Could Legal Marijuana Lead to an Industrial Building Boom in Denver?
Warehouses in short supply.


Who else is cashing in on legal weed in Colorado, besides the retailers (and the taxing government)? Just as with any other market good, producing marijuana creates additional commercial demands. In Denver, one side effect is big money for the landlords of warehouses. As the Wall Street Journal notes, the success of legitimized marijuana has created a huge demand for places to grow them and create the product. Marijuana producers are snatching up all the available warehouse space and driving up rents:
The problem for Denver business owners: marijuana producers require lots of space to grow, package and store their products. In all, growers and distributors took up a third of all the warehouse space leased in Colorado over the past 18 months, according to Cresa Partners, a brokerage.
The warehouse crunch means many small businesses are struggling to find the space they need. Mr. Badgley, chief executive of Colorado Specialties Corp., a building-supply business, said his 7,500-square-foot warehouse and showroom is so crammed with bathroom fixtures and other materials that it is difficult to navigate. He would like to move to a building with triple the space, but can't find anything affordable.
"It's all just getting snatched up by these marijuana people," he said.
Rents for warehouses in Colorado grew 10 percent in the last year. One logistics company reports having to turn customers away because they simply don't have the space. Clearly, Colorado needs more warehouses.
There are some other concerns (marijuana growers spend significant money adapting warehouse space to their needs, making these spaces difficult to relet if they leave), but if Colorado sees a clear boom in related logistics-focused commercial and industrial developments, then that's going to be some great ammunition for other states pushing for legalization. Municipal governments absolutely love the logistics market, particularly in places where manufacturing is no longer (or never was) the source for blue-collar jobs. And of course, real estate professionals and developers have always been able to bend the ears of elected officials. Once the "right" people are also making money off legal marijuana, some resistance is likely to go up in smoke.
And it's a lot of money. Colorado is expecting to see $1 billion in annual marijuana sales by 2016. ReasonTV interviewed Christian Sederberg, a Denver-based attorney at Vicente Sederberg LLC and one of the key members of Colorado's Amendment 64 campaign to legalize cannabis, about how legalization has worked out. Watch below:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yet more proof that drugs and stealing are inextricably linked.
"snatched up by these marijuana people"
Rent Control!
When do we want it?
Now!
How do we want it?
Good and mellow!
So much for my rent control joke.
so what we really need is rent-control-joke control.
The problem for Denver business owners: marijuana producers require lots of space to grow, package and store their products.
What is space to *consume* their products, chopped liver?
That would be your house since you aren't allowed to consume in public.
The terms are "consume, openly and publicly." There's a growing industry to define exactly what that means, but the statists have gotten laws so screwed up that when you're in a private establishment you're in "public" and government property is "private" when they want it to be, so there's that.
They don't care about that as long as:
1) they tax it
2) their constituents don't see it
Marijuana producers are snatching up all the available warehouse space...
For teen pregnancy centers and terrorist training facilities.
I'm in Colorado for a wedding this October so I might have to take part in this billion dollar industry.
Go with the Berry Kush. Avoid the Blue Dream, overrated.
I recommend Blueberry, especially as a Nitro Hash Oil. Oh man is that mellow.
Thanks for the hat tip, fucker.
Don't get butthurt! Yes, Nicole recommended Blueberry to me. Very highly, and she was right.
Happy now?
I would also appreciate a latte...
All I have is an Americano.
*Extends empty mug*
Just don't pull a Maureen Dowd.
I'm going to be there for a week because I'm going with a friend of mine and we're going to spend 7 full days in Colorado Springs in a haze of pot smoke and low-grade alcohol poisoning.
I'll be lucky if I pull a Maureen Dowd, since there's a 30% chance I'm going to die.
Alcohol poisoning? Shouldn't you be immune, you know because Irish and libertarian?
She means don't do overpowered edibles and put yourself in a way-too-stoned coma for a few hours. Just smoke flower or maybe do some hash oil vaping.
