Planning Commission to City Council: Do Your Job

Perhaps an uncooperative Planning Commission should take its own advice

On November 13th, City Council’s Economic and Community Development Committee spent over an hour and a half grappling with the decision to allow cannabis operations in the community. The discussion was informed by the ten-minute discussion the Planning Commission had on October 9th as well as council’s public hearing on November 4th and other information, both for and against such dispensaries.

It is not a stretch to say that during their meeting, the Economic and Community Development Committee was looking for a healthy compromise; one that would help find common ground for all sides of the contentious issue. Roughly half the comments that council heard, either by email or at the public hearing, were for allowing cannabis operations, the other half were against it.

In the end, the Council Committee (along with the two other members of council at the meeting) found itself in a difficult place. It could easily provide an up or down vote on the overly broad recommendation provided by the Planning Commission, but that came with some unwelcome consequences. A majority vote by council approving the recommendation would prohibit cannabis operations everywhere in the community. A majority vote by council against the recommendation would allow cannabis operations anywhere in the community.

Neither of these overly simple options seemed palatable to a majority of the council members that attended the Committee meeting. In the committee meeting, it was discussed that the City Council could amend the recommendation by the Planning Commission, but any decision would have to carry seven of the nine members of council — which, given the contentious nature of the issue, securing seven votes on either side of the issue seemed unlikely to happen.

In the end, the Committee reached out to the Planning Commission to give the council another recommendation to consider, and in the end the message from the Planning Commission was less than helpful. During the 18-minute meeting, members of the Planning Commission seemed somewhere in between incredulous and indignant that they were even tasked to discuss this topic yet again. Most members stated that their original recommendation was clear, and they wanted council to make an up or down vote on allowing cannabis operations anywhere in the city.

Considerable credit it is due to Jordan Emerick, a member of the Planning Commission, who at least broached the subject of providing some carve out that would allow cannabis operations in very limited areas of the community. Commissioner Emerick obviously took the time to watch the Community and Economic Development Committee meeting and seemed to have a handle on the struggles that the committee was having in rendering their recommendation to the full council.

In the end, Mr. Emerick’s arguments fell on deaf ears, as the meeting was simply adjourned. For fear of having a “political” discussion, a clear majority of the Planning Commission was happy to not even entertain a discussion on the potential of having cannabis operations in the community, or what zoning district was most appropriate for such operations. Why solve a problem, when the easiest decision is to make no decision at all?

Where Does This Go From Here?

Well, the original recommendation from the Planning Commission remains and more than likely the Community and Economic Development Committee will again meet to talk about how the Planning Commission wasn’t very helpful.

Realistically speaking, it’s hard not to feel bad for the City Council at this point in the process. Let’s not forget, this whole ordeal began when the City Administration tried to knee-cap any attempt of public participation in this issue by trying to fast-track this change to the city’s zoning code.

Up to this point, the members of this council have sat through a nearly one-hour public hearing on this topic, and at least four members sat through an hour and a half discussion. The recalcitrant Planning Commission, for their part, has sat through a grand total of 28 minutes of discussion and, per their custom, never entertained any public comments from the podium during their meetings (even though three City Council members were in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting in question), nor did they seem sympathetic to at least some of the council member’s real desire to come up with a workable decision.

A Display of Courage or Cowardice?

To put it plainly, it takes quite a bit of nerve for the Planning Commission to chide the City Council for not doing its job, when the issues and concerns brought forward during the council committee’s 90-minute meeting weren’t even acknowledged by the Planning Commission in their 18-minute meeting. Maybe the Planning Commission needed a better grasp of the issues at hand, perhaps the Planning Commission needed to do a better job.

This past Wednesday was not a high watermark for our City’s Planning Commission, which continues to earn a less than sterling reputation when it comes to the decisions it has made. Remember, a precipitating factor in the entire IOOF/Tavern Building debacle came about due to the fact that the Planning Commission was found, in a court of law, of violating the city’s own Zoning Code.

If there was ever a time for comprehensive reform of our Planning Commission, now is the time.

What Do You Think?

What do you think should happen with cannabis operations in our city? What do you think will happen with such establishments? Our paid subscribers are more than welcome to leave their ideas and insights in the comment thread!

Tell Us How You Feel About Your Community!

Our reader survey for November is looking for responses! Feel free to share your thoughts and ideas on your hometown! You can access the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PF6SPPN

You Can Help Support This Work!

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!