Jump to content
That's what I thought originally, Ken, but it does appear that Connell's dealings with this landlord could at the very least indicate a perceived conflict of interest. If you've had a dispute with someone elsewhere, I think it calls into question your ability to objectively judge their request on another matter. I'm sure most other council members would have recused themselves from the beginning without any of this back and forth -- just on the possibility that the applicant could consider it a conflict of interest.
Both Planning staff and Planning Commission recommended approval of this application based on walking/biking distance from the park. Not sure why that wouldn't be good enough.
I don't doubt that the applicant was blindsided when what they must have thought was a pretty sure thing ran into so much opposition -- much of it having nothing to do with the code.
Looks pretty broad to me. Certainly enough wiggle room to cover situations like this.
Why do you believe this application should be rejected?
I gotta say this is the first time I've ever heard the term "family-friendly shopping center." Isn't there a jail nearby?
If these fine folks checked out any of the other shops, they'd find that their odor concerns are most likely overblown.
But if they're this concerned about a pot shop, I'm surprised they haven't started a petition to remove Arctic Liquor from the shopping center.
Actually, I'm not surprised. This double standard has got to go.
I do see the difference being that there's pot tourism to consider. But I would submit that this will help these fundraising events, not harm them or their participants --
unless you can convince me that a pot user or pot tourist does more harm than a booze drinker.
Pot is legal now. I think it's time for people to start adapting to the new normal.
Glad to see this.
Almost four years ago, Colorado voted to regulate marijuana similar to alcohol. The vote in Steamboat wasn't even close. I think Council needs to consider that when voting tonight.
I'd be very interested to know Connell's votes on approval of other pot shops, because his rationale for denying this one should have led him to deny all the others as well. If this was not the case, I think the owners' conflict of interest claims become more valid.
This variance request seems very minor compared to others Council has endorsed, and staff certainly seems to think the distance should be measured in actual walking/biking distance, not as the crow flies.
Sloop's line about not wanting marijuana being sold next to girl scouts selling hot dogs at Ace makes an awesome sound bite but should have no legal weight.
If it's okay to sell booze there, it should be just as okay to sell mj.
In fact, I'd bet good money that hot dog sales will substantially increase with a pot shop in the area!
I realize there are going to be growing pains when it comes to the legal sale of marijuana. But I would note that this is a shopping center. It's where people come to pick up just about anything they may need. Nowadays, that can legally include marijuana, and I think Council's decision should reflect that.
The place is called "Natural Choice". Since as far as I know it can't have any suggestive signage, people will probably figure it's a hair salon or something. :-)
Glad to see this raised. I'd be interested to know why Ski Corp thinks they're in a different league than other resort corporations who have agreed to collect and pay such a tax.
I'd hate to see council members become more hesitant to throw out ideas because Scott gets a lot of flack for what was clearly just a thought. Pilot peeps, why do we need a whole article about what was surely just a portion of Coffee with Council? How 'bout a section that summarizes the whole session?
As for the subject at hand, what about a license you can get if you can prove your dog is not a menace off leash? Who knows how that would work, but do any other communities do this? "Yeah, she's a certified BoatDog..." You Parks and Rec guys could even charge a small fee for this designation. :-)
"Clinton is not concerned about “… putting a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” no matter the human cost. And no matter the destruction of the livelihoods of tens of thousands of hard-working Americans."
That's not actually true -- she actually has a detailed plan to help people transition from coal jobs to others -- but since when has the truth mattered to the republican narrative. Funny how the human cost and keeping American jobs only matters in certain situations.
Free trade, anyone?
Oops, ok, Magill's rationale was also very weak up there with Sloop's, unless he can point to empirical data to support it. Connell's, although on its face it seems reasonable, shouldn't have been applied to just that store. It's also unclear what would make him change his mind.
Given the reasoning presented by many of these councilmembers, I think it'd be nice to know the positions of the Council that supported Golden Leaf's application. Don't feel like actually looking it up, though.
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |