Here at the Canna Law Blog, we had intended to start our series on the real estate implications of the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) with a discussion of issues faced by each license type. But after reading The New York Times’ recent article on the real estate “rush” caused by the MRTA, we felt compelled to address some statements that could mislead prospective applicants when evaluating their license options.
As a brief refresher, the MRTA’s adult-use licensing provisions indicate that applicants will need to demonstrate that they either own or are under contract to possess (by lease or management agreement) the physical location in which the applicant will operate during the applicant’s initial 2 year license. Across all license types, location is one of the most important considerations for applicants.
For those on the production side (cultivators, processors, and distributors), finding suitable real estate at the right price is critical to being able to operate a successful business. For retail applicants (including on-site consumption applicants), identifying and securing the right space in the right area may be the difference between financial success and failure. As we like to say in New York: location, location, location.
The New York