The Newton City Council has approved a moratorium on the retail sale of marijuana until the end of this year.
The council did exempt Garden Remedies, which currently operates as a medical marijuana clinic on Washington Street, from the moratorium.
City Council votes to delay recreational marijuana sales, with one exception
by Greg Reibman | Mar 8, 2018 | City Council, medical marijuana, recreational marijuana | 63 comments
While we’re at it, let’s decide that Bernie Sanders is our president. So what if the voters said something else!
@Newtoner: Great idea. Let’s “decide” that too!
BOO.
Can Garden Remedies ever be trusted? They chastised anyone who suggested they may have an interest in recreational marijuana. They said they were doctors and it was their life’s Work. They said whatever they thought the City Counselors and the community wanted to hear. Now they are running so fast to recreational to make money. I’d rather go to another town to get recreational marijuana instead of patronizing them. How can I even believe in their product if I can’t believe them?
NOT MY CITY COUNCIL!!!
I’m very angry today. Unfortunately, there’s not a darn thing I can do to reverse this disgraceful usurpation of democracy. It is mind-boggling that a group of local elected officials can overturn a state election. In doing so, they have revealed how little they really think of their constituents and the elections process…
Make no mistake, this is not an effort to delay implementation of the voter approved law. It is an effort to overturn it! Despite their rhetoric, key City Councilors know that by delaying implementation they are effectively putting everyone’s rights squarely in the crosshairs of Jeff Sessions and the Trump Administration. That’s the next shoe to fall. You heard it here first.
Is there a place where we can see which councilors voted and how? This will certainly impact how I vote in future municipal elections.
To be clear- Garden Remedies is exempted and would be able to apply for a license to sell, and sell, recreational cannabis before the moratorium ends? To the exclusion of any other business? I’m not sure what I thought the exemption would mean before it was actually a fact, but thinking about it now it seems like they are giving an unnecessary business advantage to one company (not to mention my agreement with those who believe the moratorium itself is unnecessary and a bad-faith move vis-a-vis the voters).
Wow, I thought weed smoking chilled people out… Massachusetts voted to legalize recreational pot but I don’t recall a vote on whether it should be sold in Newton. I have a feeling that vote would be a lot closer than the 55-45 the city voted to legalize. I’ve said it before, really not a problem for people who need to buy their weed to go to Brookline, Waltham, Boston, Cambridge, etc… Mind boggling how people on this board are so quick to toss aside the down side of increased accessibility to mind altering substances and other stresses this will place on our law enforcement and other first responders. No, it is not the same as alcohol, especially where it comes to increased availability for adolescents. Yes I know all the flawed rationalizations, kids already know how to get weed but why make it easier, especially for the ones who may be on the fence or haven’t been interested? It is not a harmless drug. For kids there are very real risks.
Just ask Congressman Joe Kennedy who has made it clear he does not endorse legalization:
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/03/08/joe-kennedy-iii-marijuana
And that’s my main beef with Kennedy. I otherwise like him, but I think he’s on the wrong side of history on this one and I hope his views on it progress.
I’m told that the Council vote to impose the moratorium was unanimous. If true, this means that every Councilor who was present substituted his or her own judgement in place of the stated will of the voters. Obviously this is not what voters expect when choosing elected officials. Hopefully a slate of challengers will emerge in the 2019 Council races who will pledge to uphold laws passed directly by voters.
Leopold: See the link below. Congressman Kennedy’s views are apparently undergoing the transformation necessary to put him in the Massachusetts mainstream, which needs to happen if he’s going to one day compete for higher office with Congressman Moulton, whose views are far more in tune with Massachusetts than Kennedy’s.
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/marijuana-opponent-kennedy-reconsiders-state-legalization-protections/?et_rid=1745377761&s_campaign=weed:newsletter
No, it’s not the same as alcohol – alcohol is much worse. But the solution to the problems drinking causes were not solved by banning it.
We have had a vote and Newton supported the legalization of recreational marijuana. Speculating the vote would be different now that it will be sold here is just that. Guessing doesn’t trump voting.
Does anyone know how the vote turned out? I’m putting Albright, Leary and Krintzman against because of their committee votes. Downs abstained in committee.
Marti, please don’t twist my words… I said there was a vote to legalize in Massachusetts, NOT a vote to actually sell it in Newton. Lets see what the voters say about that. Do you think that would be closer than 55-45?
