By John Graham
In the aftermath of the Jan. 18 special election, Manitou Springs citizens should be aware of several things.
First, primarily non-Manitou interests manhandled a law that is designed to protect citizens, to ensure your right to self-government. The election was an attempt to usurp your power and line the pockets of a few outsiders.
Secondly, the campaign for increased marijuana outlets neither started with nor ended with this initiative.
Voters are aware that the measure failed 3 to 1, but a few confusing issues merit attention. I will provide my perspectives. These remarks are mine alone, made as an individual, and must not be considered official city, or City Council, statements.
This election originated through the “initiative petition” process, a relatively infrequent means of enacting laws by letting citizens decide directly via the ballot box.
The City Code gives citizens the right to take the law into their own hands if they don’t like what their government is doing, or not doing. Citizens write their own draft ordinance, collect signatures and present their petition.
Council then can either approve the ordinance, without alteration, or refer it to a vote of the people.
That safeguards the citizenry but is best reserved for exceptional conditions. That safeguard is not intended to give an individual, or a handful of people, the opportunity to sidetrack the law for their own gain.
It is to protect self-government, not disable it.
In this case, the initiative tried to sidestep the thought and experience that has determined the number, locations and local regulations for marijuana outlets. The ballot asked you to take the measure verbatim or not at all.
The third-store proponents attempted to create their own lucrative operation without regard for the community’s well-being. Since the inception of legalized recreational marijuana here, there has been periodic, often detailed, public discourse.
In 2019, marijuana proponents asked for more outlets. City Council sampled the community and issued Resolution 0319, which stated in part, “after four months of dialogue with a representative of an initiative to expand the number of permissible stores and two months of receiving constituent feedback on such an expansion, the City Council desires to affirm the city’s current regulations limiting the number of retail marijuana stores in the city to two.”
The people said they can live with two. Question answered.
The proponents also argued that having a third store would force the city to report actual marijuana tax collections and painted the city — council members and staff — as conniving to keep important financial information under wraps.
In contrast, the facts are that the city has worked diligently to make our budget process, and our financial management, extremely transparent. Go to www.manitouspringsgov.com and click on the round icon in upper left. See how your tax dollars are collected and spent. For our money management practices, go to the budget’s Introduction and then Financial Policies.
For most people, that’s more than enough. During the fall budget season, council spends a lot of time going over our finances. These are public meetings and additional public, community meetings are held — all opportunities to voice concerns. I will argue that this is transparent.
Despite that, you won’t know just what was collected in marijuana taxes, and that is per state law. Colorado Revised Statute 2020 Title 29-2-106(4)(c)(II) requires that, if there are only two taxpayers within a given category, we cannot reveal the information.
Even though the general public wouldn’t know how much came from each, each taxpayer would know what the other paid.
A third store could lead to more detailed reporting but saying that this is essential is blowing smoke, an odd thing to do if transparency is really the objective.
If you really want details on city finances, here is a tidbit that might interest you.
The special election cost the city approximately $17,000. Sadly, had the proponents submitted their petition a few weeks earlier, the question could have been included with the November election and we would have saved that added expense.
Editor’s note: John Graham is in his second term as mayor but, as he wrote, is speaking as an individual resident.