Dubious Claims: Deconstructing A Political Postcard About Dope

I know we are all shocked - SHOCKED I say - that a giant political postcard advocating a yes vote on a ballot measure allowing up to 10 marijuana facilities in a one-square-mile village with a population of 2200, would be filled with Dubious Claims. Right?

My postcard conveniently arrived as I was reading through the ordinance that “Jobs for Pinckney” is proposing for Pinckney. Yes, there is an extensive ordinance that is the “proposal” mentioned in the vague ballot language. Not that you would know that, and the group doesn’t seem to have a website or other online presence where you can find it. So the village is providing its own link HERE.

Now, disclaimers: The thoughts expressed in this piece are solely mine and do not represent the positions of the Pinckney Village Council, or individual staff and trustees. In the interest of transparency, I am currently a trustee on Pinckney Village Council and voted to opt-out of allowing marijuana facilities in 2018. I also voted yes on the statewide ballot in 2018 - like the majority of village residents. Would I support a marijuana retail facility within the village limits if that’s what residents want? Yep - now that the state has finalized licensing procedures, and after establishing appropriate zoning to ensure a location that made sense.

I’m going to focus on the postcard, because pretty much none of what it says is true, or is at least disingenuous, and shows just how much homework they DIDN’T do before launching this effort.

“Raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in new tax revenues and licensing fees” - ha, nope. While taxable value of the properties occupied may increase, and thus the amount of property tax collected, it sure won’t be by hundreds of thousands of dollars. And all that state revenue - from a low excise tax - stays with the state, with 15% (after the state takes its cut) redistributed to municipalities. That 15%? It gets allocated across ALL municipalities with marijuana facilities (in other words, we don’t EACH get 15%). As for fees - at the suggested $5000 per license (which the village likely would not be able to charge without justification), that won’t be more than $50,000 if every type of facility - all 10! - is allowed. Not pocket change, clearly, but also not the huge windfall they are advocating.

“Redevelop blighted, abandoned and vacant property in the Village of Pinckney” - also a no. Nice idea, but no one can make anyone do this.

“Encourage businesses to hire Village of Pinckney residents and those negatively impacted from marijuana prohibition for the new jobs that are created” - note the term “encourage” which I suppose puts this is the almost-true category. However, there is nothing about hiring local in the proposed ordinance - and the village cannot tell anyone who to hire anyway.

On side two of the postcard, we have more claims:

And on the other side of the giant postcard..vote yes on things that…you aren’t actually voting on.

“Vote for more jobs for Pinckney” - but this isn’t what you are voting for! You are voting for an over-reaching ordinance that will allow for all three classes of marijuana production, two retail establishments, a “consumption” establishment, a safety compliance facility, a secure transporter, a microbusiness, and a processor. Ten facilities! Where the hell will we put them all? And no one can require businesses to hire Pinckney residents.

“Now Hiring” - no one is hiring anyone yet, except “Jobs for Pinckney”, which hired out-of-state canvassers to collect petition signatures.

“Vote yes for hundreds of new jobs” - you’re gonna get tired of my saying this, but this isn’t what you are voting for! You are voting for an over-reaching ordinance that will allow for all three classes of marijuana production, two retail establishments, a “consumption” establishment, a safety compliance facility, a secure transporter, a microbusiness, and a processor. Ten facilities! Also the math does not work here. There simply cannot be hundreds of positions generated by this proposal. There are not enough properties, or land, within the village limits that could possibly support the facilities to employ “hundreds.”

“Vote yes for improved village services” - this sounds great, but this isn’t what you are voting for! You are voting for an over-reaching ordinance that will allow for all three classes of marijuana production, two retail establishments, a “consumption” establishment, a safety compliance facility, a secure transporter, a microbusiness, and a processor. Ten facilities! The first “improved village service” that would be added is additional administrative positions to deal with this unnecessarily complex ordinance.

“Vote yes for economic development” - another nice-sounding thing, but this ALSO isn’t what you are voting for! You are voting for an over-reaching ordinance that will allow for all three classes of marijuana production, two retail establishments, a “consumption” establishment, a safety compliance facility, a secure transporter, a microbusiness, and a processor. Ten facilities!

“Prohibits the sale of Marijuana to anyone under the age of 21” - duh. This is state law.

“Would require testing of all marijuana products sold in retail outlets licensed by the Village of Pinckney” - also duh. This is state law.

“Would provide additional worker protections and require that businesses hire people negatively impacted by marijuana prohibition” - another no. The state law does include a section on social equity - it’s optional and no community in the county meets the state’s social equity criteria. And again, the village has no authority to manage labor relations for private businesses.

“Prohibits green crosses and use of the word “marijuana” on store signs” - whew, that’s a relief. It’s a major concern, for sure. I mean, we would want people to be offended, driving down the street and seeing the word “marijuana”…oh, they spell it “marihuana” in the ordinance? Oh and state law requires signage not be visible from public streets? Oh.

“Prioritizes the hiring of Pinckney residents” - another no (see above). Village has no authority to tell businesses who to hire.

“A Better Pinckney with no tax increase” - better how? And for whom?

Please vote - anyway you want! But know what you are voting for. Don’t trust the postcards - or even this blog! Read the actual ordinance and make your decision.