Yes alcohol is a huge problem so lets compound it by adding increased access to mind altering substances with potentially devastating consequences for our adolescents. Just so people on this board can show how “progressive” we are… Makes no sense.
Also makes no sense that Congressman Kennedy should “transform” his position just for political gain. He has personal and professional knowledge on the damage this drug can do and the implications of increased availability on our youth. His position is right on target.
As one of Newton’s yes voters for this ballot question, I share the frustration with the delay of recreational marijuana to Newton but think the animosity towards our city council is misdirected.
First it was generally agreed that the language in the ballot quesiton was not optimal, then the state legislature spent close to a year making adjustments, followed by more delays from the cannabis commission, bringing us to where we are today.
Could the city have moved quicker? Perhaps? But if anyone is going to start an effort to unseat the incumbents behind this, focus your energy on Beacon Hill, not City Hall.
Greg, I disagree that it was “generally agreed that the language in the ballot question was not optimal.” In reality it wasn’t optimal to the Governor & the conservative MA House. By and large the majority of voters who supported Q4 seemed fine with the language and wanted it implemented on time. Regardless, while Beacon Hill fiddled, many other communities moved forward in preparation for siting brick and mortar stores, making decisions regarding zoning/taxing/devising host city agreements, while Newton did absolutely nothing. You can blame Beacon Hill if you want, but that’d be misguided, because Newton’s lack of preparation is directly the result of a combination of Mayoral & City Council inaction. If anyone wants to focus on replacing incumbents who disrespect the voters’ stated wishes, it’s our local officials who should be held accountable, not Creem/Balser/Khan.
@Gerry: Just saying it wasn’t a well written piece of legislation doen’t mean it was. I distinctly recall voting for it, in spite of well publicized concerns at the time that the bill had problems that would need fixing.
Wait, so can someone confirm that Garden Remedies is now the sole place in Newton to buy recreational pot?
Because that would be a big deal for those of us who were ok with putting it in Newtonville. It is one thing to be part of a city wide system, it is another to be the sole seller across a city as big as Newton.
That’s a small shop. It isn’t designed for exclusivity. The location isn’t optimal for that either. And I say that as someone who is ok with it being sold in Newtonville.
Yes. Garden Remedies is the only one at this time. They are Tiny. There will be long lines. They are too small. Zoning should require a larger facility. Can’t the City make any rules around the sale of rec? Can GR do whatever they want? I thought they were doctors looking to help people. Oh, that was not true. They just wanted a fast way to rec.
I completely disagree with Greg’s point about “animosity” toward the City Council being “misdirected.” These folks just cancelled a ballot box vote and stole an election. If anything, there should be more anger and animosity directed at them from people who value democracy. I don’t understand how anyone can be concerned about “Russian meddling” in our elections, but not be concerned about the City Council overturning an actual election…
No, I won’t be letting this go or cutting the City Council any slack. The Councilors who voted for a moratorium have demonstrated a complete lack of respect for me as a voter, and I will return the favor. Not by waiting two years to vote against them in the next election. Rather, by taking every possible opportunity to call them out publicly for this despicable usurpation of democracy.
Mike, I respect your passion here but a little perspective would be appropriate. The council did not ban recreational marijuana sales in Newton, they postponed retail operations from opening for six months. The council didn’t steal an election. They didn’t publish made-up incendiary stories designed to pit one side against the other. They did what — and I don’t love this but it’s true — governments large and small often do: add unfortunate layers of bureaucracy and regulations to a process. Not good. But not a threat to our democracy either.
Also, BTW, back in 2014 Councilors Baker and Cote both voted against Garden Remedies too. Mike I believe you live Councilor Baker’s ward, if you really want to make a statement: order some Striar for Ward 7 City Council signs and start running.
First – No one can sell recreational mj in Newton until after July 1. They must apply for a license, have a community meeting to discuss their plan, create a community host agreement with the city and create (or modify in the case of Garden Remedies) a special permit. It is not clear when Garden Remedies would be ready to open – they haven’t begun the process.
While it is impossible to find data on what cities and towns have done across the Commonwealth – From my searching, very few cities and towns (I have found less than 15 scattered here and there across the state and they are all small towns) are ready to go regarding the sale of recreational marijuana. In fact, State regulations were only deemed ready this week and ready for publication as of next week.
