Pubdate: Mon, 22 Jun 2015
Source: Glenwood Springs Post Independent (CO)
Copyright: 2015 Glenwood Springs Post Independent
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/ys97xJAX
Website: http://www.postindependent.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/821

GLENWOOD'S POT RULES CAN'T BE A POPULARITY CONTEST

Any major new public policy is going to require adjustments as 
unforeseen consequences inevitably reveal themselves.

That's happening now in Glenwood Springs as the town grapples with 
how to handle a boom in applications for legal marijuana operations 
that exposed concerns about the city's rules.

Fortunately, the Glenwood City Council, which already is examining 
the issue, has a chance to make relatively rapid changes and get 
things right going forward. The council, which has been generally 
receptive to marijuana operations, needs to balance public concerns 
with the need for a predictable business environment.

It is on that latter point where the biggest flaw in city rules 
became obvious last week. City hearing officer Angela Roff rejected 
applications from two businesses that were, overall, in compliance 
with city code. However, the ordinance also requires that proposals 
meet "the desires of the adult inhabitants" of the town, and because 
several people opposed the applications at a hearing, Roff sided with them.

This is a dangerous precedent and a bad way to run a town.

The desires of adult inhabitants of town were gauged in the 2012 
election, when about 60 percent of local residents supported 
Amendment 64, which made recreational marijuana legal in the state. 
Moreover, the city had an election in April with a majority of 
council seats up, and no one made the town's direction on marijuana 
an issue. Had a true majority of Glenwood's adult inhabitants been 
agitated about the direction marijuana regulation was taking, an 
anti-pot candidate would have emerged or at least one person would 
have written a letter to the editor urging votes for candidates who 
would change course.

None of that happened, so it's up to the elected council to lead - 
not to defer to a squishy provision that lets one person be swayed by 
the loudest voices.

We have to question Roff's ability to truly gauge "the desires of the 
adult inhabitants" of Glenwood from a hearing on May 13 when the 
people who showed up, other than the business people applying for the 
new licenses, opposed the applications.

It will always be the case that opponents of particular proposals 
will be more motivated than people who are OK with the status quo.

The folly of this provision is easy to see if we apply the concept to 
all development proposals - what is the apparent will of the public, 
as best we can determine by who shows up at a hearing, starts a 
petition drive or distributes fliers - for a building, a zoning 
change or, say, a new bridge?

For purposes of illustration (recognizing that the provision doesn't 
apply here), if Roff had been asked to rule on whether the city 
should continue working with the Colorado Department of 
Transportation on a new Grand Avenue bridge, she would have pulled 
the plug based on comments at a November public information meeting.

A rule empowering NIMBYs, naysayers and anti-growthers would take 
Glenwood Springs down the path of Aspen, where residents last month 
passed a referendum that the Aspen Times said strips the City Council 
"of the ability to grant variances on height, mass, parking and 
affordable housing without a public vote."

That's a recipe for infighting and stagnation. Maybe that's fine for 
Aspen (though we doubt it, and it's not much our concern), but we 
want our council to set firm rules that residents and business people 
can count on.

Marijuana sales are a legal business in Colorado, and Glenwood 
Springs has decided to allow them. Those business people and 
investors deserve as predictable a regulatory environment as a 
restaurateur or a car dealer.

As we said in our earlier editorial, it is reasonable for the council 
to consider whether the stores are bad for the town's image, children 
and tourist trade.

The concerns raised by businesses that don't want marijuana stores as 
neighbors are worth considering. The council should decide if it 
needs to increase required distances between pot shops, between shops 
and schools or churches, or needs to restrict their locations overall.

While we generally believe that the city should let the market sort 
out how many of these stores the town can support, a refinement of 
rules makes sense. That should include eliminating the provision that 
asks one person to impossibly gauge the sentiment of the community on 
specific proposals.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom