Category: Other Lawsuits

8/30/22 – Updated to add new court of appeals order at the bottom of the post

Well, well. Our city council seems to have gotten themselves into yet another lawsuit about marijuana (or marihuana, the spelling the State of Michigan likes to use for some reason, so that’s the spelling I’ll try to remember to use). In case you didn’t know, marihuana stores of any kind are illegal in Clarkston, at least for now.

So, how did we get here?

On May 13, 2019, the city council voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance that prohibited marihuana establishments from operating within the city. This occurred shortly after recreational marihuana was approved by Michigan voters. During this timeframe, many communities were “opting out” of allowing marihuana businesses as a way of maintaining the status quo, at least for the short term. (Doing nothing was essentially the same thing as “opting in” and allowing them.) I’ve provided a link to the ordinance as presented on May 13, 2019 (05-13-2019 resolution) and the minutes showing that it was approved (see Item 9) (05-13-2019 minutes). The city’s code of ordinances on its website was never updated to include this new ordinance, so people would have to just know that it exists.

On June 24, 2019, a Detroit-based marihuana company named Pleasantrees made a presentation to the city council about the creation of a medical marihuana dispensary in the old antique shop at 21 North Main Street (now the home of Main Street Michigan coworking offices). You won’t find a specific reference to the presentation in the agenda or the minutes – it was mysteriously listed in Item 10 on the agenda and Item 8 on the final meeting minutes as a “new business proposition” that was referred to the Planning Commission. But, since the city council had previously voted to prohibit all marihuana establishments in the city, the Planning Commission saw “no reason to further debate this ‘change of use’ for 21 North Main Street,” noted that the city attorney agreed, and closed the case. I’ve linked to the agenda (06-24-2019 city council agenda), the minutes (06-24-2019 minutes), and the comments from the Planning Commission (12-02-2019 Planning Commission recommendation).

And I’m sure the city council and city attorney thought that would be the end of the issue in Clarkston. Except that it wasn’t, because the city council doesn’t necessarily have the final say about marihuana sales in Clarkston.

There are two types of local laws in Clarkston – our ordinances and our charter. Clarkston voters approved the charter, and it is the supreme law in Clarkston. City council passes ordinances, but they can’t pass an ordinance that conflicts with the charter. As I mentioned earlier, Clarkston has prohibited all marihuana sales by ordinance, and there is nothing in our charter about this issue. But you should be aware that there is a shadow group out there trying to change that while pretending they “care” about medical marihuana use. They even use “care” in their names, so it must be totally true. 🙄 More on that below.

Michigan allows voters to change (and approve) state and local law on their own. Without getting too far into the weeds, a “referendum” in Michigan usually means that the legislature has passed legislation, but the voters can challenge that by asking for a vote on the law before it becomes effective, while an “initiative” is a ballot proposal driven by securing enough registered voter signatures. (We’ve seen a lot of those this year, haven’t we?) The Clarkston charter allows both initiatives and referendums, and they are discussed in Sections 6.14-6.17 of the Clarkston charter (though I would note that the charter requires more signatures than state law does, so the state law requirement of signatures from “at least” 5% of Clarkston voters prevails).

Last year, an organization calling itself the “Oakland Cares Coalition” filed a number of lawsuits against various Oakland County clerks, including our own Clarkston clerk. Its goal was to secure a court order that would force the local clerks to put the Oakland Cares Coalition initiative on the ballot to be voted on. The city council discussed the Clarkston petition on July 26, 2021, and we were told that this group was seeking a charter amendment to end the prohibition on marihuana facilities in Clarkston, to assist medical marihuana patients with critical medical conditions, and to create a Clarkston department of medical marihuana with local regulatory authority. (Remember, charter amendments trump ordinances, so this proposed charter amendment would have superseded the marihuana ordinance we currently have if a majority of voters had voted for it.) At the August 9, 2021, city council meeting, the city manager told us the petitions didn’t have enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. The Oakland Cares Coalition sued Clarkston – and lost.

