estimate?
@Sarah LOL! 2-4 is really more and now millions is really thousands.
Newton Wake Up! Fool us once shame on you. Fool us twice. Won’t get fooled again.
Sarah is correct!
The title should definitely be changed because it is deceptive. Is that intentional? So much about this blog’s moderation is pro-pot, Greg…
A better, truer title would be: “How much — if anything — will the pot shop ban cost Newton?”
The article I wrote that appeared on the Chamber’s website, which Andy Levin posted here, as well as my comments on this thread clearly states
1. That these estimates are estimates because no one really knows how popular adult use marijuana will be. Could be more. Could be less. Anyone who claims to know for certain is engaging in political spin. That said, I’ve reviewed the city numbers. I understand the reasoning that went into them and I find two million dollars annually to be very a credible guesstimate. But, it is a guesstimate. Jonathan Yeo said that and I’ve said that. My article says that.
2. The article also clearly stated that the funds will derive from both host agreements and 3% local sales tax. But — putting aside the spin — the host agreement money is real money. It is money that must be used to mitigate the social and public safety impacts. Those are costs our city will encounter whether we have adult recreational stores here or not because these products are legal in Massachusetts and will be sold in Brookline, Watertown, Waltham, Boston and other communities near here no matter what happens Nov. 6.
If we allow stores in Newton we will also have a revenue stream to pay for these expenses. If we don’t, we still have the costs but not the revenue stream.
But here’s the irony: While at least some opponents of adult use marijuana here are sounding the alarm about traffic, children, property values, etc, at the same time, they’re warning that the tax revenue isn’t going to be nearly as high as some are projecting.
Well if the tax revenue ends up being less than expected, that will be because adult recreational demand is far less than you seem to be alarmed about.
In fact, sales may be so pathetic these retail stores will be closed and converted to nail salons before you know it.
So why worry?
Jerry wrote:
“Why we wouldn’t want to encourage these new, clean, highly regulated kinds of retail stores to fill empty storefronts and pay dedicated taxes to the city is beyond me”.
You ask doctors, not your neighbors, why smoking is bad for you. Likewise, ask the subject experts and professionals why they are opposed to these stores. Seems to me, the majority of people in health care and law enforcement, who we normally trust with our well-being, seriously caution us. Refer to the key city employees and many physicians who support Opt Out, for example. (If I’m not mistaken, the only two city councilors with medical and police background are against pot shops.) Whoever chooses to ignore professional opinions just demonstrate plainly their contempt for knowledge.
@Greg, I read the CCC guidance report above and it’s clear that the Community Impact fees, which are 2/3 of the $2M in this thread, can not be used to mitigate impacts from marijuana purchases generally. It’s designated for impacts specifically tied to stores in your town such as inspections, police details at stores, etc. It’s inaccurate to say these fees can be used for other purposes.
Greg – Either you need to do more research to understand the economic situation if you really don’t understand or have more intellectual honesty if you do. Or both.
Sarah and Anatoly have demolished your argument — which actually seemed like it was going to be the best (or at least the most seductive) argument for the pro-pot forces provided, of course, only if one leaves aside the fact that the argument is fallacious.
BTW, Bruce gave you a bruising too.
So when are you going to change the deceptive and inflammatory title to this thread?
That is more than in order given that you have finally started your arduous climb down from the dead tree limb that you climbed way out on and embarrassed yourself….
@Greg, you wrote: “I’ve reviewed the city numbers. I understand the reasoning that went into them”. I’m asking again: could you please share these numbers and reasoning with mere mortals who lack your cozy connection to the city government. “Could be more. Could be less”. Fair enough, but why does the article’s title say “millions”? Because headlines tend to stick?
Now I’d like to address the “irony” you discovered, that is low revenue means fewer potential problems. Not necessarily. Former Boston police commissioner Evans in an interview said that legal dispensaries attract black market dealers. That happens I guess regardless of the shop’s sales volume. Whether Evans is correct, neither you nor me knows. But, if in doubt, we should ask other professionals who are familiar with the problem as it exists in the field. Don’t you agree?
