This week, lawmakers on Beacon Hill heard arguments for new legislation on host community agreements between Massachusetts cities and towns and recreational marijuana businesses looking to set up shop. Many in the pot industry have complained that the agreements can be overly burdensome and go beyond what's actually called for by state law. They want the state's Cannabis Control Commission to assume more oversight of the host community agreements, something the CCC is on board with. Karen O'Keefe is the director of state policies at the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates for marijuana decriminalization. O’Keefe spoke with WGBH Radio’s Arun Rath about host community agreements and the marijuana industry. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Arun Rath: So first off, can you tell us a little bit about how the Marijuana Policy Project works with marijuana organizations here in Massachusetts on policy?
Karen O’Keefe: I'd be happy to. We’re a nationwide organization and we actually were one of the primary organizations that spearheaded the initiative that made marijuana legal for adult use in Massachusetts. We worked very closely with individuals in the state to collect signatures and to run the campaign to make marijuana legal. We were very involved in the implementation in the first couple of years. Since then, we've played a more minor role as organizations have become more active within the state.
Rath: Now on the particulars of the host community agreements, in theory that sounds like a great way to keep control in local hands. But could you give us your perspective on how it's actually worked out so far in practice?
O’Keefe: So this is a unique approach that Massachusetts has taken. Other states that have marijuana legal for adults typically have generally applicable zoning rules, licensing agreements, and fees. In Massachusetts, instead, there are individual agreements that are negotiated between marijuana businesses and each municipality. So that takes a lot of time on the part of both parties.
It can lead to inequality, where you might have a different agreement for one entity than you have for another business. It also can slow down licensing. And, in many cases, the localities have required very hefty amounts of fees. They are allowed to have up to 3 percent of gross receipts be returned to the city for the first five years, but many have what's called "voluntary contributions," which actually are not voluntary, since an entity cannot be licensed, in many cases, or get that agreement unless they agree to them. So it means that those businesses that have a chance to get licensed tend to end up being the ones with the deepest pockets. The little guy, people that don't have as many resources, are not going to have as much money to put in up front to the businesses. And they also likely won't have as many political connections.
Read more: CCC Chairman On The State Of Marijuana In Massachusetts
Rath: And you know, part of the thinking behind this, I think, was supposed to be to favor smaller, local businesses. Is that why that hasn't really happened for the businesses we've seen so far?
O’Keefe: I think that's part of it. And certainly, the delay can be a problem too. If it takes a very long time to get a license, that's a lot of time not to be earning any income. And in a lot of cases, the businesses might be actually sitting on and owning or leasing the property while they're not receiving any income. So all of these are things that make it much more difficult for anything other than a very, very deep pocketed entity or individual to win at the licensing process.
Rath: Now, would changing these laws or these rules — could it be done in a way that would not take control away from cities and towns?
O’Keefe: What the bill that's being considered would do is simply allow the Cannabis Control Commission to regulate host community agreements and to enforce the rules. So for example, if a city were requiring so-called "voluntary donations" beyond the 3 percent that's allowed, the Cannabis Control Commission can say that's across the board not allowed, and they could reject the specific agreement that broke the rules in the first place.
The problem is, the law had specific rules that were parameters that all of the host communities were supposed to abide by, and they just haven't. And nobody believes that they have the authority to enforce the law now. The CCC said that they don't currently have the authority to make sure that the rules are followed. So this would still allow local control, it would just make sure somebody is enforcing the rules.
