Earlier this month, 15 people were named as plaintiffs along with the Stamford Neighborhoods Coalition (SNC) in a lawsuit naming the City of Stamford and Mayor Caroline Simmons as defendants.
The suit seeks to bar the city from permitting the opening of additional adult use recreational marijuana retailers, and it also asks the court to overrule the Responsible and Equitable Regulation of Adult-Use Cannabis Act (RERACA) which legalizes marijuana across the state in the first place.
The case is made through six counts, the first arguing that RERACA is superseded by federal law outlawing marijuana except under the strictest of research conditions, thus rendering it unconstitutional.
The second count also argues that the law is unconstitutional on the basis that it promotes racial discrimination by establishing a social equity council.
“The law is by its nature discriminatory,” said David A. Herz, the attorney representing the plaintiffs. “We don’t hold by discrimination. Since it is discriminatory the whole scheme needs to be tossed. If you look at this law, there are I think seven different instances of race in consideration to who [makes up] the commission and who gets access to the licenses.”
In fact, the text of RERACA grants the leader of the General Assembly’s Black and Puerto Rican Caucus the right to appoint a member of the 15-person advisory board for the Social Equity Council within the Department of Economic and Community Development. Additionally, the law states that “the appointing authority shall use best efforts to make appointments that reflect the racial, gender and geographic diversity of the population of the state.”
Furthermore, the law requires that two appointees must have at least five years’ experience “providing accesses to capital to minorities,” and another must have a background in business development with minority-owned businesses. Additionally, the appointees themselves are not explicitly required to be minorities. Several appointees are required to hail from “disproportionately impacted communities,” which are defined in the law as census tracts where the historic conviction rate for marijuana related crimes is at least one tenth of the population or the unemployment rate is over 10%.
In addition to challenging the legality of RERACA directly, the SNC’s lawsuit makes the case in a further two counts that both the Planning and Zoning boards lack the authority to make decisions for the city as most members are serving beyond the limits of their term, which necessitates the annulment of the vote.
The lawsuit also claimed that Stamford has chronic issues with filling appointed positions within city government, with many roles being filled by former appointees who continue serving on boards and casting votes even after the end of their terms as indicated by Stamford’s charter. As recently as last November, Herz noted, 119 of the city’s 251 appointed positions were either empty or being filled by previous appointees past the end of their term.
Herz filed a previous lawsuit against the city on behalf of the SNC on the basis of the expired terms of board members, but it was dismissed on Aug. 2 for lacking jurisdictional grounds and being filed beyond the dates provided for appeals on zoning decisions.
According to Herz, that same limitation on appeal timeframes would prevent a ruling against the city in this case from invalidating all decisions made by the board.
“People have acted in reliance on that,” Herz said. “There are still things that need to happen in a city. There are people who got variances to put up a handicap ramp or to build a house on a lot that’s too small. What I’m saying is going forward the mayor should do her duty and name people to the board so that it can function correctly.”
The SNC did not respond to requests for comment. When reached for comment, a spokesperson for the City of Stamford indicated that they were aware of the suit but would not provide a comment until after the legal team had completed its review.
