Commission puts Mount Clemens marijuana business ordinance on hold after residents and commissioners question equity and point system

Mayor Laura Cropp opened debate Tuesday on a proposed marijuana business ordinance that would govern recreational dispensaries, provisioning centers and related uses in Mount Clemens. The commission initially heard a motion to adopt the ordinance on second reading and to publish its summary, but after sustained public comment and commissioner scrutiny, the measure was tabled for further review.

Why it matters: Residents and local business representatives told the commission the ordinance’s point‑based licensing system is heavily weighted toward existing medical marijuana operators and larger organizations, which they said would effectively block new, smaller Mount Clemens applicants and hamper social‑equity goals. Commissioner-level questions also focused on technical rules for transferability, zoning limits for different business classes, and conflicting language about access for people under 18.

What speakers said: Multiple public commenters urged more transparency and opportunity. Ryan Theory, who identified himself as the city’s social equity representative, said the city should make clear how residents can apply for social equity benefits and warned that the ordinance as drafted could exclude many local residents. Don Peterson and other speakers argued the point system gives such a large advantage to existing licensees that new local applicants would have little chance to compete. At the dais, several commissioners — including one who said the point system “totally eliminates any possibility of a smaller business getting a license” — pressed for more discussion and clarity.

Key objections raised by commissioners and residents included: - The point system’s allocation of large bonus points to existing medical licensees, which commenters and at least two commissioners said would lock out small or minority‑owned businesses; - Transferability provisions that could permit near‑instant transfers of local approvals to outside entities; - Zoning and scale questions (several speakers asked whether a 10‑acre heavy‑industrial threshold applied to large growers and whether the city realistically has sites that large); and - Inconsistencies in draft text about who may enter or be present at certain types of marijuana businesses.

Outcome: Commissioner (speaker 9) moved to table item 9f for additional discussion; the motion passed and the commission set the item for reconsideration at the commission’s first meeting in December.

Next steps: The commission directed staff to bring the ordinance back for further review and discussion. Several commissioners asked that the point system and transferability language be the focus of the next review so the body can better assess fairness and how the ordinance would affect local applicants.

This report is based on the commission meeting and public comments recorded on Sept. 20, 2021. The commission took no final action to adopt the ordinance at this session.