I think we need a bingo game for pot-shop proponents arguments. We probably have to leave off Tax Revenue because it would make Bingos to way too easy.
Weary commenters, I bring you The Game of NIMBY:
A pot-shop proponent makes one of the following arguments…
– some variation of “alcohol is causes more of X problem, why don’t you campaign against that”
– cries of NIMBY
– We Already Voted!
– Makes the black market go down.
– A comparison to earlier decades of pot use (bonus for >50 year time frame)
– “I don’t smoke but…” (the strangely passionate pro-pot non-user)
– Fear-mongering characterizations
– “Having stores aren’t going to change that problem.” (or variation on already accessible)
And bonus harder-to-achieve squares:
– “Dude, have you ever tried weed? You might even enjoy it…”
– Banning stores is racist
– Comparison to Amsterdam
– Admiration of Californian pot shops
I’m sure I’m leaving some out but it should be enough for to make a small BINGO/NIMBY board, to have maybe a smidgen of fun while reading the same arguments over and over again.
@Reibman No the reason the tax revenue is low is because of the insultingly low tax rate written by Big Skunkweed.
James, your board won’t be complete without Reefer Madness of course. But my favorite pro-pot-shop argument posted on this blog is that “every retail store is another safeguard that prevents a backslide to re-criminalization”.
@Anatoly
We would probably need a Village 14 edition of the board with “Prohibitionists” for starters.
I would also add a square for any reprimand or using the word ‘marijuana’ instead of ‘cannabis’.
At least the tools of Big Skunkweed are down to a misleading $2 million “guesstimate”. A far cry from Striar’s $6 million pipe dream.
@James, @Bruce, @Anatoly – At this point I have no idea what you’re talking about other than you don’t want pot shops in Newton. But feel free to carry on.
Bingo!
No Jerry, I don’t want lies to prevail. I think to make America great again we just need to add one article to the Constitution: “Lying shall not be rewarded”.
@Bruce, @Abe, I think we may be being a little harsh on Greg Reibman here about the title of this thread since it was Andy Levin who wrote it, and it is his responsibility to change it if new facts show that it is misleading.
However, I expect that Reibman will review his letter from the Newton/Needham Chamber and make appropriate revisions to it in light of the Guidance letter from the CCC, which may not have been available to him before. It clearly shows that only the 3% tax on recreational sales are earmarked for the general fund, and the other 2/3 of the $2M projection are Community Impact fees that can only be used to cover a community’s direct costs associated with hosting and overseeing the recreational marijuana stores.
Laurie- You may be correct that the responsibility for the title of this thread may lie with Andy rather than Greg, and that the appropriate information may have become available as the result of CCC guidance after the thread was captioned and the mistaken information disseminated.
But the correct information is now available and there is no top of page correction to the misleading story, nor had the thread caption been corrected.
Intellectual honesty requires a retraction/correction.
So, Greg/Andy, what are you going to do about your inflammatory fake news?
Municipalities across the commonwealth have negotiated host agreements that cover many things beyond direct costs and are larger than three percent. For example in addition to collecting three percent impact fees these following communities ALSO receive:
Ayer: $30.00 for a community youth program,
Chelsea: $60,000 donationsd to local nonprofits
Esthampton: $2,500 to the local library, $2,500 to the school department, $10,000 signing payment
Northhampton: $20,000 annually for marijuana education programs
Oxford: 25,000 annually to local charity
Rowley: Funding for two education programs
Salem: $25,000 community impact fee
No doubt this list will grow as many municipalities are, like Newton, still in the early stages of negotiating terms of these required agreements.
And by the way in addition to the three percent of medical that Newton receives now from Garden Remedies (with more to come if adult recreational prevails), as part of that host agreement Garden Remedies donates $2,500 annually (to escalate 5% each year) to Newton charities. The city has yet to complete its host agreement with Cypress Tree.
