RI Roundup: House Speaker says “Whatever, man” to legal pot, McKee sides with Airbnb
Feet continue to drag on the issue of legalizing recreational marijuana sales/use in Rhode Island. With a Senate-approved bill and 2 other proposals on the table, the latest from House Speaker Joe Shekarchi was that his chamber just needed little more time and a special session in the fall to hammer out a deal. That was the latest, at least until yesterday. Speaking to WPRI Channel 12, Shekarchi said:
I think it’ll be soon, but I’m not in any hurry to legalize recreational marijuana for the sake of legalizing it,” he said, adding that he doesn’t feel pressured by how fast other states are moving.
“It doesn’t matter to me if we are the last state in the Union to legalize it or we never legalize it,” he said. “I need to make sure we do this right for the taxpayers of Rhode Island and for the medical and business communities.”
Legalizing for the sake of legalizing is one thing, but to say that it “doesn’t matter” if RI is the last state to do it or doesn’t do it all is striking. If it’s a good policy, then it actually does matter. More importantly, if it is worth doing at all but not getting done, the people of RI deserve to know more about what the holdup is beyond vague statements about “taking it slow” and “getting it right.”
One wonders if Shekarchi is hearing from Reps. in his chamber who are opposed to legal pot. But it is hard to imagine it would run into significant trouble in a body that legalized safe injection sites and reclassified some simple possession charges as misdemeanors. You can only wonder then if the opposition is coming from Mr. Shekarchi himself.
Thoughts on McKee’s first veto fight
Dan McKee is working his way through a stack of bills approved by the General Assembly at the end of June. McKee first vetoed a bill that would alter the structure of agreements between green energy developers and National Grid, but it appears that his second veto will be the one causing waves. Thursday, McKee rejected H5505/S501, which would have required the state to maintain a registry of properties offered for short-term rent on sites like Airbnb.
To my eye, this is a good decision by McKee. The claim by proponents is that sites like Airbnb do not vet renters or incentivize renters to behave during their stay. This argument is extremely thin. For one, anyone who has used an Airbnb knows that there is indeed a vetting process, for both hosts and renters, and that renters are on the hook for damages. The bill sponsors, Sen. Dawn Euer and Rep. Lauren Carson, even point to the tragic murder of a URI student at an Airbnb property in Newport over Memorial Day as reason for passing their bill. They claim that the “anonymity” of Airbnb (again, use Airbnb once and you will see that it is no way an anonymous platform) leads to situations like the one in Newport.
It isn’t clear how a registry fixes the problems that the bill sponsors highlight, such as late night parties at rental properties. Would staying at a property registered with the state have stopped the renters at the Newport property from throwing a party? Would they have even known? The cold-blooded killers who stabbed the young man to death certainly would neither have known nor cared. Any punishment for incidents at registered properties would only come after the fact, as is already the case with Airbnb.
A registry is good for one thing and one thing only, and that is to tax. When times get tough financially, or when NIMBY sentiments in Newport and South County run high, a list of registered properties will be teed up for a new tax, fee, or outright ban. The veto may be for nothing, as Shekarchi and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio issued a statement slamming McKee for the veto and teasing an override. The leaders give away the game by claiming that Newport, Westerly, and Narragansett are being “overwhelmed” by short-term rentals. In their words, a registry is not simply for giving municipalities information about which properties are being rented, but more about allowing towns like these to move against allowing short-term rentals permanently. McKee is right to see this is as a threat to tourism/hospitality and to tell municipalities that if they want to go this route that they should go at it alone.
