So far, every time a cannabis license application has come before Burlington’s Cannabis Control Commission, it has said “yes.”
But some members of the commission, which is made up of the entire city council, say they don’t have enough information to weigh in at all.
“It’s a bit of a farce to look at these applications that are entirely redacted and to sit at this table, and know we do not have an option of voting no,” said Joan Shannon, D-South District, during a Nov. 21 meeting of the cannabis commission.
The state’s Cannabis Control Board fully vets requests for cannabis licenses. It then sends a redacted version of the applications to the city or town where the business plans to operate. Municipalities only receive the information required under state law, which is limited to the business name, proposed hours and a series of “yes” or “no” answers to questions, such as whether the location is within 500 feet of a school. The actual address and any other identifying information is withheld.
In Burlington, applicants are invited, but not required, to speak about their businesses to the commission.
So far the city has four licensed cannabis retailers, according to a state database, and four more applications are pending, according to James Pepper, chair of the state Cannabis Control Board.
Municipalities can only deny applications if they don’t comply with local ordinances, and such denials have so far proven rare. As of Thursday, 349 cannabis operations, including retailers, growers and manufacturers, had been licensed by the state, according to the state board’s database.
City Councilor Gene Bergman, P-Ward 2, called the process “a bad dog and pony show” and “a sham” in an interview Thursday. Bergman later said that “it’s a distraction and a waste of time for local officials to have to go through a process that isn’t real.”
Bergman pointed out that when the city’s cannabis commission gets an application, they don’t even know the exact address of the proposed business.
“How can I tell if this is appropriate for this area? How can I tell who the people are and whether they have the background to be able to make this work?” Bergman said.
Councilor Ben Traverse, D-Ward 5, serves on the council’s cannabis control sub-committee. He said in an interview Wednesday that he is fully supportive of recreational cannabis in Burlington, calling the businesses in operation “a welcome addition to our business community here.”
“But the authority of our local control commission is incredibly limited,” Traverse said.
He compared the cannabis oversight process to the city’s authority over businesses that serve liquor, pointing out that for those establishments, the city can, for instance, dictate hours of operation.
“We don’t have that same authority with respect to cannabis establishments. Our authority as a local control commission is basically just to confirm that the establishment has all of their local permits and inspections.” Traverse later said that “if the permits are in place, there’s nothing we can do other than to rubber stamp the application.”
The Democratic council member said he would like to see an expanded role for the cannabis control commission that involves more public input. But under current state law, that would be impossible due to the heavily redacted business information that cities and towns get from the state board.
Pepper makes the case that the redactions are necessary for “public safety,” noting that the applications include information about security camera locations and cash management plans and that “the fewer people that touch that information, or are custodians of that information, the better.”
Pepper said one of the legislature’s goals in limiting the cannabis authority of municipalities was to prevent corruption that could arise if a town’s government sets its own conditions for approving cannabis businesses.
He referenced a case in Fall River, Massachusetts where a former mayor was convicted in a corruption case after he reportedly extorted hundreds of thousands of dollars from cannabis businesses that wanted to open in that city.
“And the legislature said, ‘No, we don’t want that here. We don’t want essentially a town to have a veto after their citizens have opted in,’” Pepper said.
In response to Pepper’s reasoning, Bergman suggested that the state should simply eliminate the local control process.
“I don’t know of any experiences that would indicate that there is that corruption problem, but if they’re afraid of that, then take away the veneer of local control. Because it’s an illusion,” he said.
Traverse said that he thinks the public would benefit from being able to access more information in the applications.
“I think that our communities have a right to know a bit more information about who’s applying for these licenses,” he said.
While Traverse expects the growth to be a benefit for the city, an increasing number of cannabis stores in the city could eventually lead to some public concerns.
“It’s one of the reasons why I’d like the local control commission to have a bit more flexibility as to how it reviews applications,” he said.
Pepper said many around the state are eager to learn more and are still gathering information on what works and what doesn’t.
“We’ll just have to see how it plays out,” he said. “Frankly, this is new for everyone.”
Clarification: This story was updated to reflect that at least one local cannabis commission has rejected an application.
