consists of appointed individuals who are separate from the directly elected municipal council. Simultaneously, the responsibility of the Mayor and Aldermen is at first to the local council rather than the national government, and this provides a mechanism whereby support is fostered for policy development and resistance against unfavourable national measures, as was the case with the municipality of Utrecht. The new measures were perceived with hostility, addressing a problem which did not exist in serious proportion, whilst not dealing with the problem’ of organised cultivation: ‘big don’t have any problems with tourists in coffeeshops so we don’t see the idea of installing permits ‘…we or something, and 350m, we don’t have any problems yet and we don’t see the advantage of that, only that we have to close down a lot of coffeeshops and only a problem that we have too few coffeeshops’ (D’66 Alderman, Utrecht) Such pressure from a number of municipalities substantially contributed to the school distance and closed club criteria being rescinded and greater flexibility given to enforcing the residency criterion. This was due to concerns that these measures would lead to greater nuisance problems and would lead to the closure of most coffeeshops; an effect which would be unwelcome in most urbanised municipalities who value the role of coffeeshops. Thus, the position of Utrecht towards the residency criterion is that it does not enforce it until a problem arises: long as we don’t have that problem [tourist nuisance] is no duty to implement it.’ (Policy Advisor ‘As to the Mayor, Utrecht)
consists of appointed individuals who are separate from the directly elected municipal council. Simultaneously, the responsibility of the Mayor and Aldermen is at first to the local council rather than the national government, and this provides a mechanism whereby support is fostered for policy development and resistance against unfavourable national measures, as was the case with the municipality of Utrecht. The new measures were perceived with hostility, addressing a problem which did not exist in serious proportion, whilst not dealing with the ‘big problem’ of organised cultivation: ‘…we don’t have any problems with tourists in coffeeshops so we don’t see the idea of installing permits or something, and 350m, we don’t have any problems yet and we don’t see the advantage of that, only that we have to close down a lot of coffeeshops and only a problem that we have too few coffeeshops’ (D’66 Alderman, Utrecht) Such pressure from a number of municipalities substantially contributed to the school distance and closed club criteria being rescinded and greater flexibility given to enforcing the residency criterion. This was due to concerns that these measures would lead to greater nuisance problems and would lead to the closure of most coffeeshops; an effect which would be unwelcome in most urbanised municipalities who value the role of coffeeshops. Thus, the position of Utrecht towards the residency criterion is that it does not enforce it until a problem arises: ‘As long as we don’t have that problem [tourist nuisance] is no duty to implement it.’ (Policy Advisor to the Mayor, Utrecht)