Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cannabis retailer tells Snohomish County council code change closed Clearview store and favors one operator
Summary
Patrick Gamm, who operates three licensed cannabis stores, told the Snohomish County Council his Clearview location remains closed because of a recent code change he says was written to protect a single operator and barred future retail opportunities along Highway 9; he urged the council to correct the rule.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During public comment at the Snohomish County Council’s May 13 meeting, Patrick Gamm, a Snohomish County resident and operator of three licensed cannabis retail stores, said a county code change has kept his Clearview location closed and called on the council to fix it.
Gamm said he relied on existing rules when he took over the Clearview building, which he said “legally operated as [a] cannabis retail store for nearly 10 years” prior to his occupancy. He told the council the recent change “was not created because of a countywide problem” but instead appeared to have been written “to protect one operator from future competition in a specific area.”
Gamm said the change effectively shut down the Highway 9 corridor for future cannabis retail opportunities and noted the industry is now a regulated, taxed market with security and age restrictions. “Code should never be written to benefit one business interest at the expense of everyone else,” he said, calling for a correction to stop continued financial harm to his business and lost tax revenue.
In his remarks Gamm also stated that “PES acknowledges it” and that “the executive’s office acknowledges it,” indicating he had spoken with county staff and the executive about the issue. The transcript does not record a council response or any motion to amend the code during the meeting.
Takeaway: The public comment puts pressure on county staff and the executive’s office to address the code change; the council did not take action on the item during this session and moved on to other agenda items.
