Often lost in the debate over whether or not adult-use recreational marijuana shops should operate in Newton is the fact that there aren’t very many properties where these stores can exist under the city’s proposed zoning.
Yes, I know zoning deliberations make most people’s heads ache. Mine included. But, if you have not yet dug into this, it’s worth understanding.
The first thing you need to know is that you should not expect to find these adult-only shops in Newton’s village centers. The next thing you should know is that under state law, consuming cannabis inside or in front of one of these stores is a crime.
Unlike liquor stores, which of course exist in our village centers, these shops will have bunker-like exteriors, intense security and state-mandated safeguards. You must show an ID before you’re allowed to enter a secure showroom. You must show it again when you make your purchase.
Now check out the map above. This map shows where these, highly-secure, tightly-regulated adult-use shops could locate under Newton’s proposed draft zoning.
Remember, I said could locate, not will locate.
The map’s blue circles represent buffer zones near schools, all places where marijuana shops are not allowed. That big red circle represents the half mile buffer zone around Garden Remedies, the city’s only current medical facility which just received a special permit to open a recreational store if the proposed ban doesn’t pass (and which, according to police, has had no incidents of any kind during its two years of operation) where a second shop wouldn’t be allowed.
So where can new stores locate?
See those small red, purple, pink and light blue colored areas mostly on the edges of the city? Those represent the only spots where these shops can even apply.
And remember, no shop can locate within a half mile radius of another.
And of course, just because it’s allowed in those limited areas doesn’t mean a retailer will find an available storefront with the mandated security parameters to rent there.
So even if Newton voters decide on Nov. 6 to allow these legal, adult-use shops to open here, there won’t be pot shops on every corner.
Newton voters approved legalizing adult-use marijuana in 2016 and the tax revenue benefits to the city are significant. Brookline, Watertown, Waltham, Belmont, Natick, Boston, Cambridge and many other municipalities have already decided to allow adult-use stores in their municipalities.
For specifics on Newton’s proposed zoning – and where these stores could locate — go here.
The map is kind of hard to decipher, so I listed the proposed zoned by area:
Auburndale:
-Grove Street/Riverside station area
-Comm Ave – Star Market shopping center
-Rowe Street area
Chestnut Hill/Boylston St.
-The Street shopping center
-Star Market shopping center
-Lifetime Mall area
-Wegman’s Shopping center
Lower Falls
-Beacon St. southwest of Newton-Wellesley Hospital
-Asheville Road just west of I-95
Newton Centre
-Beacon St. around post office
– Centre St. south of Cypress St. junction
Newton Corner
-Wash St. across from Crowne Plaza
-Centre St. just north of Mass Pike
Newton Highlands
-4 Corners area on Beacon St. and Walnut St.
-Walnut St. around T stop
Nonantum/Newtonville
-Garden Remedies on Wash. St. – already approved
Upper Falls
-Boylston St./ElliotSt. Area where Respect the Vote financier Victory
Chiang is planning to open a pot shop
-Chestnut St. near Oak St.
– Elliot St./Mechanic St.
-Most of Needham Street
West Newton
-Washington St. – area around Trader Joe’s
-Lexington St. at River St.
Which of these neighborhoods will be the lucky winners in the pot shop gold rush is anybody’s guess. The City is proposing limiting the number to 8, so there could be one in almost all of these 9 areas.
Laurie, it would be fine with me if most of those villages had an unobtrusive, secure retail regulated marijuana store where minors are not allowed, the marijuana contents are inspected for added ingredients and the marijuana is expensive – much more so than having another liquor store.
Look at the map again. Locate a site you think a shop might go – then draw a 1/2 mile circle around that location like the one drawn around Garden Remedies. You will see that several locations you listed are included in that circle. Draw one around the Eliot Street proposed location – see what locations are no longer suitable.
I live near Garden Remedies and have no problem with it expanding. It’s already almost unnoticeable.