It now appears that the Oakland Cares Coalition has arisen like a phoenix from the ashes to become – “Clarkston Cares.” (How original. 🙄) As I said before, I have serious doubts that either of these organizations actually care about anyone – or anything – except making money for their secret clients.

It’s probably about time that I share my own bias. I voted to legalize marihuana, and I don’t object to the sale of marihuana (even in Clarkston, provided it’s done tastefully, and the parking issues are addressed). My biggest objection to marihuana sellers is that I find the commercial advertising for marihuana stores to be annoying and often juvenile, especially along I-75 moving northward from the Michigan/Ohio border because a lot of people from Ohio come to Michigan to purchase recreational marihuana (only medical marihuana is legal in Ohio and there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get it).

That said, I really don’t much care for shadow, outside organizations, and both the Oakland Cares Coalition and Clarkston Cares seem to fit that definition (there’s also an similar organization named Oakland Cares involving many of the same players). Frankly, organizations like these really p*ss me off, especially when they come into the place where I live and try to jack around with my city’s constitution using a pretense of “caring” for anyone. As often as I criticize our city council, I would rather the council take responsibility for regulating marihuana sales in Clarkston. They were elected by the voters and live in the community. I think that the people who live here know what’s best for Clarkston, and if our officials do something we don’t like, we can pressure them to change their minds or remove them. We can also originate our own, homegrown, above-board ballot proposals to fix what we don’t like, and we certainly don’t need help from outside organizations that operate in secret.

So, what can we learn about the sneaky little shadow group behind the Oakland Cares Coalition, Oakland Cares, and Clarkston Cares? Not a whole lot, and I have no doubt that’s deliberate. They’re definitely funded by the same organization (but shhhhhh – its donors are a secret).

The Oakland County Clerk maintains a campaign finance website. It’s very helpful when researching candidates and committees. You can find it here: https://oakland.mi.campaignfinance.us/. I found several entries of interest, and you’ll notice a striking bit of commonality among them:

1. 1. Clarkston Cares 2022, ballot question committee, formed 6/1/22, treasurer Johnathen Tebbutt. Their 7/25/22 filing for the period 4/21/22-7/20/22 lists expenses for petition printing services from Lawson Printers (Battle Creek); signature expenses from Upcard LLC (St. Petersburg, Florida) (this was for paying a professional signature gatherer to get people to sign the petition); and consulting fees from ELCM Ventures, LLC (Oak Park) (though we can’t tell what “consulting” means from the filing or anything else in the public file). All expenses were paid by “contributions” from the Coalition for Michigan Patients.
      https://campaignfinance.us/docs.oakland.mi/894967.pdf)

1. 2. Oakland Cares, ballot question committee, formed 6/11/21, treasurer Johnathen Tebbutt. Their 10/25/21 filing for the period 6/11/21-10/20/21 lists expenses for petition printing services from Lawson Printers (Battle Creek); signature expenses for a collector from Ann Arbor and someone with an unlisted address; nine entries for signature expenses for a collector named Shawn Wilmoth, 15001 Kercheval Ave., Suite 501, Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230; notary services from the UPS Store (Canton); courier services (no city listed); and legal services from Honigman LLP (Lansing), which is a very prominent and expensive law firm (I should know; I used to work in their Detroit office). All expenses were paid by “contributions” from the Coalition for Michigan Patients.
      https://campaignfinance.us/docs.oakland.mi/888759.pdf

1. 3. Oakland Cares Coalition, ballot question committee, formed 6/21/21, treasurer Johnathen Tebbutt.

