Ron Strider
Well-Known Member
On the eve of California's big new experiment with legal cannabis sales, cities and counties are becoming a kaleidoscopic landscape as they race to enact laws by the start of the new year that reflect their hopes and fears.
Will there be a flood of tax revenue from cannabis to fix potholes and hire more cops? Or will pot sales trigger blight, violence and other ills?
After the decision of California voters last year to legalize recreational cannabis similar-seeming places are reaching very different conclusions. And different places, oddly, often seem to agree.
One college town, Santa Cruz, is pro-pot sales. Another, Palo Alto, is opposed. One working-class East Bay city, Richmond, has said yes to recreational cannabis sales. Another similar city, Antioch, has said no for now.
Beyond the Bay Area, the prosperous cities of Sacramento, Davis, Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego are all in. They have long histories with medicinal cannabis sales, with little evident harm.
Yolo County, after months of hearings during which it appeared that outdoor cultivation would be permitted within certain limits, is now meeting on Tuesday where it could ban commercial pot production. County voters will be asked to consider a tax on medicinal cannabis in 2018, however, if it isn't approved they could decide to ban farms.
Davis has approved four cannabis dispensaries, Sacramento 30, but Woodland is saying no to dispensaries and grow sites.
This past week, the Woodland City Council held its second reading on the rules and regulations regarding the budding cannabis industry. Those rules permit manufacturing, processing and testing and out-of-town delivery of medicinal cannabis but no indoor or outdoor grow sites or storefront dispensaries. In mid-November the council ratified the decision on a 4-1 vote with Councilman Tom Stallard opposed to even the manufacturing, processing and testing regulations. Last week – even though the topic was included in a consent calendar which are usually approved without debate – Stallard went on record as second time as being opposed.
A third reading is scheduled in another week, which will put the ordinance into law.
The council's action ran counter to what city planning staff, Planning Commission and even the council's own Ad Hoc Cannabis Subcommittee recommended.
Woodland's council reflects the confusion and concern about legalized cannabis. Unprepared and overwhelmed, many cities are hitting the pause button as they brace for bleary-eyed debates over planning, zoning and tax rates. While these cities support legal weed in theory, in practice they're less sure. They seem startled, as if to ask: How did Jan. 1 get here so soon?
"People have assumed a quick ramp-up," said Courtney Ramos, vice president of Mountain View-based Matrix Consulting Group, which is advising cities and counties on how to deal with cannabis ordinances, "but a lot of communities weren't having those conversations."
A century of prohibition kept pot laws pretty simple, but the passage of Proposition 64 in November 2016 has complicated things, creating a cultural Rorschach test of sorts, revealing our cities' deeply held values.
Despite the passage of the statewide ballot measure, California cities and counties still have the power to ban sales and cultivation within their borders. Some dug in their heels this month, saying the state's rushed emergency rule-making process didn't give them enough time to prepare. Local regulations must mesh with the state framework, released in mid-November.
In Vallejo, the debate has even taken a more ominous turn. An initiative petition, meant to increase the type and number of cannabis businesses and allow adult use sales has been started.
The initiative is sponsored by a handful of the city's medical cannabis dispensaries and was found to have enough signatures to move forward last month. The council is scheduled to hear a formal report Tuesday night. That 11-page report, prepared by the Grass Valley-based law firm Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley, PC, outlines "several legal vulnerabilities that likely render (the initiative) facially invalid."
According to the report, the initiative discriminates against non-residents by only allowing the city's dispensaries and individuals who can prove they have lived in Vallejo for three consecutive years the ability to obtain special cannabis business permits.
The report further argues the initiative is inconsistent with the city's general plan because the measure changes Vallejo's zoning ordinance allowing cannabis manufacturing, dispensaries and cultivation in "any zone, excluding exclusively residential zones."