I don’t understand your outcry since having one in West Newton would be far from you, protected in your haven on WNH and the similar outcry over a wealthy business man wanting to open a store when you and many others who want a ban are wealthy too.
It’s obvious you are just against adult use recreational marijuana being legal – perhaps medical marijuana too – and that is not what the November ballot question is about.
Now I am more confused.
Greg wrote”The first thing you need to know is that you should not expect to find these adult-only shops in Newton’s village centers.”
But then Laurie, in an effort to clarify the map Greg posted, listed possible locations as the heart of some village centers.
For example:
Auburndale: Comm Ave – Star Market shopping center
Chestnut Hill: The Street shopping center or Star Market shopping center
Newton Centre: Beacon St. around post office
Newton Highlands: Walnut St. around T stop
Those seem pretty much like the village centers to me.
@NewtonNewbie “But then Laurie, in an effort to clarify the map Greg posted, listed possible locations as the heart of some village centers.”
I’m pretty sure Laurie wasn’t attempting to clarify anything. Do you see any designated areas on the map near the post office in Newton Centre or at the T in Newton Highlands?
Laurie’s got the Upper Falls section mixed up. The current proposed Business 2 site on Elliot Street is actually in Newton Highlands, next to the gas station, CVS, landramat , etc. section. The access to this site would be right where the traffic to Route 9 east and west-bound and to the rest of Newton backs up and right next to one of two gas stations serving Upper Falls with all the turns that implies. The traffic is already a nightmare much of the day in this location, which includes the home traffic across Elliot Street from the gas station and the access to the proposed shop. The residents in this vicinity are probably basing their prominent display of opposition signs on the existing and likely traffic situation more so than any other reason.
Laurie is also correct to note that there are two sites in Upper Falls, one along Ellliot Street and the other on Chestnut between Pettee Square and the Braceland Playground that are zoned Business 2 and thus would allow shops to be requested.
I believe that this situation in Upper Falls and perhaps the other locations that she sites are based on the lack of extensive knowledge of the details of the current zones in the city on the part of those who are too busy trying to change them. Why learn the boring facts about the archaic map and ordinance when you’re too busy trying to change them. Maybe because those facts would be detrimental to the quality of life of some city residents.
A better approach would be to consider the possibility that the shops would in fact be positive tools of economic development because of the traffic they might
attract and place it where that traffic might be beneficial to the other commercial issues around it , not detrimental to the residential and public uses near Business 2. How about Welles Avenue? If there’s so much so support for cannabis in the city, couldn’t a site be carved out in the Limited Manufacturing district there far enough away from the incompatible uses on part of the area?
Wouldn’t that attract people from Newton and Needham?
I agree with allowing shop on Needham Street which is already trying to accommodate commercial uses but has some stores only frequented by the pictures of shoppers in the vacant storefronts.
In short, no shops in Business 2, but allow shops in Limited Manufacturing and Mixed Use 1.
Claire don’t be too hard on Laurie. Maybe she forgot that the rules only allow one store per half mile radius and that’s why she believes we might have more shops than we can. So for example, it appears to my untrained eye that you couldn’t have a store on Walnut Street if you already have one on Elliot. (Which is too bad because I’d love to see an adult-use recreational store in my village center.)
Also, she may not realize that the location itself in any given area has to be (a) available (b) affordable (c) be of the specific zoning classification (d) be the right size for the business needs (e) have the proper parking, meet security standards, etc. In other words, these business owners would need to meet the usual qualifications that make it hard for many business to open here plus the added state rules and regulations. etc.
@Brian: Solomon Schechter is at Wells and there’s a K-12 private school proposed for 2 Wells Ave. so Wells won’t work because of the school restrictions. (Plus I don’t have to tell you about that deed restriction do I?)
P.S. But since we can’t have one in near the Highlands T, I’d love to see a shop on Needham Street, close to my office.
@ Brian Yates did Laurie also get in wrong that there is not proposal to put a “pot shop” next to the Newton Centre post office and the Newton Highland’s T station
@Claire, the red dot in Newton Centre at the corner of Beacon and Langley on the map looks to me to be the area around the post office but could be the area where Tartuffo restaurant is. Hard to tell on this map.
