The unidentified outsiders promoting the marijuana initiative distributed a deceptive flier to some Clarkston residents.
It’s full of lies.
First, it says their medical marijuana stores will “raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in new tax revenue.” Not true.
Medical marijuana stores—which is all that is on the ballot—don’t pay marijuana excise taxes and the state does not distribute revenue-sharing funds for medical marijuana stores.
The medical marijuana excise tax ended when recreational marijuana was approved.
Cities with recreational marijuana stores get revenue sharing from the state. Cities with medical marijuana stores get nothing.
Second, the flier says the medical marijuana stores will “redevelop blighted, abandoned, and vacant property in Clarkston.”
What property is that? There is no “blighted, abandoned, and vacant property” in our little half-square-mile city.
They don’t offer any specific examples because there aren’t any. They don’t give any details of where they actually want to have their two stores.
Apparently, what they want to do is to take over current business locations or, worse yet, locate in a residential area.
Finally, the flier says there will be “NO NEW TAXES.” Yet the proposal sets up a complicated, time-consuming procedure for the city clerk to administer and requires the city council to enact new ordinances and amend current ones to “facilitate” and “give full effect to” their proposal.
Who is going to pay for these additional duties of our part-time clerk?
Who is going to pay the city attorney to draft and revise ordinances?
You are.
Where is the money going to come from? Either by cutting back essential services in the city’s bare bones budget or by increasing taxes.
A civil discussion about allowing marijuana sales in Clarkston is appropriate. But not a takeover of city government by unidentified outsiders who don’t want to tell you what their actual plans are.
Who is really behind this?
Why don’t they come out from the shadows?
Why do they need to lie to get your vote?
Vote “no” on this proposal.
Richard Bisio
Clarkston