Council approves Kind Buds Jersey City license despite objections from nearby operator; two abstentions and one no vote recorded

The Jersey City Municipal Council approved a resolution supporting Kind Buds Jersey City to operate a Class 5 retail cannabis business after a contested public hearing and debate over the city’s 600-foot spacing policy for dispensaries.

Community members and competing applicants gave sharply divided testimony. Alexandria Alcala and supporters asked the council to deny the Kind Buds resolution because it would place a second retail dispensary very near Alcala’s approved location and because, they said, the competing operator had demonstrated prior community engagement and a stronger local impact plan. “Approving a cannabis retail such close to her proximity to her establishment can undermine her ability to sustain and grow her business,” Yvonne Garcia, PTA president at PS 27, said on Alcala’s behalf.

Kind Buds’ owner, Michael, told the council he had secured community partnerships, workforce development commitments and approval from the Cannabis Regulatory Board, and that he has financing and plans to open. “This business means everything to me,” Michael said, asking that the council treat his application the same as other applicants previously grandfathered under the city’s application timetable.

Council debate centered on the city’s practice of allowing applicants who applied before council action to proceed in parallel even when later applications fall inside the 600-foot buffer. Corporation counsel confirmed the city had earlier granted similar flexibility to other applicants and noted past litigation risk if the council treated similarly situated applicants differently.

When the item was called, most council members voted in favor, but Councilperson Soleil cast the lone “no” vote and Councilperson Gilmore and Council President Waterman abstained. The tally recorded by the clerk was effectively 5 yes, 1 no, 2 abstentions. Several council members said they regretted the appearance of unfairness — that one applicant appeared to have proceeded further before another — but cited legal risk and precedent in deciding to approve the resolution.

Council members said they wanted clearer and more consistent rules for future cannabis licensing and noted the need to prioritize equity and community impact for future awards. The vote leaves the applicant able to proceed with municipal approvals at the site but does not affect state licensing or building and zoning requirements.