So. As the marijuana burns in Silt, it turns out that the SiltBOTs denied not one but two applications for marijuana cultivation operations at last Monday’s meeting. The fired up residents who opposed the marijuana cultivation and manufacturing plant above the Eagle’s View and Stoney Ridge subdivisions got their way and then some but they’re still hopping mad. Is not easy to douse the fires of righteous indignation — as I know too well.
SILT — The fight over growing marijuana in Silt has intensified, with a residents group that blocked a proposed grow site earlier this week vowing on its Facebook page to stop such an operation anywhere in town and posting that the operator of the business “only cares about herself and her money.”
Meanwhile, a longtime local businessman who had proposed a second grow site that also was rejected Monday by the Town Council blamed the vote on “the residuals from the lynch mob.”
A special use permit application by High Q LLC for a marijuana cultivation and manufacturing plant near the Eagle’s View and Stoney Ridge subdivisions was unanimously turned down by trustees Monday after about 200 people showed up to oppose the plan.
The second permit for a cultivation facility was rejected 4-3 after the hearing for High Q.
Doug Stahl and Marco Dehm, managing members of Aurum Peak LLC who for the last 13 years have operated a cabinet shop, Eurostyle Woodworking, were seeking to open a cultivation facility at their shop on Front Street.
“Our application was 100 percent compliant,” Stahl said Thursday. “We notified everyone within 650 feet and only one person showed up to speak at our hearing. And he was in favor of it. I think we caught the residuals from the lynch mob.”
Both applications for High Q and Aurum Peak had been approved by the town’s planning and zoning commission, which acts as an advisory board to the trustees.
Renee Grossman, owner of High Q, which has a retail marijuana shop on Main Street, is frustrated with town government, saying officials pointed her in one direction and then voted in another, but said she planned to look for another site.
The neighborhood group that opposed the High Q application has a Facebook page called “Silt Thumbs-down commercial marijuana grow & manufacturing proposal” …
… An opponent who declined to be named also would not say who was posting on the Facebook page, but said people are angry. The resident said that the issue had moved from a dispute about High Q’s proposal to whether Silt wants marijuana grown in town at all and that the resident group had grown to 480 members …
480! At last check their Facebook page has whopping 183 likes. I wonder where the other 297 are hiding out. From the tone of the posts on their page, the mob is aiming their pitchforks at the town’s planning & zoning commission and the town board.
Boy, these folks really haven’t been paying attention.
I love a good fight. But it’s always a good idea to know who your enemy is.
Your enemy, angry mobsters, is not the Silt town government. Your enemy is your Garfield County Commissioners. On August 19, 2013, the BOCC banned recreational marijuana cultivation and manufacturing operations in unincorporated Garfield County.
The Garfield County Commissioners say often that government regulation shouldn’t impede economic development, but on Monday they made an exception to that rule for the recreational marijuana industry.
The commissioners voted by a 2-1 margin to ban recreational marijuana grows, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities and retail stores in unincorporated areas of Garfield County …
… Before casting the dissenting vote, Jankovsky said that despite his own opposition to Amendment 64 he couldn’t defy Garfield County voters.
“This is a very strong indication from our voters on how they want us to move forward,” he said of the Amendment 64 vote tally. “I feel that because of that vote I need to take a different look at this.”
Jankovsky also said he didn’t feel comfortable forcing all recreational pot grow operations into municipalities in the county.
“I don’t think that is the correct place for those to be,” he said …
If you understand nothing else, understand this: Those hypocrites dumped the whole basket of buds in your backyards.
And when, as might be expected, residents reject the location of marijuana operations within their communities, the only logical solution is for these agricultural-based businesses to locate outside city limits, in the county.
What about the property rights of GarCo landowners? Don’t they have the right to start their own or sell to a marijuana business? Or do property rights only pertain to mineral rights in this county?
It’s high time the angry mobsters pull the pitchforks out of their butts and take their battle where it belongs — to their Garfield County Commissioners.
Oh, and grow a sense of humor. You’re gonna need it.