Ron Strider
Well-Known Member
How did one of the most progressive, pro-cannabis cities in America screw up its cannabis business regulations so badly?
Last November, San Francisco residents voted in favor of marijuana legalization by 73%. But if you listen to the discussion at City Hall, it's as if legalization never happened at all.
Proposition 64 may have legalized adult recreational use of cannabis, but it left it up to local governments to regulate how it could be sold, manufactured, and grown. It's this battle over cannabis business regulations that is being waged in City Hall right now.
And the battle comes with a sharp deadline–lawmakers need to come up with a clear set of rules by January 1st, when statewide legalization takes full effect.
Cannabis negotiations have gotten badly off-track, leading to six-hour Land Use Committee meetings and throngs of protesters on both sides of the issue. So many conflicting amendments have been made to the original legislation, authored by Supervisor Jeff Sheehy and Mayor Ed Lee, that the Board of Supervisors have created two different versions of the legislation to keep track of everything.
State Senator Scott Wiener is even teaming up today with former Supervisor David Campos to hold a press conference calling for "reasonable regulations that allow for adult use of cannabis". Their joint press release warns that the current proposals in City Hall "will effectively ban new cannabis businesses in almost all of San Francisco".
These two frenemies are joined by a long list of current and former elected officials, including District 8 Supervisor Jeff Sheehy and his electoral opponent, City College Trustee Rafael Mandelman.
Below, we break down the major fights on cannabis regulation and what they mean for you.
So Close, but So Far
One of the clearest fights concern the minimum distance between a cannabis storefront and a school.
Sheehy and Lee's original proposal included a minimum radius ban of 600 feet around any public or private school, as required by state law. However, Supervisor Katy Tang has suggested expanding the radius ban to 1000 feet (approximately 2-3 blocks).
Supervisors Mark Farrell, Jane Kim, and Norman Yee have all said at one point that they are supportive of expanding the radius ban.
400 feet may not seem like a significant difference, but when applied to every public school and private school in the City, it significantly decreases the amount of land in San Francisco where cannabis businesses can exist.
Schools vs. Child Care
Supervisors Tang, Kim, and Yee have also added a new dimension to the radius ban, proposing that it also apply to daycare and childcare centers.
Sheehy and Lee's original proposal explicitly said that the radius ban did not apply to daycare and childcare centers. Former Supervisor and State Senator Scott Wiener wrote a lengthy Facebook post opposing the expanded radius ban and the inclusion of daycare and childcare centers.
The expanded radius ban proposed by Tang, Kim, and Yee would actually create stricter controls around cannabis businesses than currently exist. Under their expanded radius ban, cannabis businesses would be banned in more neighborhoods than they are in the status quo.
Clusters and Orbits
The original cannabis proposal by Sheehy and Lee forced every cannabis business to be at least 300 feet away from each other. This was meant to prevent "clustering," an overabundance of cannabis storefronts in a single neighborhood. Such a requirement becomes even more important when you consider how few streets are eligible to house cannabis businesses under the radius ban.
Supervisor Mark Farrell proposed an amendment that expanded the 300 ft minimum distance to 600 ft. This would not only force cannabis businesses to be farther away from each other, but would also implicitly cap the number of cannabis storefronts allowed in San Francisco.
Sheehy has proposed another solution known as "orbiting," where two cannabis storefronts would be allowed every 1000 square feet. Additional cannabis storefronts could also be established within the orbit, but would require a strict Conditional Use permit.
Supervisors argue that it is important to regulate "clusters" and "orbits" of cannabis storefronts in order to ensure diversity and vitality in merchant corridors. They worry that wealthy cannabis businesses will overrun merchant corridors - snatching up every available storefront and driving up commercial rents. But strict "clustering" and "orbiting" regulations also will cap the number of cannabis retail businesses allowed in San Francisco, and could limit the cannabis industry in the City.
District By District
The most chaotic part of the cannabis negotiations are the many small, specific neighborhood exemptions and carve-outs that Supervisors have added to the legislation. A number of Supervisors have proposed amendments to appease to specific neighborhood groups and constituencies.
In District 2, Supervisor Mark Farrell has proposed allowing only one cannabis storefront in each of his merchant corridors (i.e. Chestnut St, Union St, etc.).
In District 3, Supervisor Aaron Peskin has proposed an outright ban on any cannabis storefronts in Chinatown.
In District 4, Supervisor Katy Tang has discussed multiple restrictions for the Sunset District, such as prohibiting cannabis storefronts on the ground-floor of buildings, but did not actually move forward with many of them. Instead, she has proposed opening up the Outer Sunset neighborhood for new cannabis storefronts. She also proposed mandatory Discretionary Review for all existing medical cannabis dispensaries in her district who would like to convert to full adult recreational use.
In District 7, Supervisor Norman Yee has proposed an outright ban on cannabis storefronts in West Portal. Supervisor Yee has also insisted on a 1000 ft radius ban on all schools and childcare centers in his district, regardless of what the citywide regulations may be.
In District 11, Supervisor Ahsha Safai has proposed a maximum cap of three cannabis storefronts in the Excelsior neighborhood. This cap is consistent with stand-alone legislation he proposed earlier in the year, which also created a maximum cap of cannabis storefronts in his district.
Passionate constituents and individual businesses have clashed all month over these neighborhood controls, making them some of the most complicated parts of the cannabis legislation. Too many neighborhood exemptions could undermine efforts at citywide regulation, and put more market pressure on neighborhoods that remain open to cannabis businesses.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: The City Hall ClusterF**k That Is Cannabis Regulation | Political News | thebaycitybeacon.com
Author: Daniel Herzstein
Contact: Contact Us | Site | thebaycitybeacon.com
Photo Credit: Kevin J Beaty
Website: thebaycitybeacon.com | The News Behind the News
Last November, San Francisco residents voted in favor of marijuana legalization by 73%. But if you listen to the discussion at City Hall, it's as if legalization never happened at all.
