Initiative would prohibit marijuana businesses

PALMER — Two draft ballot measures presently under review by the city of Palmer and Mat-Su Borough would ban most marijuana businesses, if voters approve.

The identically worded measures would exempt businesses dealing with industrial hemp, but would outlaw parlors, cafes, commercial grow operations for recreational uses, or any other forms of business trading in the drug, at least as they appeared in copies provided by the respective municipal clerks.

The primary sponsor of the Palmer initiative, Donna Irsik, said Friday the city measure had been rejected by the city clerk and would need to be reworded. Irsik said she was waiting to see the precise nature of the changes required before commenting in detail. The borough-level initiative is still under legal review.

The borough measure does not assert the business ban as an area-wide power, meaning the borough’s three incorporated cities would be able to choose their own destiny on the marijuana question. Clerks in Wasilla and Houston said they had not received similar measures.

One of the motivating forces behind both ballot measures is Borough Mayor Larry DeVilbiss, who is running for re-election this fall, but says he is not campaigning on the issue.

He said he supported both measures in an effort — at least in part — to clarify the will of voters.

“It’s timely,” DeVilbiss said. “A year from now, people will be totally invested in commercialization. When (the ballot measure) passed, it passed with three powers that came with it: the power to tax, the power to regulate, and the power to opt out.”

The proposed local initiatives would exercise that third power, he said.

He pointed to interest in investment locally as an example of the need for clarity from local voters.

“I talked to an investor just a few days ago from Anchorage that wants to invest out here, and I pointed out to him that this is a voting environment that was actually negative on Ballot Measure 2,” DeVilbiss said. “To put a big investment into that without knowing how the voters stood on it, or having that opt-out power hanging over their heads, is not something I would advise.”

By the numbers, voters in the unincorporated areas of the borough and in Wasilla rejected the November 2014 proposition legalizing marijuana. And voters in Palmer narrowly approved the measure, while Houston voters supported the measure by wide margins.

DeVilbiss had sought approval from the borough assembly for an advisory vote in support of a ballot measure, but assembly members unanimously rejected the measure earlier this year.

Among the more vocal critics of that measure was Assemblyman Jim Sykes, who said a local ballot measure would essentially be a repeat of the vote on the statewide Ballot Measure 2.

“I think some people may be trying to make the political point that the borough vote was slightly less than half, which is true. But there were some precincts that did vote in favor for it,” Sykes said. “So what are we going to do, take it down to the next level and do neighborhoods?”

The principal sponsor of the borough measure is Daniel Hamm, who did not respond to phone calls seeking comment. The secondary sponsor, Sally Pollen, said she opposed open commercialization because it attracted “the criminal element.”

“I don’t think the leaders of our boroughs or counties or state should be sanctioning further criminal activity,” she said.

Pressed whether she thought there were any benefits, Pollen was terse.

“Of course, for the pot smokers and the potheads, it would be wonderful for them to gather in smokehouses and such and be able to sell it and commercialize it and everything,” she said.

Pollen conceded possible medical benefit, but said the measure doesn’t address medical use.

“I just don’t think leadership in municipalities or state governments should be sanctioning something that is a known detriment to the people, be it alcohol or marijuana,” she said.

In Palmer, the ballot initiative process begins with an application requiring 10 voter signatures, according to municipal code. Once the application is satisfactorily completed, the clerk then certifies the initiative according to four criteria.

Once a potential initiative is certified, supporters have 90 days to collect resident signatures equal to 25 percent of the total voter turnout from the previous election. The city council has a chance, 20 days prior to the election, to pass an ordinance effectively matching the petition and turning it into code. If the council elects not to, the measure heads to the ballot.

The borough process conforms to state law, which says that upon certification by the clerk, supporters have 90 days to collect a number of signatures equal to at least 15 percent of the total votes cast in the 2014 election.

The deadline for the borough assembly to pass legislation adding a proposition or question on the ballot is Aug. 4.

Contact reporter Brian O’Connor on Twitter @reporterbriano.