ALAMOSA — With a larger than usual sized audience in attendance, the Alamosa City Council voted during Wednesday night’s meeting to place a measure on the November ballot asking residents of the City of Alamosa if they want to allow medical and or retail marijuana shops to operate within the city limits.
Councilor Jan Vigil made the motion to put the measure on the ballot, leading to the vote of four to three, in favor of the ballot. At the request of some who were in the audience, the names of councilors and their vote were made visible to the public.
Those voting in favor included Councilor Jamie Dominguez, Ward 4; Liz Hensley, Councilor Ward 1; Councilor Jackie Vigil, Ward 3; and Councilor Jan Vigil, Councilor-at-large. Those who voted against included Michael Carson, Councilor-at-Large, Mayor Ty Coleman and Councilor Dawn Krebs, Ward 2.
Prior to the vote, Councilor Vigil began the conversation by saying there were four members of council who had been requested by citizens to bring the measure before the council. He then provided some history, stating that, in 2017, citizens had circulated a petition with enough signatures to bring the issue to a vote by the public. At that time, it failed. He acknowledged that he would have preferred that same process be followed now. “But,” he said, “that’s not the issue before us tonight and the city has the authority to do this.”
Vigil then talked about the outcome of that vote in 2017, noting that the vote was taken in an “off year,” – meaning a vote in a year when there is no general election. “Turnout in an off-year election is always low. Always,” he said. Turnout in 2017 was 41%. Vigil felt that was partly responsible for the measure failing 63% to 37%. “In 2017, I don’t think we got a full reflection of what the community wants. We need to let the voters decide.”
The entirety of the conversation by the council on Wednesday night was focused on the issue at hand: not whether or not medical and/or recreational marijuana should be sold but how that decision should be brought before the voters, by city referendum or by citizen petition.
That statement, “let the voters decide,” largely summarized the stance of those in favor of putting a measure on the ballot.
Councilor Dominguez, who was the first to speak following Vigil, noted that he had gotten more feedback on this question than almost any other since taking office. He also cited his experience sitting on a state board for the last three years that addressed the use of cannabis, and his stand was to support the city putting the measure on the ballot. “There are great benefits that people experience from using medical marijuana.” Against that backdrop, Dominguez brought up the issue of accessibility and the numbers of people who are forced to drive outside of the city to access medical marijuana. “With the way opioids have been passed out in this city over the past ten to fifteen years, the people should have the freedom to handle their medication and see for themselves if they get any benefit from medical marijuana. Whether people vote for that or not is up to them.”
Councilor Krebs stated that, at first, she was in favor of putting the measure on the ballot. “I thought, why not?” But after doing her own research, she also cited she heard more from the people in her ward than “the entire time I’ve been sitting up here.”
While she is entitled to her own opinion, “the people in my ward have told me they are not in favor of this and it’s my responsibility to represent the people in my ward.” Krebs also had concerns about the fiscal impact to the city. “If it is as important to these people as they say it is, they should circulate another petition.”
Councilor Hensley asked APD Chief Dingfelder what his thoughts were about how, if passed, access to medical and/or recreation marijuana might impact the community.
Chief Dingfelder stated, when marijuana was first legalized,” it was a mess.” But now the state has a Marijuana Enforcement Division that assures business owners are following the rules, and he has no concern about how diligent they will be.
Councilor Jackie Vigil said she, also, had received a lot of responses from her constituents and, those who contacted her, were in favor of the motion. Consequently, she would be voting to support the motion.
Councilor Carson said, a number of times, that he was “very torn,” about how to vote. In the past, he had voted against allowing medical and/or recreational marijuana outlets in the city but he has since had a lot of “meaty” conversations. “I have nothing against pot,” he said. “If you want it, you can drive fifteen minutes in any direction, and I don’t think this stands a snowball’s chance. My advice to those who are against it, campaign against it and get it voted down.” At that point, he said he thought he would vote for it.
Mayor Coleman said, “We have a process in place. When citizens want something to be put on the ballot, they circulate a petition to show the needs and desires of the community.” He also said that passing the measure “undermines the process and those who voted against it in 2017.”
Councilor Hensley brought up that citizen petitioning is not the only process. Council has put measures on the ballot before. “There are just times that things have to be put on the ballot,” she said.
Before taking the vote, City attorney Eric Schwiesow emphasized that the issue was not instigated by staff in any way but was the result of councilors being approached by constituents.