By exempting Garden Remedies from the moratorium – the planning department has the ability to work with a facility as they develop our ordinance and work out the elements of the community host agreement. We have already docketed the ordinance that allows us to tax marijuana sales.
The planning department has scheduled to bring the Council an ordinance for the first meeting in September. The Commonwealth took forever to get their work done. They have left the cities and towns little time to get their rules in place before the CCC starts accepting applications in April. The planning department has scheduled to bring the Council an ordinance for the first meeting in September.
No one wants to accept this on this list – but it takes time to put rules in place. Two weeks was not enough time. I get that it feels like forever since the ballot question passed. The state took forever to get its act together. We hope not to use all the time that was voted in the moratorium.
Susan, can you help me understand exactly what rules need to put in place other than “They must apply for a license, have a community meeting to discuss their plan, create a community host agreement with the city and create (or modify in the case of Garden Remedies) a special permit.” Thank you.
And…I don’t get the argument that other municipalities are delaying. Other municipalities can make poor decisions.
@Susan: I think the frustration is that other municipalities started sooner rather than later to begin the process. This is from the Brookline website: Local level: In November 2016, Brookline residents voted (60% in favor) to legalize recreational marijuana uses proposed by Question 4 including retail (sales to the ultimate consumer), manufacturing, cultivation, and lab testing uses. In response, the Town, through its Licensing Review Committee, has begun to consider various approaches for local regulation. The Planning Department, in particular, has been working on new zoning by-laws to regulate these uses. Some decision may require a town-wide voter referendum, whereas other decisions can be put in place through the adoption of by-laws at Town Meeting.
The goal is to file proposed local regulation by-laws for consideration at the May 2018 Annual Town Meeting so that measures can be in place once the State starts to issue licenses.
Greg– I’m old fashioned. I believe in democracy. Democracy does not work when elected officials disregard ballot box votes…
These City Councilors have no respect for the voters, and they will get none in return from me. And I’m certainly not going to sit on my thumbs and patiently wait for elections two years from now, when this injustice is taking place today. In fact, a moratorium has been in the works for months. I posted about it several times on Village 14…
Mayor Warren appointed a special committee whose sole purpose was to delay implementation of the new law. The committee did not have a single pro cannabis member. They met in secret with no public allowed to attend. They refused my written request to turn over their minutes and notes. It was their deliberate handiwork that provided the foundation for this pre-planned “moratorium.” Yes, this election was stolen!
NOT MY CITY COUNCIL!!!
Gail – Probably the biggest decision to be made is which zones will allow the sale of recreational marijuana (and given that, what areas are 500 ft from a k-12 school) and perhaps how close can one facility be to another. Every business zone? Every manufacturing zone? I’m pretty sure none of us want this in residential zones either single residence or multi-residence zones. The state has suggested that MJ should not be sold within 500 ft of k-12 schools. We may lengthen or shorten this requirement based on certain considerations – to be determined. For example – would a major roadway affect the distance from a k-12 school? Should we still keep daycare distance as a requirement (as we have with medical MJ)? Should we still keep the distance from a religious institution as a requirement (as we now have with medical MJ)?
Parking may be a consideration as might be proximity to public transit. For medical mj – we accepted the 500 ft from schools and added 500 ft from daycare or religious institutions. I’ve not been part of the city’s group until I became Chair of Zoning and Planning in January so I don’t know what other issues have been considered.
I’m not trying to say that other cities and towns are delaying so we should do the same. I’m just trying to say that we are not alone in delaying decisions about the sale of marijuana.
Mike – I understand your feeling that you were not allowed to be part of the discussion. A child psychiatrist who is against the sale of MJ in Newton wrote to me in the fall, saying that she was trying to be part of the conversation and was denied access. I spoke with the Director of Planning, who had been made the chair of the group, to explain that others want to be part of the conversation. I was assured that others would be allowed to be part of the group as soon as the regulations were available. As you know – the regulations will finally be available next week.
Thanks Susan.
Susan, first thank you for participating in V14 and Newtonville’s listserv to help keep Newton’s residents informed. Thank you also for all your doing to answer questions. I hope you’re not alone in planning to have an ordinance by September and that the date doesn’t get pushed yet again.