Definitely saw two red areas on Walnut St. at what looked to be either side of the T stop. If you think it might be a different spot on Walnut, please enlighten us. Hard to tell exactly with this map, but that’s my best guess.
@Brian Yates, I may have the Newton Highlands/Upper Falls border mixed up, but I think we are in agreement that it is in the Elliot St./Route 9 intersection, which is indeed problematical from a traffic perspective.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Wells area and other less public places would be preferable, and in fact suggested that to the P&S committee. The Planning Department recommended against that idea because they thought crime is a potential concern around pot shops, so they should be kept in more visible, public places. I think this issue can be worked around with proper security, so I hope the full City Council will re-visit that suggestion.
I thought the general idea for retail businesses is to put them in retail districts … or should we put the pizza shops in Wells Ave too 😉
Admittedly that map is a bit confusing but by my reading there seems to be only a single Mixed Use 1 zone (Needham St) in the entire city. Brian are you trying to horde all of these stores for our neck of the wood 😉
The folks who work at Wells Ave would be thrilled to have a pizza shop there.
Frankly, this map is horrible as a public information tool.
It would be great if a new official version could be created with only the allowable locations marked, and nothing else. That’s all that matters.
The biggest flaw in the existing map is that it emphasizes the residential areas of Newton, where no business can set up.
This is the first I’ve seen regarding cannabis shop zoning, and like everything else Newton’s elected officials have proposed, it makes it as difficult as possible for consumers to make purchases. With all the talk about transit-oriented development you’d think a store or two might be encouraged to open in accessible areas, but apparently that’s not going to happen. And what’s so bad about siting a shop in a village center? Sure, some village centers wouldn’t be appropriate — Waban comes to mind — but some certainly could benefit from having the foot traffic. West Newton Square near my house is a perfect example. The bottom line to me is that Newton continues to suffer from an appalling lack of leadership on the cannabis issue, with this proposed zoning map being just the latest example.
It was called the campaign to “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol.” More than 25,000 voters in Newton supported it. Not a single elected “leader” stood up to defend that vote or their rights…
In fact, more than a handful of our elected officials in Newton actively worked to subvert the expressed will of the voters. That lack of respect for their constituents has already cost the city millions in lost revenue…
The zoning map prepared by prohibitionists officials belies their true intentions. Nothing about the map reflects the voter’s instructions to regulate marijuana like alcohol. The objective of prohibitionists in Newton is crystal clear. They are attempting to reverse the 2016 vote that legalized marijuana. If they are successful, they will target medical marijuana dispensaries next.
Don’t give the prohibitionists an inch. Vote NO on BOTH proposals. That’s the clearest way to reaffirm your 2016 vote to regulate marijuana like alcohol.
@Marti, you are right that if Garden Remedies and Cypress Tree open, the half-mile buffer around those stores would preclude the other zoned locations in Newtonville, Nonantum, Newton Highlands T-Stop and the upper part of Needham St.
I’ve drawn a map below with all the areas proposed to be zoned for adult-use marijuana retail in green with circles showing half-mile buffers for the various areas that could potentially open. As you can see below, there are about 12 potential areas for adult-use stores that could open in Newton if no limits are put in place. The buffer zones around the schools are quite small and don’t present much in the way of restrictions in these commercial areas. We all presume that some limits will be put in place, so there probably won’t be 12, but the speculation that there won’t be enough potential locations to even have 8 is not really accurate (see map below – I hope you can see the link).
https://ibb.co/hm7U50
(BTW, Marti, I’m not sure what your estimation of my supposed wealth or lack thereof has to do with any of this!)
@Laurie
How could there be 12 if the restriction is based on a percentage of the number of liquor stores which would make 8 the maximum?
I guess you expect more liquor licenses to be approved…
@Wally, the current law says Newton has to allow a MINIMUM of 8 stores not a maximum, with no upper limit, unless the City Council puts in place a limit. They are considering putting in a limit, but have not done so yet.
