Last Wednesday evening, I was invited to a neighborhood meeting where for 90 minutes we discussed issues related to cannabis dispensaries. The following are my follow-up observations and comments that I emailed to the 30 neighbors who attended that I thought would be of interest to the community-at-large. The message has been slightly modified for general distribution.
Dear Neighbor,
Thanks again to the hosts of last week’s meeting. I think it is critical to hear from our neighbors and continue to engage on different topics that impact our community. I said that I would follow-up with everyone in an email and want to follow-through by providing information to help inform the community about these issues and share some of my perspectives in response to feedback I have received.
First, I completely agree that the legalization of cannabis and the reality that retail dispensaries may be coming to Hoboken has started an important series of conversations where some are expressing serious concerns. I believe the genesis of these concerns largely comes from the stigmatization of cannabis use. As I said in our meeting, the use of cannabis is prevalent in our community, whether it is in the row houses or in the Housing Authority. Cannabis is now a legal product in our community because the people of New Jersey, the people of Hoboken and the people of the 5th Ward want it to be.
As you may know, I knocked on thousands of doors three years ago introducing myself to voters as a first-time Council candidate. Discussions about cannabis legalization and related issues of social justice were important to many people I met who supported my candidacy. I share their concerns, as does the entire City Council. Many wonderful people in our community rely on cannabis products to address their medical issues: chemo patients; people suffering from chronic pain; people suffering from chronic anxiety in extremely anxious times; and people who deal with many, many serious conditions for which cannabis gives them relief and makes their lives immeasurably better. I represent recreational users, too, who enjoy cannabis just as people enjoy having a drink. I want to engage in an open and honest dialogue about these issues, and balance the valid concerns and fears that I heard loud and clear with the interests of the many cannabis users who seek to have safe and convenient access to these legal, regulated products.
I don’t believe any of us should come to these conversations assuming using cannabis is bad or that cannabis users are bad people. They aren’t. They are my friends and they are my constituents. I think we all should do our part to remove the stigmatization the “war on drugs” has placed on what is now a legal and highly regulated product in the State of New Jersey.
During our meeting, one neighbor asked me whether it is my role to represent the community and I said “yes” without hesitation. The views and concerns a number of the other neighbors expressed are important and valid. I acknowledge them 100%. I also represent members of our community who may be fearful, ashamed or not motivated to come out publicly and say they need or rely on cannabis products to have a good quality of life and do not feel the desire to come to a City Council meeting or even speak up in a backyard meeting among neighbors to express their desire to have convenient, safe access to legal cannabis products. Opinions that stigmatize people who use legal cannabis products make having an open and honest exchange of ideas harder, not easier. As your 5th Ward representative, I try to balance the interests of the entire community.
Second, during our meeting, I pointed out how we raised our children in the same neighborhood and spoke the truth that we all love our neighborhood. I moved to the 5th Ward in 1986 as a 21 year-old college grad about to attend law school. Rebecca and I chose to raise our children here in the 5th Ward, just as you and many of the folks who attended the meeting have done -- or are doing today. It bears repeating, as I said last week, if these businesses prove to be as bad as some amongst us fear, I am prepared to revisit whether any or all of them belong.
But I also said that I believe people have not fully considered or read the significant State and local protections that are in place — protections that increase the likelihood that the fears expressed last Wednesday will not come to pass.
These requirements include:
- Limited hours of operation (dispensaries must be closed by 10 pm — whereas bars stay open much later);
- Requirements to be certified operators by the State and to comply with all local guidelines
- Dispensaries’ windows must be obscured (i.e., frosted or blacked out) so the interior sales area is hidden and no product or packaging of any kind is visible from outside of the store.
- No advertising of any kind may be displayed on the sidewalk, building, or windows.
- No advertising via certain other means; no flyering, no bus shelter ads, no participation in public events where kids are present, no sponsorship of any activities or events that kids may attend.
- Dispensaries must include security check-ins located inside the building and designed so no one can enter the sales area without being proofed by security.
- No one under the age of 21 will be permitted to purchase cannabis.
- Dispensary security check-in and all other security measures must be out of the public eye. So, no armed guards, no roll-down gates and no bars will appear outside dispensary buildings. Also, despite what some have suggested, armed guards are not required at these facilities.
- Operators are subject to annual review by the Cannabis Review Board to determine if the operators are operating properly — or face cannabis license revocation.