If this time is needed to get this ordinance ready, I hope it’s used wisely and not as time for those with complaints to organize against the law or to have another vote in Newton. It’s time to involve citizens who want the vote enforced to engage in the conversation and not just those against it. It’s time for transparency.
As for retail MJ regulations, I have never understood why religious institutions are included in the distance regulations. I don’t understand why 500 ft has been the magic number anyway. Or why these stores need special zoning or a special permit. They’re really not that special.
I hope the considerations you mentioned, zoning, parking, requiring a special permit and distance from schools (an arbitrary number) are not used to complicate or eliminate the purpose of the affirmative vote.
I’d be curious to hear more abut this secretive marijuana committee that was appointed by Mayor Warren. Apparently it was so under the radar that someone like me who pays lots of attention to Newton politics, and this issue in particular, never even heard of it! Given that Newton’s unpreparedness to implement the new law on time is directly related to Mayor Warren’s inaction (as well as that of the Council) it’d be important to understand his role. The vast majority of voters in the Democratic gubernatorial primary undoubtedly supported Q4. It should be pointed out to them that a vote for Mayor Warren would be a vote for a legalized marijuana opponent who did everything he could during his final year as Newton mayor to stonewall the process.
@Susan Albright – Like Marty Bowen, I question some of the unquestioned assumptions of the council. The councilors seem to think it’s self evident that they must weigh in and regulate “how close one facility can be from one another”, “whether a major roadway affect the distance from a k-12 school”. “Should we keep the distance from a religious institution.” “parking”, “access to public transit”, “special permits”, etc.
As of July this will be a legal commercial business in MA. We already have a body of regulation for commercial retail business. The council doesn’t weigh in on all these issues for every pizza shop and nail salon that opens in the city but the council can not seem to fathom the concept of treating these new legal businesses like very other retail use.
As for as ” I’m pretty sure none of us want this in residential zones either single residence or multi-residence zones”. That’s a red herring. Our existing zoning laws do not allow retail stores in residential zones without a special permit.
What struck me most when I sat in on the committee’s meeting a month or so back was not their ultimate vote but the deliberation. It amazed me that there didn’t seem to be a single voice (with the possible exception of Councilor Leary) that ever even countenanced the idea that as of July this would be a standard retail business and that our standard existing zoning laws could easily deal with them like they do with every other retail use.
Also worth noting, the one piece of work that the council was able to quickly, easily, and efficiently deal with well before the July deadline was the city’s taxing of these business. Somehow that was not so hard.
This absolutely sux
To reiterate, this moratorium was pre-planned after the vote legalizing cannabis was passed. Warren, never a cannabis supporter himself, appointed a committee under the guise of studying implementation of the new law…
The committee was populated exclusively by cannabis opponents, including councilors who had already voted for the previous moratorium on medical cannabis passed by the [then] Aldermen. So the pre-disposition of these anti-cannabis committee members was known to Warren when he appointed them…
There was not a single cannabis proponent or a representative of the cannabis industry included in the group. The committee’s recommendation for a moratorium was a foregone conclusion. Ruthanne Fuller, [also not a cannabis supporter] won the election–inherited the committee–and [rather than push-back] accepted its recommendation to pass a moratorium…
I believe Warren and Fuller’s intent was/is to push back the timing of implementation as long as possible, in order to wait and see if Sessions and the Justice Department are going to challenge any aspect of the voter approved law in Massachusetts. The minute there’s a lawsuit from Washington, it will be an excuse to extend the moratorium.
That is how you STEAL an election!
Thanks to Mike Striar for the background on how Mayor Warren’s sham marijuana committee came into being and how it apparently had a role in influencing Mayor Fuller to ignore the will of the voters and embrace this unnecessary moratorium that will cost the city thousands of tax dollars. Not exactly a great start for a new mayor whose campaign was based on her alleged fiscal management bona fides.
Thanks also to Jerry Reilly for reiterating that Newton need do nothing regarding zoning or otherwise regulating new marijuana businesses. All Newton need do is accept and impose the state’s regulations and open the city up for commerce, but instead our city government has done nothing to acknowledge this terrific opportunity to broaden our commercial tax base. No wonder the only new businesses that ever seem to open here are banks and nail salons! Shame on Mayors Warren & Fuller & the entire City Council.
