Update: Both pot shop questions have been defeated.
With 20 out of 32 precincts reporting, I think it’s safe to say that the questions to ban and limit recreational pot shops in Newton have been defeated. Stay posted as final results come in.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
This error message is only visible to WordPress admins
Error 403: Requests from referer https://village14.com are blocked..
Domain code: global
Reason code: forbidden
It looks like there were a lot of people wearing those socks tonight ;-)
To repeat what I wrote on an earlier thread: Congratulations to Newton’s voters for not falling for the NIMBY Prohibitionist arguments or the City Council’s silly limitations. No ban! No limits! Treat marijuana like alcohol, just as the voters said in 2016, reaffirmed tonight. Let’s get these stores up and running and bring the tax dollars into Newton’s coffers. A chance for Mayor Fuller to be a leader in terms of how MA communities implement this law. Hopefully now that it’s a settled issue in Newton she won’t be the too conservative coward she’s been on this issue thus far.
LET FREEDOM RING!!!
In your face, Opt Out!
I’m sure there are some folks — including people who’ve spent a lot of time on this site –who are disappointed tonight.
However, I’m just as confident that once these highly-regulated, secure, legal businesses open, we will experience none of the negative impacts opponents feared.
Meanwhile we will be able to benefit from significant new tax revenue to pay for needed city and school services.
@MMQC – sore losers, not so good. Sore winners, even worse
In this instance I really don’t care. Opt Out used vile tactics and their behavior on V14 was despicable. The fact that their lies and nastiness failed them is delicious.
I’m just glad this is behind us. Time for these entrepreneurs to get to work.
If the current results hold it appears that 45% of voters wanted to ban marijuana stores and 55% did not.
I, for one, am disappointed.
Peter Kay, that reflects the vote on legalizing recreational mj. So what was the point?
Newton soon may have both “Demon Rum” and the “Bewitching Weed”.
Yo, Jerry Reilly, who appointed you commissioner of post-election behavior? MMQC’s reaction is 100% valid. The OON folks were in your face disingenuous from minute 1. Good for MMQC for her celebratory reaction. Good for Newton especially, cuz in terms of what was best for the city, the right side unquestionably won.
Stick a roach clip in them. The ban and the sham are DONE!
Looks like Newton voters confirmed they like their pot!
Claire, I do not understand your question.
I would caution that, assuming relatively few people voted “yes” to both ban and limits … it’s almost certain more people voted for a ban, and more people voted for limits, than the voting body who rejected both measures.
Hindsight being 20/20, if OON had tolerated compromise as a personal decision among its members rather than attacking it every opportunity, this evening we’d be discussing the provisional licenses of the initial cap of 2 stores, instead of speculating how many, how soon.
Interesting point Dulles. A strategic mistake by Opt Out?
Here’s hoping our City Council keeps the will of Newton voters in mind when it comes to the inevitable NIMBY battles when these legal, highly-regulated, secure, voter-approved businesses appear for permitting.
Also thank you to RFSN, Jane, Patricia, and the Councilors who believed in compromise. That choice was nearly taken away before people got to vote on it. We can now see by the numbers that the appetite for compromise was as strong as proponents for the ban.
I am sorry that RFSN did not win today. I believe it would have been best in the best interests for the City of Newton to be able to restrict and carefully vet recreational dispensary applications. But that vision did not carry the day.
I’m sure that the numbers for the 2-4 limit were elevated somewhat because of voters like me, who voted for it as an insurance policy in case OON got over 50 % of the vote. Had that occurred, the 2-4 limit would have needed 51% for there to be any cannabis shops in Newton. I was hedging my bets, especially since I knew that the 2-4 limit was not binding, and could be raised at a later date.
We want to thank the voters of Newton for their careful consideration of the two local ballot questions. For the fourth time in ten years, Newton voters have spoken decisively in favor of legal, regulated cannabis sales and use.
