Community association defends appeal that helped delay Bridgeland weed store opening
When recreational cannabis became the law of the land last week, CBC Calgary talked with the co-owner of a store that had been delayed in opening due to appeals, one from a condo board and a second from the community association.
Alena Jenkins of FivePoint Cannabis said it was the Bridgeland-Riverside Community Association, for the most part, that was holding up the process with its appeal.
Ali McMillan is the planning director for the Bridgeland-Riverside Community Association and wanted the chance to provide another point on view on the issue. McMillan shared her thoughts Monday with CBC Radio's The Homestretch.
This interview has been edited and paraphrased for clarity and length. You can listen to the complete interview here.
Q: Alena Jenkins said it was a couple of people that were behind the appeal that held up the opening of her store. What do you make of that?
A: It is frustrating to hear because we work really hard to have a robust and transparent process where we take feedback from the community and we are held up with reflecting what we hear of that process because of that.
We think we have heard from quite a few people from diverse backgrounds and have a pretty good idea of some community response. We never profess to say we represent the entire community.
All we can do is represent who participated in our process.
Q: What are you concerns with this pot shop specifically?
A: It is not us, personally.
We do a "what we heard" situation. An application comes in for a discretionary permit of any kind. In this case, it's a cannabis shop, but it could be a museum, to a hotel, to a pawn shop — these are all discretionary uses.
Bridgeland got five applications for cannabis shops and all of them are under appeal in one way or another right now.
It's been a very complicated process for community associations to navigate. How do we go about taking feedback from the community?
In this case, we weren't the first ones to appeal. A condo board had appealed it prior to us.
We are just about gathering all the information we can from the community at this point.
Q: Did you see this kind of pushback when liquor stores were privatized back in the day?
A: I wasn't doing this volunteer job back then.
But I am sure there must have been equal confusion. This is part of the planning process. Any development permit can be appealed. That's just the process we have in front of us at the city.
I mean, the delays, I can certainly understand the frustration of the applicant on how long this process is taking. We don't want this process to go on this long, either.
To appeal, though, you do have to be a directly-affected stakeholder, you can't just be anyone with $100.
Q: If all five applications are under appeal, are the people in the community fundamentally opposed to any cannabis shops in Bridgeland?
A: Not at all. I think everybody has accepted this is a legal substance.
We have no doubt there will be at least one cannabis shop in Bridgeland. Now it's just a matter of where.
We have had people write in and say they are against cannabis but that is not a planning merit. That can't be counted, the same as the people that write in saying they love it.
We have to focus on what are the issues of each location and the pros and cons to each.
If one is going to prevent another one from being approved, what is the best location?
Q: How many liquor stores are there in Bridgeland right now and how close together are they?
A: Three. There is one on each end of the community, and one in between those two. They are relatively spaced out.
Q: How do the liquor stores affect the five cannabis store applications?
A: The bylaw is that there can be one shop in between a liquor store and a cannabis store. I think it's about multiple factors.
The city breaks it down into planning principles, compatibility of the use with adjacent development, so what's beside the store in general, so that could include liquor stores or other uses.
And then, how appropriate is that parcel for that use? That's how we have to approach looking at these things.
Q: One appeal is done. How did it go?
A: Good. That was an appeal against a refusal, so the city refused a location for a multitude of reasons and the applicants are appealing.
People that got refused are also appealing and it's their right to do so, so we have to go through that whole process to see where we are going to end up.
Q: What happens next?
A: We are always open to community feedback.
Right now, we are trying to explain to people how the planning process works and how they can best have their say and what they can talk about. How to talk about planning merits, specific issues with each location, not just generalizations for or against cannabis.
Q: What would be your ideal location for a cannabis store in Bridgeland?
A: I don't really want to say that. I am not sure there is one at this point.
Our job as a community association is to take feedback from people and we have to wade through conflicts. Is this an applicant's friend? Does the person live next door or 10 blocks away?
Our job is to take in the information and reflect it back the best we can, which is challenging under these circumstances.
Q: It's legal. Is this a classic case of not-in-my-backyard? I am OK with it as long as it's not next to me or near my kid's school?
A: I personally don't really like the term NIMBY at all. I think it muzzles conversation for people who want to talk about planning merits, weighing one against another.
Right now, we have to have those honest conversations and there is a planning process in place to do just that. If it has to be the appeal board, that's what that body is there for. I think it just has to work its way out.
It's been a painful process from what I've heard. There have only been a few stores opened in each city. In Calgary, the ones that opened are in areas that aren't next to public space or in the heart of the community. So those ones went through without an issue.
With files from The Homestretch.
