Crime, homelessness, economics, & the politics of cannabis

Local policy makers are touting the economic benefits of commercial cannabis cultivation as a meansNational Public Radio’s Central California affiliate, a one-acre grow operation could bring in $19 million a year![1] While profits vary, jobs in the 420-industry, such as bud trimmer earn $12-13 an hour, according to Forbes. The grow master or cultivator can expect to earn $100,000+ per year.[2] to replenish depleted coffers. Looking at the numbers, it is hard to deny their claims. According to a report by

Colorado’s Amendment 64 was passed by the voters in November 2012; and the commercial sale of marijuana to adults, 21 years of age and over, for recreational use began on January 1, 2014.[3] This date is important, because in the March 15, 2017 issue of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, it was reported that property crimes and all crimes reported saw a major increase from 2014 onwards. While violent crimes declined in the year 2014, thereafter, violent crimes have also seen a significant increase.[4]

One hypothesis is that crime and homeless have increased in Colorado since the legalisation of recreational marijuana.

The Sentinel article quotes Grand Junction Police Chief, John Camper, as saying, “I talk to police chiefs throughout the state and they’re seeing the same thing that we’re seeing – a level of violence that we haven’t seen before,” noting that it’s hard to pinpoint the reason for the rise.[5] Chief Camper is quoted later in the article as saying increases in property crimes are “often an indication of an increase in drug activity.”[6]

From 2014 to 2016, School District 51 students, who are broadly identified as homelessness, soared nearly 55% from 388 to 600, according to a Daily Sentinel article at the time.[7]

The 2016 Housing and Urban Development Report on Homelessness, reports that “Between 2015 and 2016, the number of individuals experiencing homelessness increased in 22 states. The largest absolute increases were in California (4,504 people), Washington (1,374 people), and Colorado (721 people).” [8] Percentwise, this was 13 points up from the previous year and represented a reversal of the trend which showed homelessness slightly declining over the past decade.[9]

In privileged conversations, some Western Colorado policymakers have expressed to this author their belief that the legalisation of recreational cannabis has led to an increase in crime and homelessness.

Looking at the numbers state-wide, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation reports that all major crime classes have increased 6.20% since the beginning of 2014.[10] Between 2013 and 2014, crime actually decreased by one percent. Looking at the aggregate picture of crime in Colorado for the decade 2005 to 2015, crime generally was decreasing annually until 2012.[11]

Comparing these state-wide numbers with more pronounced local findings, there does suggest a slight correlation between increased crime and legalisation of recreational cannabis. More data and in-depth analysis will be required to know for sure, but certainly those who have expressed concern are not without merits.

The Financial Crisis 2007-08, sparked by the subprime mortgage market and excessive global barrowing and risk taking, had major ramifications at the local level. By 2009, Colorado hit the high-water mark with 46,394 home foreclosure filings.[12] Smaller jurisdictions, such as Delta County saw their worst numbers in 2010, with 264 foreclosure filings.[13]

In 2009, a small group of Delta citizens, from various churches, concerned by seeing homeless people lingering around town, organized to start a homeless shelter. As the Financial Crisis became entrenched and foreclosures mounted, industries such as the local lumber company and saw mill closed, followed by the North Fork coal mines. At the same time, Mesa County saw a major reduction in the Oil and Gas industries. As the layoffs, failures, and foreclosures mounted, so did the homeless situation.

Homelessness had increased enough locally, that in November 2014, the Abraham Connection (Delta County’s Homeless Shelter), made the decision to move out of the Delta Methodist Church’s basement and begin construction of a $750,000 facility,[14] which opened in November 2015.

During the Nov. 2013–May 2014 season, the Abraham Connection provided 840 bed nights. Contrast that number with 2,665 which was the total number of bed nights provided during the Nov. 2016–May 2017 season.[15] In three years’ time, that is a 217% increase in homelessness.

Looking at Delta County as a case study, with over 1,000 coal mining jobs gone, a couple hundred timber related jobs chopped, and countless ‘mom and pop’ stores shut for good, a rising homeless population and a school district and hospital struggling under declining revenues due to ratcheted-down property valuations, many policy makers have turned to marijuana as the saviour.

Delta County Commissioner, Mark Roeber, told the Denver Post that he receives calls “almost daily, saying marijuana is going to save us.”[16] While Delta County, and the municipalities within the county, have sustained a prohibition on commercial retail and cultivation since 2013, some towns have explored the retail pot question.