I retired from working for the City on January 1 and am not even in Newton for the winter but I can’t let the disparaging of Mayor Warren and the committee go unanswered. The actions of the previous committee looking a medical marijuana have been consistently mischaracterized, and this discussion appears to be going in the same direction. These were working groups intended to set up a schedule so that Newton could implement both new laws. I was a forceful proponent of legalizing marijuana, spoke in support of Newton being a site for a medical marijuana dispensary (ask Karen Munkacy and Steve Bookbinder) and, as the Commissioner of Health & Human Services at the time signed the letters to allow any of the competing groups to open a dispensary in Newton that were required by the state to issue a license. I also signed several letters to the state of non-objection on dispensaries as Chief Administrative Officer in keeping with Newton’s votes to support the referendum. Neither the working group on medical marijuana nor the one on recreational marijuana advocated a moratorium but rather set out the steps needed and timetable to allow the City to consider zoning and other issues without having a moratorium. These decisions in both cases came from the City Council.
@Dori– Was there a vocal proponent of cannabis on Warren’s most recent committee? Anyone from the cannabis industry? Why was the public not allowed to attend meetings? Why did the committee refuse to release their communications, minutes and notes?
Working groups are not formal committees. The purpose of the group which included staff from different departments especially the Law Department was to study the state regulations as they were slowly issued in response to both referendums and to inform the Board of Aldermen/City Council of options and timetable. At least one Alderman served on the first working group and one City Councilor on the second to participate, to be fully apprised of the discussion, and to communicate with fellow elected officials. Committee meetings of the City Council are open to the public and generally accept public comment. Such was the case with the Zoning and Planning Committee around medical marijuana and advocates for medical marijuana spoke up strongly. I was not in Newton for the meetings related to the latest moratorium but the Council received a detailed memo from the working group in either November or December outlining the steps needed to be in place. That document was in a packet the Councilors received and should be available through the Clerk’s office.
Dori, with all due respect, you keep mentioning medical marijuana, but this has nothing to do with that, which has been legal for years now, with Garden Remedies up and running for quite some time. Over the past year Newton should have been making decisions regarding implementing the new recreational marijuana law the way other communities did, deciding whether to impose zoning to limit acceptable locations, discussing the local tax option, drafting community host agreements, etc, so when the state releases its regulations on March 15th the city would be ready. The notion that a working group “was to study the state regulations as they were slowly issued in response to both referendums ” is just not accurate as the medical regulations were long settled and the recreational regulations were always going to be released in March. So it’d be great to find out what was really happening in City Hall during 2017 regarding this issue. If a working group indeed reported to the Council last Nov or Dec “outlining the steps needed to be in place” then clearly the Council bears the brunt of the blame for no steps being put in place. Perhaps we might hear from new Council President Marc Laredo as to whether the council received that working group recommendation, what became of it, and why it’s taken the Council so long to do anything regarding this issue.
All the regulations, moratoriums, etc. are just delaying tactics by those that are against the retail MJ market. They are people and politicians that haven’t a clue other than that they are against it, and either are dishonest or disingenuous or ignorant of the FACT that alcohol is more addictive, worse for you and more dangerous than MJ. So by definition they could EASILY just say retail MJ has the the same rules and zoning as alcohol – and be done – but no, because this isn’t about FACTS it is about lies, about money, about paid off politicians and about making up issues simply to delay and try and defer the will of the voters who KNOW the facts and voted to make MJ legal in this state. There was a reason this only became legal through a ballot initiative, because the establishment of politicians tend to be cowards and unwilling to say or be honest. All the other nonsense and arguments are just hand-waving, and distractions. Yep, gotta keep MJ stores away from day-care centers – those toddlers will be looking to be a joint or two before pre-K.
Is this the interim report folks here are alleging was kept secret? I was able to find it pretty easily. (Found this too.)
Perhaps the reason folks feel like they were kept in the dark about this is not because Warren administration or City Council was engaged in some anti-marijuana conspiracy, but a reflection of the lack of working journalists covering City Hall.
Greg, I found those this morning too.