I know what she means, and I'm just making sure she's aware that this is actually my best case scenario.
Just back from the store and now I highly recommend Gorilla Glue. That and Ghost Trainwreck Haze. Two of my recent favorites.
Isn't gorilla glue trademarked?
Trademarks are segregated by industry, meaning a consumable does not conflict with an adhesive product.
Denver? Doubt it. Longmont and Louisville? Probably.
More like a Doritos boom, amirite?
Do you hear that? That's my skulll. I'm so wasted!!
It's possible
Could Legal Sheep Fucking Lead to an Industrial Building Boom in Denver?
Es possible
It hasn't led to any such boom in Cheyenne or Laramie.
It's also possible that the city will descend into fiery anarchy because of all the reefer madness.
Who is right? Only time will tell.
PS - Mark Steyn is subbing for Limbaugh, in case anyone's interested. I like him a lot. Only better sub is Walter Williams, who is the absolute best and should have his own show. I'd go back to college just to take classes from him. Since I'm far too lazy to do that, I'll just read his books...
Yes, shriek, we're all CHRISTFAG BUSHPIG LIMBAUGH PEANUTS.
I can't stand too much Limbaugh, but his guest hosts are oddly compelling for being fill-ins.
I don't like Rush, but I'll admit that nobody does sarcasm quite as well as him.
I'll say it; I'm Mark Steyn fan. For my money it doesn't get any better than when he smacks down leftards. I celebrate his entire catalog. But you must REALLY love him. Say, what's your favorite book of his?
You can keep your talk radio, grandpa. I'd rather listen to music in my down time. Ain't nobody got time to be listening to a bunch of old men bitching about everything.
His posts on free speech are always amazing. The one after the Garland shooting was particularly good.
I wonder if it's now less legally restrictive to grow pot than warehouses.
You can't grow a warehouse!
*slaps bong out of warren's hand*
You know who else led an industrial boom...
Union Carbide?
BP?
What did I do now?
Nagasaki?
Shandong Runxing Chemical Technology Company?
Mae West?
Triangle Shirtwaist factory?
Jose Jimenez?
Marijuana People, they're coming for your daughters, wallets and warehouses. They must be stopped!
We can't have too many abandoned industrial buildings, but we also can't have too many fully utilized industrial properties. We must use the government to set the appropriate amount of utilized industrial properties.
If it ever gets legalized in Virginia, I'm considering a career change.
Oh noes, we'll have to build more warehouses.
What the fuck?
Ludditism worms it's way into the real estate industry.
Those warehouses are icky-poo.
But those construction jobs are only temporary! We need to invest in green energy to really revitalize Denver!
What's a Florida Man doing in Colorado, huh?
Stocking up
Huntin' the elusive Mountain Gator.
Huntin' the elusive Mountain Gator.
Good one.
http://www.coloradogators.com/
I've only been to Denver once and all I remember is the no guns signs everywhere and no 2 for 1 beers at Chili's because of the homeless people abusing it.
If only there were some sort of champion of the people with a sledge hammer who could destroy their shopping carts.
Look, man, you have to find a way to complain about the reefer madness, even if it's just about warehouse space, or the paper won't even quote you. Come on, where are your priorities?
where are your priorities?
Making that (somewhat) almighty dollar.
Bless you sir.
It is more than just rental space. At a Loveland, CO restaurant event about a year back I struck up a conversation with some college kid. He seemed your typical pot-head skater guy. He was in business with a college buddy taking care of pot-farm waste. Evidently, all the stems and shit left over after processing MJ plants is still considered a controlled substance by CO. So he and his buddy run a specialized waste disposal service that takes care of all that stuff. They log everything they take, and bring it to an incinerator that they run under regular inspections.
These kids look like typical wastoids, but they had truly stepped up their game. They could quote all their regulations, were building tracking software, and acting like true solution consultants. It was like they were part of a legitimate supply-chain industry and everything.
