Katelyn Baker
Well-Known Member
Inland city leaders are starting to discuss how to respond to California voters' Nov. 8 approval of recreational marijuana.
But wait, some residents may say, don't most cities in Riverside and San Bernardino counties already ban growing and selling pot?
They do, but many of those bans cover medical marijuana and don't mention pot for recreational purposes, or "adult use," as it's also described.
Not everyone agrees on whether that leaves a loophole for someone to farm pot or open a dispensary, but cities including Corona, Riverside and San Jacinto are seizing the chance to review their rules and decide what to allow.
Riverside Councilman Mike Gardner told colleagues Nov. 15 that they should discuss whether to expand the city's ban to recreational pot.
"Now that it is legal, people will buy it in adjoining jurisdictions that allow it and bring it back here, whether we tax it or not or whether we allow it or not, and we will deal with whatever problems may come with that," he said.
NEW LAW
Prop. 64, the initiative that passed earlier this month, gives all California adults the right to buy, possess and grow small amounts of marijuana and use it in their own homes and other specified places such as licensed cafes. It doesn't allow people to use pot in public or drive while high, and employers still can fire workers who fail drug tests because of marijuana.
Under the new law, recreational marijuana businesses would need licenses from the state and the local jurisdiction where they want to operate. Cities still have power to regulate or ban pot businesses, including retail sales and large-scale cultivation.
That's the main topic of debate for a number of Inland cities that already ban medical pot dispensaries.
Concerned that a hole in city rules might lead recreational pot businesses to open in Hemet, that city's council members passed a temporary ban on them Nov. 15. The ban can be extended up to two years while the council hammers out any rule changes.
The state isn't expected to start issuing licenses until 2018, so a pot business opening before that likely would be deemed illegal, Hemet Assistant City Attorney Stephen McEwen said. Having explicit rules on the books puts the city in a better position to discourage or shut down any illegal pot shops, he said.
And though the state is not expected to grant a license if a business doesn't have a city permit where it plans to open, McEwen said, "You want to make sure that your provisions are very clear."
POLICY CHANGES?
With a year or so left until state licenses are available, some cities are taking the time to rethink their policies.
Until recently, Riverside was on the forefront of opposition to marijuana, winning a 2013 battle at the state Supreme Court over whether cities can ban dispensaries through zoning. Since 2009, the city has shut down 108 dispensaries.
Early next year, Riverside council members will discuss whether to regulate and tax pot shops.
What changed?
"This is something that's now legal in our state, whereas it was only legal for very limited purposes previously," Gardner said.
But for Gardner and officials in other cities, many questions remain. How many pot stores could open, and where would they be located? How could such all-cash businesses deter robberies and other crime? What about commercial marijuana farming?
"We've had numerous requests from people that want to grow or manufacture (pot) products," Corona Councilman Eugene Montanez said. "I'm afraid that unless we come up with some sort of rules and regulations, it could get out of hand."
Montanez said he opposed Prop. 64 and has concerns about pot and law enforcement, especially driving under the influence. He wants the council to talk about not only what policy is right for Corona, but how surrounding communities' pot decisions might affect the city.
NOT FOR ALL
Other Inland communities are studying the issue but may end up doubling down on their medical pot bans.
Upland city leaders fought to get Measure U, which would allow medical marijuana dispensaries, on the November ballot instead of a special election. The California Cannabis Coalition, which backed the initiative, is still battling the city in court, but voters rejected the measure Nov. 8, said Santa Monica attorney Roger Jon Diamond, who represents the coalition.
San Jacinto recently approved a temporary ban on pot businesses and is working on new rules that could require permits for those who wish to grow the six plants they're allowed under Prop. 64 and could allow a limited number of outdoor grows on large lots.
City voters just approved a measure that puts a tax of up to $50 per square foot on marijuana cultivation or manufacturing, but that doesn't mean the council will charge that much or even permit large pot grows, said deputy City Attorney Mike Maurer.
Council members put the tax on the ballot so they don't have to return to voters later, he said.
"It's up to the city from a policy standpoint to decide what type of businesses, if any, they want to allow," Maurer said.
At least one San Jacinto councilman will continue to just say no. Alonso Ledezma said he believes allowing recreational pot will lead users to harder drugs and bring crime.
"I don't even want to hear the word," he said. "It's really bad for the community."
WAY FORWARD?
Some marijuana proponents see the new wave of city discussions as a chance to change minds.
Passage of Prop. 64 is "one more reason local municipalities should consider passing sensible regulations" on marijuana rather than outright bans, Riverside attorney Jason Thompson said.
Thompson is working with clients who want permission to grow pot commercially in Beaumont and are pushing a possible ballot measure to regulate marijuana in Jurupa Valley.
Many cities' budgets are tight, so allowing pot sales could boost the local tax base, Thompson said, adding, "If they think it's just a small amount of money, they're sadly mistaken."
Diamond, the Santa Monica attorney, doesn't see most local leaders reconsidering their opposition to pot, and he said it's hard to say whether the outcome of Prop. 64 indicates Inland officials are out of step with their constituents.
For him, it's best to take the issue straight to voters. Though the Upland measure failed, the approach worked in San Bernardino. Voters there approved Measure O, which allows up to five marijuana businesses to open in the city's commercial and industrial zones.
Diamond represented Vincent Guzman, the San Bernardino resident behind Measure O.
"I don't sense yet a willingness on the part of the cities, so my vision would be more initiatives," Diamond said.
"The traditional reason for an initiative in the first place is to bypass the legislative body when they're unresponsive."
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Cities Wonder, With Pot Legal, Now What?
