A rendering of what a Columbia Rd. NW dispensary operated by Montel Williams would look like.

Former talk show host Montel Williams is one of medical marijuana’s biggest proponents (he’s also a patient), but his dreams of opening a Columbia Road NW dispensary seem to have been dashed by a nervous landlord.

According to a statement from Williams’ PR team, the owner of the property located at 1815 Columbia Rd. NW (it’s currently a Foot Action USA) backed out of the dispensary deal over concerns that it would be used for dispensing marijuana, which, despite local laws, is still illegal under federal law.

“Despite clear communications by the real estate professional representing the property owner regarding interest to enter into a lease agreement, in addition to weeks of discussions, exchanges of documents, and survey work, Abatin learned abruptly that the ownership would not in fact consummate a lease agreement because of concerns related to the status of medical marijuana under federal law,” said the statement.

“Unfortunately, this deal became the victim of processes outside the control for Abatin. The short turnaround laid out in the D.C. regulations, a challenging regulatory environment for the property’s ownership, and either a communication breakdown between the property owner and the real estate broker or unauthorized representations by the broker (based on the representations of the property owner), led the deal to collapse. In the coming days we will evaluate our options moving forward.”

Williams — who runs a dispensary in Sacramento, and recently had an application in Oakland ranked poorly by city officials — hoped to open the dispensary as a partner to a cultivation center he has planned for Ward 5. That location seems safe — at a recent meeting in Ward 5, the owner of the building spoke on Williams’ behalf.

It’s not surprising that a landlord might get a little skittish. During a recent crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries in California, U.S. attorneys threatened landlords whose property was used for the cultivation or dispensing of marijuana with seizure. (Banks are also antsy about providing their services to medical marijuana entrepreneurs.) If the feds ever cracked down in D.C., landlords could similarly be put at risk. Williams’ team apparently tried to calm those nerves, to no avail.

“For the record, Abatin offered a strong indemnity proposal to the ownership, which was rejected. The proposal would have protected the owner from any potential losses resulting from our tenancy, as well as any local or federal law enforcement or civil proceedings. It should be noted that such concerns are not without merit, we simply wish they had been brought to our attention in a more timely manner, allowing us to find a resolution or begin a search for a new location. We now have been told that the real estate broker did not have authority to negotiate for the lease of the property and that the professional relationship between the property owner and the broker has been terminated.”

It’s unclear what options Williams has at this point. We’ve reached out to the Department of Health for clarification, and we’ll update if we hear back. Even if he could amend his application, Williams would have to find a new location and have a surveyor verify that it complies with city regulations. A six-member panel will review the 17 dispensary applications through the end of January; the final five winners will be announced in late March.

It seems like Williams is looking for a little flexibility from the city, according to Jonathan Franks, his spokesman.

“As it stands, the regulations do not provide the opportunity to move locations after filing. However, situations like this are going to come up, and we think that, in the interest of fundamental fairness, DOH ought to look at ways to accommodate applicants whose real estate deals go south, especially in situations where the applicant can make a showing that it did everything it could to preserve the deal at the original address. We really were a victim of a very bizarre communications breakdown on the ownership side of this transaction,” he told us in an email.