• • • The 10/25/21 filing for the period 6/21/21/-10/20/21 lists petition printing expenses for Lawson Printers (Battle Creek); signature expenses from a person living in Swartz Creek and others from unlisted cities; thirteen entries for signature expenses for a collector named Shawn Wilmoth, 15001 Kercheval Ave., Suite 501, Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230; two signature expenses from a professional signature collector named First Choice Contracting, 15001 Kercheval Ave., Suite 501, Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230; notary expenses (no city listed); courier expenses (no city listed); and legal services from Woodyard & Associates (Canton), Hank Law PLLC (East Lansing), and Honigman LLP (Lansing). All expenses were paid by “contributions” from the Coalition for Michigan Patients.
      https://campaignfinance.us/docs.oakland.mi/888650.pdf

1. 1. • The 1/31/22 filing for the period 10/21/21-12/31/21 lists legal services fees from Honigman LLC (Lansing). All expenses were paid by “contributions” from the Coalition for Michigan Patients.
        https://campaignfinance.us/docs.oakland.mi/890518.pdf

1. 1. • The 4/25/22 filing for the period 1/1/22-4/20/22 lists petition print expenses for Lawson Printers (Battle Creek) and consulting services from ELCM Ventures LLC (Oak Park). All expenses were paid by “contributions” from the Coalition for Michigan Patients.
        https://campaignfinance.us/docs.oakland.mi/892486.PDF

1. 1. • The 7/25/22 filing for the period 4/21/22-7/20/22 lists consulting services with ELCM Ventures, LLC (Oak Park); petition printing expenses from Lawson Printers (Battle Creek); legal services from Hank Law PLLC (East Lansing); and signature expenses from Upcard LLC (St. Petersburg, Florida). All expenses were paid by “contributions” from the Coalition for Michigan Patients.
        https://campaignfinance.us/docs.oakland.mi/893862.PDF

Are you noticing a pattern here? Same treasurer, same printing company, signature collectors from professional signature gathering companies as well as people who live in other cities (or whose addresses weren’t disclosed), and contacts with ELCM Ventures.

You might be wondering why I’ve highlighted Shawn Wilmoth and First Choice Contracting in red in connection with the summaries of the campaign finance filings for Oakland Cares and Oakland Cares Coalition. To begin with, you’ll note that they share the same street address – but that’s not why I’m bringing them to your attention. I’ve highlighted them because Mr. Wilmoth and First Choice Contracting have been accused of fraud in connection with signature collection in this year’s Michigan governor’s race. Here are some articles that discuss the Mr. Wilmoth, First Choice, and/or the signature fraud issue:

• • September 20, 2011, “Head of Signature Collection Firm Pleads Guilty,” ALRnow.com, https://tinyurl.com/ALRNow, last visited August 28, 2022
  • May 24, 2022, “This Warren Political Huckster is Behind Michigan’s Phony Petition Signature Scandal,” Chad Selweski, Deadline Detroit, https://tinyurl.com/Deadline-Detroit, last visited August 28, 2022
  • June 14, 2022, “James Craig Sues Petition Circulators; Perry Johnson Meeting with Lawyers to File Suit,” Beth LeBlanc and Craig Mauger, The Detroit News, https://tinyurl.com/Detroit-News, last visited August 28, 2022
  • June 16, 2022, “How One Firm in a ‘Wild West’ Industry Upended the Michigan GOP Governor Race,” Yue Stella Yu, Mike Wilkinson, and Joel Kurth, Bridge Michigan, https://tinyurl.com/Bridge-Michigan, last visited August 28, 2022
  • July 22, 2022, “Firm at Center of Fake Signature Investigation Collected $218K from Two Governor Hopefuls,” Paul Eagan, Detroit Free Press, via Yahoo! News, https://tinyurl.com/Detroit-Free-Press-via-Yahoo, last visited August 28, 2022

Here is a link to the May 23, 2022 State of Michigan Bureau of Elections “Staff Report on Fraudulent Nominating Petitions” – https://tinyurl.com/Bureau-of-Elections. Please note that this report does not specifically name Mr. Wilmoth or First Choice Contracting, and I was unable to find any of the names listed in this report on the campaign finance statements filed by Clarkston Cares, Oakland Cares, or Oakland Cares Coalition.

