The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About025ExzT David W. Johnson From: Sent: To: Cc: Byron Katsuyama < bkatsuyama@mrsc.org > Tuesday, December 77,20L9 4:42 PM David W. Johnson Aly Jones MRSC Research RequestSubject: CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. David, This is in response to your inquiry requesting any data on the relationship between cannabis production and nearby property crime. Generally, there are mixed findings on the relationship between cannabis and crime. This studv from October 2019 concluded that marijuana legalization and sales had no statistically significant longterm effect on violent or property crime rates in Washington or Colorado. While these findings do not appear to be focused on crimes specifically associated with production facilities, the overallfindings certainly don't suggest any unusual upticks in this area. There are examples of property crimes taking place at cannabis production facilities and even an array of articles that mention the possibility for this to occur but, we didn't find any studies that specifically look at such crimes. For example, there was a November 2019 theft in southeast Bortlan.d, $1 million in products was stolen from a company's office. A Franklin County farmer has had roughly $70,000 of hemp plants stolen by thieves. We also found a 2018 report from Colorado's Division of Criminal Justice that looks at the impacts of marijuana legalization. Appendix D, Table 14 on page 218 provides some information that may be of use to you. This table reports the number of marijuana offenses, by location, from 2012-2017 . According to this data, there were 4 total marijuana offenses at "farm facilities" during this time period. Whether these involved marijuana growing facilities is not clear or whether these included "propedy crimes." Presumably "farm facilities" would include marijuana growing facilities. Here's another comprehensive study, ftlleasurinq the Criminal Justice Svstem lmpacts of Mariiuana Leqalization and Decriminalization Usinq State Data, Justice Research Statistics Association, July 2019, that may be of some interest. Again, the focus and conclusions here do not provide direct insights with respect to crimes specifically associated with production facilities. Overall, our quick check does not seem to indicate that there is much data available on this particular issue. The data at this point regarding crimes specifically associated with production facilities is more limited and anecdotal in nature. Studies of overall crime rates association with the legalization of marijuana do not appear to be finding unusual upticks. We hope this information will be of assistance. Byron Katsuyama Public Policy and Management Consultant 206.625.L300 | MRSC.ore I Local Government Success 1 Aly Jones Pronouns: she/her Public Policy lntern 2A6.625.1300 x130 | aiones@mrsc.ors MRSC I Local Government Success -----Origi na I M essage---- From: Receptionist Receptionist <Receptionist@mrsc.org> Sent: Monday, December t6,2OL9 3:01 PM To: Byron Katsuyama <bkatsuyama@m rsc.org> Cc: Receptionist Receptionist <Receptionist@mrsc.org> Subject: Research Request Name: David Wayne Johnson Title: Associate Planner Phone: 360-379-4465 Email: dwjohnson@co.jefferson.wa. us Looking for any data on the relationship between cannabis production and property crime. Does cannabis production, as opposed to retail sales, attract crime to the production site. How many instances of property crime have be linked to cannabis production? Thanksl 2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Laura Crandall < LCrandall@mrsc.org > Monday, December 30, 2019 8:46 AM David W. Johnson Cannabis production and Property Values 20L9-LL-2}-Kuller-Memo-Marij-Council-12-03-1g-With-Attachs.pdf; 20L9-11-22 _Marij-Presentation-Cou ncil-L2-03 -19.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear David, l'm responding to your inquiry about property value trends in relation to marijuana producing or processing businesses. This is a broad and interesting request, one that would require more research hours than we allocate for our inquiry service. However, I have pulled together some good resources that should allow you to draw some inferences about the subject. The most information I found via non-government or academic sources was this Boston Globe Real Estate article: Here's what experts are savinq about mari na lesalization and orooertv values. which cited a st udy produced by the National Association of Realtors on Mariiuana and Real Estate. lt has information on commercial and residential properties. Keep in mind it's been produced by realtors. To gather your own data, you can use the general data sources listed here: General data on marijuana businesses: Topshelfdata.com lists all marijuana businesses in Washington state. You can filter by license type, city, county, etc. Also includes sales figures. You can also get this information (minus the sales data) on the Department of Revenue business lool<up page. Scroll down to the Reports section of the page and click on Business Lookup. You can filter by type of business and by city, county etc. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board has a Mariiuana Dashboard with downloadable data. There are L4 producer licenses Jefferson County. 11 in Port Townsend 1 in Brinnon 1 in Quilcene 1 in Chimacum GIS resources I tried finding GIS resources that would give me the ability to overlay property values onto a map that includes marijuana businesses. There is nothing that has been readily constructed and this would take quite a bit of time to construct and evaluate. Even then, it would be difficult to pinpoint the reason for property value increases or decreases. Nevertheless, here is a Pierce County GIS map, and a couple of pdf maps of Spokane County. You might be able to use these and sites like Zillow or the county assessor's office to cross-check marijuana businesses and nearby property values. 1 David W. Johnson Pierce Countv Mariiuana Radius and Zoning PDF Maps: Unicorporated Spokane County Spokane Countv Potential Locations for Mariiuana Production map 2013 Spokane Countv Potential Locations for Mariiuana Processing map Sometimes academic papers and journal articles yield some useful results, and I did find a couple of articles on the topic: Academic and Journal Articles This symposium article, Estimatins the lmpact of Cannabis Production on Rural Land Prices in Humboldt Countv, CA found that the density of cannabis production "has a positive relationship with property prices" Our results suggest that a doubling of the median existing cannabis density in a watershed is associated with a 3-4% increase in the sales price of undeveloped land in Humboldt County." Growins Pains: Using Racketeering Law to Protect Property Rights from State-Sanctioned Mariiuana O0erations, Oklahoma Law Review Y ol.7 2, No.2, 2O2O This article covers legal arguments and approaches to use Nuisance Law to limit the size and scope of permitted marijuana operations. lt offers information on Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. There is some case law to support that regulations on marijuana businesses are in place in order to protect property values. Below are excerpts about marijuana regulations in place to mitigate impacts on the community from marijuana businesses. lt is also worth searching this article for "property value" to read about specific cases brought with claims of impacts on property values. Colorado Local governments moy also bon cultivotion ond monufocturing focilities ond retailfocilities by ordinance, referendum, or initiotive if opproved through o generol election ballot. As o result, local governments in Colorodo hove authority to regulate marijuona cultivotion, production, ond distribution within their oreos of influence. Oregon Oregon odopted o conopy system for outdoor marijuono grows thot limits the size of production to o moximum of 5000 squore feet for outdoor grows ond 7250 square feet for indoor grows. Also, Oregon regulates homegrown marijuono by providing its production, possession, and storoge must be hidden from ploin view of ony public ploce. Oregon olso prohibits morijuono processors ond retailers from estoblishing operations in reside nti al ly zoned o re o s. Oregon intends for its stote-bosed morijuona regulotory scheme to supersede controdictory municipol charters or locolordinonces. However, city or county governments may prohibit licensed morijuano premises by populor vote. By 2078, eighty cities and sixteen counties prohibited morijuono production, processing, wholesale, and retoil octivities. Local governments thot do not prohibit morijuono octivities moy impose "reasonoble regulations" thot include limitations on production, cost, sole, hours of business, public access, ond premises licensure. However, "reosonoble regulotions" cannot expond beyond the stote-dictated 1000-foot buffers between retoil locations or other limits imposed on agriculturolbuildings. Washington Washington's legislotion is unique in that it olso includes limitations regarding the presence of moriiuano odors in housing units. Washington's regulations place limits on the production, processing, ond growth of moriiuono to ovoid octivities from being reodily visible or eosily smelled from public or privote property.65 This type of limitotion on the presence of morijuono odor may limit many nuisonce-bosed comploints in residentiol areas. lf local regulotions prevent morijuona activities from occurring either publicly or overtly on o lorge scole, locol regulotions will eliminate the octivity before it significontly interferes with the rights of others. l've also attached two documents from a recent San Juan County meeting about marijuana production regulations being proposed for the County. lt's useful for seeing what the community concerns are and how San Juan might craft their regulations in response to this. 2 Please let me know if I can assist further. Sincerely, Laura Crandal!, MPA Public Policy Consultant and Finance Analyst Pronouns: she/her 206.625.0916 ext L19 lcrandall(omrsc.ors I MRSC.org I Local Government Success Name: David Wayne Johnson Title: Associate Planner Phone: 360-379-4465 Email: dwiohnson@co.iefferson.wa.us I would like to get some information (data, statistics) on the effects of cannabis production/processing on adjacent property value in Washington State, and other States like Colorado where it is legal. Thanks ! 3