Sefton Graham stands behind the counter at the Greenlight Collective. Photo by Victor Maccharoli.
Cube Ad
Pot rule slams brakes on two
Ordinance issues death sentence to Greenlight, Green Well
With a new ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries hanging in the balance, the Santa Barbara City Council, in a furious hunt for votes, ventured into uncharted territory last week, issuing a death sentence to two small businesses that it had permitted just months before.
The ordinance passed with a resounding vote of 6 to 1. Councilman Grant House registered the only objection. Although he supported the bulk of the hard-fought ordinance, he said he simply couldn’t chase out two businesses — marijuana dispensaries — that had recently opened with the city’s blessing.
“It just gets down to fundamental fairness, not to mention legal defensibility …” House told the Daily Sound during an interview the day after the vote. “Causing a reputable business whose obeying the law to literally go out of business, that’s not an appropriate action for us, the city.”
When the council voted on the ordinance last week, the event marked the culmination of nearly two dozen meetings this year, many by the city’s ordinance committee, that had a singular focus: marijuana.
Many of the gatherings were exhaustive, exasperating and painstaking. As a result, the ordinance that was hammered out was widely considered the product of a thorough and fair process.
But at the city council, when politicians began the process of weaving their personal wishes into the ordinance, mincing words and brokering compromises in the quest for votes, something unusual happened: the ordinance was made retroactive, and a pair of dispensaries, the Greenlight Collective and Green Well, were given six months to close up shop.
For House, the city’s new ordinance raises a fundamental, yet rarely asked, question: “When is it appropriate for city government to create a new ordinance and apply it retroactively? That’s my concern,” he said. “We’ve always been careful not to damage the businesses that are affected and this is a really strange application of the law.”
Supporters of the ordinance say closing the dispensaries was a necessary evil along the treacherous road to passing a more restrictive marijuana ordinance, which many community groups, and all council members, agreed was needed.
“I was not thinking about particular businesses one way or another,” said Councilman Dale Francisco, in an interview after the meeting. “I was thinking about the city.”
The city’s ordinance committee, made up of council members House, Frank Hotchkiss and Harwood “Bendy” White, drafted a number of changes to the old ordinance. But it was two seemingly minor amendments, which traditionally would have been benign, that came back to bite the Greenlight and Green Well.
The Green Well, 500 N. Milpas St., is located just over 500 feet from the nearest school, just enough to comply with the city’s original ordinance. But the new ordinance stretched the distance to 600 feet.
The Greenlight, located in a century-old building at 631 Olive St., is far from a school. But during one ordinance committee meeting, the city block where the dispensary is located was circled and made off-limits to dispensaries.
If the committee had been regulating bakeries, auto body shops, or even liquor stores, these changes wouldn’t have had any impact on existing businesses.
According to Paul Casey, the city’s community development director, existing businesses caught in the backwash of new ordinances are typically allowed to remain open under the designation “existing non-conforming.”
“Usually something like this would get grandfathered in,” he said after the meeting. “And so this is different and unique.”
For example, Casey noted that when the city changes an ordinance affecting the physical nature of one’s property, like setbacks or building heights, the city doesn’t force property owners to shave several feet from their structures.
There are many obvious reasons for this, the main one being that the costs associated with knocking down walls and trimming building heights whenever a city council decides to tweak an ordinance would likely spell financial ruin for those involved.
It is also widely regarded as being unfair.
But when the small businesses being told to shut their doors were marijuana dispensaries, the majority of the city council didn’t publicly register significant worry that two business owners — nonprofit owners, actually — would lose their livelihoods and investments.
Indeed, the same city that had only months before given a stamp of approval to the two dispensaries, has, in the opinion of the dispensary owners, undergone a devastating change of heart.
It’s “classic injustice,” said Sefton Graham, director of the Greenlight. “That’s why I think we’re going to win, somehow; because it’s just too in-you’re-face not fair.”
THE GREENLIGHT
“Just make sure it’s legal.”
That’s what Graham’s mother, a retired schoolteacher, told her son before lending him money to open the Greenlight.
Graham soothed his mother’s concerns by telling her about the about the city’s ordinance. Rather than be discouraged by the city’s restrictions on where, when and how a marijuana dispensary could be operated, he was encouraged.
“That’s the only reason we went for it,” Graham said. “We waited until they did their ordinance.”
