POLS FEAR BEGINNING OF `ZOMBIE' A-POT-ALYPSE
Seeking plan to disperse rec marijuana shops
Fearing a “zombie zone” of pot shops clustered together similar to Boston’s notorious former Combat Zone of strip joints, city officials are scrambling to devise a plan to spread out the 50 recreational weed emporiums the law would allow in the city should Question 4 pass next week.
The proposed measure legalizing recreational marijuana — which runs 25 pages — puts a hard floor on how many licenses a city must allow before capping pot outlets and sets a start date of January 2018, fueling concerns here and in other cities that eager applicants could take over neighborhoods.
“Look how long it took for us to get rid of the Combat Zone,” said at-large City Councilor Michael Flaherty, who said he wants to prevent pot shops from targeting business locations. “We don’t want to revisit a situation where one part of the city becomes the pot zone, the cannabis zone, the zombie zone.”
Mayor Martin J. Walsh, an outspoken opponent of Question 4, said on Herald Radio’s “Morning Meeting” show yesterday he’s concerned passage of the pot law could pack the city with weed shops before regulations restricting locations are set up.
“If this law passes, 48 pot shops can happen in Boston in a very short period of time. There is no zoning in the law, that means there is no zoning regulation,” Walsh said, with his staff later confirming the actual cap is 50. “The voters in Boston could do something to make some changes over time, but initially you’re looking at 48 pot shops. They’ll be able to be placed in every neighborhood in the city.”
Under the law proposed in the ballot measure, the minimum number of pot shops allowed in a city or town is based on 20 percent of its retail liquor and beer/wine licenses. Boston has 250 such licenses, meaning it would have to give the OK to 50 pot shops before officials could cap off applicants.
Jim Borghesani, spokesman for Yes on 4 organizers, said he thought the 20 percent floor was a good start.
The law calls for a new state board, the Cannabis Control Commission, to license pot shops with an eye toward weed outlets opening Jan. 1, 2018. Yes on 4 campaign manager Will Luzier said it’s possible outlets could open sooner, adding “we have every hope it will happen on the timeline of the initiative.”
City leaders will still have the ability to determine locations, Borghesani said.
“I think once people see our opponents are vastly exaggerating the impact of this, they’re going to say, ‘What were we worrying about?’ ” Borghesani said.
But Walsh and Flaherty said the lack of zoning specifics leaves the door open for shops to spring up willy-nilly around the city. Flaherty introduced a zoning law earlier this year that requires medicinal marijuana facilities to be sited at least a half-mile from each other, and said he would look to create a similar restriction on recreational shops if the question passes.
Boston’s Combat Zone — a sleazy stretch of strip joints and X-rated movie houses located between Downtown Crossing and Chinatown — had it’s heyday in the 1970s. It met its demise in the ensuing decade due to new development and a crackdown on crime.
Worcester Mayor Joseph M. Petty, also fretting pot-shop overkill, said cities need “greater local control over siting, zoning and licensing for these facilities. Question 4 is poorly conceived, will punish local communities and is simply bad public policy.”
Of the more than 9,000 words crammed into Question 4 these are some of the most troubling: “This act shall take effect on December 15, 2016.” As in, 37 days after the election. It’s one thing to support legalizing the sale and recreational use of marijuana, as many in Massachusetts do. It’s another to support the irresponsible drafting of this ballot question which is reason alone to vote “no.”
There have been discussions on Beacon Hill that, if Question 4 passes, lawmakers might tweak the language to avoid chaos (without violating the will of the voters). The Legislature, however, won’t reconvene until January.
Even without any legislative tweaks the new Cannabis Control Commission, which would have sole authority to regulate and supervise marijuana establishments, wouldn’t be up and running until March 1.
That commission isn’t required to file regulations — governing everything from issuing pot shop licenses, to packaging requirements, to rules for keeping the product secure — until Sept. 15.
So if Question 4 passes, for at least the next nine months count on simply living in a confusing haze.
There are a slew of other problems with the 25-page ballot question. There are no restrictions on the sale of edibles. Convicted pot dealers can own or work in pot shops. Buried in the dense text is language that says pot users can’t be disqualified from getting an organ or tissue transplant (one of many bizarre provisions voters miss by skimming the summary).
Meanwhile the price of acquiring a pot shop permit is set far too low. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh this week estimated that passage of the law would bring 48 pot shops to the city, in short order. Cities and towns may regulate the number of shops in their community, but that would require prolonged discussion and a vote — and by that time the horse may well be out of the barn.
Massachusetts voters may want fewer restrictions on the sale and use of marijuana, and so be it. But this ballot question is a dangerously flawed vehicle for getting there.