Compare these conditions to bars (and the hours of operations of bars and liquor stores) in our City and it is dramatic how much more inviting bars are to local customers — particularly young people — than dispensaries.
Third, some mentioned their belief that the whole process seems rushed. As someone who has been sitting on the City Council for over two years, I can assure you that there has not been a policy issue that has been amended or debated more than this. Off the top of my head, I can cite at least three examples of amendments to the Zoning code (where dispensaries are allowed) on this issue alone. Additionally, Mayor Bhalla’s Administration allowed each Ward Councilmember to map out exactly where dispensaries would be allowed to operate in their wards. I recall some council members worked block-by-block to try to ensure we did this responsibly. With the benefit of hindsight, some council members may believe they dropped the ball. But it bears noting Councilmember Fisher, for one, deliberately carved out her own district encompassing the Hudson Tea Building and Maxwell Place from having cannabis dispensaries, but permitted commercial districts in the 2nd Ward including 14th Street to do so. Sadly, fear-mongering has replaced accepting accountability for past decisions and votes as to whether and where to permit cannabis dispensaries in our City.
Fourth, I am a practicing attorney, who believes protecting the City from liability is important for the City and for you as a taxpayer. When it comes to applications in front of municipal boards, it is a long-standing state precedent, as we have been advised by Corporation Counsel, that the law at the time of an applicant’s application is the law that governs an application’s review — not the law as amended, after an application is filed. Some neighbors noted that certain applications have been approved by the Cannabis Review Board that are in violation of current ordinances. But importantly, that is not true for when the applications were filed. Approvals are considered and judged against the then-existing standards — set by the City Council through legislation — at the time the application is filed.
Fifth, some neighbors expressed support for a proposal to expand the number of members on the Cannabis Review Board or CRB. I am open to expanding the Cannabis Review Board. I will continue to engage with my colleagues on what the appropriate number of members looks like and to better understand the concerns the amendment’s sponsors seek to address—a dialogue that only started for me last Thursday night. I often rely on committee meetings to vet legislation so I can better understand proposed legislation coming before the Council. While I didn’t vote for a similar ordinance a few weeks ago, that vote reflected the sponsors’ failure to introduce that ordinance to the Health and Human Services Committee before presenting the ordinance to a vote in the Council meeting. This is not merely a “technical” concern. Conferring with my colleagues and understanding legislation before I vote on ordinances of public interest such as this is fundamental. Among other questions I had for the ordinance’s sponsors were whether the proposed amendment was tailored to address the identified problem. I struggle with the premise that a few council members are now trying to change the rules — in a non-collaborative way — without engaging key stakeholders (including the three current members of the Cannabis Review Board) before introducing legislation to change it. This, after the City Council unanimously approved the composition and makeup of the Cannabis Review Board last year — and seek to change the CRB now, after the CRB has 10 meetings in the books.
Sixth, some of the most vocal attendees at our meeting were homeowners and members of the 51-53 14th Street Condominium Association, including the individual who sold the Hudson Tavern business to a new owner who seeks to invite the Story Dispensary to operate there. You may be aware that just last week members of the 51-53 14th Street Condo Association had filed an action in Hudson County Chancery Court to enjoin the Story Dispensary from operating at that location and is also suing for money damages from new owners. That dispute will play out in court. I note that in one of my March newsletters I shared thoughts with the community about the 51-53 14th Street project and you can read them here.
As I mentioned at our meeting, there remains a key, outstanding step before the Story Dispensary can be approved where you can be heard — a hearing before the Hoboken Planning Board. All residents who live within 200 feet of 51-53 14th Street will receive written notice of the Planning Board’s meeting. Likewise, the midtown Washington Street dispensaries about which folks raised questions as well as a proposed dispensary across from the Pilsener Haus at 15th and Grand (1427 Grand Street) that I mentioned have not been considered by the Planning Board. I will include in future newsletters the dates/times/links of these Planning Board meetings so any neighbor’s input can be meaningfully considered.
I look forward to continuing this conversation, as it is critical to get these issues, and the laws associated with them, right.
Best regards-
Phil
P.S. I refer to State Cannabis requirements as providing important regulations that are relevant for these discussions. Here is a link to the State cannabis regulations.
Phil Cohen
Hoboken City Councilman
Hoboken, New Jersey
HobokenPhil@gmail.com
(862) 234-9053