Laurie – How are you going to force a businessman to open a adult cannabis retail shop? Do you force someone who wants to open a pizza shop to open a retail cannabis shop.
Your grasping at straws now. The city council zoning proposal has already put in place 8 as the limit. This just crosses the line into fear mongering.
Nevermind that Newton probably doesn’t have the the market for four, never mind 12.
@Jane, once again, please stop mischaracterizing what I have said. The map shows that there are approximately 12 areas that could potentially host an adult-use marijuana store. The actual number and locations will depend on what types of limits the City Council approves (if any) and how many retailers choose to apply for a license. I have never said anything otherwise. I have posted this information to correct the false claims that current zoning proposals are so restrictive that only a few could possibly be sited.
https://ibb.co/hm7U50
@Wally, @Laurie – That part of the rules is indeed confusing.
Here’s my understanding:
* With just the state law anybody who wants to open a store in a town could – like pizza shops
* The law says that towns ARE allowed to place a hard limit on the number of stores but that limit can’t be lower than 20% of liquor licenses without a referendum. In Newton that works out to 8.
* That means that should the town so choose Newton can set a limit on the maximum number of shot as low as 8. Note, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that there would be 8, only that there could be up to 8.
* Independent of any numerical limit, the fairly constrained zoning rules also effectively impose a different kind of limit on the number of stores by limiting where the city will allowed them.
* At the moment the city has yet to impose a limit on the number of stores but they clearly have signaled an intention to do so – either 8, or lower if the 2-4 referendum passes.
* Under any/all of these, no one is dictating a minimum number of stores in newton. If a limit is enacted it will dictate the maximum number of stores allowed but not require that many.
When you state “you should not expect to find these adult-only shops in Newton’s village centers” and then show a map with my village center (Auburndale) highlighted as a potential site, I’m unlikely to find the rest of your argument convincing.
Some of us just don’t want a pot shop a few blocks from our house, which really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Allie – The two oranges are very similar, making the mapn. difficult to read but the A’dale location is a BU4 location The stores would go in BU2 zoned locations.
The proposed Elliot Street site would not eliminate the second Elliot Street site where the three-in-one convenience store used to be or the Chestnut Street Site near Pettee Square and the Braceland playground. However it would apparently prohibit shops in most of the existing vacancies on Needham Street.
Poor economic development planning and poor zoning in my view.
I don’t know the geography of Welles Avenue as well as I do my own neighborhood. but it seems to me that the restriction could be waived for a use that would probably be beneficial to many of the existing uses. As to the statutory restriction to proximity to schools, I would assume that the 500 foot restriction would still allow for shop some in that area. It would probably help stimulate demand for the food trucks.
By the way, Jane rightly corrected me about an error in a previous post. Shops would not be allowed in the manufacturing districts that are in so many village centers. I was confused by the multiplicity of other marijuana related uses that would be allowed. I don’t think there’s any demand for any of these uses in Newton. It would be less complicated to only amend the Zoning Ordinance to cite medical and recreational shops.
The City Council has discussed a zoning ordinance for adult use marijuana which contains a maximum of 8 shops in Newton. (This ordinance was heard on Sept 24 by the Zoning and Planning Committee and is ready to go to the full Council for a vote as soon as the election is over). This is the lowest number allowed by state law unless the citizens vote to lower the number. We are required by state law to provide sufficient meaningful places to put adult use shops or our ordinance would not be accepted by the state.
I have talked to many people from states that currently allow adult use. I asked one woman in the Dept of Public Health in Oregon (whom I had called to find data on teenage use) whether there was an adult use shop in her town. She said yes – I asked her what happened there, was she scared to go there? Were there kids hanging around? Were the police frequently called? Was there Trouble with a capital T that rhymes with P that stands for Pool? (sorry I didn’t ask her about Pool). I wanted to get a sense for how she felt about this shop. She said she never went there but it was totally quiet and caused no problems in the town. I got similar answers from whomever i called, including the son of one of my Tufts college friends who works in one in Denver.
