NORTHAMPTON — Led by a passionate rebuttal by Councilor-At-Large William Dwight, the City Council rejected an ordinance Thursday that sought to cap the number of marijuana retail establishments in the city at 10.
“We damn well better make good laws,” Dwight said. “Not stupid emotional laws.”
While saying that he did not consider the ordinance to be stupid and emotional, he asserted that it did not do what the sponsors would like it to.
The ordinance failed by a 5-4 vote. Dwight, City Council President Ryan O’Donnell, Ward 6 Councilor Marianne LaBarge, Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Carney and Ward 7 Councilor Alisa Klein voted against the ordinance, while Ward 2 Councilor Dennis Bidwell, Ward 3 Councilor James Nash, Ward 4 Councilor Gina-Louise Sciarra and Ward 5 Councilor David Murphy voted for the ordinance.
Sciarra made a point, however, to say that she voted for the measure so that discussion on it could continue.
The ordinance was sponsored by Nash and Bidwell, both of whom characterized the cap as an insurance measure. “We all have insurance for unforeseen events,” Nash said. “Our cap is a surge protector against possible unforseen growth.”
“I’m not convinced that it’s necessary, but it might be,” said Bidwell.
He also noted that the police chief is one of the supporters of the cap, and that the cap could be raised if need be.
Earlier in the meeting, during the public comment period, three people spoke in favor of the cap. “Pass this. Let’s go slow,” said Kipp Armstrong, a clinical social worker and therapist.
Both Amherst and Easthampton have enacted caps on the number of retail marijuana establishments in their communities, at eight and six respectively.
Dwight was the leading opponent of the measure. He said that adult consumption of marijuana is not a new thing, and that other businesses that are not capped, such as those that sell cigarettes and products that contain saturated fats, do a lot more harm to society.
“It’s disproportionate to the adverse effects,” he said.
While he acknowledged that the ordinance was a response to genuine concerns about marijuana, he said that the data wasn’t there to say that a cap would address them.
In explaining her intention to vote no, Carney referenced the debate over zoning to restrict the footprint of establishments that sell pornographic materials, and how the passage of that zoning now significantly restricts Oh My Sensuality Shop’s expansion possibilities.“What we’re doing with the cap is something that we do with no other retail establishment,” she said.
Klein said that she was conflicted, saying that she did see the public health concerns around marijuana, while at the same time noting the lack of data on whether a cap has an impact on the negative effects of pot.
She said that she did not see marijuana to be a huge public health danger, while at the same time saying she wouldn’t like to see a lot of pot shops downtown.
LaBarge said that she was concerned with the ordinance, and expressed a desire for businesses to have the ability to weigh in.
“I want to hear from the business people,” she said.
Dwight, meanwhile, argued against such a weighing in.
“What other business has to be subject to review and approval of other businesses?” he said.
He also pointed to the ordinance dictating competition, and establishing precedent.
“What other things can this be applied to?” said Dwight.
He also said that he knew of one person for sure in the council chambers who had not smoked marijuana.
“Me,” said LaBarge, with a smile.
Murphy, meanwhile, who owns a real estate business, noted that he had dealt with marijuana businesses looking to come into the city. He said that such businesses are in favor of a cap on retail marijuana establishments, for competitive reasons, while also saying that most do not believe there will be enough retail establishments in the city to reach the cap.
Murphy also noted the illegal marijuana trade, and said that he didn’t believe that it would be ending.
“They’re not going anywhere,” said Murphy.
O’Donnell, meanwhile, said that he would vote no, because he did not see why it was necessary, saying that he didn’t see how it would have a positive effect on youth addiction, business behavior, or how downtown would look.
He also noted earlier on that the ordinance is not a zoning ordinance.
An argument raised by the sponsors was for councilors to vote for the ordinance so that debate could continue. This, however, was not favored by Dwight.
“I actually would love to see this die now,” he said.
Bera Dunau can be reached at bdunau@gazettenet.com