Deep into the Weeds: Recreational Pot Subject of Special Ludington Council Meeting

[XLFD]

The Ludington City Council convened a special Committee of the Whole Meeting to discuss the issue of whether or not to allow recreational marijuana establishments within the city limits. The meeting, held at 7 PM on the night of Monday, September 16, 2019 at the Ludington Area Center for the Arts (pictured below), was attended by all councilors, other officials that normally attend meetings, and about six dozen members of the public. It would last about two hours and have 31 speakers submit their opinion on the topic.

As in other special committee of the whole meetings, nothing was to be decided upon, it was more to provide a forum for the diverse comments and perspectives that the issue has generated in the community. There would be appeals to reason, appeals to emotion, provocative statistics thrown out, and provocative hearsay related by all sides of the issue to strengthen their respective points.

Would there be a clear winner on ideologies? Would there be a stunning revelation brought forth that would shake and change the core beliefs of any of the seven councilors? Would there be any stalwart proponent of one side defecting because of the stronger points made by the other side?

No, but there would be at least civil discourse over what seems to be a controversial topic. Personally, I came to this forum with a neutral perspective, seeing the worthiness of the points on both sides. I left knowing that about 50% of those voicing their opinions would not be happy whichever way the council went-- which I would be willing to wager on that they will be eventually voting against marijuana establishments in Ludington.

The innate biases against, other than their previous unanimous vote to opt-out in 2018, were evident at the meeting. The first came when nine written comments from thirteen people were read into the record by councilors, and included in full (for seven) with the meeting's eventual minutes. All but one of those letters would be against establishments, and that one was read by Mayor Miller, who has brought the conversation to the library and to the table.  The general public was never invited to write comments to a council who has never before introduced those into the minutes.

The second came with Councilor Wincewski's reading of Prosecutor Paul Spaniola's long-running letter. Commenters at the meeting were restricted to three minutes to make their case at the podium; the County/City Prosecutor's statement timed in at over six minutes. In addition, his line of reasoning seemed among the weakest of either side during the evening, as seen here in one of his bullet points, tourism:

Even more beach patrol to monitor marijuana?!  Another more subtle bias against those set to comment for marijuana facilities was the placement of Police Chief Mark Barnett sitting right next to the podium used for public speaking. Perhaps the idea of this positioning was to keep the debate civil, but it likely had the effect of stifling one or more proponents coming forward to openly relate their thoughts on the topic.

The highlight of the night's drama was offered by the City's Marijuana Ad Hoc Committee member Stephen Von Pfahl, who toward the end of the meeting made a point-of-order in order to speak in order to correct some misinformation. After debating with the mayor, the city attorney urged Stephen to go to the podium if he wished to speak. He gave a rather rambling account of finding the 'truth' within the report made by his committee and using it to better serve the citizens in need; at the end of his generalizations and appeals, I think he damaged the integrity of the report.

Other than that outburst here is a chronological look at those who spoke up that evening with a brief look at what each said, and just a hint of extra commentary they are also marked with either a P, I or C, to show whether their comments were pro-dispensary, indeterminate, or con-dispensary ( I also use the abbreviations MM and RM for medical and recreational marijuana respectively) (Note: the video has been added o 9-24-2019):

Christine Hall (C): wanted to wait a year to consider, discussed negative effects of marijuana
Jake Muzzo (P): stressed the safety issues that having dispensaries and labs would provide
Collin Nash (C): this high school senior listed bad effects of pot on people and society

Sheryl Anderson (C): Discussed effects of smoke on her, was OK with MM, but against RM
Dave Hall (C): Thought RM would give the City a bad image, wanted to wait a year
Tom McGuire (P): Discussed that RM was already available, inspect/regulate it for safety

Paddy Baker (C): Noted MM is not medicine, you can't get it at a pharmacy; accounting issues
Larry Ames (P): Permit it, tax it regulate it, operate such businesses outside of the downtown
Ron Soberalski (P): Noted RM was already here and won't go away; look at it as a business

Mike Shaw (C): Urged city to opt-out, noting his correctional officer background
Dr. Bob Overholt (C): Noted bad image for the city urged them to continue to opt-out
Dick Powell (C): Related 1970 San Fran anecdote about negative effects of pot on cities