I imagine this is what life was like when they were deciding to prohibit liquor. The prohibitionists scared the public that liquor was the foundation of all our problems and the ruination of society – hence we got prohibition. And then had it undone years later.
Our marijuana zoning ordinance was done with care to protect our citizens and to put a store – which is what an adult use shop is – in a place where it was appropriate. As we all know – our zoning code is OLD and we are in the process of updating it. Most of our Villages are Business 1 where adult use shops would NOT be allowed. There are small smatterings of Business 2 in a couple of our villages. We will be able to straighten this out in the new code. In the New code there will be Village specific codes that will apply to a whole village so we can fix those smattering of B2’s in villages and get them out of there. Please don’t forget that any marijuana shop whether it is medical or adult use has to get a special permit. There was so much public uproar about the proposed shops in Newton 4 corners and Newton center that those two proponents have gone on to greener pastures in other towns. This public uproar often stops special permits from even being filed as they did in these two instances. The petitioners knew the road to success was far too difficult.
People in Newton want to and no doubt will purchase marijuana in adult use stores. OON wants them to drive to Waltham, or Watertown or Belmont or Natick or Brookline or Boston or to all the other cities and towns that will be allowing them. So – more cars on the road driving hither, thither, and yon (wherever that is) to purchase what could be purchased right here in Newton.
I’m so tired of hearing about how Weston and Wellesley and Needham won’t be selling marijuana. With the exception of one or two shops recently opened in Needham there are no liquor stores in those towns either. They are and have been driving to Newton to buy liquor. Is anyone upset over that? Have we noticed huge traffic jams all these years because of that? I’m sure the Newton liquor stores are very happy that those towns sell no liquor.
For OON, the sky will fall and Newton will go straight to the dogs if we open any adult use shops in Newton. I’ve stood at City Hall and listened to the dire consequences described by OON about our future. As far as I can tell from my many many conversations with people in other states – the only dire consequences from NOT having shops in Newton is that all Newton’s tax revenue will be going to our neighbors. Frankly, I don’t care if the dollar amount is $200,000 or $2,000,000 – Newton could use that revenue. The schools need the money, our roads need the money, our parks need the money etc.
I have heard many adult use shop supporters say to me during this campaign – don’t come to me asking for an override for the schools if you turn this revenue down. I understand why they are saying this.
I don’t use marijuana (although I have gotten several emails saying nasty things about that to me). I tried it once in college many moons ago – like many of us and haven’t used it since. I know that in 2016 Newton voted to approve retail shops by a large majority and I respect that vote. I’ve done my research and learned that the sky does not fall when a city or town allows it. Teenage use goes down. Oh – and yes – when Canada made adult use legal in the whole country they trained all their police on a new test which does tell if people are driving under the influence – google it if you don’t believe me. The rest is up to the voters.
Thank you, Susan, for this reasoned explanation about where shops will be located, the overreaction on the part of OON members, and the need for revenue in the city.
Many OON supporters are very wealthy and can send their kids to private schools if school funding means that programs are cut or can privately access services that are cut from the budget. They need to understand that this is not an option for most families in the city. Most Newton families need the schools to be as well funded as possible.
We’ve all heard about the doctors and lawyers who are part of OON and how their opinion is somehow more important than the rest of us. I’m not buying it. When I mentioned to one OON member that I had been a HS teacher, that I had been one who looked in the eyes of teenagers on a daily basis, who spent a great deal of time assessing whether my students might be high- this meant nothing to her- she totally blew me off. Once again it was all about what the doctors had to say. This is just one more class battle in Newton. West Newton Hill is totally against having shops that won’t even be anywhere near their homes. I find that to be distressing.
As for the future of any future override that WNH votes for in large numbers, many others have noted the wealth of the people who make up OON, and I count myself as one who will vote no on any override other than one that rebuilds a school on the northside of the city or Countryside School.