Proposition 64 may have legalized adult recreational use of cannabis, but it left it up to local governments to regulate how it could be sold, manufactured, and grown. It's this battle over cannabis business regulations that is being waged in City Hall right now.
And the battle comes with a sharp deadline–lawmakers need to come up with a clear set of rules by January 1st, when statewide legalization takes full effect.
Cannabis negotiations have gotten badly off-track, leading to six-hour Land Use Committee meetings and throngs of protesters on both sides of the issue. So many conflicting amendments have been made to the original legislation, authored by Supervisor Jeff Sheehy and Mayor Ed Lee, that the Board of Supervisors have created two different versions of the legislation to keep track of everything.
State Senator Scott Wiener is even teaming up today with former Supervisor David Campos to hold a press conference calling for "reasonable regulations that allow for adult use of cannabis". Their joint press release warns that the current proposals in City Hall "will effectively ban new cannabis businesses in almost all of San Francisco".
These two frenemies are joined by a long list of current and former elected officials, including District 8 Supervisor Jeff Sheehy and his electoral opponent, City College Trustee Rafael Mandelman.
Below, we break down the major fights on cannabis regulation and what they mean for you.
So Close, but So Far
One of the clearest fights concern the minimum distance between a cannabis storefront and a school.
Sheehy and Lee's original proposal included a minimum radius ban of 600 feet around any public or private school, as required by state law. However, Supervisor Katy Tang has suggested expanding the radius ban to 1000 feet (approximately 2-3 blocks).
Supervisors Mark Farrell, Jane Kim, and Norman Yee have all said at one point that they are supportive of expanding the radius ban.
400 feet may not seem like a significant difference, but when applied to every public school and private school in the City, it significantly decreases the amount of land in San Francisco where cannabis businesses can exist.
Schools vs. Child Care
Supervisors Tang, Kim, and Yee have also added a new dimension to the radius ban, proposing that it also apply to daycare and childcare centers.
Sheehy and Lee's original proposal explicitly said that the radius ban did not apply to daycare and childcare centers. Former Supervisor and State Senator Scott Wiener wrote a lengthy Facebook post opposing the expanded radius ban and the inclusion of daycare and childcare centers.
The expanded radius ban proposed by Tang, Kim, and Yee would actually create stricter controls around cannabis businesses than currently exist. Under their expanded radius ban, cannabis businesses would be banned in more neighborhoods than they are in the status quo.
Clusters and Orbits
The original cannabis proposal by Sheehy and Lee forced every cannabis business to be at least 300 feet away from each other. This was meant to prevent "clustering," an overabundance of cannabis storefronts in a single neighborhood. Such a requirement becomes even more important when you consider how few streets are eligible to house cannabis businesses under the radius ban.
Supervisor Mark Farrell proposed an amendment that expanded the 300 ft minimum distance to 600 ft. This would not only force cannabis businesses to be farther away from each other, but would also implicitly cap the number of cannabis storefronts allowed in San Francisco.
Sheehy has proposed another solution known as "orbiting," where two cannabis storefronts would be allowed every 1000 square feet. Additional cannabis storefronts could also be established within the orbit, but would require a strict Conditional Use permit.
Supervisors argue that it is important to regulate "clusters" and "orbits" of cannabis storefronts in order to ensure diversity and vitality in merchant corridors. They worry that wealthy cannabis businesses will overrun merchant corridors - snatching up every available storefront and driving up commercial rents. But strict "clustering" and "orbiting" regulations also will cap the number of cannabis retail businesses allowed in San Francisco, and could limit the cannabis industry in the City.
District By District
The most chaotic part of the cannabis negotiations are the many small, specific neighborhood exemptions and carve-outs that Supervisors have added to the legislation. A number of Supervisors have proposed amendments to appease to specific neighborhood groups and constituencies.
In District 2, Supervisor Mark Farrell has proposed allowing only one cannabis storefront in each of his merchant corridors (i.e. Chestnut St, Union St, etc.).
In District 3, Supervisor Aaron Peskin has proposed an outright ban on any cannabis storefronts in Chinatown.
In District 4, Supervisor Katy Tang has discussed multiple restrictions for the Sunset District, such as prohibiting cannabis storefronts on the ground-floor of buildings, but did not actually move forward with many of them. Instead, she has proposed opening up the Outer Sunset neighborhood for new cannabis storefronts. She also proposed mandatory Discretionary Review for all existing medical cannabis dispensaries in her district who would like to convert to full adult recreational use.
In District 7, Supervisor Norman Yee has proposed an outright ban on cannabis storefronts in West Portal. Supervisor Yee has also insisted on a 1000 ft radius ban on all schools and childcare centers in his district, regardless of what the citywide regulations may be.
In District 11, Supervisor Ahsha Safai has proposed a maximum cap of three cannabis storefronts in the Excelsior neighborhood. This cap is consistent with stand-alone legislation he proposed earlier in the year, which also created a maximum cap of cannabis storefronts in his district.
Passionate constituents and individual businesses have clashed all month over these neighborhood controls, making them some of the most complicated parts of the cannabis legislation. Too many neighborhood exemptions could undermine efforts at citywide regulation, and put more market pressure on neighborhoods that remain open to cannabis businesses.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: The City Hall ClusterF**k That Is Cannabis Regulation | Political News | thebaycitybeacon.com
Author: Daniel Herzstein
Contact: Contact Us | Site | thebaycitybeacon.com
Photo Credit: Kevin J Beaty
Website: thebaycitybeacon.com | The News Behind the News