I was also able to locate the docket for former gubernatorial candidate and former City of Detroit Police Chief James Craig’s civil lawsuit relating to the fraudulent signatures submitted in connection with his campaign. The case was filed in Kent County and is captioned Chief James Craig for Governor et al. v In Field Strategies Inc et al., case 22-05367-CBB, filed 6/13/22. Neither Mr. Wilmoth nor First Choice Contracting are listed as party defendants. The July 22, 2022, Yahoo!/Detroit Free Press News story, linked above, alleges that named defendant In Field Strategies subcontracted with Wilmoth’s company. I was also unable to match any of the names listed on the campaign finance statements filed by Clarkston Cares, Oakland Cares, or Oakland Cares Coalition with the named party defendants in this lawsuit. You can find the docketing statement for the Craig lawsuit by searching here: 17th Circuit Court Name Search (accesskent.com).

I’m honestly not sure what this means for the current Clarkston Cares petition, if anything, since Clarkston Cares used a different professional signature company, Upcard, LLC (instead of First Choice Contracting and/or Mr. Wilmoth, who were used by Oakland Cares and Oakland Cares Coalition). Unfortunately, Clarkston Cares did not list the names of any individual signature collectors to enable me to crosscheck them. One might ask whether Oakland Cares’ and Oakland Cares Coalition’s use of a convicted election fraud signature gatherer was carried over to Clarkston Cares, which appears to be organized and financed by the same unidentified people. But the publicly available documents don’t answer that question.

Since Clarkston Cares’ campaign finance form lists Upcard’s location as St. Petersburg, Florida, I’m simply curious whether they subcontracted the signature gathering to a Michigan company, and if so, which company. It would be important to know whether Mr. Wilmoth and/or First Choice Contracting were involved in any way in the Clarkston Cares signature gathering, and I’ve found nothing that answers that question in my search. I was able to verify Upcard’s corporate status as an active Florida Limited Liability Company by searching on their name at https://search.sunbiz.org/, the website for the State of Florida, Division of Corporations. I do want to be both fair and crystal clear – I did not locate any news stories, let alone any negative news stories, about Upcard, LLC. I definitely do not intend to imply in any way that there has been any wrongdoing on Upcard’s part as I’ve found nothing that suggests that in my search for information regarding the Clarkston Cares petition that is the subject of the pending lawsuit involving our Clarkston clerk.

That said, I sincerely hope that the Clarkston clerk did more than just match the names of City of the Village of Clarkston registered voters with the names on the Clarkston Cares petitions. Even without the negative news stories surrounding signature gathering this year, I think it would be extremely important to match the actual signatures on file with the signatures on all petitions presented to her for review now and in the future, and not just the petitions filed by Clarkston Cares for the November election.

Moving on to other things. Can you guess who organized ELCM Ventures, the organization who provided undisclosed “consulting” services to Clarkston Cares and the Oakland Cares Coalition, the two entities that have been or are involved in litigation with Clarkston? Why, that would be Johnathen Tebbutt. (Articles of Incorporation, ELCM Ventures.) He’s also the resident agent. (Registration, ELCM Ventures.) The address that Mr. Tebbutt provides for this company appears to be a residential home that was previously sold as a HUD home based on information found in a Redfin listing (https://www.redfin.com/MI/Oak-Park/23280-Seneca-St-48237/home/61036784).

And, on another note, did you notice that all the expenses for Clarkston Cares, Oakland Cares, and the Oakland Cares Coalition have been paid for with “contributions” from the Coalition for Michigan Patients? Who the heck are they?

