Just Say No

[shinblind]

The Irony.

From the COLDs about 4 years ago.

Gary Castonia was the only City Counselor to vote No on the local medical marijuana ordinance.

The vote was 5-1 with one abstention. 

"The ordinance also includes 600-foot setbacks from schools, churches, public buildings, DAY CARE  FACILITIES, public parks and medical facilities."

Perhaps  Nostradamus Ganja Castonia  had a vision of the local Mary Jane ordinance causing a future conflict with his wife's day care enterprise.  Perhaps Gary viewed the future through the haze from the smoke and the leaves. Maybe there is an unpublished quatrain concerning this affair.

Castonia did issue a cover story of sorts explaining his vote... "because it — and the state law allowing for marijuana use for medical reasons — are in conflict with federal law."

 http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/archives/ludingt...

 

[Willy]

I don't understand exactly what that ordinance was supposed to do. Is the local ordinance more or less restrictive than the State Law? What did Castonia's no vote mean? Was he not in favor of more restrictions or thought the ordinance  required more controls?  Did he want the State law to be applied as is? I understand the Feds have not approved medical weed but what does that have to do with Ludington being allowed to decide on how to apply the State Law because as long as the State approves of medical weed then until the Feds bring the hammer down it seems only logical for communities to decide if they agree or disagree with the State unless it's mandatory and local jurisdiction have no choice but to allow private clinics. X, do you know the legal ramifications regarding this situation?

[AQUAMAN]

Absolutely more restrictive and I think Castonia didn't even like it because he wanted more restrictions than were offered. Trouble is, as with most State Law, municipalities don't have the legal right to alter it completely, and that's what they more or less did. Can't have licensed growers, licensed caregivers, licensed paraphenalia stores, nor licensed clinics, and so forth. I think X already quoted the statutes that don't permit COL officials to do this, nor enforce it, per State Law. I think we have all witnessed the narcissist attitudes of this council, Mayor, city mgr./attrny. and can agree, they think they alone rule the entire area, regardless of State and Federal laws that overrule their ideas.

[XLFD]

As I understand and remember it, shortly after passage of the Medical Marijuana Act, there was a lot of activity on the local level (particularly at places where MM was being dispensed) to further regulate the law.  Local law could not directly violate state law, but there were loopholes and other poorly defined aspects of the MM Act, that allowed local units to regulate aspects, either through legal clarifications or through zoning. 

For several years, Chief Barnett, John Shay, the City Attorneys, the Planning Commission, and the city council and subcommittees thereof worked on a way to achieve some sort of local regulations to keep any local MM operations under check, in the process voting yes on several MM moratoriums along the way.

When they finally trotted their ordinance out, most of what they tried to achieve had already been tried elsewhere and failed, often at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to their citizens on both sides of the lawsuit.  Ludington's (anti) MM Ordinance, when passed almost unanimously made almost all of Ludington off-limits to dispensaries, it also mandated further registration and regulations that were nowhere in the law.  This thread, Time to Repeal Ludington's Medical Marijuana Ordinance , illustrated much of what was wrong with the local law.  This is something I hope to do if I am elected, get rid of the meaningless and potentially costly ordinances that violate state law and could cost us if it is ever enforced.

[Willy]

Thanks X, it makes more sense now.

[shinblind]

Hey X do you know of any other similar ordinances besides this one that the City Council voted on ?

You would think that this should have been handled through the zoning ordinances or best covered by State or Federal mandates

And would you happen to know how the voting went if there are other ordinances ?

Does Councillor Castonia routinely vote no if other precedence's  are in effect ?  Or was this a one time thing.

[XLFD]

Perhaps you can clarify similar further, but here's a few similar ordinances recently that have you scratching your head from the seemingly arbitrary and capricious policy that could be challenged successfully, and/or are detrimental to economic development.  The councilors typically vote in lockstep once these reach the floor, the MM ord. was the only one I can recall where Councilor Castonia split with the crowd. 

You may not remember the AFC Ordinance back in 2013.  Councilor Holman, who arguably could have benefitted from her own Home Health Care business crafted and championed this 'reform' to Ludington AFC homes.  The article in the COLDNews has quotes from a prospective AFC home entrepreneur telling why it was odd policy.  It restricted the amount of clients a residential home could have (4) and made it mandatory for the operator to have the home as a primary residence. 

Last year featured the RIO, of course, and several other ordinances that had no other use than to tick citizens off and make more money for the city while stifling the business climate, some died on the launchpad, thankfully, like the revised sidewalk policy that would have property purchasers pay the price of sidewalk installation at the time of purchase , even if that sidewalk would never be built (due to what would happen with the waiting list when many dozens of properties each year would be added, far surpassing the amount of money they budgeted for sidewalks).