The city council approved an “explanatory caption” for the medical marijuana charter amendment that will be on the November ballot.
Unfortunately, instead of informing voters of the true nature of the one-sided marijuana industry-drafted proposal, the council opted for a weak statement that may or may not actually appear on the ballot.
It says only that the proposal would “authorize” two marijuana provisioning centers that could operate from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week and would permit only medical marijuana sales, not recreational sales.
This is OK as far as it goes, but it does not communicate the true nature of the proposal.
It does not inform voters that the proposal requires (not just “authorizes”) the city to grant two licenses on a compressed schedule, that the city has no discretion to consider the qualifications of the applicants because the proposal contains a mandatory scoring system that the proponents made up for evaluating applications, that the licenses will be granted “in perpetuity,” that the city could never change this, that the licenses will be transferrable to others, and that locations can be moved with little control by the city.
Most importantly, the council’s statement doesn’t tell the voters that the proposal would preempt the city zoning ordinance, so that the two marijuana stores could be in residential areas and the sign regulations in the zoning ordinance wouldn’t be enforceable.
I’m not opposed to having a marijuana store in Clarkston, if the city can evaluate applicants and reasonably regulate it, but this proposal takes everything out of the city’s hands and lets the marijuana industry write the rules.
It is financed by undisclosed backers who already spent almost $4,500 to collect signatures and significant additional lawyer fees to force the proposal onto the ballot. They have the resources to continue to try to impose their will on the city. You can expect to see a wave of advertising that will pull on your heartstrings to just have a little place where grandma can get her medicine.
Even if your city council doesn’t want to take a strong stance, don’t be fooled.
This is a bad proposal and we can do better. Vote against it.
Richard Bisio
Clarkston