So, the $2.5-million question these days is, “When?”
Actually, that’s just the biggest question city officials need to answer in whether and how to regulate the recreational marijuana business voters set into motion last November by approving Amendment 64. There are a host of other issues city lawmakers need to work out, and soon.
City economists have guessed that if Aurora were to allow and regulate pot shops similar to liquor stores, Aurora’s general fund could rake in about $2.5 million a year in new tax revenues. And those aren’t pipe dreams like a long list of Aurora economic development notions have turned out to be.
Here’s the rub. There are some city lawmakers who really, really don’t like the idea of making marijuana legal, available and as incidental as a six-pack of beer. Too bad for them, Amendment 64 was supported heavily by almost every precinct in the city. Voters in every council ward strongly or overwhelmingly went to the ballot box last fall and said, “bring it on.”
As politicians at just about every level are so very fond of saying, the voters have spoken.
There are, however, some city lawmakers who might not object to legalizing marijuana, but they’re nervous about what could happen when the “open” sign lights up on Aurora’s first pot shop. How many shops? Where? Where not? Hours? What else can they sell? What about security?
Granted, Colorado and every city in the state is charting different, not new, waters with this one. Colorado’s prolific and maturing medical marijuana industry has already explored this brave new world. And the retail liquor industry, held up as a blueprint for this new industry, is as old as the state. The wheel isn’t being invented by Aurora City Hall; lawmakers there just have to decide which model they want.
Mayor Steve Hogan has been up front in saying that he’s leery about “rushing” into permitting pot shops and then having to try and undo anything deemed later as a mistake. While we and all Aurora residents and businesses can appreciate Hogan’s cautious approach, an arbitrary moratorium is unneeded.
Here’s the conflicting message: For the past few years, Aurora just can’t seem to give away enough tax breaks or bend over far enough to lure a wide range of businesses to make this city their home. Some of those businesses have been controversial and questionable. Bottled water companies, mega-hotels, solar-panel factories. So for a city that has a neon, blinking, “open for your business” sign on the front door, why not be just as enthusiastic about an industry that’s absolutely going to create guaranteed jobs, real-estate transactions, sales tax, head tax, entrepreneurship and upwards of $2 million a year in the general fund? The business of selling booze has many fans and critics. But if Aurora were to close every liquor store in the city, it would only be to the boon of those just outside the city’s invisible border. A pot shop on the Denver’s side of Havana Street has the same effect on the Aurora community as one on our side of the border, but the cash goes Downtown. In this issue, it will be vital for Aurora to call the shots on community pot shops, not the Denver City Council or Arapahoe County commission.
Aurora doesn’t need to, nor should it, rush to making mistakes. But this isn’t the tiny town of Sheridan. Aurora is a vast, capable, half-billion-dollar-a-year municipal corporation with a large and talented staff that can identify risks and solutions to the important questions about the forthcoming marijuana industry.
The controversial part is over; the voters have spoken. Now is the time for Aurora to figure out how to capitalize on this industry, which was a critical and prominent argument for passing Amendment 64 to begin with.