In 2014 Paonia voters rejected a retail pot question, as was the case in Hotchkiss in 2016. By 2017, Orchard City considered repealing their prohibition on commercial marijuana, as did the Paonia town council.[17]

Aside from the cultivation operation owner, the grow master or cultivator is the only employee who would earn what a displaced coal miner had earned annually.[18] Other jobs in the 420-industry would pay comparable to entry level west slope salaries.[19]

While the Green Rush has more likely than not increased crime and homelessness, the costs of these increases to local societies should be calculated when setting budgets for social serves, programs, and law enforcement. Communities should factor in all costs when considering the economics of boosting a city or county’s coffers.

---

[1] Romero, Ezra David. "California Farmers Consider Cashing In On A New Crop . . . Marijuana." Valley Public Radio. NPR, 15 Dec. 2015. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.

[2] Borchardt, Debra. "The Five Best Marijuana Jobs." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 27 May 2016. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.

[3] Healy, Jack. "Up Early and in Line for a Marijuana Milestone in Colorado." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Jan. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.

[4] McIntyre, Erin. "All Categories 
of Crime in GJ 
rising Sharply." GJSentinel.com. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 15 Mar. 2017. Web. 15 Mar. 2017

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Langford, Katie. “Homelessness on rise for kids in District 51: Increase due to better identification, economic and family reasons.” The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 18 April 2016. A1+

[8] “The 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress.” US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Community Planning And Development, Nov. 2016. Web. 1 May 2017. Pg.14.

[9] Ibid.

[10] “Crime in Colorado Annual Reports 2005-2015.” Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2016. Web. 8 May 2017.

[11] Ibid.

[12] “Foreclosure Reports and Statistics 2002-2015.” Division of Housing. Colorado Department of Local Affairs, 2017. Web. 8 May 2017.

[13] Delta County Treasurer’s Office Report 2006-2016.

[14] Press Release Nov 2014. Abraham Connection / Delta County Homeless Shelter.

[15] Facebook announcement 1 May 2017. Abraham Connection / Delta County Homeless Shelter. Web. Accessed 8 May 2017.

[16] Finley, Bruce. “Collapse of Colorado coal industry leaves mining towns unsure what’s next.” The Denver Post, 14 May 2016. Web. Accessed 8 May 2017.

[17] Soper, Matt. “Timeline details Marijuana votes and regulations (Delta County, Colorado).” Delta County Independent, 1 March 2017.

[18] Op. Cit. see Finley article and Borchardt article.

[19] Ibid. 

Amendment 71 pinches our ability to govern ourselves

A lot of folks have told me they are voting for Amendment 71 because it will make the state Constitution harder to change. The reality is Amendment 71 will kill the constitutional initiative system in Colorado, as it creates draconian barriers to direct democracy preventing ordinary Coloradoans from exercising an important constitutional right.

Deciding big constitutional ideas by ballot is a Colorado tradition that goes back over a century. Often times Colorado voters are faced with deciding tough issues that legislators cannot or will not address themselves. Such issues have included: term limits, campaign finance, legalization of marijuana, and limitations on state expenditures (TABOR). Coloradoans have also used initiatives to ban the 1976 Winter Olympics, prohibit underground nuclear explosions, and ban state funded abortion, along with making Colorado a right-to-work state in 1958, legalizing the sale of alcohol in 1932, and creating the power to recall politicians.

Out of all these initiatives, very few are actually approved by the voters. see table

The direct initiative process was not part of the original state constitution in 1876, but became law in the early 1900s when a group of voters got frustrated by the state government being overly influenced by big industries, such as railroads and timber.

In 1912, the first year the right was available in Colorado, voters weighted in on 32 initiatives. Commencing with that first election, some pundits have complained about the process being too easy and a tool used by various voter groups. Lobbyists and special interests enjoy a cozy relationship with representative state government and democracy (via constitutional initiatives) challenges their chokehold on government.

A major shift occurred in 1988 when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held, in Meyer v. Grant, that under the political speech doctrine of the 1st Amendment, petition circulators could be paid. Prior to this holding, it was a felony in Colorado to pay signature gatherers. While the rate of initiatives making the ballot has increased, success at the ballot box has decreased since the Meyer decision.

There are two opposing theories of the constitution. One view is that the constitution is an expression of the founders and should rarely, if ever, be touched, leaving tremendous leverage for interpretation by the elected and appointed political actors. The other view treats the constitution as an expression of “We the People” and offers some flexibility and the ability for the people to govern themselves.

Regardless of the underlying theory, the foundational document of government ought to be fairly hard to amend. Is the state worse off because the people have too much power?