Not surprisingly, the Coalition for Michigan Patients is very secretive as well. Their articles of incorporation claim that they are “[a] social welfare organization to engage in issue advocacy and education on issues related to medical marijuana.” They were formed on May 24, 2021 and registered as a Michigan non-profit on that same day. You know what that means, don’t you? It means that they get to keep all of their donors a secret. And that donor money can be funneled through the Coalition for Michigan Patients and used to anonymously fund a lot of marihuana-related ballot proposals. I’ll bet their tax form would be interesting to look at. Even though you can’t find out who the individual contributors are, you can find out how much money they received.

Would you like to know who incorporated the Coalition for Michigan Patients? Why, none other than our friend Johnathen Tebbutt, and the “residence or business address” that he used for the Articles of Incorporation just happens to be the same address as the former HUD home that ELCM Ventures uses as its address. What a coincidence! (Articles of Incorporation, Coalition for Michigan Patients; Registration as a Michigan nonprofit, Coalition for Michigan Patients.)

Whoever is behind this isn’t just trying to screw with Clarkston and Oakland County. As I was looking into this, I came across a 2021 web article from WKAR discussing the “Eaton Cares Coalition,” “Shiawassee Cares Coalition,” and the “Southeast Michigan Patients Advocates Coalition.” The article noted that all these organizations were behind Michigan marihuana ballot measures. Guess what? They all apparently have the same treasurer, and I’ll bet you already know who it is. That’s right, it’s Johnathen Tebbutt. And, while the article notes that the Eaton Cares Coalition didn’t disclose any donations, it said that the Shiawassee Cares Coalition and the Southeast Michigan Patients Advocates Coalition did disclose donations. Wonder who was paying their bills? If you guessed the Coalition for Michigan Patients, you would be right! The article also notes that Tebbutt and the Coalition for Michigan Patients are connected to another “cares” group – Ingham Cares Coalition. (I’ve linked to the article here:  https://tinyurl.com/WKAR-News.)

As further evidence that Clarkston Cares is an outside group, the majority of signatures submitted to the Clarkston clerk for review were from Independence Township voters, not Clarkston voters. You and I both know that no one from around here would make that mistake. Even though Independence Township has a Clarkston mailing address, it is not part of the small City of the Village of Clarkston. In addition, the lawyer who filed the current lawsuit against Clarkston on behalf of Clarkston Cares also sued some of the Oakland County clerks on behalf of the Oakland Cares Coalition last year. Coincidence? I doubt it, especially since she’s apparently so confused about who she represents that her July 13, 2022, email to our Clarkston clerk discussing petitions advised that that she represents the Oakland Cares Coalition – even though the petitions were supposedly from Clarkston Cares.

The Clarkston Cares charter proposal is just as sneaky as they are. While a person signing the petition could take the time to read three pages of two-column fine print before signing it, I’m going to hazard a guess that no one who signed the petition did that, relying instead on the one sentence on the front of the petition – that it’s a petition for a “charter amendment to end the City’s prohibition of medical marihuana facilities and establish a local licensing system and regulatory provisions for medical marihuana facilities to operate within the City.” That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? We all want to help people who are sick, don’t we? Unfortunately, it is bad. Really bad. For us. On the other hand, it’s really, really good for the secretive people who want to sell marihuana in Clarkston.

So, let’s take a look at the steaming pile of crap that these outsiders would like you to vote on in November. Remember, it’s a charter proposal, so that means that it trumps all ordinances that conflict with it. If it passes, here are some highlights of what you get:

• • It creates a new Chapter XVI of the charter and ends the prohibition of medical marihuana facilities in Clarkston. The city council is permitted to draft ordinances, but they can only legislate around the edges because they can’t do anything that conflicts with this new chapter.

• • The medical marihuana business can be located anywhere there is a building structure on a land parcel.

• • If a licensing applicant has a state operating license, they must automatically be approved by Clarkston. The city can’t add any requirements.

• • The city must authorize two marihuana provisioning centers immediately upon enactment of this new law.

• • The city must also enact all necessary ordinances and resolutions within thirty days for the new charter requirement, but these ordinances and resolutions can’t limit or restrict this new change to the charter.