This is in the report from the working group, “It is important to note that the CCC will be governed by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of license application. Since the CCC will accept license applications on April 1, 2018, any amendments to the Newton Zoning Ordinance to prohibit, limit or otherwise regulate marijuana establishments must be adopted before that date unless the City Council should decide to adopt a moratorium (discussed in more detail below).” Obviously the City Council decided on the moratorium.
I also thought interesting the Clerk’s note (below)on establishing regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries. It lays out the state’s regulations and the ones Newton added. I don’t agree with the reasoning that produced the additional constraints. And I don’t understand why there needs to be more discussion to apply these to recreational marijuana retail stores.
“Clerk’s Note: The Chair of the Zoning & Planning Committee provided information regarding this docket item. She wanted to make sure that Board members had the information necessary to make a decision and noted that the moratorium that the Board had already approved will end at the end of this year. The State has put in place a number of regulations that guided the committee. Dispensaries must have trained medical staff, be a non-profit organization, and put up $500,000. There is an application fee of $35,000 and a number of other restrictions. The dispensaries must conform to local requirements and cannot be within 500’ of a facility where children congregate.
The Zoning & Planning Committee spent several months discussing the docket items around marijuana dispensaries, held two public hearings, and in the end approved the moratorium which the board voted on last month and the zoning changes which are before the Board tonight. The Chair noted the ordinance requires a special permit be obtained to open, and the businesses will be restricted to Business 2, Business 5 and Mixed Use 1 Areas which are areas that are not in village centers. The Committee also added to the restrictions that the dispensary cannot be within 500 feet of a House of Worship and that it must provide the names of the staff and management to the Police Department. The special permit application will also require a context map that shows the uses of properties within 1000’ of the proposed dispensary.
Concern was raised that if the City allows for the sale of marijuana, marijuana will end up in the hands of those that do not need it for medical reasons, including the youth of the community. There was also concern that former elected state officials are getting into the business of helping dispensaries to get established. Initial funding is coming from out of state money and it seems to be a lucrative venture for the lobbyists who are looking down the road to the potential for Massachusetts legalizing marijuana for recreational use.
Those in favor noted that the residents of Newton voted to allow the prescription of medical marijuana. Several Aldermen argued that without this ordinance in place, the City would not have the necessary control in locating the dispensaries. It was also noted that there is another docket item that will allow the board to look at even more restrictive controls and that there are far more dangerous drugs allowed in local pharmacies and liquor stores, which do not have buffer zones, then will be dispensed at medical marijuana facilities. These facilities will provide pain relief for those with debilitating diseases and the benefits outweigh the risks.L
Of course the “interim report”was made public. It’s the means by which the committee communicated with the City Council and it’s part of the public record. But that’s not what I requested. I requested the committees minutes and notes. The committee held every meeting in secret and refused my written request to release their minutes and notes. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why they didn’t want to release that material. If it would disprove my point that this moratorium was planned in advance, then they’d release the minutes and notes today.
Mike: Did you file a Freedom of Information act request? If so, you should have received a written explanation as to why your request was denied, which could have been appealed to the Sect. of State. And if the city did not respond in writing to your FOIA request, you could also file a complaint.
I will go back to my original comment, that’s why we need journalists covering local news.
I’m going to Portland, OR in a couple of weeks. I’ll check out the day care centers and report back if I see any three-year-olds smoking weed.
This Q&A from the Globe provides a general overview of where legalization stands in Massachusetts.
Thanks for posting this article Greg. I found these two paragraphs particularly interesting.
Why is this taking so long?
In December 2016, the Legislature delayed the start of recreational sales from January 2018 to July 2018. The Cannabis Control Commission has been working on regulations and setting up its enforcement operation since September 2017, when its five commissioners were appointed. To be fair, the commission hasn’t really been dragging its feet. Plenty of reasonable people disagree over the rules it has established, but the agency has been hitting all its deadlines. If there are supply shortages and only a limited number of retailers open in July, it will have more to do with the market factors and local control issues.
Where can I use marijuana?
It’s easier to say where you can’t use it: in public. Toke up on the sidewalk and you could get a $100 ticket. Also, you can’t use it while you’re driving.
Taking time to add arbitrary local regulations isn’t necessary.
Can the Council’s decision on the moratorium be vetoed by the Mayor?
200 pre-applications have been filed for approval to sell recreational marijuana. Without permission from local officials, they cannot receive a license.
Any progress made by our city council to report?