We are confident that our city council, guided by tonight’s vote, will make wise decisions concerning cannabis sales in Newton.
@Dulles, you are spot on. The fix was in when the Mayor and City Council set up the ballot where there were effectively three choices – Ban (No, Yes), 2-4 limit (Yes, No) and 8+ stores (No, No). A three-way choice effectively makes it impossible for any of the three to get above 50%. But “8 stores” didn’t need to get 50%. They only needed to make sure Ban and 2-4 didn’t get 50%. Of the three choices, “8 stores” probably had the lowest support, but they win since they are the status quo.
We pointed out that this was the likely outcome to the Mayor and the City Council when they were debating their ballot set up but they made their choice. Some because they didn’t understand the math, and some because they wanted 8 stores to win.
But we will now have up to 8 stores, and I sincerely hope that all the proponents are right that they will be benign and the city will make a lot of tax revenue. Maybe they’ll even help us all chill out! If that is the outcome, I think we will all be satisfied eventually. If that is not the outcome, then we will have to live with the consequences.
@Laurie – “there were effectively three choices – Ban (No, Yes), 2-4 limit (Yes, No) and 8+ stores (No, No).”
And the numbers show that people reaffirmed the 2016 vote – legalize and treat similar to alcohol.
I just re-read your “Some because they didn’t understand the math” comment – really? Again the argument is made that Newton voters are somehow too dimwitted to get what is put before them?
And finally, not to nitpick, but “we will now have up to 8 stores” is incorrect – it should read “we will now have possibly 8 or more stores” (not that I think that Newton will attract or be able to support that many).
I voted for a limit purely as a strategic vote against the ban proposal. Honestly I am fine with a limit of 4 or as many as legally can happen. Glad Newton voters saw the same thing.
Banks, coffee, marijuana shops are going to be the only retail in all these new buildings. Like…..helllllooo Washington Street, man….what’s happenin?
Laurie – what??? This has nothing to do with “the math” or confused voters. These were two independent questions. If the majority of Newton voters had wanted a ban, then a majority of those voting would have voted Yes for the ban. They didn’t. Instead, a majority voted No, and a majority also voted No on the 2-4 limit. “No change” clearly had the most support.
@Patricia, I did not say the voters didn’t understand the math. I said that SOME of the City Councilors did not understand the math when they decided to effectively put three options on the ballot, splitting the vote three ways, and expecting that one of them had any chance of getting over 50%.
It is clear that the LEAST popular choice (8 stores) prevailed because of the design of the ballot questions. However, it is also clear that a majority of voters want some number of stores, and that is what we will get.
Laurie, there were TWO questions to change the current law, and they were independent, so there was no “vote splitting”. “No” carried decisively on both, so it’s clear – again – that the current law has the most support. Arguing anything else is silly.
#notmyweed …. sorry, could not resist. Hopefully this blog can finally move on to other topics
@Laurie – sorry, my mistake for missing that you meant that only “some” city councilors are not that sharp.
The results are pretty clear – and I have to say to me a bit surprising (but not in a bad way) – that Newton voters did not want a ban, and they did not want to limit the number of stores either.
Yesterday, 2-4 still had a coalition of people like me who preferred a middle ground, joined by many more who were willing to hold their nose and vote for compromise. A spectrum of people who were against the ban were willing that day to vote for compromise.
It got votes because Opt Out Newton had the threat of a ban as leverage.
This morning there’s no more threat of a ban. With that goes voter leverage on compromise. The opportunity for compromise yesterday was a unique moment; it failed because ban proponents rejected it.
I see as fallout: Limits are now officially rejected by citywide vote. That means a potential fallback position of limits and controlled market entry has already been asked, and been voted down. Any limits vote would now be a do-over. I see no appetite for yet another do-over.
And additional fallout: After the tone of Opt Out Newton’s campaign for the last 6-8 months, I don’t see compromise advocates joining hands with Opt Out Newton’s leadership, even if it’s for building a coalition of mutual interest.