Author: Alicia Robinson
Contact: (951) 684-1200
Photo Credit: David Bauman
Website: The Press Enterprise
But wait, some residents may say, don't most cities in Riverside and San Bernardino counties already ban growing and selling pot?
They do, but many of those bans cover medical marijuana and don't mention pot for recreational purposes, or "adult use," as it's also described.
Not everyone agrees on whether that leaves a loophole for someone to farm pot or open a dispensary, but cities including Corona, Riverside and San Jacinto are seizing the chance to review their rules and decide what to allow.
Riverside Councilman Mike Gardner told colleagues Nov. 15 that they should discuss whether to expand the city's ban to recreational pot.
"Now that it is legal, people will buy it in adjoining jurisdictions that allow it and bring it back here, whether we tax it or not or whether we allow it or not, and we will deal with whatever problems may come with that," he said.
NEW LAW
Prop. 64, the initiative that passed earlier this month, gives all California adults the right to buy, possess and grow small amounts of marijuana and use it in their own homes and other specified places such as licensed cafes. It doesn't allow people to use pot in public or drive while high, and employers still can fire workers who fail drug tests because of marijuana.
Under the new law, recreational marijuana businesses would need licenses from the state and the local jurisdiction where they want to operate. Cities still have power to regulate or ban pot businesses, including retail sales and large-scale cultivation.
That's the main topic of debate for a number of Inland cities that already ban medical pot dispensaries.
Concerned that a hole in city rules might lead recreational pot businesses to open in Hemet, that city's council members passed a temporary ban on them Nov. 15. The ban can be extended up to two years while the council hammers out any rule changes.
The state isn't expected to start issuing licenses until 2018, so a pot business opening before that likely would be deemed illegal, Hemet Assistant City Attorney Stephen McEwen said. Having explicit rules on the books puts the city in a better position to discourage or shut down any illegal pot shops, he said.
And though the state is not expected to grant a license if a business doesn't have a city permit where it plans to open, McEwen said, "You want to make sure that your provisions are very clear."
POLICY CHANGES?
With a year or so left until state licenses are available, some cities are taking the time to rethink their policies.
Until recently, Riverside was on the forefront of opposition to marijuana, winning a 2013 battle at the state Supreme Court over whether cities can ban dispensaries through zoning. Since 2009, the city has shut down 108 dispensaries.
Early next year, Riverside council members will discuss whether to regulate and tax pot shops.
What changed?
"This is something that's now legal in our state, whereas it was only legal for very limited purposes previously," Gardner said.
But for Gardner and officials in other cities, many questions remain. How many pot stores could open, and where would they be located? How could such all-cash businesses deter robberies and other crime? What about commercial marijuana farming?
"We've had numerous requests from people that want to grow or manufacture (pot) products," Corona Councilman Eugene Montanez said. "I'm afraid that unless we come up with some sort of rules and regulations, it could get out of hand."
Montanez said he opposed Prop. 64 and has concerns about pot and law enforcement, especially driving under the influence. He wants the council to talk about not only what policy is right for Corona, but how surrounding communities' pot decisions might affect the city.
NOT FOR ALL
Other Inland communities are studying the issue but may end up doubling down on their medical pot bans.
Upland city leaders fought to get Measure U, which would allow medical marijuana dispensaries, on the November ballot instead of a special election. The California Cannabis Coalition, which backed the initiative, is still battling the city in court, but voters rejected the measure Nov. 8, said Santa Monica attorney Roger Jon Diamond, who represents the coalition.
San Jacinto recently approved a temporary ban on pot businesses and is working on new rules that could require permits for those who wish to grow the six plants they're allowed under Prop. 64 and could allow a limited number of outdoor grows on large lots.
City voters just approved a measure that puts a tax of up to $50 per square foot on marijuana cultivation or manufacturing, but that doesn't mean the council will charge that much or even permit large pot grows, said deputy City Attorney Mike Maurer.
Council members put the tax on the ballot so they don't have to return to voters later, he said.
"It's up to the city from a policy standpoint to decide what type of businesses, if any, they want to allow," Maurer said.
At least one San Jacinto councilman will continue to just say no. Alonso Ledezma said he believes allowing recreational pot will lead users to harder drugs and bring crime.
"I don't even want to hear the word," he said. "It's really bad for the community."
WAY FORWARD?
Some marijuana proponents see the new wave of city discussions as a chance to change minds.
Passage of Prop. 64 is "one more reason local municipalities should consider passing sensible regulations" on marijuana rather than outright bans, Riverside attorney Jason Thompson said.
Thompson is working with clients who want permission to grow pot commercially in Beaumont and are pushing a possible ballot measure to regulate marijuana in Jurupa Valley.
Many cities' budgets are tight, so allowing pot sales could boost the local tax base, Thompson said, adding, "If they think it's just a small amount of money, they're sadly mistaken."
Diamond, the Santa Monica attorney, doesn't see most local leaders reconsidering their opposition to pot, and he said it's hard to say whether the outcome of Prop. 64 indicates Inland officials are out of step with their constituents.
For him, it's best to take the issue straight to voters. Though the Upland measure failed, the approach worked in San Bernardino. Voters there approved Measure O, which allows up to five marijuana businesses to open in the city's commercial and industrial zones.
Diamond represented Vincent Guzman, the San Bernardino resident behind Measure O.
"I don't sense yet a willingness on the part of the cities, so my vision would be more initiatives," Diamond said.
"The traditional reason for an initiative in the first place is to bypass the legislative body when they're unresponsive."
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Cities Wonder, With Pot Legal, Now What?
Author: Alicia Robinson
Contact: (951) 684-1200
Photo Credit: David Bauman
Website: The Press Enterprise
