3/22 Township Meeting

[3/22 Township Meetin-79q2]

Last evening the Township Committee held a discussion on the newly created legal cannabis laws and the options the town has in the upcoming months. Much of the presentation was covered by the towns lawyer who created a blog to assist towns with navigating the laws..
http://www.parkermccay.com/blog/five-considerations-for-municipalities-developing-cannabis-strategy?fbclid=IwAR3MqmWOmcBSE5Hf8Fnedevx4yQImPVDu9wkfTH0GvLX3BNN0G_B8JtHUQc

After the presentation there were comments from the committee members and from the town. Most coming out to speak were against allowing any form of recreational sale or production although one member of the community seemed to be a proponent of allowing it just as we allow alcohol and tobacco sales.

One of the biggest points to note was the allowance (or lack thereof) of the head of the Municipal Alliance a chance to speak freely, with a three to two vote of giving her five minutes. As she is the head of a township run organization I feel she should have had her say, however it may have been more appropriate during the department heads section of the agenda where she would not have been held to five minutes.

Jay Taylor stated that bringing in retail would raise crime rates and decrease home values. Clearly selecting studies that fit his agenda as anyone with internet access can find that crime rates did not increase or decrease, and home values in some areas actually went up.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/255060.pdf
https://norml.org/marijuana/fact-sheets/marijuana-regulation-and-crime-rates/
https://www.newsweek.com/legalizing-pot-increase-crime-rates-colorado-washington-1463622
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesrealestatecouncil/2021/01/22/the-effects-of-marijuana-legalization-on-american-real-estate/?sh=e11d64819aa5
https://listwithclever.com/research/marijuana-housing-market-study/

Matt Scott seemed more concerned about the availability of the use of credit as cannabis is still illegal federally they can't use regular banking methods to control cash flow. This is also true for medical dispensaries. the lawyer stated that part of the application for licensing required a security plan.

I don't recall anything specific from Mayor Ferrante, Barbara Rogers, or Evelyn Spann.

I think everyone was on board with changing the law regarding parental notification.

So now my take...
I don't agree with the new law regarding parental notification and the way it ties law enforcement's hands. I feel for our PD having to deal with this on top of everything else going on in the country today. I hope legislation is amended to make it easier for law enforcement to interact with underage use as it should be for adults only.

In the 1930's during the end of alcohol prohibition we know similar discussions were held throughout the country, creating some of the blues laws that are still on the books in some places today (just try to buy alcohol in Ocean City NJ). I'm sure many of those creating those laws could be found at a local speakeasy on Saturday night enjoying an adult beverage. 90 years later I don't see anyone protesting the Buy Rite or the Cranbury Inn for selling alcohol and or tobacco products. While we enjoy the convenience of having those local establishments, I wouldn't necessarily want Buy Rite to move into a location downtown and the Inn while a great destination for dinner is not a frequent stop for packaged goods.

By allowing recreational sales/grow/distribution in a designated area outside of town, either the Warehouse or L.I. zones, we would bring jobs and additional tax revenue to the town. We would be supporting a local business who has been in the town for a number of years. The vote in the state was 2 to 1 in favor of allowing adult use and the township I heard last night was about 60% in favor (if that is not correct please let me know). The people of Cranbury have spoken and want this.

NJ.Com reported on Hunterdon County becoming a mecca for cannabis cultivation, we could be a part of this new and upcoming opportunity.
https://www.nj.com/marijuana/2021/03/why-this-nj-county-has-the-potential-to-become-a-leader-in-cannabis-cultivation.html

The additional tax revenues could be put towards programs through the Municipal Alliance and or additional training for our P.D. to support efforts curtailing cannabis and alcohol use in children.

Eventually as more and more states legalize (our neighbors in PA and NY are already on a path) the Federal ban will go away and , just as it has with alcohol, the stigma associated with cannabis use for adults will as well.

“We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption.”
– John Adams –

[anon-40no]

What you skip over is that Mayor Ferrante openly stated he did not want the Municipal Alliance chair to comment because he did not have the ability to screen her remarks in advance. You also skip over that it was Matt and Mike who voted no and it was Barbara who added the 5 minute limit. So clearly party politics are at play and there is a push to get it approved with minimal noise. As was also pointed out every work session impacting a board has allowed that board chair to participate. But that was not the case last night. Why was that?

The attorney also said that the state laws will be in flux for a while so the town would be approving sales not knowing what it is that they agreeing to do and would be required to keep the approval in place for 5 years. So if the town is harmed there is no way out. Seems rather important.

You cited a vote to legalize, but of the 90 some people at the meeting only one said they support sales. None of the homeowners in town voiced support for opening recreational sales in Cranbury. One can vote to legalize because of the unfair criminal aspects and still not want to have shops in town. The vote was not a referendum to open retail sales in town as you try to argue.

You have an agenda clearly to get sales into town the question is why?