I think I had a stroke reading through this thread. What is wrong with you people? When I was at Newton north (about 15 years ago), weed was the easiest thing to find. Literally, the most readily available drug. Alcohol was near impossible. Wonder why that was? None of you people understand how prohibition works, or rather doesn’t work. By keeping weed from being sold legitimately, we are literally putting the market in the hands of teenagers. Obviously none of you remember was it was like being a kid and being told not to do something. You better believe we went out and did it just because you told us not to. And I would have been drinking as well as smoking pot if I could have gotten my hands on alcohol. But alas, alcohol was regulated and I could find anyone who was 21 and will to buy it for us. I didn’t start drinking until college.
You guys must have worms in your brain. None of those makes any sense. Regulated. Tax. Control. If you are so worried about our kids, get it out of their hands then.
@Greg, the types of things various towns included in their initial Community Impact fees are no longer allowed as per the CCC Guidance beginning in August. You can’t use old news to make the claim that these types of expenditures will be allowed in the future. Please read the guidance below and then respond back on how you will adjust your letter from the Chamber with this new information.
https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Guidance-on-Host-Community-Guidance.pdf
Marijuana businesses can always decide to make donations to local charities, as many businesses do, but they can’t be compelled to do so by the town.
Kyle – You are miss the key point that high school students are not allowed to purchase marijuana legally and they will ALWAYS be buying on the black market.
The black market exploded in Colorado since legalization. Black market sellers don’t pay taxes, don’t comply with regulations, and aren’t doing lab testing. And they are selling WAY cheaper than the $300/ounce at which Garden Remedies is selling marijuana. Anybody who buys from a legal pot shop and resells on the black market to underage users will be cutting the marijuana with expansers to maximize profits. And most black
Market pot doesn’t and won’t come from such legal channels anyway. So high school kids will NOT be getting so-called “purer” or “safer” marijuana.
And let’s not lose sight of the medical fact that marijuana is not “safe” for the developing adolescent brain thru age 26 so we should be educating and fighting youthful pot use, not trying to lull kids and parents into thinking it is t harmful
BTW—lab testing is really lax. In Colorado there have been 40 little publicized recalls of legally sold, tested marijuana for pesticide and mold contamination. In California 63% of marijuana had more pesticides than is healthy to consume or smoke or vape.
And anyway, why do you think that with the huge push for profits by investors who are slamming tens of millions into pot proliferation at a warp speed rate that it is going to be regulated and managed more successfully than something relatively simple — like recycling?
@Kyle– Welcome to the alternate universe of the prohibitionists. It’s built on a foundation of ignorance and fear. They toss in a few lies, a lot of fake math, and expect people to buy their illogical arguments. They were empowered by our mayor and like minded prohibitionists on the City Council. Of the 25 elected city officials charged with implementing the 2016 ballot initiative to “regulate marijuana like alcohol,” not a single one of them supported the law as it was passed by Newton voters. Sad but true.
This post would make it seem as though the only retail Newton can attract is recreational MJ…
If thats the case, Newton has bigger issues to deal with
Increases density with washington pl, austin will start to help hopefully and then eventually improved public transportation to attract tech, biotech companies… tax from weed would be drop in the bucket once Newton solves these long term issues
@ Greg – re: “in addition to collecting three percent impact fees these following communities ALSO receive:”
On a per resident basis, these numbers translate to:
Ayer $4.04
Chelsea $1.71
Easthampton 93 cents
Northampton 70 cents
Oxford $1.82
Salem 60 cents
The revenue potential has been dramatically understated. Cannabis was the largest cash crop in the United States for many years before it was legalized. That’s just the domestically grown cannabis. Cannabis is on a par with alcohol in terms of cultural popularity. Imagine if every liquor store in Newton was operating under a Community Host Agreement as Cannabis stores are required to do. That would give you a more accurate assessment about long term revenue potential.
Newton currently has a host agreement with Garden Remedies that will continue if it has a co-located retail shop. It includes most, if not all, of the items or categories that Greg listed. The
As history has shown in this country, and as Kyle clearly expresses, prohibition backfires. The only item that will be banned if the Question to ban passes is regulated cannabis. Unregulated cannabis will be readily available to teens. sold by people who also sell highly addictive illegal drugs.
Some folks on this thread want to leave out of the discussion the fact that these shops are ADULT retail cannabis shops. To clarify a misconception: regulated cannabis can only be sold in licenced adult cannabis shops. It cannot be sold or marketed in any other store, such as a Store 24, as some signature collectors claimed this summer. Anyone who tells you otherwise is giving you inaccurate information.
@Jack: Thanks for doing the math. Very impressive when you look at it that way. Getting somewhere between 60 cents to four dollars per resident, seems like a pretty sizable contribution for something that in most of those cases is likely occupying one small retail store.
Kyle is absolutely correct. I know some younger folks who graduated from Newton North less than a decade ago. They jokingly refer to the buying and selling of marijuana as having taken on the flavor of an open air”bazaar”.
According to my Uncle Neil, the Prohibition era spawned its own types of illicit and illegal activities including the infamous “bathroom gin”, makeshift stills in the cellar and clandestine trips to Canada to bring back the real good stuff. And there’s this thing about making something illegal that seems to add to the taste. In my cigar smoking days, I enjoyed nothing more than sneaking a box of Cuban cigars back into the States from Canada, Bermuda or Europe. Then there was the “Legion of Decency” that I grew up with as a Catholic kid in Boston. They put out lists of all the movies we weren’t supposed to see because they had supposedly sexually explicit scenes. The really bad ones were actually “banned”. That only made us more eager to find some way into the theater to see it. We crashed one of these — “The Moon is Blue” –, but found it quite dull.
I haven’t read this whole thread but will chime in to say: weed is already everywhere. It’s legal. People are allowed to grow it and use it and buy it legally. It would be crazy for us to forgo the local tax revenue. We need the revenue. Voting against local pot shops doesn’t stop the substance. It only stops the revenue. People should vote “no” on the ban.
Shawn – clearly you haven’t, as you acknowledged, read the whole thread. And you are being mislead by the title of this thread and the erroneous lead article which is rife with mis-information. Please read the entries by Sarah and Laurie and you will see that potential tax revenue is being vastly overstated, the permitted uses are not being correctly stated and the article is taking no account of costs.
Andy/Greg -Shawn’s entry is a case in point about how misleading the thread caption is. Time — past time — for you to revise the caption and update/correct the main article. Is there any meaningful moderation of V.14 or is your pro-pot bias all we can count on?
It’s funny how a couple participants keep demanding that Andy and I remove the word “millions” from the headline, when all that headline is doing is referencing Jonathan Yeo’s projections. These are the city’s numbers. It’s not something Andy or I invented. My article clearly states that.
Nonetheless, I’m removing the word “millions” from the headline, not because I doubt Jonathan Yeo’s math. I believe he is giving, as he said, his best “guesstimate.” I think two million sounds very plausible.
Instead, I’m removing it, because it’s clearly stressing some nice people out.
And since there are no adult recreational stores open yet, these very stressed folks don’t have access to the one thing that might help mellow them out.
Think of this as a virtual gummy.
However, I’m declining to remove “millions” from my article. I will not edit out the fact that Yeo believes it could be over two millions because, THAT’S WHAT HE TOLD ME.
I’m also not removing from my article this excerpt which illustrates why I believe Yeo’s guesstimate is a very reasonable.
Over and out. Peace.
Greg, damned if you do and damned if you don’t. These 3-4 commenters will not stop coming up with reasons to complain about the post or to ban pot shops in Newton. Reason doesn’t work. There are many misleadig words and statements, including incorrect ones, in the Opt-Out literature and mailings but they will keep pounding anything they can find to make up reasons to say you and other supporters, ncluding me, are doing the same.
Rather than removing the “millions,” i think it would have been better to add “the administration says” (or something like it), take out the word “taxes” and leave the $2 estimate. Since no one knows the actual number, an estimate is is all there is to make predictions. Jonathan Yeo made an estimate, as did Garden Remedies.