Colorado is unique, in that, citizens, through the initiative process may bypass the state legislature and place a statute (called proposition) or state constitution (called amendment) question directly on the ballot. Only 24 states (mostly in the West) allow for the initiative process and of these, only 16 allow citizens to directly amend their constitution.

Amendment 71, ironically, seeks to use the current initiative process to make future initiatives more difficult. The amendment calls for collecting a certain number of signatures from each state senate district (there are 35 in Colorado) just to place future amendments on the ballot. Once on the ballot, the amendment then requires a super majority of 55 percent for the initiative to pass. These restrictions are not in place if an initiative seeks to repeal part of the state constitution.

The complexity of Amendment 71 is a bit tough to swallow. Look at all the trouble a few Republican U.S. Senate candidates had earlier this year attempting to petition onto ballots in seven congressional districts. Imagine spreading that out across 35 senate districts!

If an issue is disliked in one or two districts, those districts would have an effective veto, thus depriving the people the ability to decide if the idea is germane or not.

Whether you love participating in democracy or not, one thing is for sure, Coloradans have, and should continue to enjoy, the ability of “We the People,” to freely exercise direct lawmaking power on proposals to change the state constitution.

If an initiative is bad, Coloradoans have proven they are more than capable of voting down amendments. In fact, only one out of five passed over the past five years.

Looking at some of the more recent constitutional initiatives, none would have passed with the supermajority (55 percent) vote tally as required by the proposed Amendment 71, except one. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights passed in 1992 with only 53.6 percent, but would have failed under the current proposal. Amendment 23 which mandated more funding for k-12 education passed in 2000 with 52.7 percent. It also would have failed. Ironically, Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana in 2012 with 55.3 percent of the vote, would still have become law.

Amendment 71 opens the door for opponents to nix the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). The supermajority element does not apply if the initiative seeks to repeal a part of the state constitution. Thus, a progressive billionaire could fund a successful repeal with a vote tally of 50 percent plus one.

The ability of the citizens to directly participate in governing is an effective check on the power of the political class. For the average Coloradan, unduly restricting ballot access, as Amendment 71 does, means a critical democratic tool is only accessible to ultra-big-money interests who can afford the higher costs associated with the complicated signature gathering process.

These are the reasons why I am voting no on Amendment 71: Draconian restrictions on direct democracy, hard to meet signature requirements, and a double-standard for repeal vs. new provisions which would prevent ordinary citizens from an important right. For the good of Colorado vote no on Amendment 71.

Matt Soper, a CMU alumnus and Delta County resident, holds law degrees from University of Edinburgh and the University of New Hampshire. 

_________________________________________

M Soper, "Amendment 71 pinches our ability to govern ourselves" The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction, Colo.) 16 October 2016 print. B7. online. <http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/amendment-71-pinches-our-ability-to-govern-ourselv>; accessed 16 October 2017 

Are the regional university naming wars over?

Remember a few years ago, three and a half to be exact, when the names “University of Western Colorado” and “Western Colorado University” were the source of tremendous tension between Colorado Mesa University and Gunnison’s Western State Colorado University?

The 2011 row began when then-Mesa State College surveyed alumni, students, staff, and the community and found the name “University of Western Colorado” to be the No. 1 choice for renaming Mesa.

Western State’s Board of Trustees, worried about name confusion, immediately passed a resolution opposing any Colorado based institution of higher education using the words “western” or “west” in its name.

Mesa acquiesced to Western’s demands and choose the fourth most popular name from the survey — Colorado Mesa University.

Immediately after legislation was signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper which officially renamed Mesa State College to CMU, Western State College began exploring rebranding and adding the word university to their name too.

A Western survey found “University of Western Colorado” and “Western Colorado University” to be the most popular names. However, CMU President Tim Foster, in a Feb. 8, 2012 letter to Western’s board wrote, “two of the names in your survey continue to pose a problem both from a brand perception and confusion standpoint. In our most recent Board of Trustees meeting, the Board asked again that you avoid the names University of Western Colorado and Western Colorado University.”

In the end, opposition and political maneuvering resulted in neither institution using the survey popular names.

While CMU may have won the battle by playing tit-for-tat in the 2011-2012 university naming skirmishes, ultimately WSCU will win the war.

In January 2016, WSCU was issued a notice of allowance, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to use the names “University of Western Colorado” and “Western Colorado University.” The trademark rights were issued without any party objecting to or opposing the names during the posted opposition period. In April 2016, WSCU filed an extension, rather than filing a statement of use. The Gunnison institution has three years to develop a UWC or WCU brand, so they can file a statement of use, or let the marks die.