[Re: 3/22 Township Me-79q2]

I didn't mention who voted for what, my apologies. I also stated she should have had her say.

I do agree that in the meantime the town should pass an ordinance so that if and when they approve (or not) to allow sales it's on our terms.

Because there is still a stigma associated with it, Mayor Ferrante even mentioned at one point how awkward it is even having these discussions, many resident will not publicly come out showing support, me included and that is why I'm posting here anonymously.

Yes I feel that just like the sales of alcohol and tobacco in town that there is no reason for there not to be a local place for legal consenting adults to buy legal recreational cannabis for personal consumption.

[anon-8o5q]

What I saw last night immediately was censorship. Mike and Matt didn’t want the Municipal Alliance to speak. Shows me they’re in favor of allowing recreational cannabis in town. Barbara begrudgingly allowed them to speak after stating several times that she was confused as to why they should speak and what they were voting on. I’ve lost faith in those three TC members.

Matt seemed to have personal experience with recreational cannabis by knowing that he can use a debit card in other states to buy it. And was confused as to why it was a cash business here in NJ.

You also forgot to mention that there is already a medical marijuana facility in Cranbury on the other side of route 130. Do we really need another facility here?

You mention jobs and tax revenue. How many jobs do you really think are going to be created from this? And tax revenue, have you done your homework? I believe it’s a max of 2%. That’s nothing for the town.

Not to mention what drugs do to people. Maybe you haven’t seen it first hand but I have. I’ve seen HS students throw their lives away because they liked the feeling of being high. There’s already enough pressure on kids between school and socially. By allowing sales in town you’re making it that much easier to get their hands on cannabis. Which as much as people say it’s not a “gateway drug”, it is.

[anon-4313]

I agree it was really bad censorship last night. I never heard a TC member say that the Chair comments need to be screened. That it was the Mayor and information about the kids is worse. Especially since there is an upcoming school and Municipal Alliance talk on drugs.

I was laughing at Joe B. He was very upset Joann was not allowed to speak and required a vote. Thank you Evelyn!!

It was clear Matt was pushing for sales and was upset at residents who raised objection. I could not understand how an educated person who manages town finances did not understand banking or why this was a discussion.

One point, Jay did not raise crime. He did raise increased youth usage in towns that allow it and he did cite that values of like towns to Cranbury go down 5-20%. That is just common sense though even if you want to say the studies are flawed. If I have a choice Cranbury with a pot shop or Princeton and Plainsboro with none I am going to the other town.

As for tax revenue it is 2%. Do you know how much pot you need to sell to make any meaningful money for the town? We heard last night that the town is very healthy with revenue and getting even more now. We don’t need the money. And I doubt in a town as wealthy as Cranbury people are going to quit their job so they can go sell pot on Main st.

[recording?-3234]

Are TC meetings recorded? I am astounded to here a Board representative not being able to speak on an issue under their purview. If the representation made here (that it was because the comments were not screened is true), that is problematic. It calls into question the independence of boards. Is a meeting recording available?

[anon-8o5q]

It was recorded but I don’t know when or if the recording is available online.

[anon-7666]

By law the township has to provide a recording to anyone who asks and it is at no cost if you ask for it electronically.

The request to get the recording is an OPRA request. Link is here

https://www.cranburytownship.org/clerk-registrar

[anon-8457]

Everyone gets to speak for three minutes. And then they can speak for three minutes again after everyone else went. Such BS in town giving people a platform and special treatment. Stick to the rules that were created for a reason.

[anon-00q5]

Aside from the Municipal Alliance controversy, the session seemed informative and well run. With all of the buzz about the potential retail licensing, I was not aware of the other potentially important licensing decisions the town needs to make fairly quickly.

It sounded to me like most people opposed any sort of retail (or delivery service) for obvious reasons, but there are 4 other types of licenses for Cranbury to consider. Here's the list of 6 types...

(1) Cultivator (i.e. grower)
(2) Manufacturer (i.e. processor)
(3) Wholesaler
(4) Distributor
(5) Retailer
(6) Delivery Service

[anon-7666]

[anon-7666]

I think cultivating was also raised as a concern because of the loss of preserved farmland. The greenhouses are warehouse style buildings it was reported. So we could have warehouse complex’s on preserved farmland. Along with the resulting truck traffic.

[anon-00q5]

[anon;oq34-0076]

It all boils down to CENSORSHIP!!!! MATT and Ferrante have their own agenda and Barbara is the lap dog who can't find which bowl to eat out of. Those three are really doing a disservice to the taxpayers . Cranbury has been changing with this gang on the Committee and not for better--We will be stuck as a Cannabis destination with a Library Monument that will be built without the public having a vote. That will be all thanks to Matt and Mike---Very Sad!!! [/b]

[anon-83p0]

Republican reactionaries -- infected with trumpism -- don't tolerate defeat well - Cranbury folks just don't buy their retrograde thinking - And, we're sick and tired of your whining!!!!

[anon-rs53]