• • Marihuana retailers may operate seven days a week, from 9:00 am. to 9:00 p.m.

• • The city must begin accepting applications ten days after the charter amendment takes effect for a ten-day period. If the city doesn’t create an application form, then the applicants can submit whatever they want as long as the alternate form is titled “Marihuana Facility Application” and includes the necessary information. The two licenses must be awarded within 30 days after the close of the application period.

• • The city is required to create an application process, with applicants earning up to 100 points, based on specific scoring criteria listed in the petition. (If the applicant has a state license, s/he automatically gets 50 points.) Applicants can lose points if they have had any disciplinary action. The two highest scorers win the license prize. Ties are decided by lottery. License fees are limited.

• • If the city awards no licenses within 31 days after the close of the application period, then every applicant gets to operate conditionally, so we could have more than two places selling marihuana.

• • The marihuana license holders can move to a new place, as long as the new place doesn’t violate our local zoning ordinances (but see the comment below about zoning). The city must respond within five days to the transfer request.

• • The marihuana license holders can transfer their license to anyone else, and the only requirement is that the new owner has to notify the city of the transfer. The city has five days to respond, and its response must be “yes.”

• • Once they have a license, it can’t be revoked unless the state permanently revokes their state license (suspensions don’t count, so the license holder has to be really, really bad from the state’s perspective before the license is taken away).

• • Licenses automatically renew every year “in perpetuity.”

• • If for some reason the city refuses to issue a license, the disappointed person is entitled to a hearing, and the city has to appoint a hearing officer. If the licensee isn’t happy with that, a lawsuit will follow (so more legal fees for us).

• • Every city regulation, resolution, and ordinance that conflicts with this new charter article can’t be applied to these marihuana establishments. That language is broad enough to supersede the city’s zoning ordinance, so that a facility can be located anywhere in the city, including in a residential zone, and the facility can use whatever signs it wants, including flashing electronic billboards. Zoning and sign provisions would limit the right of the license-holder to conduct its business and could be viewed as conflicting with the new charter provisions.

• • If anyone challenges the validity of this new charter article, the city has to defend it (so again, that means more legal fees for the taxpayers).

• • The licenses are “vested property rights.” That means that, even if the voters decide to amend the charter to eliminate the marihuana provisions, the licenses issued before that will remain effective “in perpetuity.” In other words, once this approved and licenses are issued, it can never be changed.

(I’ve attached a highlighted proposal here: Clarkston Cares ballot proposal.)

I’m sure it would be totally awesome to have people coming into town from all over to buy medical marihuana seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. at two separate locations. And, if the city administration screws up and doesn’t issue the two licenses within the short, required time period, then there could be even more locations open seven days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Awesome – maybe we could have as many pot shops as restaurants! That’s worked out so well, hasn’t it?

Just like bedbugs and cockroaches, these licenses will be pretty much guaranteed forever. If the voters tried this experiment, decided we didn’t like it, and wanted to change the charter back, that would be too bad, so sad for us. Even if the licensee is regularly suspended by the state for bad conduct, we can’t shut the facility down unless the state revokes the license. And I’m sure that the licensee would simply transfer the license to someone else to use before it’s lost.

Do you think that these marihuana shops would just be in the commercial section of the city? Oh no. Since any conflicting ordinance can’t be applied, and any building on a piece of land can house a store, these people could buy a house in a residential neighborhood and set up shop – and there isn’t a damned thing you can do about it. I’ll bet that would do wonders for our property values because people will be totally clamoring to live near a marihuana store that operates seven days a week, twelve hours a day. Wouldn’t you want that for your family? 🤬

If you haven’t figured out yet that this proposal has more to do with creating a bill of rights for marihuana sellers than it has to do with allowing you to conveniently buy a little marihuana in the city, then you haven’t been paying attention. You and I and the city government don’t factor into this at all. And even though recreational marihuana is legal, the petition relates to medical marihuana only. So, unless you have a prescription for medical marihuana (and why would you bother, since you don’t need one anymore in Michigan), you aren’t going to be buying at these locations.

