Look for More Taxes with Pot Ruling

I want to impress to the public an urgency to respond by May 8 to Public Works and to attend the public meeting scheduled for May 14.  I have heard comments from opposite degrees on this subject and it is time that people come together to ask questions and find out the truth.

I have received public disclosure papers that make me feel alarmed about the possible consequences of allowing this to happen. Not just the threat to our future generations who will be given a clear message that the adults now endorse the use of this gateway drug if it means building the revenue for our area, but the way the amendment and application are written it could spell higher utility costs or Real Estate taxes that will be passed to us. The added capacity drain to our utilities will not be on the back of the contractor totally, but an extra expense to the Port, which undoubtedly will be passing on to us as taxpayers.

My readings of the Environmental Checklist, the Application to Amend the Development Regulations, and the Findings and Conclusions by the City Planner have given me more information than I ever wanted to know.  A snapshot follows:

• The Port owns three properties and they want to amend the collective gardening rules to allow TEN gardens per acre rather than one per acre.  This will not be limited to the one site but will allow for all their properties.
• The proposal also would allow for RETAIL SALES, MANUFACTURING, AND PROCESSING as an expansion of the current “Allowed and Restricted Uses Table”.
• Although the Environmental Checklist that negates the need for a professional impact study states that “no environmental information has been prepared”, it concludes there is no impact to the environment and the area is non-sensitive.
• The application claims that there will be no impact to public services yet my interviews with law enforcement reveal that their views have not been considered. 

To keep it brief I have sited only a portion of what the many papers say.  The opening paragraph of the application states as that

1. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Wouldn’t you think if it was consistent with the current plan it would not need to be amended?

2. The proposed amendments must not adversely impact the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.  My opinion that this application opens up a threat to our environment, the health of our generations to come, and a strain to our public servants.  Our habitat will be degraded and will attract the wrong type of tourists.  Our property values will decrease and our lifestyle compromised.

3. Capital facilities must be able to accommodate the level of development that could occur if the development regulations amendment were to be granted.    It will cause a funding drain that will ultimately be picked up by the taxpayers rather than the contractor.

As the application does not show positive potential in any of the criteria that is required to be met, this application should be withdrawn. The Federal Law still prevails. This would offer a good excuse for Federal funds to be cut off. The Liquor Control Board has not finished making the new regulations concerning marijuana.  Much money and time has been spent already and the target date to implement is July 2013. This amendment is premature and we should not spend more money putting the cart before the horse. 

Please attend the May 14 meeting at City Hall in Raymond and ask your questions and draw your own conclusions.  We have a responsibility to each other and to our children who will have to deal with what we have allowed to happen.

Thank you,

Jewel Hardy