The main thing is there will be extra local revenue from these retail stores – that we don’t get from other retail stores. These payments will offset extra expenses that might be incurred whether marijuana stores are located in Newton or not since so many of our “one town over communities” will have them. The one in Brookline will be on Route 9.
Extra revenue is extra revenue.
@Greg, you did the right thing to change the title of your post, not because it was stressing people out but because it was misleading.
While your post from the Chamber does point out that the Community Impact fees must be earmarked to mitigate the impacts of marijuana stores, it does not point out that roughly 2/3 of the $2M in projected fees are in that category, and cannot be used to pay for other community needs. Your post also says that those funds can be used to address “impacts from marijuana” when the CCC guidance clearly states those funds can only be used to address direct expenses from hosting “marijuana stores,” such as traffic details, inspections, prevention programs for the first few years ONLY, etc. That is a much more restrictive list than what is stated in the Chamber’s post.
If Newton does not have that many direct expenses from hosting marijuana stores, then the CCC won’t allow the city to continue to collect the full amount of Community Impact fees in the host agreements.
I don’t know if the clarification is the responsibility of the Mayor’s office or the Chamber or both, but it needs to be made.
@By the way, I’m not contesting that the remaining 1/3 of the $2M projection (if it materializes), won’t be beneficial to Newton. We should just have a conversation about whether having an additional ~$667k in the general fund is worth it for taking on what many see as the downsides of hosting recreational marijuana stores.
Sarah, we have been having that conversation ad infinitum. The downsides that might occur because of having marijuana retail stores in Newton will occur whether or not the retail stores are in Newton – our very close neighbors will have them. In fact if any of these downsides occur, they could be exacerbated by residents having to drive to other towns.
Sarah, just want to add to my last comment that residents in Newton can grow 5 marijuana plants per person at home and make all the edibles they want – so the if the unintended consequences you espouse do occur, they will occur anyway. Marijuana is legal and will be in Newton anyway so it makes sense to collect any revenue.
@Greg – I think the point that out-out folks are making here is that community impact fees are governed to be budget neutral. In some cases, if a city resource is underutilized, they might incrementa, and in some cases, “1 year before retirement” police detail overtime pay for example, the long term cost could be higher than covered by the fee.
In any case, ~$1/resident is not going to significantly reduce people’s property taxes or avert the need for overrides.
To do some math on the $2 million number, that translates to $66 million in annual sales. If we use Ted’s 20% usage number and assume 50% of sales to adult Newton residents, that translates to roughly $4100 in purchases per year per consumer, which does seem plausible.
$2 million translates to $23/resident and perhaps roughly $75/annual property tax bill (I don’t have precise #’s handy). That’s beneficial, but residents and the city council need to balance that value vs. the downsides they perceive.
Jack, I don’t completely understand your comment. I just want to point out that with the proposed zoned locations on the outskirts of Newton and the many folks who drive through Newton to get to Boston and other places, it’s reasonble to estimate that not all customers will be residents of Newton.
[…] “my favorite pro-pot-shop argument posted on this blog is that “every retail store is another safeguard that prevents a backslide to re-criminalization”.’
Thank you Anatoly, I’m flattered. So, what is Opt Out Newton’s next goal after November. OON has already gone after medical (criticizing Garden Remedies, and the medical facility application for Elliot Street). It’s gone after facilities in neighboring towns (criticizing locations being considered in Brookline and Boston). It’s gone after a prospective growing site in Charlton (almost no Newton residents would even know where that town is). So many other targets of opportunity!
Also in the list of hackneyed pro-pot arguments, let’s add the buffer that retail marijuana is against K2/Spice and similar horrible experimental compounds that masquerade as being “synthetic marijuana”. These mystery compounds have sickened hundreds and even killed people nationwide, finding their way into states where cannabis is not legal.
Yesterday, I posted a piece about two young friends of mine who described the clandestine marijuana sales at Newton North has a”bazaar” like quality to it.
I might have left the impression that I don’t feel this poses a serious health and safety problem. That’s not the case particularly in view of reports that the basic marijuana is being mixed with much more potent and dangerous drugs.