As it stands right now, Clarkston Cares submitted petitions with enough signatures from Clarkston voters (88 of them) to get onto the ballot. The city claims that they didn’t submit them in time for all the necessary reviews under state law. Since this involves a proposed charter amendment, it has to go to the governor’s and the attorney general’s office. The city says that Clarkston Cares’ petition submission on 7/1/22 did not allow ample time for the required review process. Clarkston Cares argues that the governor’s review isn’t necessary (because their charter proposal can be put on the ballot even if the governor doesn’t approve), they have enough signatures, and Clarkston deliberately used all its allotted time to review the petition so that the submission to the state would be delayed.

In case you haven’t heard, Clarkston Cares won in the circuit court. The judge didn’t even appear to consider the city’s legal arguments. Instead, she said that she believed that this was all political because Clarkston doesn’t want marihuana sales in the city. She’s entitled to her personal opinion – and she might be right – but she should be deciding cases on the law, not her personal beliefs about what Clarkston government officials may or may not believe. (Unfortunately, that kind of thing happens a lot in circuit court.)

The city council authorized the city attorney to appeal the circuit court’s decision, and we are going to have to pay the legal fees involved in the fight. The city attorney asked for an expedited appeal because we really are running out of time before ballots must be printed in early September. At this point, both sides submitted briefs in the court of appeals. I would note that Clarkston Cares switched lawyers, so the city attorney should be prepared for that.

As they usually do, the Clarkston city council treated this like a big secret with a closed session to keep us in the dark about what was happening, so I had to make a Freedom of Information Act request for the court materials. If you’re interested in reading more, I’ve attached the filings in the lower court, as well as a transcript of the hearing, at this link: 20220824 – Clarkston Cares v Speagle, complaint through transcript. I’ll be making a request for the appeal briefs filed by Clarkston and Clarkston Cares and will update this post to add them once I receive them.

If Clarkston Cares wins the lawsuit and the issue makes it to the ballot, I would strongly encourage everyone to vote NO. As you can see, this proposal protects marihuana sellers while not giving a damn about you, your property values, and I suspect, not even about medical marihuana users. In other words, it’s all about the Benjamins, baby. They will do anything and say anything to get you to let them in, and once they’re here, they’re here forever.

If the Clarkston Cares proposal does not make it to the ballot, then I would urge our city council to revisit this issue. The only argument the city attorney has made is that the petition was submitted too late to go through the state approval process to get on the November 2022 ballot. He admits that there will be time to go through the process to get on the November 2023 ballot (or perhaps even an earlier election in 2023). So, even if this doesn’t make it to the November 2022 ballot, it’s not going away, the “Cares” jack wagons will undoubtedly be back under some other name, and the city attorney has acknowledged that they can do so.

Can’t we agree that it’s better that we steer our own ship, with Clarkston residents determining what’s best for Clarkston? Even if this gets on the ballot this November, the council should consider a reasonable regulatory ordinance as an alternative to the draconian Clarkston Cares charter amendment. With that in place, there is a better argument that the charter amendment should be voted down. If the city council wants to get the sense of the voters on whatever ordinance they craft, they can always approve any new marihuana ordinance contingent on voter approval.

It’s ironic that I’m saying this, but I’m hoping that the city attorney wins this one. It will buy the Clarkston city council more time to fashion a use for this type of business that we can all agree with. If they collectively stick their heads in the sand and do nothing, then we risk some really bad outcomes.

 

Updates:

8/30/2022 – Michigan Court of Appeals order.  The order grants Clarkston’s motion for immediate consideration and Clarkston’s motion to expedite. There will be no oral argument. The court will decide the case on the briefs that the parties filed and will issue a decision no later than Friday, 9/2/2022. I’ve uploaded and linked the order here: 20220830 – Order, Clarkston Cares