Hartford Business Journal

14 Hartford Business Journal • March 5, 2018 • www.HartfordBusiness.com EDITOR'S TAKE Recreational pot still not right for CT E fforts to legalize recreational marijuana use are in full force in Connecticut, as at least two bills permitting the retail sale of weed have been raised in legislative committees. This issue is a complicated one that plays to social, economic, health, moral and other issues, and support for recreational pot seems to be on the rise, especially af- ter nearby states — including Massachusetts and Vermont — recently legalized it. Public attitudes seem to be changing on the marijuana debate. A January Quinnipiac poll, for example, found that 58 percent of Americans believe mari- juana should be legalized. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who previously voiced opposi- tion to recreational marijuana, included legalization in his budget as a potential "alternative" revenue source to help fill the state's widening budget deficits. Going down that path, however, is still the wrong direction for Connecticut. Proponents, including outside industry forces, continue to push an economic argument for legalization. The Connecticut Coalition to Regulate Marijuana, for ex- ample, says legalization would yield $71 million in tax rev- enues in the first year and as much as $166 million in future years based on a 6.35 percent sales tax rate and other fees. We should be wary of those numbers, especially coming from a group backed by an organization — the Washing- ton, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project — pushing for legalization nationwide. In fact, those are much higher estimates than the $30 million to $105 million in tax revenues projected last year by the state's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis. Of greater importance than an economic argument are the social and health effects legalizing weed would have on the populace, and whether or not we want to promote activities that foster laziness, dimwitted- ness and other potential harmful effects. Another anti-marijuana group, for example, recently released a report that said embracing recreational weed would cost the state $216 million annually by 2020 to administer and enforce. The report from the Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), an Alexandria, Va., anti-marijuana legalization group, and its Connecticut chapter, CT-SAM, said legalization would lead to higher workplace costs, as a result of increased accidents and absenteeism; increased drugged-driving fatalities, injuries and property damage; short-term health costs; more emergency room visits for marijuana poisonings; and increased rates of homelessness. To be fair, I don't take much stock in either group's numbers. Data can be ma- nipulated to support any cause. What's more alarming are the red flags raised by Dr. Deepak Cyril D'Souza, a psychiatry professor at the Yale University School of Medicine who has been do- ing cannabinoid research for more than two decades. At a recent anti-marijuana press conference, he said the drug is addictive, has a negative impact on the developing brain and impairs driving, according to the CT Mirror. At a time when we are already dealing with the deadly effects of the opioid crisis, legalizing marijuana sends the wrong message to our youth. Other marijuana supporters cling to a social-justice argument. They say mi- norities are more likely to be arrested and/or jailed for marijuana drug offenses. While that may be true, it's not a legit argument for legalizing the drug. A simple solution is to take steps to decriminalize weed, without sanctioning it, which Connecticut has done in recent years. One of the newest, more laughable pro-marijuana arguments is that if Connect- icut doesn't legalize weed it will hurt the state's tourism industry, because some vacationers will be more apt to visit nearby states that allow recreational pot use. Connecticut should not allow peer pressure to force it to legalize recreational pot. Just because other nearby states are doing it, doesn't mean we must or should. That's the same lesson parents teach their children to stay away from drugs in the first place. The health and social risks outweigh the economic benefits. OTHER VOICES PLAs good for construction industry By Kimberly Glassman O n Feb. 12, an op-ed in the HBJ ("State must end project labor agreements") by the Connecticut chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors presented an over- simplified and inaccurate description of project labor agreements. A project labor agreement, or PLA, is a pre-hire agreement that sets construction project employment terms. They're often used on complex projects that require the services of multiple contractors and subcontrac- tors over a sustained period of time. PLAs are a common procurement method for the state of Connecticut, municipalities and private developers. The Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) likes to tout their membership numbers. However, they represent only 1 percent of con- struction com- panies in the United States. According to the National Labor College, a mea- ger 22,260 ap- prentices were enrolled in ABC programs, compared to over 420,000 apprentices enrolled in union-funded programs. Though we appreciate ABC's at- tempt to paint the use of PLAs as a partisan issue by invoking Gov. Mal- loy's decision to utilize the agreements, they fail to disclose other elected leaders' use of them. Republican Mayor Mark Boughton recently signed a PLA for Danbury High School. For- mer Republican Mayor John Harkins signed PLAs for both the Victoria Soto Elementary School and Stratford High School. And former Gov. John Rowland signed a historic PLA on Adriaen's Landing in Hartford. There is nothing that precludes non-union contractors from bidding on a PLA project. Federal law prohib- its employers from discriminating against employees based on union membership. Rather than offer a weak argument for outlawing PLAs as a procurement method, we should ask why ABC and non-union contrac- tors don't compete for those projects. According to the U.S. Census Bu- reau's 2006 Survey, only 21 percent of workers in the non-union sector of the U.S. construction market were receiv- ing retirement benefits. That's abysmal. Under a PLA, all contractors are re- quired to abide by collective bargain- ing agreements to meet the needs of a specific project. Those agreements dictate wages and benefits, like health insurance and retirement plans. Oth- er important aspects might include provisions for utilizing apprentices, local hiring goals, set-aside goals for minority and women-owned busi- nesses, and a commitment to utilize returning veterans through programs like "Helmets to Hardhats." PLAs in Hartford and New Haven have provided secure job opportunities for local residents. Absent these agree- ments, residents are often overlooked for employment on projects being built in their own community. The local hiring goals specified in PLAs have contributed to millions of dollars being recycled into Connecticut's economy. ABC argues that PLAs raise the cost of construction. Yet studies by UCLA, Cornell and other leading in- stitutions have concluded that there is simply no evidence to back up this claim. UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education published a study in 2017 that found that PLA projects have more bidders and lower bids than non-PLA projects. If PLAs raised the cost of construc- tion, then profit-oriented corporations wouldn't consistently use them. Cor- vus Capital Partners LLC just signed a PLA on the Bridgeport Cherry Street Lofts and the Bridgeport Landing Development LLC signed a PLA for the Steel Pointe Harbor project. ABC referenced an erroneous 2009 study published by right-wing think tank Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) at Suf- folk University. It's worth noting that BHI and Suffolk University severed ties in 2016. In 2015, The Guardian report- ed that BHI is associated with ultra- conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Koch Brothers. To call for the repeal of an entire procurement method simply on the grounds that an infinitesimal segment of non-union contractors don't like hav- ing to pay area standard wages and into benefit funds is disingenuousness. Kimberly Glassman is the director of the Foundation for Fair Contracting of Connecticut. Opinion & Commentary Greg Bordonaro Editor Kimberly Glassman

• Cover