From the Boston Globe:
Under state law, two groups will have their applications for marijuana licenses processed ahead of other applicants: medical marijuana dispensaries that are already open …
Once qualified by state officials, operators in those groups can submit full applications beginning April 16. However, applicants must secure permission from officials in the community where they want to operate before winning a state license, and so far many Massachusetts municipalities have expressed reluctance to welcome recreational pot businesses.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/04/06/nearly-applications-filed-for-recreational-marijuana-businesses-mass/j18vt8agpvEYY3JnLCxOYN/story.html
I hope Marti’s post reminds Newton’s elected officials that people are continuing to watch the way they are mishandling implementation of the ballot initiative legalizing cannabis. I also hope people understand this moratorium was pre-planned…
As I reported several times on V-14 there was a special cannabis commission appointed by Mayor Warren and embraced by Mayor Fuller. It’s purpose was to design the moratorium that blocked implementation of the voter approved law, in a similar way that many of the same elected officials [Fuller included] blocked implementation of medical marijuana. The commision consisted only of people who were cannabis prohibitionists. They met in secret without any members of the press or public in attendance. They refused my written request to turn over their minutes and notes. If Fuller were to release those documents now, people could clearly see that the vote to legalize cannabis was stolen in Newton. The one mistake these people made was underestimating the public’s response, because this aint over yet!
And one more thing… City Councilor John Rice [who voted to ban cannabis] has yet to explain his presence with protestors attempting to block a new MEDICAL cannabis dispensary from opening at the old South Pacific site in 4-Corners. Rice’s attendance at the misguided protest was captured by a photo in The TAB. Rice’s apparent support for these protestors who are attempting to block patient health care access was [in my opinion] nothing short of despicable. The fact that no other elected “leaders” have publicly criticized Rice for his attendance shows how little respect the Mayor and City Council have for medical marijuana patients.
My (second hand) understanding is that Councilor Rice attended that event to observe (it is his ward). At one point he was called upon by one or more of the protesters to clarify the approval process. He never spoke against the proposed clinic. He only explained what happens next.
@Mike Striar – Much as I disagree with the folks who are protested the siting of the facility at the old South Pacific location, I have to disagree with you about John Rice’s presence being out of line.
Whether I agree with them or not … if enough citizens care enough about an issue to have organized a public protest I think its totally appropriate for a city councilor to show up to hear their concerns. I think that’s part of our elected representative’s job.
Jerry– I disagree with your explanation as well as your premise. How do you know why Rice was at the protest? How do you know what Rice said to the protestors? I’ve seen no public comment from him at all…
In my opinion, Rice’s duty as an elected official is to defend the rights of medical patients seeking legal healthcare in Newton, not appease misguided protestors who intimidate patients and impede access to their prescription medication. If this were about an abortion clinic would you see it the same way?
There’s a time and a place for everything. If Rice wanted to “hear the concerns” of these protestors, joining them at the protest was not the right way to go about it. Given that Rice voted to ban cannabis in Newton, I have a hard time believing his attendance at the protest was anything less than pandering for votes.
I had a conversation with John Rice and he told me that he felt that as Ward Councilor from Ward 5 he should be there since it is close to the border between Wards 5 and 6.
He was NOT there to advocate for OR against the site because he will be part of the special permit process to approve/reject the location.
There were statements made about the special permit process that were incorrect and John was asked to explain how it works. He went through the process and among other things, corrected the idea that Cheryl Lappin and Rick Lipof were part of an “inside deal” to get it approved. He explained that they were recusing themselves because they were related to the petitioner.
Councilor Rice was asked to speak, he was not appeasing, supporting or encouraging anything.
@”Terry Malloy”– Does Rice understand how intimidating this protest was to medical marijuana patients? He lent the credibility of his office to a protest designed to block their access to healthcare.
I’m not buying the hysteria Mike. It would be “intimidating” if the clinic was established and patients had to pass protesters to get medical care. But this site isn’t even approved yet.
I know you to be a free speech guy. Surely you don’t object to a group expressing views peacefully?
Greg– Maybe you’d understand the intimidation factor better if this were an abortion clinic rather than a medical marijuana dispensary. Would you be so sympathetic of the protestors if that were the case? And how would you feel about a City Councilor showing up at an anti-abortion rally? This protest was an attempt to curtail the availability of medical marijuana to medical patients in Newton. John Rice added injury to insult by showing up at that protest, and failing to defend the legal rights of cannabis patients.