Thank you Councilor Albright. I was already a fan of yours because you’re one of the only councilors who has been outspoken about wanting to end the parking ban and your support of the marijuana shops has been impressive. Thank you for looking out for Newton’s best interests! Now let’s get these pot shops in place and let’s end that parking ban!
There is lot to comment on Jane’s post, but I’d like to address the “class battle” aspect first.
In my eyes, it’s not RFSN against OOP; it’s super-rich marijuana investors who bought themselves a new industry against a group of concerned citizens who just want to preserve Newton’s reputation and avoid unnecessary risks for their children’s sake. These citizens don’t accept $60 per year (at best) as the reward for taking these risks, even those of them who don’t live on West Newton Hill.
Marijuana tax is a regressive tax. On the other hand, anything that shifts the burden of common expenses towards wealthier people (for example, residential exemption) is a nonstarter in Newton.
This is briefly the class angle of the problem as I see it.
Anatoly, You’ve just agreed that it’s a class battle. As you said the super wealthy contributors to OON, and others, want to “preserve Newton’s reputation” – code for they don’t want to let what they consider the rif raf in.
It’s a class battle refusing money the city needs for public education and other things because the wealthy don’t need to worry about those things.
The other class battle is again the wealthy making decisions for the city – telling everyone else that they know what’s best for them. (And I agree this goes with the reason for the parking ban.)
Sorry, Anatoly, but the OON financial report speaks for itself. OON is a group of very wealthy people who want Newton to be like Weston or Wellesley. We’re not that. We’re a diverse community with diverse economic means and needs.
If we regulate the sale of cannabis in highly regulated shops, we receive significant revenue that can help maintain the programs and services that serve all Newton residents. If we ban it, we send the revenue to Brookline to support their programs and services. It’s as simple as that.
I’m uncomfortable with Jane’s decision to discuss this along class lines. It does nothing to further the substantive decison before Newton voters next week.
Good people see this issue differently. That’s all. There’s enough divisiveness in politics.
Greg, I would generally agree with your good people disagreeing statement but for some reason unknown to me OON has become agressive in their behavior both outside the polls and behind the scenes. Yelling lies at people just trying to go about their business. Putting fake names on the RFSN supporters list and now using fake names to volunteer to hold RFSN signs at polling places on November 9. These opponents are not acting like good people; their using underhanded tactics to attempt to get their way however divisive they can be.
In this case, let’s move from class struggle to semantics. Jane wrote “assessing whether my students might be high”. Jane, would you consider replacing in your vocabulary word “high” with word “intoxicated”? It took a tremendous effort to uncool tobacco in the eyes of our kids Shouldn’t we learn lessons and choose appropriate words?
Anatoly,
It wont be long until you see kids ‘vaping’ weed, it will looks as ‘cool’ as tobacco did in 1920’s. Since there is no test for weed, I’m assuming kids cannot be kicked out of class for ‘looking’ high?
There’s really nothing Newton can do to stop this ‘cool’ trend. Parents will have to decide how to raise their own kids
Greg – I wish you’d made the same statement during the charter campaign last year.
More importantly, during the early part of this campaign OON spent weeks portraying RFSN as a well funded ballot committee. that we had paid for a poll, were taking industry money, questioned where we were getting our funding. Now the truth is out – we’re a bunch of local citizens with a position on a ballot question and not much money behind us and OON has 8 times the amount we have.
Is it disturbing to me that these unfounded accusations were made against RFSN? Yes. Am I offended that my position is called a “sham”, deceptive, and worse? Yes. Yet no one stood up and said you’re going too far. A few of us were left here on our own defending ourselves against untrue accusations. Would it have been nice to have a few defenders on V14 – sure would have.
I guess I’m even more troubled that Newton has so much trouble discussing economic class. It’s the one ism that remains unspoken and yet touches our community deeply every day. One of the privileges of being a public school teacher is that you interact with people from all walks of life, talking with them about issues of huge importance to them – you’re pulled out of your silo of like minded friends and acquaintances. And yes, I believe that people from all walks of life are good.
Anatoly – I don’t care what term you use – high school teachers are on the lookout for students who may have used an illegal substance.
When I went to high school in the 90s, lots of kids went to class stoned. And it was always pretty obvious who was stoned. It was SO easy to get weed in my middle class suburban town. I never even smoked pot back then, but I knew exactly who to ask to get it and there were A LOT of kids I could get it from. Things aren’t going to change much.
I agree with Greg. Trying to align the pot store ban as primarily a class issue is misguided I think. I don’t see any evidence that the pro/con on the pot ban aligns with class boundaries.
@Jane – I agree that there was endless unsubstantiated and unfair innuendo on V14 about RFSN’s funding by a few relentless commenters. I also remember a fair amount of people pushing back against the BS. I chalk that up, for better or worse, as business as usual on a blog.
Jerry, the gloves are already off with OON taking as many underhanded swings as they can.
They were at the early voting polling places shouting lies at seniors getting off their shuttles. They get right in your face and yell at you.
What they are doing is worse than innuendo on V14 – first off it was downright accusatory – and kept going.
Additionally, the opposition has placed fake names on the supporters list on the RFSN website.
Now that Election Day is upon us, RFSN is having people hold signs at polling places. Thinking the time slots have been filled by volunteers – today two names have been outed as fake names placed there by the opposition.
I don’t think supporters are being devisive but OON certainly is.
Sorry you’ve had some pranksters. That can be annoying for sure. OON has had our share of shenanigans, name-calling, bullying, threats, sign-stealing, false accusations and a lot more. It will be nice when this is all over!
People get upset when you try to take away their rights. Especially when they voted for those rights at the ballot box…
This revote is an unprecedented attempt to literally steal an election. The conduct of our elected officials has been a disgrace. Remember all the bullshit from the Mayor and City Council that they needed a moratorium in order to plan cannabis zoning? What they were actually doing was devising a scheme for a revote to overturn the 2016 ballot initiative that instructed them to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.”
Laurie – All campaigns have pranksters. This went far beyond that. I wouldn’t have said a word about it if I hadn’t been accused repeatedly of taking big money, felt quite badgered frankly, and didn’t really hear all that many people coming to my defense. A comment here and there, but no one really standing up to the badgering. You could have put an end to it, but you chose not to. As a result, I’ve felt perfectly comfortable pointing out out what I see despite what the guys think. I think we’ll all be glad when Tuesday is over.
As mentioned above, we have been falsely accused of many things, and continue to be. I’m sure you have too, though I try not to waste a lot of time on blogs reading the type of snark that is common here. I think voters are generally more concerned with things that affect them, and we will continue to try to reach out to them on those issues. You can choose to focus on whatever you want to focus on.
Laurie, “I try not to waste a lot of time on blogs …” Every time I open V14, I see a new comment from you.
On this blog, many have debunked the studies and pronouncements OON has made, including me, but it’s almost impossible to do the same at polling stations – not only because of the in-your-face shouting but now because of using fake names to volunteer to hold signs Nov 6 leaving RFSN scrambling to find more sign holders in 3 days.
Voters are definitely more interested in things that affect them, that’s true. But OON is at the polling places loudly exclaiming scary lies to voters about how these stores will affect them, drowning out anyone trying to counter with the truth. During early voting OON seemed more like the angry protesters standing outside Planned Parenthood instead of politely reaching out to voters explaining how the issue of retail marijuana stores might affect them.
As all campaigns do, so will we, along with the other state ballot questions and candidates. It’s no picnic running a campaign and, as we all learn every fall, people are willing to say and do just about anything as Election Day closes in.
Jane, What matters to me most is that RFSN has run a respectful campaign and taken the high road even when others have not. I for one greatly appreciate your public service and your integrity.
Dulles, thanks for your support of RFSN. I wholeheartedly agree that Jane has done a remarkable job of running a respectful campaign. RFSN would never use the tactics OON continues to use. Integrity is still important in this crazy world.