Rules Should Confirm Awareness of Property Holdings?
In their May second letter to the Liquor Control Board, LCB, Representatives Takko and Blake urge the LCB to require applicants for recreational cannabis licenses to actually have control of the facilities to carry out the provisions of the license. The formal transmittal from the Pacific County Legislative Delegation seems like a common sense request. The legislator’s concern is that applicants will be license hunting and may not actually have control or ownership of facilities and property necessary to carry out the provisions of one or more of the three licenses soon to be let by the state agency responsible for implementation of Washington’s recreational use cannabis law, I-502. Pacific County is the sight of recently announced agreement of a building lease between the Port of Willlapa Bay and a group of Seattle investors. Cannabis will be grown and possibly, processed in a vacant saw mill owned by the Port.
Wallapa Bay Story Here: https://washingtonstatewire.com/wacannabiswire/cannabis-economic-development-marcus-charles-of-restaurants-concerts-and-cannabis-farming/
No Proper Disclosure, No License
Drilling in on but one of the loose ends still being considered by the LCB, the Pacific County delegation pleads for what appears like an old fashion, “ready-willing-and-able” clause used in many industries. In English? Don’t let applicants who have no idea where they will conduct their business shop or apply for a license before they find a location.
Property Owners and Landlords Should Know Federal/State Law Conflict
The most pertinent part of the delegation’s request may be the section where they also want the LCB to include in rules that the owner or lessor of the property be aware of the use of the facility and state it in the agreement. The letter goes on to suggest use “documents” contain an acknowledgment that the activities at the sight are illegal under Federal law, and that all lean holders, owners, and others with an interest in the property be aware of the law-conflict implication.
Big/Little
A universal concern by medical marijuana, MMJ, and potential recreational use licensees is; will the LCB design their three tiered licenses to protect and insure operations of all sizes? Arguments are strong on both sides and include everything from maintenance of seed-gene pool diversity to fear of national and multinational businesses pushing out a local, diverse Washington-only business community. The smaller MMJ operators and those planning smaller participation in one or more of the three stages of I-502 seed-to-sale regulatory platforms are adamant in their request to keep the “big boys out.”
Have and Have Nots
The LCB will have to decide if the requested Pacific County Delegation provision actually creates a have-and-have-not regulatory arena. What resources are necessary to meet the tests put forward in the delegation’s letter? Is the requirement a per se’ barrier to entry or is it sound regulatory policy assuring that all applicants are…”ready-willing-and-able?”
Pacific Delegation Letter Here:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=13e70296582adb7c&mt=image/tiff&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D43957ce406%26view%3Datt%26th%3D13e70296582adb7c%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid%3D105bfa42347e9e7e_0.1%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTjmE92mRbhbFtRwtSxxYA2teHVyw
Your support matters.
Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.