Ban proponents voted en masse for 8+ stores over “sham” 2-4. I don’t agree with that position. But it’s over and done.
They went low, we went high
It’s only Wednesday but I’m pretty sure Yuppie just won comment of the week
This thread is boring. All the colorful characters seem to have disappeared.
@YS. Don’t you mean, “They got low, we got high”?
So, can we have a pot shop now? Kinda sad to see village centers full of bank branches.
Laurie, it’s hard to believe that even after the vote tallies are in you are still proclaiming to all that the preferred outcome didn’t win and that the councilors didn’t know what they were doing. Give it a rest and move on into your tower.
My preferred outcome won – sticking with the regs that came out of the 2016 vote.
Newtoner—
The whole “village centers are filled only with bank branches” belief is incorrect. There are also plenty of nail salons.
Local politics at its worst
As predicted, Newton voters were confused by multiple ballot questions, and although the majority of voters may have supported some sort of limit on marijuana retail shops, the big marijuana industry won. Mayor Fuller claims that the majority of Newtonites supported no limits. She is wrong.
Here are the vote numbers:
Yes No
Limit 18167 20,719
Ban 18203 21674
This looks like 42,393 people supported no limits, and 36,370 people supported some limits, but let’s look closer. Opt-out Newton and City Councilors who had opposed the ballot measure told supporters to vote “yes” on ban, and “no” on limits. The limits side had been told the same thing. So that means that the majority of “no” votes on both measures likely came from people who supported either a ban or a limit. To clarify, let’s assume that all the people who voted yes on ban voted no on limits, and vice versa. Subtracting the number of people who voted yes to one side and no to the other, we are left with only 6,023 people who voted no on both. This means that about 18,000 Newtonites wanted some sort of limit (either fewer stores or an outright ban), and 6,000 voters wanted 8 stores. It is possible that some people voted “yes” to both limits, but we do not know the truth. The only way to know how many Newtonites actually supported 8 stores is to see how many individual voters voted “no” to BOTH questions. This information should be released to the public immediately so we know the true will of the Newton community.
I, for one, would be willing to get together the ban group together with the limits group (whom I believe represent the majority of citizens) to continue to fight.
Rebecca,
When I see that 21,674 people voted against the ban and 20,719 voted against limits, here’s my interpretation; 21,674 voters did not want a ban and 20,719 voters didn’t want limits. It’s that simple. Any other interpretation is a failed effort to find a narrative that suits your opinions.
There’s no fight to continue.
Lesson learned: just because someone tells you how to vote doesn’t mean you have to listen.
Poor Rebecca, there is nothing left to fight for.
The ballot questions were not confusing even though some continue to beat that drum. Newton voters are pretty smart cookies and it’s not that easy to confuse them.
At the bottom of each question on the ballot, there was a sentence telling the voter what would happen if one voted for yes or no. Not confusing at all.
You don’t get to rewrite the vote because you assume voters didn’t know what they were doing. The vote is over. The city fulfilled their duty. There will be no more voting on this issue.
The votes plainly show that both the ban and limits lost – meaning the majority has spoken again to sell regulated, adult-use marijuana in retail stores in Newton up to the prescribed limit.
The “unofficial results detail” document (link at City of Newton Elections web page) states that the turnout was 40,831. There were separate state and municipal ballots, but the turnout figure means that there were AT MOST 40,831 municipal ballots cast.
A majority of 40,831 is 20,416 or more voters.
20,719 voted no on limits, 21, 764 voted no on the ban; these are both majorities of the turnout numbers and so must be majorities of the ballots cast.
There were 38,886 votes cast on the limits question, 39,967 on the ban. So there were fewer than 2000 people that voted on only one question and not the other.
There is no honest or accurate way to come up with a scenario using the unofficial results that shows a majority of the voters, confused or not, were somehow in favor of limiting or banning retail marijuana.
