Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 7/13/2018
WEST SPRINGFIELD – The West Side marijuana drama has come to a close – for now.
The West Springfield Town Council voted 8 – 1 to override Mayor William Reichelt’s veto during a special meeting on July 9, effectively banning the retail sales, manufacture, and testing of commercial marijuana in the town. The override vote was the result of the mayor vetoing the Council’s decision to impose the ban on June 4. The councilors argued that a majority of residents do not want the presence of recreational marijuana in the community – West Springfield voters rejected the 2016 state ballot question to legalize adult-use marijuana by a vote of 6,239 to 5,814.
The decision was met with applause from the audience.
Reichelt had previously proposed several zoning amendments to allow adult-use marijuana businesses in town, citing the possible financial benefits. Because adult-use marijuana was legalized in the state in 2016 – with sales going into effect on July 1 – the mayor said the municipality would stand to collect a 3 percent local sales tax from commercial pot facilities within West Side, and profit from any additional revenue generated from host community agreements.
His proposal was created using similar ordinances from surrounding communities, and treated marijuana as a legal product to be sold and regulated like alcohol or tobacco.
When the Council rejected his proposal in early June, Reichelt invoked his veto powers for the first time since taking office in 2016. He argued the issue is no longer a matter of “legalization,” but rather, a discussion of regulation. He added that he believes the council should spend more time studying the pros and cons of the situation, and shouldn’t base their decision on town’s statewide vote in 2016.
“If the Town Council believes these decisions should be made at the ballot box instead of the legislative dais, then I suggest the Town Council explore options to gauge the interest of all of the voters as to the question now before us,” he said. “I would be happy to work with the Council and the Town Clerk to find the best possible avenue to accomplish this.”
During the special Town Hall meeting, which lasted only around ten minutes, the councilors took turns sharing their opinions on the veto.
Councilor Daniel M. O’Brien was the first to explain why he was overriding the veto. “I received numerous emails, both pro and con, and tried to respond to as many as I could by being very upfront with the people that were pro,” he started. “In 2016, a vote was held to prohibit pot in the state. In my opinion . . . the sentiment of it certainly meant no retail sales of it, which would be included in the no marijuana vote. So the sentiment of that vote was very clear to me.”
Brian J. Griffin echoed O’Brien’s comments, claiming a number of residents contacted him in support of the ban as well.
“From the individuals who have reached out to us on this issue, almost 50 percent – or a little more – have said that they don't want it [recreational marijuana] in our town. About 20 percent have indicated that they wish to have it, and there’s still another percentage – almost 30 percent – that say there should be a referendum vote,” he said. “That is not on the agenda this evening, so I’m not going to discuss it. Having said that, I think preponderance of the individuals who have come before us have said that we should override the mayor’s veto – and that is what we’re here to do.”
However, both councilors Bruce L. Gendron and Michael S. Eger hinted at the possibility of legalization in the future.
Gendron expressed that there is no need to rush into legalizing adult-use marijuana at the moment.
“I do believe recreational marijuana is inevitable, however, I would like to see the impact the casino in Springfield has on our infrastructure and services – as well the impact of rebuilding the Morgan Sullivan Bridge – before taking on recreational marijuana,” said Gendron. “Let some neighboring communities work out the bugs associated with the start up. If there are no problems, we can change the ordinance at will.”
Although Councilor Sean T. Powers didn’t comment, he was the only councilor who voted against overriding the veto. Powers supported the mayor during the first council meeting in which the ban was imposed.
The decision was made 8-1 to override Reichelt’s veto.
“I'm disappointed in the Council's decision, but I understand their perspective – though we will be missing out on revenue that could have blunted future tax increases,” Reichelt told Reminder Publications in a statement. “Lots of productive discussion could have taken place over the next six months, but now I leave it to the residents to decide if they want to pursue a ballot question.”
There are now only two other routes for legalizing commercial marijuana-related businesses, he explained. Both involve the Council.
The first is by a simple vote of the Council to place the matter before the voters on the ballot, while the second is an initiative petition by the residents.