The council is being asked to decide if it should adopt the initiative as law or send the matter to city voters. City staff is recommending putting the matter before voters during the November 2018 election. City staff is also asking the council to direct the city attorney to get an order from the court regarding the legality of the ordinance itself.
Meanwhile, the confusion among cities continues. A 25-mile, left-leaning swath of the East Bay – from Hayward to El Cerrito – will allow cannabis sales. The artsy agricultural coast, from Pacifica to Santa Cruz, is also pot-friendly. The Bay Area's three big cities – San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland – are cool with it. Young-and-hip Mountain View is getting there, but says it needs more time to write regulations.
But recreational pot sales will be banned for now all along the leafy Peninsula, as well as family-focused Contra Costa County towns such as Pleasanton and Orinda. Heavily Asian-American places like Milpitas, Fremont and Daly City have rejected legal cannabis for now, which is consistent with election results. Polls showed that while Proposition 64 was backed by solid majorities of whites, Latinos and blacks, most Asian-Americans didn't support it.
Some cities, however, defy expectations. Albany, "Where the Bay Comes To Play" at Golden Gate Fields racetrack, isn't betting on weed.
A few cities, like San Carlos and Palo Alto, are rejecting brick-and-mortar shops but will allow delivery services to drive weed to their residents.
Marin County, once known as the land of hot tubs and New Age thinking, is saying no. Eight of its 11 cities are slamming their doors on recreational cannabis – even Fairfax, the site of California's first-ever medical cannabis dispensary more than 20 years ago.
A handful of depressed Central Valley and desert towns have said yes to recreational cannabis. Bankrupt Coalinga authorized pot growing in its abandoned prison and an area zoned for auto wrecking yards. The fading resort town of Desert Hot Springs, nicknamed "Desert Pot Springs," is planning a cannabis spa. Also welcoming is Adelanto, a high desert town in San Bernardino County with four prisons, cactus and not much else.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Cities and counties face pot holes on road to cannabis legalization
Author: Jim Smith
Contact: Contact Us
Photo Credit: Luis Sinco
Website: Daily Democrat: Breaking News, Sports, Business, Entertainment & Woodland News
Will there be a flood of tax revenue from cannabis to fix potholes and hire more cops? Or will pot sales trigger blight, violence and other ills?
After the decision of California voters last year to legalize recreational cannabis similar-seeming places are reaching very different conclusions. And different places, oddly, often seem to agree.
One college town, Santa Cruz, is pro-pot sales. Another, Palo Alto, is opposed. One working-class East Bay city, Richmond, has said yes to recreational cannabis sales. Another similar city, Antioch, has said no for now.
Beyond the Bay Area, the prosperous cities of Sacramento, Davis, Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Diego are all in. They have long histories with medicinal cannabis sales, with little evident harm.
Yolo County, after months of hearings during which it appeared that outdoor cultivation would be permitted within certain limits, is now meeting on Tuesday where it could ban commercial pot production. County voters will be asked to consider a tax on medicinal cannabis in 2018, however, if it isn't approved they could decide to ban farms.
Davis has approved four cannabis dispensaries, Sacramento 30, but Woodland is saying no to dispensaries and grow sites.
This past week, the Woodland City Council held its second reading on the rules and regulations regarding the budding cannabis industry. Those rules permit manufacturing, processing and testing and out-of-town delivery of medicinal cannabis but no indoor or outdoor grow sites or storefront dispensaries. In mid-November the council ratified the decision on a 4-1 vote with Councilman Tom Stallard opposed to even the manufacturing, processing and testing regulations. Last week – even though the topic was included in a consent calendar which are usually approved without debate – Stallard went on record as second time as being opposed.
A third reading is scheduled in another week, which will put the ordinance into law.
The council's action ran counter to what city planning staff, Planning Commission and even the council's own Ad Hoc Cannabis Subcommittee recommended.
