On Oct. 16, I took the opportunity to give testimony before the Marijuana Control Board concerning the proposed marijuana regulations. I wanted to make clear my opposition to 3AAC306.030 -- Petition for License in Area With No Local Government. That section will require potential business owners in the unorganized borough to get the permission, in writing, of up to two-thirds of their neighbors, within a radius of up to 5 miles, before the board will consider them for a license.
The three minutes allotted for testimony is not enough time to cover all of the arguments against such a policy, but the crux of the matter is that this does not represent equal treatment under the law and is an onerous burden on the business owner.
The example I used was that of my property in the Copper Valley. There might be as many as 15 permanent residents within a 5-mile radius of my place, and I have serious reservations about just strolling up driveways with a piece of paper in my hand. Many of the places near my property have signs saying things like "No Trespassing" and "Beware of Dog." People buy property in the boonies for many reasons, one of which is to be left alone. Another might be to grow marijuana.
Land in the unorganized borough solves many site-security issues for marijuana cultivation. The lots are often large and isolated from neighbors. Typically there is only one access route. Screens of trees and fences keep prying eyes and fingers at bay. These features have drawn and will continue to draw marijuana cultivators. Whether these businesses are legitimate or not is up to the board and their regulations.
Asking a business owner to carry out a 5-mile-wide election is designing for failure. One only has to look at the recent example of The Grape Tap in Wasilla to see the problems with this approach. The new owner of that establishment was quoted in the Frontiersman as saying, "I've had people put their dogs out on me."
Personal safety and site security questions aside, the two-thirds majority requirement is far too stringent. This issue is not on the level of enacting a constitutional amendment or ending a filibuster in the Senate. Allowing a minority of residents to limit land use for the entire area is not good public policy.
When I finished my testimony, one of the board members asked me if I would be more comfortable seeking the permission of my neighbors or that of the assembly for the unorganized borough, which is the Alaska Legislature. I did not have a good answer to this, and I equivocated. Later, I realized why.
The Marijuana Control Board was established, by my neighbors through ballot measure and by the Legislature through statute, to grant permission on their behalf. Therefore, in an area lacking a local government, the only permission that should be required is that of the board.
It was at this point in my reasoning that I realized something else. Based on the question, the board must see this provision as a necessary concession to those lawmakers who would like to see marijuana businesses prohibited in the unorganized borough. If this is the case, then it looks, to me, more like capitulation than compromise.
Personally, I feel that the public notice requirements laid out in 3AAC306.025 are sufficient to protect the public interest anywhere in the state. If, however, compromise is called for, then I would like to offer a third option. The board should instead require that any applicant located in the unorganized borough provide individual notification to all permanent residents within a 5-mile radius, either in person or by certified mail. The notification should include all pertinent information including the proper manner, time and place to lodge an objection. The regulation could go even further by saying that an objection by 51 percent or more of the residents notified would constitute a compelling reason for rejection of the application.
This solution would have many benefits. First, it would change the nature of the burden on the business owner from one that is nearly insurmountable to something that could be solved with the help of the local post office.
Next, it would ensure that all interested parties would be able to air their concerns or objections at the proper time and place.
Finally, it would uphold the authority of the Marijuana Control Board, leaving the right of refusal in their hands rather than the hands of a minority of the applicant's neighbors.
The MCB has stated that their intention is to create a thriving, well-regulated market that can assimilate, or at least compete with, the current black market. Regulations like 3AAC306.030 do much to damage that goal. Placing onerous burdens on entrepreneurs seeking to enter the market in the unorganized borough will ensure the continuation of criminal enterprises in these areas.
The MCB will accept written comment on the proposed regulations until Nov. 11. Emails should be addressed to john.calder@Alaska.gov.
Tim Hale grew up on Prince William Sound in Whittier and Valdez, and now lives in Palmer.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com.