Worcester Business Journal

20 Worcester Business Journal • June 20, 2016 www.wbjournal.com Join the WBJ's LinkedIn discussion group by scanning the code to the left on your smartphone. To scan the code, you need the NeoReader. Visit get.neoreader.com to download it onto your phone. Want to participate in the conversation? F L A S H P O L L T A L K B A C K ZONING REFORM BILL With a group of real estate industry organizations lining up in opposition to the comprehensive zoning reform bill expected to be debated next week in the Senate, the bill's lead advocate said he is confident the bill has something for everyone. "Worcester real estate developers and 'weekend developers', who are already ruining the architectural & community fabric of our neighborhoods, will be untethered, and Worcester's beautiful housing stock will be their continued victim. We who have invested here by owning homes will be forced out because of this." Nancy smith via facebook RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA The debate over a ballot measure slated for November that would legalize recreational marijuana is heating up. Opponents worry about the impact on community while proponents say it is a more sensible drug policy. ""Better to legalize and take control instead of foolishly trying to prosecute anyone in possession. Wake up. It's not that bad. I believe alcohol is much worse." Anonymous WBJ poll commenter Are you in favor of recreational marijuana? Public health a concern with recreational marijuana T he debate over a ballot measure, which would legalize recreational marijuana and regulate it like alcohol, is heating up. On the one hand, proponents talk about legalization as a prime tax opportunity for something that they say is less harmful than alcohol while opponents present legalization as a matter of public health and raise concerns surrounding how normalizing marijuana could impact children. WBJ readers were fairly split but leaned against legalizing it. COMMENTS: A s the state pushes to add additional renewable energy to the mix as a means to replace the loss of nuclear and coal energy production, the question has surfaced about how the cost of incorporating this new energy should be handled. Amid the discussion of the latest House energy bill, an amendment was put forward that would allow part of the costs to be passed along to ratepayers that would be capped at a certain percentage of their bill. WBJ readers were strongly in favor of such a measure. Ratepayers shouldn't shoulder renewables' cost Do you think that ratepayers should help pay for incorporating renewable energy into the mix? COMMENTS: Yes. We will all ultimately benefit from more diverse energy sources. 16% No. Market dynamics should determine the fuel mix. 45% Yes. With the state $311 million behind in taxes this year, we could use the revenue. 19% "Driving-to-endanger incidents could increase, among other problems, on and off the road. There are already too many problems with recreational alcohol." "The reality is that renewables continue to cost a premium based, on economics 101. As a society, it is the longer term intangibles, like carbon and climate change, that we have yet to factor into the economic equation. These intangible costs are not in the calculation, which in turn requires societal incentives." Yes. This takes marijuana out of the hands of illegal dealers and into the hands of business people. 29% "Medicinal marijuana I'm okay with, but recreational, no... too much of a gateway drug." "Last thing we need is more people out of touch with a reality, and a state further dependent upon their habits." "New England already has a sufficient power market framework in place that forces more renewables into the generation mix. As currently contemplated, the renewable policy is very bad idea because it will financially undermine the competitive power markets, become a windfall for the utility companies, provide massive subsidies to Canada and undermine local jobs. Ever higher electric rates will make Massachusetts even less competitive for manufacturing and other energy cost-sensitive industries." No. Any financial benefit is not worth the public health implications. 37% No. Those that benefit directly should have to pay all the cost. 19% No. There is not yet a good model for implementing this. 15% Yes. But there should be a cap on how much ratepayers pay. 20%

• Cover