Woodland's council reflects the confusion and concern about legalized cannabis. Unprepared and overwhelmed, many cities are hitting the pause button as they brace for bleary-eyed debates over planning, zoning and tax rates. While these cities support legal weed in theory, in practice they're less sure. They seem startled, as if to ask: How did Jan. 1 get here so soon?
"People have assumed a quick ramp-up," said Courtney Ramos, vice president of Mountain View-based Matrix Consulting Group, which is advising cities and counties on how to deal with cannabis ordinances, "but a lot of communities weren't having those conversations."
A century of prohibition kept pot laws pretty simple, but the passage of Proposition 64 in November 2016 has complicated things, creating a cultural Rorschach test of sorts, revealing our cities' deeply held values.
Despite the passage of the statewide ballot measure, California cities and counties still have the power to ban sales and cultivation within their borders. Some dug in their heels this month, saying the state's rushed emergency rule-making process didn't give them enough time to prepare. Local regulations must mesh with the state framework, released in mid-November.
In Vallejo, the debate has even taken a more ominous turn. An initiative petition, meant to increase the type and number of cannabis businesses and allow adult use sales has been started.
The initiative is sponsored by a handful of the city's medical cannabis dispensaries and was found to have enough signatures to move forward last month. The council is scheduled to hear a formal report Tuesday night. That 11-page report, prepared by the Grass Valley-based law firm Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley, PC, outlines "several legal vulnerabilities that likely render (the initiative) facially invalid."
According to the report, the initiative discriminates against non-residents by only allowing the city's dispensaries and individuals who can prove they have lived in Vallejo for three consecutive years the ability to obtain special cannabis business permits.
The report further argues the initiative is inconsistent with the city's general plan because the measure changes Vallejo's zoning ordinance allowing cannabis manufacturing, dispensaries and cultivation in "any zone, excluding exclusively residential zones."
The council is being asked to decide if it should adopt the initiative as law or send the matter to city voters. City staff is recommending putting the matter before voters during the November 2018 election. City staff is also asking the council to direct the city attorney to get an order from the court regarding the legality of the ordinance itself.
Meanwhile, the confusion among cities continues. A 25-mile, left-leaning swath of the East Bay – from Hayward to El Cerrito – will allow cannabis sales. The artsy agricultural coast, from Pacifica to Santa Cruz, is also pot-friendly. The Bay Area's three big cities – San Jose, San Francisco and Oakland – are cool with it. Young-and-hip Mountain View is getting there, but says it needs more time to write regulations.
But recreational pot sales will be banned for now all along the leafy Peninsula, as well as family-focused Contra Costa County towns such as Pleasanton and Orinda. Heavily Asian-American places like Milpitas, Fremont and Daly City have rejected legal cannabis for now, which is consistent with election results. Polls showed that while Proposition 64 was backed by solid majorities of whites, Latinos and blacks, most Asian-Americans didn't support it.
Some cities, however, defy expectations. Albany, "Where the Bay Comes To Play" at Golden Gate Fields racetrack, isn't betting on weed.
A few cities, like San Carlos and Palo Alto, are rejecting brick-and-mortar shops but will allow delivery services to drive weed to their residents.
Marin County, once known as the land of hot tubs and New Age thinking, is saying no. Eight of its 11 cities are slamming their doors on recreational cannabis – even Fairfax, the site of California's first-ever medical cannabis dispensary more than 20 years ago.
A handful of depressed Central Valley and desert towns have said yes to recreational cannabis. Bankrupt Coalinga authorized pot growing in its abandoned prison and an area zoned for auto wrecking yards. The fading resort town of Desert Hot Springs, nicknamed "Desert Pot Springs," is planning a cannabis spa. Also welcoming is Adelanto, a high desert town in San Bernardino County with four prisons, cactus and not much else.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Cities and counties face pot holes on road to cannabis legalization
Author: Jim Smith
Contact: Contact Us
Photo Credit: Luis Sinco
Website: Daily Democrat: Breaking News, Sports, Business, Entertainment & Woodland News
