The Jersey City Council once again decided to table an ordinance to technically cap cannabis dispensaries at 48, though it would really be 67 due to the 19 that would be grandfathered in, at last night’s meeting.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
“We have seen a rapid increase in cannabis dispensaries in our community. This ordinance does not include clear guidelines on preventing an oversaturation … The ordinance lacked transparency in the approval process,” Danielle D’Adamo said.
She also complained that they could be too close to schools and thought that could be a problem for children.
Osbert Orduna, of the Cannabis Place 420, where Hudson County Clerk E. Junior Maldonado is a minority partner, said he was part of the “Jersey City Coalition for Responsible Cannabis.”
“We are against the passing of the ordinance. We are very concerned about the oversaturation. You, the city council, have already approved 49 dispensaries in Jersey City,” he asserted, claiming that 70 dispensaries are already in the pipeline.
“This ordinance will allow for an additional 48 more dispensaries. That’s 118 dispensaries in Jersey City!” he exclaimed.
“The state of NJ currently has 177 dispensaries across the entire state including the 16 open in Jersey City right now: That’s irresponsible … I’ve had city representatives say that is the fair market economy. That’s insanity.”
Activist Bill Lillis also complained about too many dispensaries. He complained about cannabis vape smoke on the subway.
Attorney Robert DiPisa said he represented local dispensary applicants that have made significant investments, while UFCW Local 360 Director of Organizing Hugh Giordano agreed that oversaturation would cost people their jobs, and some cases, their business.
“Explain this ordinance, then we’re going to table it,” Council President Joyce Watterman stated.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Brittany Murray said the proposed changes included streamlining.
“The main change is putting on a license cap, caps for each different license. The 48 cap, just to clarify, would not lead up to 118. The maximum it could be is the 67 or 68 we already have. Later on, it would have to fall below 48 and 8 per ward for us to issue any additional Class 5 licenses,” she explained.
“The other thing we did is remove the second appearance before the cannabis control board. We tried to give the CCB a little bit more control over their agenda and enumerate local licensing requirements.”
She also said the planning board step would largely be eliminated from the process and replaced with a zoning determination letter instead of a full hearing.
“The consumption lounges are limited to six for the entire city, one per ward, and also changed hours to 11 p.m. as opposed to staying open to 2 a.m.,” Murray also noted.
City Clerk Sean Gallagher noted at the caucus they said they would make amendments, which are highlighted in the ordinance text.
The council approved the amendments 7-0, with Council-at-Large members Amy DeGise and Daniel Rivera .
“I believe we’re making a motion to table this ordinance?” Gallagher asked.
“We’ve had both email and speakers from the public talk about the number of dispensaries allowed,” Ward E Councilman James Solomon said, further stating that the cap would include all the dispensaries previously approved and grandfathered in.
“That would be a maximum of 67 which still is still a lot. Is this right?”
“That’s correct,” Murray replied, to which Solomon said the distance rules remain unresolved.
“We had the city challenge who got to put the pin in the map first. The city was struggling to determine that. So that’s already happened. I do really want to dive into the consumption lounge. I really want to understand where the city intends to go on that,” Solomon continued.
Ward F Councilman frank “Educational” Gilmore exclaimed “I don’t even know how we fix it” before the council voted unanimously (7-0) to table.
During the public comment period, Laverne Webb-Washington criticized the process and said claimed she had scene children as young as 12 years old smoking marijuana on the street.
The council tabled the first iteration of the ordinance last fall and didn’t revisit it again until a revised measure was approved on first reading on September 11th.