But this also brings to mind the clandestine sale of alcohol during Prohibition that I also alluded to. Bathtub gin is often portrayed as a romantic part of the the 1920’s, but this unregulated stuff also killed and maimed many people before FDR and the nation finally had the good sense to end the “great experiment” in 1933. The key word here is unregulated which is exactly what describes the stuff being sold to young people at Newton North as well as to adults who search out the bewitching weed from friends or street dealers.
It’s pretty clear to me that adults will have an added layer of protection if they can buy medical or recreational marijuana from a fully regulated facility. I realize that those below the age of 21 won’t have this protection, but I also have to conclude that not having a few regulated facilities in Newton won’t do anything to eliminate the bazaar at Newton North or any other place where kids seem to find marijuana.
My comment still stands regardless of the headline or perceived revenue inaccuracies. Retail pot is here in Newton regardless of whether or not it’s actually sold in the city. It’s legal and available statewide. Whatever revenue there will be we should access it.
@Dulles, you wrote “OON has already gone after medical (criticizing Garden Remedies, and the medical facility application for Elliot Street)”.
Please go to optoutnewton.org and read: “We are not concerned with legalization, medical marijuana stores, or consumers growing their own plants”.
Now go to gardenremedies.org and read: “Our mission is to take the excruciating test of endurance a patient may be forced to go through every day, and change it to a life of comfort that is hopefully pain-and-symptom-free”. OON just wants Dr. Munkacy to be able to focus 100% on this noble mission without being distracted by recreational marijuana.
And please don’t worry that much about defending Garden Remedies. According to government records, they are paying $30000 in salary to their official lobbyist, which I guess is more than OON and RFSN budgets combined.
@Dulles are you familiar with the Charlton story?
There was not a single positive aspect to what dishonest reps did in Charlton. A grassroots campaign “went after them” by covering it and bringing it visibility.
If you want representatives who hide industry deals from their constituents, be very happy with Charlton’s elected body.
What’s happening on this thread is proponents of recreational marijuana want the industry so badly, that the story becomes “these Prohibitionists” and not the state of the industry; how it’s operating, what it’s selling, and how that affects people.
So for Charlton the real take away isn’t backdoor dealings, it’s that a minuscule advocacy group “went after them.”
What’s happening in Charlton, and dispensary locations considered by Brookline or Boston, are not “no recreational pot shops in Newton.” It’s not called “Opt Out Charlton,” is it?
An OON spokesperson argued with me months ago that the proposed Newton ban would be no big deal because Newton residents could just drive right over the city line to buy. But now that Brookline and Boston are talking actual dispensary locations, OON has changed that tune, too. But it’s not “Opt Out-Arbitrary Buffer Zone Around Newton,” is it?
Opt Out Newton has not missed an opportunity to kick Garden Remedies, and firmly opposed the medical dispensary on Elliot Street. If you’re not against medical cannabis, your actions show Opt Out Newton is firmly opposed against any and all cannabis facilities of any kind, in any location.
@James– Like the rest of the Prohibitionistas you know absolutely nothing about the cannabis industry, except cherry-picked nonsense you find on the internet. The story here IS about freedom hating prohibitionists, and your campaign of ignorance and fear.
@Dulles
What happened in Charlton was a small group of people (lawmakers) greenlighted as massive grow facility without public knowledge. And all of their actions point to fear of public knowledge.
Non-representational government is a bad thing, even when it agrees with you.
On Garden Remedies and medicine, ask yourself, why is the medical community flocking to OON in droves? Could it be that GR is failing the standards of medicine?
If you truly believe in medical marijuana (I do) you also believe in medical practice which is not compatible with libertarian economics, which is why GR is going recreational, because they don’t find enough purpose (read: money) in helping people in debilitating pain.
It’s one they to say medicine and another to practice it. And yeah, when a medical operation isn’t keeping track of their patients it belies the whole establishment. And that’s just for starters, what is GR doing about mold and pesticides? because I’m trying to imagine the lawsuits and outrage if someone popped open a moldy, pesticide ridden bottle of Tylenol at a CVS.