Also, at 28, they were making significant bank.
My friends family runs a cannabis investment company, Americann, that is building a new 125,000 sq. foot state of the art grow facility right next to the airport. Because no one can get a loan from a bank to build these guys do it and then rent the facility to a grower and take a share of the profits. Needless to say they are raking it in.
A kind of Incubator then?
When someone gets harassed for some stupid reason, I sometimes hear people say "It might seem silly, but those laws were passed for a reason!"
I'd like to see every law be accompanied by a justification for why the law was passed, AND a statement from anyone that voted against the law as to why they did that. It probably wouldn't change anything but at least it would be in the public record.
I'd like a statement from everyone who voted for the law that a) they actually read the law, b) understood it, and c) completely stand by every aspect of its implementation.
Every law should also have an automatic sunset clause (5 years?) that requires a vote to renew it.
But Rich - we need to pass it to find out what's in it.
*gives knowing look*
I read the law, understood it, and did not vote for (or against) it. Even the heinous taxation in that text (which they blew by) and the invitations to regulate seemed ridiculous. I was for A70.
*fives years in the future*
Who votes to continue all laws as is?
Unianimous yeas.
On to our next item, universal housing law.
I once floated the idea that every 18 years or some such (roughly the time it takes for a generation to come to "maturity") every single law on the books becomes invalid. Any law that Congress wants to get put back on the books has to be individually voted on again, with an opportunity for full debate. The process starts in the 16th year, no sooner, and has to be finished by the 18th year, or else it cannot be put back on the books for at least 4 years. Totally new laws can be voted on and take effect at ay time, but all laws are subject to the 18 year house cleaning -- doesn't matter how old the law is.
The idea is inspired by Jefferson's suggestion that a government is really only valid and justified for roughly one generation. After that people who never had a chance to vote on the laws end up still being subject to them.
It could, conceivably, help keep the bloat down. Two years isn't a ton of time in Washington so one would hope that only the necessary and successful laws will get reauthorized. I'm sure eventually the system would be gamed, but at least for a while it could be useful.
Nah, there needs to be a constitutionally mandated word limit on the entire legal code. For every law you want to add, you need to kill another one. It would also lead to laws that are a little more laconic, so there's that.
If you are serious about that
*** gives knowing look ***
then the law should not take effect until a year after it is passed.
All these ideas on how to "fix" laws and government are just rearranging the deck chairs. The reason laws and government become horrible is because they are all immediately captured by...people. Humans. Who will then do whatever it takes to gain the most from the law or government.
People who have these "ideas" about how to "fix" the horrible gaping flaws in the law are totally misguided, because the problem is that people are individuals and some are going to try and manipulate the system for their benefit (which often means that it will be the opposite of benefit for others). You can't "fix" people. And any new special features you come up with to make things better will be circumvented and twisted to serve someone about five minutes after you implement them.
Buildings start to decas as soon as we construct them, Epi. That doesn't mean building them is a waste of time.
I don't disagree. It's a constant struggle. The idea is to learn from the past and, when you have the opportunity, to reform things in such a way that it makes it a little bit harder to erode freedom. Of course it's transient.
I don't really see an alternative.
Human society and interaction isn't buildings. That's the problem. People think you can throw up a government, a set of laws, like an edifice and then it's around forever and keeps working. You can't. The fact of the matter is humans are extremely varied and mercurial.
"People think you can throw up a government, a set of laws, like an edifice and then it's around forever and keeps working. "
So, you favor a living Constitution? Or wholesale replacement of the current one?
So, you favor a living Constitution? Or wholesale replacement of the current one?
The fences that the Constitution erected around the government are only as good as the people who mind them. If you can't understand that observing such a fact does not count as granting favor to some particular alternative, then you are remarkably obtuse.
The discussion was around 'fixing' the laws. My point is that we have a very robust set of principles that are almost unchanging, with no need for fixes. So long-lasting laws CAN be articulated. Sorry you misunderstood.