Alex Decantur (P): Noted how body uses carabinoids, urged research, was OK with waiting
Maxwell Chava (P): Noted dangers of black market, benefits of regulating RM and leading
Joe Swierson (P): Noted current long drive for MM and RM, need for area business

Heather Luttrell (P): Heartfelt presentation on her day with and w/o RM
Debbie Chase (I): Stated RM should be treated like alcohol, research and wait
Mark Caroselli (I): Doesn't want RM to be too easy to get, wait and look at other cities

Ed Santorelli (P): Prohibition isn't good; the city cannot glorify drinking & go against RM
Danielle Ramirez (P): Told of difficulties in getting MM for nausea without 2 hr. drive
Erica Karmeisool (P): Urged adapting focus to keep the city family- and 420- friendly

Scott Sitler (I): Urged City to continue looking for solution to fit RM in or out and wait
Karen Nowaczyk (C): Noted effects of alcohol on her dad, doesn't want RM to change city
Debbie Shaw (C): Pointed to Colorado's problems, thought Ludington would have same

Kim Cole (C): Pointed to local and Colorado statistics, THC psychoses in jail inmates
Ryan Reed (P): Noted marijuana was already here; used the word 'Dildoes'
Marilyn Sweet (C): Would like the issue put to rest

Maria Duhaime (P): liked committee report, thought city needs to welcome businesses
Jerry Griffin (P): stated RM has positive effects, spoke on behalf of a RM company
Pete Priniski (I): Against an open door for RM, but wanting to improve MM pipeline

After this last person was done, the meeting was adjourned by motion. For those who spoke, the majority (14) spoke in favor versus twelve that spoke against, and five indeterminate voices who generally took a wait and see approach. There appears, however, to be a unanimity amongst those currently or formerly employed by the county justice system to be stiffly against facilities, with former magistrates Baker and Furstenburg, Prosecutor Spaniola, and Sheriff Kim Cole working hard to dismiss the idea of marijuana establishments in Ludington.

In the face of that, expecting the mostly-lockstep city council to get more than a vote or two for establishments (if that) despite the rosiest research imaginable would be little more than a pipe dream. At least many of those that spoke for facilities will only have to go as far as Manistee to spread our county's wealth, since they look to be moving towards establishments there.

[Willy]

No pot sales in Ludington is my vote. Instead, let's legalize prostitution to make up for lost revenue by making  downtown Ludington Ave. a red light district. Why not. If smoking and selling pot around kids is OK then why not sell the most natural of all human desires, sex. Below is Ludington's new logo.

[shinblind]

Hahahahah.  You're killing me here Willy.

Short term rentals would take on a whole new connotation.

Having traffic signals at every intersection would suddenly make sense.

Cruising the beach might take on a different meaning.

So would the Painted Ladies on Ludington Avenue.

White Pine Village could add on a new more realistic display of the 'Good Old Days'.

Staterooms on the Badger could be even more outrageously priced.

It would provide year around employment with above minimum wage opportunities.

Legacy Plaza, The DDA, Rental Inspections, Ground Zero Apartments... 

'Ludington on the Make'... it already has a familiar ring to it. 

 

[Willy]

Love your way of looking at this shinblind. if hooking were legal in Ludington your ideas would make a lot of sense.

[shinblind]

Only BIG issue I foresee Willy is would the 2nd floor rooms to let in the DDA district. I believe they all would go bankrupt.  Too much fucking overhead.

 

[XLFD]

The conundrum of the City perceived as glamorizing one vice and demonizing another vice was a subtle theme I chose for my first comment last night.  I have put the two hour plus video in the article above, just in front of the one-line summations of the speakers.  I have included another copy of that video below just in case you're handling a hand-held device and it would be a pain scrolling up.  This is the 200% effort that we strive for here at the Ludington Torch:

[Du Wright]

Thanks, XLFD for providing and continuing to provide these reports for those unable to attend meetings.  

In regard to the conundrum of vices, it is a conundrum.  Will availability of either choice of getting high make the vice easier to come by?  That was the question of Prohibition and we learned from that, as we are learning through the overturning of the prohibition against marijuana.  I agree, and you stated well, to involve the citizens in asking and answering the question on what example the city wants to set with alcohol and marijuana.