Poor GR, so misunderstood. In their heart of hearts they were always about the fun of THC but public wasn’t ready for fun pot shops. They preferred pot for medicine use. And worse yet, they wanted actual medical practice, which is so tiresome with all its tedious bookkeeping and regulations.
Your comments about Garden Remedies “not finding purpose” in treating in pain, being all about “the fun of THC,” and their selling moldy and pesticide filled marijuana are complete nonsense. Back up any word of it.
The medical community you speak of wants to continue to sell pharma products as do Partners and other hospital administrators.
FACT: The City of Newton has ALREADY lost million$ in Community Host Agreements because the City Council passed a moratorium on adult use cannabis instead of implementing the law as passed by Newton voters in 2016.
OPINION: Newton will lose $50M in revenue through the first 10 years of a ban. [Higher than other projections, because I actually know what I’m talking about].
Thanks James, window dressing aside you answered my question. Opt Out Newton is against cannabis facilities in the state regardless of location or function.
@Marti — I was just trying to narrow in on a plausible revenue number. Ted suggested 20% of Newton residents are consumers, and if they constitute 50% of the customer base of the future Newton dispensaries (with the other 50% coming from outside the city), then each consumer would need to spend $4000 per year on cannabis ($72/week), which seems plausible for those with disposable income to do so. Aassuming that 1 in 5 Newtonites will be spending and consuming at that rate, you can understand some concern on the opt-out side about impaired driving, etc.
And furthermore, $2 million/year in revenue is $76/household, and a fairly small portion of a typical ~$10K/year tax bill, so this is not a panacea for school budgets, retirement benefits, etc.
@Mike Striar – Per Laurie’s comment and link above (https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Guidance-on-Host-Community-Guidance.pdf) it appears that community agreements are supposed to be budget neutral going forward. Whether they have been in the past is not relevant. That means only the 3% tax comes into the net benefit equation. Is that not correct?
On the analogy of underage drinking raised, where do folks think the current supply for that comes from? Is it coming from a national black market or directly or indirectly from local retail stores?
@Marti
Let’s start with pesticides. How real is the problem, real enough to litigate on:
https://optoutnewton.org/index.php/2018/07/26/will-legalization-and-regulation-mean-marijuana-products-will-finally-be-pure/
Note: California had an awfully long time to regulate legal cannabis, and now they’re struggling to.
It’s your lungs, Marti, inhale what you will. If you want trust a medical establishment that sells pot BBQ sauce, that’s your choice too.
Ultimately, it does come down to who you trust, doesn’t it? It certainly will in November.
James, as I’ve said before on this voluminous thread – I don’t use pot in any of its forms. My support for having marijuana retail stores in Newton is purely to follow the will of the voters and for Newton to receive the revenue, regardless of the amount.
The grow farms in Mass will be tested. Most of the stuff on that website is nonsense.
Over and out. This thread has become entireky repetive.
@Jack Prior, you are incorrect. $2 million/year in revenue is $64/household. There are 31,139 households in Newton (http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/demog). On the other hand, ADT home security is typically $450/year, and some people find it’s worth the peace of mind.
@Shawn Fitzgibbons, you wrote “Whatever revenue there will be we should access it”. True, assuming no negative impact associated with this revenue. OON presents evidence and expert witnesses that contradict your assumption. Why don’t you challenge their evidence and call your own experts?
I did hear an OON person present recently. The person’s arguments were (in my view) certainly applicable to the statewide question about legalizing retail pot. Concerns about kids, safety on roads, etc are fair points and good reasons to have voted “no” on the statewide referendum.
Since pot is now legal in all of MA, this is all a moot point. People will easily get and use it in Newton no matter what. Regardless of whether or not it is sold in Newton, we are guaranteed to experience whatever negative impacts there may be.
Pot is here. This local referendum simply decides whether or not our City can also access tax revenue from pot sales. Cities in MA don’t have many new options for raising revenue – I hope voters say “yes”.