The House voted in 2020 to give the cannabis commission authority to more closely scrutinize the pacts, but the Senate did not take up the measure. One filed by Haverhill representative Andy Vargas would require cities and towns to audit the fees they charge marijuana companies and refund any money above the actual cost to the community. Several proposed reforms intended to bring greater oversight and transparency to the process of negotiating host community agreements and the fees they contain are pending on Beacon Hill. “Cannabis operators should not have to sue their host communities to make them obey the law,” said David O’Brien, president of the Massachusetts Cannabis Business Association. As a result, Stem’s case will be closely watched - and cheered on by some. The Massachusetts marijuana industry has long hoped an operator would bring such a legal challenge, but until now none were willing to take on their host municipality, fearing retaliation. Nonetheless, Pineau said, it has set aside about $400,000 to pay its first annual impact fee, which is due May 30, and is willing to let the court hold those funds and disperse them to Haverhill if a judge determines any or all of the payment is justified. Stem is asking the court to find that Haverhill has not justified its fee, and is not entitled to any payments from the company. “I’d really love to see them authenticate those claims,” Pineau said, noting that state data show teen pot use trending down. Stem says Haverhill cannot substantiate those assertions, much less attribute them to the marijuana store’s operation, putting the city in violation of the “reasonably related” standard (which is also incorporated in the company’s “host community agreement” contract with Haverhill). an increase in need for drug abuse and mental health services, in both our community and, more specifically, in our schools, as well as an increase in domestic issues.” said “retail marijuana stores have caused us to have a substantial increase in our costs across a spectrum of municipal departments. In a February letter to the company, Haverhill city solicitor William Cox, Jr. Stem accuses Haverhill officials of ignoring an initial request for such documentation last July, then detailing only vague “impacts” caused by company’s presence when it again pressed the city to justify the fees.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |