To the editor:
There seem to be many open questions regarding the current Ballot Question 1 to allow for a third marijuana store in Manitou Springs in the commercial zone district within 150 feet to the south of U.S. Highway 24.
I, for one, do not object to a third store in Manitou and the city realizing all of the tax revenue sounds good to me.
A third store would likely result in lower prices for consumers. Anyone who has observed the duopoly of Pepsi and Coca-Cola realizes they almost never compete on price.
However, the specific language allowing a third store within 150 feet south of U.S. Highway 24, and requiring at least 100 parking spaces, raises some questions. It would seem as though Ballot Question 1 has been crafted to allow a retail marijuana store in the very specific location of Higginbotham Flats.
Could it be that Marketing Services Inc. of Pueblo, which already owns 1.5 acres on Higginbotham Flats, has crafted this ballot question so it can be the only entity that could reasonably submit an application for a marijuana store in the designated area?
If so, it seems as though this entity may have duped the residents of Manitou Springs, this resident included, into signing a petition that was presented as simply allowing a third marijuana store in the city.
As I mentioned, I am not against a third marijuana store in town. I’m also not against a store on Higginbotham Flats, so long as the intersection is thought to be able to handle increased traffic safely.
However, I do believe City Council should lead the process on acceptable locations for a third store and evaluate applications appropriately. It seems like many citizens desire a third store, but let’s not let a single entity craft the law in such a self-serving way.