With all due respect Mike, medical marijuana in Massachusetts is not going away and access is due to improve rapidly (and yes, rec mj should not have been delayed). I hope the South Pacific and Green Tea locations go through, but until then, there is a location less than two miles away. I do think you overstate conditions.
Marti – the Planning Dept has committed to bringing a draft ordinance for recreational mj to the Zoning and Planning Committee in July.
@Terry– Nearly a decade ago–when my wife Laurie was struggling with cancer, we had to travel to California in order to legally obtain the medical marijuana that made it possible for her to tolerate chemotherapy. Laurie didn’t live long enough to see the 2012 ballot initiative that legalized medical marijuana in Massachusetts. She would have been very disappointed in the reaction to that vote by the [then] Board of Aldermen, who passed a moratorium to block it…
Such action is not without consequence. The timing of that moratorium came at a critical point when the Commonwealth was set to issue the first round of medical marijuana dispensary licenses. State regulators had stipulated that those licenses would only be granted in communities that formally agreed to “host” a dispensary. Newton’s moratorium effectively resulted in a three year delay in patient access to medical marijuana in Newton. So when you tell me “access is due to improve rapidly,” I don’t share your rosy perspective or take that as any kind of guarantee…
I encourage you to look at the facts. City government has now blocked two ballot initiatives that reformed marijuana laws. There is not a single City Councilor [of 24] who has an unabridged history of supporting medical marijuana. Not a single elected “leader” who routinely stands up to defend the right of access for medical marijuana patients in Newton. So when I see a sitting City Councilor show up at an anti-MEDICAL cannabis rally, you can bet your bottom dollar I’m going to ask what the hell he was doing there. In my opinion, John Rice did exactly the wrong thing.
IMHO, Mike frequently overstates his case related to marijuana and in the process, makes it appear that this is an issue of importance to a small group of people in the city and that there are evil-doers, in this case, John Rice, trying to stop the process of opening dispensaries. That’s not the case and in the process, he does a disservice to those in need of medical marijuana.
That being said, the case for the moratorium was flimsy at best and the city council hasn’t clearly explained the reasoning behind the vote to residents. I’m not buying the explanation that the Planning Department said they needed more time. Over time, the council has been publicly critical of and disrespectful to this department. It simply doesn’t ring true that a request from this department for more time would receive a unanimous vote from the council.
This is the law and the city council should act on it as expeditiously as possible.
@Jane– You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I’m a vociferous advocate for medical marijuana patients. I make no apologies for that. I’ve explained my history with the issue, and the rationale behind my position. I’ve never before been accused by anyone of doing a “disservice” to medical marijuana patients, and I suggest you are totally inaccurate with that claim…
I think you’re bothered by the fact that I’ve been extremely critical of John Rice, a well liked member of the community and City Council. I don’t view John Rice as an “evildoer.” I think he made a bad mistake lending the credibility of his office to a misguided protest. The analogy I’ve drawn to an abortion clinic protest illustrates that quite adequately. [It’s worth noting that no one has yet challenged that comparison]…
I’d like to see John Rice speak for himself by commenting on this thread. I’m more than willing to have a civil discussion with him, should he choose to do so.
@Mike Striar – your analogy would only be apt if the protesters were standing outside an operating medical marijuana facility accosting patients.
Citizens protesting the future siting of a medical marijuana clinic, an abortion clinic, or a pizza,shop is something totally different.
Thanks for the feedback, Jerry. Allow me to clarify my point. I am suggesting that under the exact same circumstances–a proposed, but not yet operating abortion clinic–the attendance of a sitting City Councilor at that rally would be met with much derision in Newton. There would be a public outcry, and that councilor would be criticized by at least some his or her colleagues on the Council…
In my opinion, elected officials have an obligation to [first and foremost] protect and defend the right of patients to legal healthcare access, regardless of whether it’s an abortion clinic or medical marijuana dispensary. Attending a protest with the expressed goal of limiting that access was a mistake by John Rice. I think it’s important for Rice to not only acknowledge that mistake, but to also make some kind of public statement that unambiguously supports the right of patients to access medical marijuana in Newton.