Did WSCU manage to pull a fast one on CMU? The Gunnison Country Times recently quoted WSCU officials as saying the university is not pursuing a name change to align with the newly acquired trademarks.

This type of comment by WSCU officials makes the bona fide intent to use the trademark very fishy. If WSCU’s intent is really just to hold the name, but not use it, then they are ordinary squatters, along with defrauding the public.

Unfortunately for CMU, the USPTO takes declarants on their face value, unless it is highly suspicious. Because it is plausible that WSCU could have a bona fide intent to change to “University of Western Colorado” or “Western Colorado University” down the road — or — an intention to use that mark as a sub-brand for something else on campus, the USPTO will let it go.

So far, no local legislators have been formally asked to carry name changing legislation for WSCU, so taking those clever Mountaineers at their word, let’s assume they are telling the truth to everyone. WSCU could actually develop a UWC or WCU brand which is different from their legal name.

In the business world it is common for a brand name to be different from the legal name of the business. Why not pursue a similar strategy in the academic world? This would be a stroke of genius, as after using their new brand name, WSCU could ask the Colorado General Assembly for a legal change to match their trademark. If the legislators or the governor said no, that would be OK, as WSCU could continue business under their trade name.

Ultimately, WSCU gets the names “University of Western Colorado” and “Western Colorado University,” which is why CMU not only lost to WSCU’s earliest demands, but the tit-for-tat measure was merely a reprisal delaying the inevitable loss.

In the broader picture, the delay and CMU’s non-opposer status, created a cease fire that has endured long enough for everyone’s tempers to subside, passions to ebb, and the possibility of a new brand identity to emerge that will result in a more peaceful and psychologically acceptable result for the parties.

WSCU holds a very powerful hand of cards right now and it will be fascinating to see which direction the university chooses to head.

The author, a CMU alumnus, served two terms as student trustee. Contact him at m.c.soper@ed-alumni.net.

______________________________________

M Soper, "Are the regional university naming wars over?" The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction, Colo.) 15 May 2016 print. online. accessed 16 May 2016.

New Era at CMU will build on Mesa State legacy

Over the last eight years, Mesa State College has grown from a student population of 5,000 to pushing 10,000 with annual enrolment percentages in the double digits! Mesa State has gone from competing against state colleges within Colorado for students to now attracting students who otherwise would be attending major public institutions like the University of Colorado System, the University of California System and the University of Texas System.

The local economy greatly depends on the fresh influx of dollars which students from outside the western slope bring to the Grand Valley. The future of Mesa’s success will depend on more students from out-of-state and overseas subsidising the cuts to higher education from the legislature. A strategic name change is one step towards mitigating future negative impacts on the success of recent years.

Like many stakeholders with vested interests in the continued future success of Mesa State College, I was surprised in the name selected. It seemed the top four choices (none of which were considered by the Board of Trustees) from the stakeholder surveys would have been more natural. The tripartite test established by the college merited only one logical choice – Colorado Mesa University. My first impression was that the new name sounded weird. It seems a lauded educational institution should stand on its own merit without the crutch of a 150 year old state/territory name tacked onto the front.

It’s too bad Mesa didn't have a name like Harvard, as then the only change could have been replacing the word ‘college’ for ‘university’. Though, ‘Massachusetts Harvard University’ would have merited similar thoughts as expressed above.

The brand name of ‘Colorado’ is very powerful and as Governor Hickenlooper signs the legislative approved ‘Colorado Mesa University’ into law, a new era will begin. As expressed by the Sentinel’s Editorial Board – it’s time to get use to CMU (not Carnegie Mellon University). Confusion is sure to abound in the ensuing three to five years, as entity names such as ‘Colorado MESA’ (Mathematics, Engineering, Science and Achievement) is distinguished from ‘Colorado Mesa’ and recruiters explain CMU is the new MSC. One confusing point is certainly eliminated; future students will no longer mistake our ‘Mesa’ with Arizona’s or California’s Mesa Colleges.

As the dawning of the new future is here, Colorado Mesa University will be standing on the shoulders of a great educational legacy (gigantium humeris insidentes). A legacy I am proud to have been a part of as having served two terms on the College’s Board of Trustees.[1]

______________________________________________________

[1] M Soper, 'New Era at CMU will build on Mesa State legacy' (Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: 13 May 2011); http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/e-mail-letters-may-13-2011; accessed 14 May 2011