@Bruce @Rebecca, you’re both all wet. Gail is right. What the ban vote tells us is that 21,674 neighbors and friends of yours are against a ban on sale of recreational marijuana in Newton. It is time to move on.
We’ll have our signs down by the end of the day tomorrow, then I’m moving on. Enough is enough – where’d I hear that expression recently?
Congratulations to OON for successfully defeating 2-4 and to RSFN for successfully defeating Opt-Out….
Both ballot committees went 1-2 on their stated objectives.
Looks like RTV has a couple more contributors to report in January on their final report.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/marijuana/2018/11/06/newton-voters-weighing-recreational-marijuana-questions/rb6ArOkxN8X1jJczgQBjKI/story.html
@Ted: Actually I was disagreeing with Rebecca but I’ll take the wet label since I wouldn’t vote to make Newton dry.
I’m actually quite proud of this city I have come to call my home. Opt-out, similar to the Charter yes campaign last year chose to wage deceptive, manipulative, dishonest campaigns … And both lost. It’s encouraging to see that voters are not as maliable, gullable and uninformed as we may look
I actually have some sympathy for the concerns raised by those who oppose legal pot and support OON. But most voters did vote yes on legalization. And the arguments raised, and the way in which they were presented were at best confusing and absurd, as if it were the product of a committee of lawyers. At worst OON came off as haughty and condescending, with a strong whiff of NIMBYism. The only thing to conclude is that OON wanted to relitigate the 2016 referenda hoping for a different result, having been caught by surprise at its passage. It didn’t work. The voters weren’t fooled. It’s time to move on.
@Mike – I think your recall of the Charter yes campaign is incorrect.
@Gail and @Ted Hess-Mahan are correct the numbers speak for themselves. This is a closed deal and now we work on the zoning and locations based on a variety of factors. One important point to those critizing Opt Out. Organizers and members of Opt Out did exactly what they should have done as concerned citizens and voters that had obvious concerns, and with no money at stake in the outcome!!! Those attending the hearings and reading the emails could quickly see that these residents have legitimate personal concerns, and fears about allowing retail sales period, and not just in Newton. The marijuana question/answers are fluid and one can find opinions supporting both sides (Facts can be suspect), and that someone passed along online information to defend their position doesn’t mean they had malicious intent. As a City Councilor, my goal was to do what Opt Out accomplished and get this item on the ballot for the final say. The approximately 50% of Opt Out voters from last Tuesday are just as entitled to representation as are the big money retailers.
Now lets move on and maintain our quality of life in the community through strong controls.
@Andrea if you recall we had hundreds of discussions and posts regarding the Charter campaign.
My opposition to the Charter campaign and my opposition to the opt-out campaign we’re both fueled by what I saw as a dishonest miss representation of facts. It’s not what they were trying to achieve but how they chose to play the game that I object to. Some may argue it’s just politics, but I happen to believe it matters. And in both cases l believe contributed to their defeat.
@Ted I agree and think OON took it beyond NIMBY as their argument seemed to be pot=bad versus concerns about any zoning ordinances or otherwise anything specific to Newton. OON called me dishonest on Twitter for pasting the 2016 results by precinct, then blocked me before calling me me a schill for marijuana industry.
I do think there was potential for some ballot confusion between the 2 questions but it’s difficult to sympathize with folks who struggle to make their case in good faith.
Mike Ciolino I agree with you 100%. I met you when I knocked on your door on behalf of Scott Lennon and remember having a excellent conversation @the Charter Question. I feel the same about Opt Out. I have an issue with the tactics
2016 result: approx. 55% to 45%
2018 result: approx. 55% to 45%
What’s next, best 3 out of 5?
@Mike – I remember thinking some of the information presented by the “No” side of the charter was misleading and some of the tactics disingenuous, but we can agree to disagree. I am not rehashing that one.