THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, July 12, 2024 ~ Letter-to-the-Editor ~ Page 19 Cannabis Licensing and City Zoning Ordinances Dear Mayor Christenson, I found your recent statements regarding the management of the "Malden Community Fund" to be quite thought-provoking. "While it's always easy to look back and suggest different ways that things could have been handled, that doesn't change the fact that this approach was well-intentioned, intended to work within the framework that existed at the time, and in line with the approach by at least one other community. We agree as we stand now that there is a better way, and we are never too proud to pivot when the circumstances call for it. I hope that this helps clarify the record in the most straightforward way possible." I urge for similar clarity to be applied to Malden’s handling of Cannabis licensing. It’s imperative that you take a definitive public stance for reform, or provide transparent reasoning for your continued support of legal actions taken by the city against cannabis companies who have been approved by the Malden CLEC and cannot move forward. Alternatively, please explain why you might not consider pivoting in this instance, despite an avalanche of justifications for doing so. Two social-equity applicants, both thoroughly vetted and granted Malden cannabis approvals, are currently litigating against the city for obstructing their efforts to actually commence operations. By denying these applicants the expediency mandated by the state, Malden faces legal fees, potential fines, and further budget shortfalls. Despite mounting evidence, the City Council persists in defending impractical, over-reaching, and unlawful zoning ordinances. As you are aware, Benevolent Botanicals and DRIS, LCC, have collectively borne the financial strain of over two years in legal battles with the city. DRIS alone has reportedly spent upwards of $100,000 and our costs greatly exceed that. The core issue remains the dearth of compliant properties available for rent, lease, or purchase under current laws. With no compliant parcels, Malden allowed applicants who partnered with property owners to bring forward the next-best properties, who if passed, would simply “get a variance” as promised by the City Council at 12.12.190 ordainment. Malden’s CLEC continued to endorse non-compliant property applications even after the ZBA denial of Benevolent, with no fully compliant properties brought forward for consideration since. Councilor Sica recently highlighted the near-impossibility of obtaining a variance under existing statutes, a fact reinforced by these repeated attempts by approved companies to open….and these city-backed denials. Malden has now faced two lawsuits over the span of twoplus years from unrelated parties over the same issue. Despite the impracticality of current zoning regulations becoming evident, and an acknowledgement of the limited eligible parcels, some City Council members are resisting amendments, choosing instead to escalate legal disputes that many doubt Malden can win. Mrs. Sica has acknowledged publicly that there are only 53 remaining eligible parcels. Later, she provided a lengthy and well-annunciated review of the history of the marijuana overlay zone. The marijuana overlay zone on upper Broadway failed spectacularly, with no candidate surviving the wrath of outraged residents who packed public meetings. This failure begs the question: Why establish a marijuana overlay zone without buffers if the offended residents can effectively shut it down? According to Mrs. Sica’s account, every candidate in the overlay zone was screamed out of town by residents at highly contested public hearings. The Malden CLEC, aware of this since these multiple failures, has not approved any further candidates (nor did any formally apply) in this overlay zone. This effectively eliminates 17 of the eligible properties. Clearly no other candidate (or practical businessperson) would ever try to open there, and Mrs. Sica made that perfectly clear on June 11th. Your office has thus far remained silent. “We agree as we stand now that there is a better way. We are never too proud to pivot when the circumstances call for it." Mayor, there has never been a more opportune moment to pivot and acknowledge the clarity provided by hindsight, and lead the city forward. The initial defense of MCC12.12.190 stemmed from Your Hometown News Delivered! EVERETT ADVOCATE MALDEN ADVOCATE REVERE ADVOCATE SAUGUS ADVOCATE One year subscription to The Advocate of your choice: $175 per paper in-town per year or $225 per paper out-of-town per year. Name_________________________________________ Address_______________________________________ City_______________ State_______ Zip ____________ CC# _______________________________ Exp. _____ Sec. code____ Advocate (City):___________________ Clip & Mail Coupon with Credit Card, Check or Money Order to: Advocate Newspapers Inc. PO Box 490407, Everett, MA 02149 REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS BUYER1 LACERDA, ALDO J BUYER2 SELLER1 SELLER2 DIGIANTOMMASO ROMOLO EST Copyrighted material previously published in Banker & Tradesman/The Commercial Record, a weekly trade newspaper. It is reprinted with permission from the publisher, The Warren Group. For a searchable database of real estate transactions and property information visit: www.thewarrengroup.com. ADDRESS DIGIANTOMMASO, DAVID CITY 64 GREEN ST DATE MALDEN PRICE 06.20.24 850000 concerns for public health, safety, and welfare. However, unlike these other scenarios where Malden followed neighboring communities, in cannabis regulation, Malden stands alone in leading the way in the state. There is no peer. Cambridge and Somerville, denser than Malden, have integrated cannabis shops exceeding state-mandated thresholds without issue.Quincy’s ZBA just approved a variance petition, further relaxing their zoning restrictions. Today, Malden stands at only 40% compliance with state mandates, with no foreseeable path to meet the minimum requirement of five establishments. Judge Rubin has openly questioned the city on how long candidates should reasonably wait? Benevolent and DRIS now stand at over 3 years. Malden urgently requires revenue and job creation while complying with state laws endorsed by voters in 2018. The current ordinance restricts marijuana establishments below state-mandated minimums, but to enact any ordinance counteracting state law, a public vote is required—and this vote was never taken. I implore your office to clarify what Malden stands to gain through prolonged legal battles- when you told NBC10 last year that our litigation “was being worked out” and instead, has now since doubled. What happens if Malden wins the lawsuits? You still are state-mandated to have at least 5 RME’s. Would CLEC start entertaining new applications for the same long-unavailable parcels? Or continue the charade of presenting non-compliant properties for ZBA review…. under the seemingly impossible assertion that cannabis variances are obtainable in Malden? Accountability within the City Council is long overdue, and it falls upon you and the city's leadership to demand it. Malden’s citizens deserve transparency-not city leaders who condemn it, and citizens deserve a true understanding of what your stance on this critical issue is, and either publicly back MCC12.12.190 and its legal defense openly, or step forward and help remove the true impediments to getting cannabis resolved, and the city out of legal and public duress, spotlights and scrutiny. Respectfully, Michael Clebnik CEO, Benevolent Botanicals, LLC.
20 Publizr Home