In late 2008, Graham submitted his permit application, thus beginning a yearlong slog through the city’s planning process — the same journey, but quite possibly riddled with more bureaucracy — that hoteliers, restaurateurs and many other business owners must take.
Graham picked his location from a map he found on the city’s Web site, which showed possible locations for a dispensary. Once city planners signed off on the spot, Graham signed a lease.
In the months that followed, Graham and his checkbook were at the behest of city planners, who told him he must install a fire wall, fire sprinklers and a larger water line. He landscaped around the small parking area, which now has a handicap parking space. He installed wheelchair ramps to make the place compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
When a city planner told him she didn’t like the pavers he’d selected for the front walkway, explaining that she preferred a more expensive brand, he didn’t argue.
When the planning commission asked that a dispensary-paid security guard patrol the neighborhood and nearby Ortega Park to make sure people weren’t smoking pot, Graham and all of his employees became certified security guards, just to make sure one was always on duty.
When someone raised the possibility that the 100-year-old building might be historically significant, Graham put off opening and paid for historical review, which came back negative.
And when a planner insisted that the olive trees Graham wanted to plant out front be fruitless, he was told to commission new plans that read just so.
A quarter of a million dollars and roughly a year and a half after filing for a permit, Graham opened the Greenlight, a bona fide nonprofit co-op — precisely the kind the city had spelled out in its ordinance.
But as Graham navigated the potholes of city planning, the political winds changed, and the city, with a few new faces on council, began drafting a fresh ordinance.
Even so, Graham said he wasn’t terribly concerned. That is, until a few weeks ago, when the city council took a hatchet to the ordinance.
Under the ordinance that went to the city council, five dispensaries would have been allowed to remain in business, the Greenlight and Green Well among them. It was clear that some council members wanted to cap the number at three. So the Greenlight and Green Well would be allowed to stay open under existing non-conforming status.
The exact word used to deal with the pair was “attrition,” meaning that when they closed, no new dispensaries would be allowed to open, a process that over time would lead to three dispensaries.
However, Graham’s ears perked up while watching one city council meeting when the word attrition was replaced with amortization.
“I’m thinking, ‘holy shit, what does amortization mean,’” Graham said during an interview last week at the Greenlight as members of his co-op came and went, buying strains of marijuana with names like “Diamond OG,” “God’s Gift” and “Pineapple.”
He would find out that stuck between the words “six-month” and “period,” the Greenlight was officially given an execution date.
For Graham, a soft-spoken 35-year-old with blond hair that hangs below his shoulders, the city’s decision to default on its end of the deal wasn’t entirely surprising. From the start, he said he felt like the city, or someone, was gunning for him.
Still, Graham and his mom sunk a good chunk of money into an operation that the city christened with a permit — a piece of paper that typically gives business owners the piece of mind that months or years down the road, the city won’t walk in and order them to close.
Some have said Graham could make his money back in the next six months. But under the rules of a nonprofit, he said most of his profits go to co-op members, who provide the inventory.
And since it took a year to get through the city’s process the first time, and three existing dispensaries have already been tabbed to stay in business, the likelihood of Graham opening somewhere else is doubtful.
Now, Graham says he has few options other than to file a monetary claim against the city.
“I don’t want to sue the city,” he said. “We’re trying to be a low-key collective. We’re just trying to be what [Proposition] 215 wants us to be.”
On at least one front, city leaders may have gotten off easy: “They’re lucky I didn’t bring my mom to the city council meeting,” Graham said.
THE GREEN WELL
James Lee and Nat Reinke could have started growing a crop of pot in some backyard, have a bunch of people sign on as co-op members and start selling marijuana from their house — a relatively risky, and even dangerous, process that in the state’s murky and ever-changing interpretations of Proposition 215, might well be legal.
But the city had an ordinance and would issue a permit to anyone with enough patience to jump through the regulatory hoops.
“We didn’t want to go anywhere that didn’t have an ordinance,” said Lee, who after becoming disillusioned with his career in corporate financial planning, relocated to Santa Barbara to focus on opening the Green Well. “It was a legal climate that we felt was right for this type of solution.”
Like Graham, Lee and Reinke set about inching through the city’s permitting process.
Among other conditions, they were told to hire an outside security firm to guard the doors. A few weeks ago, Lee, needing money for rent, said he sold his 1998 Chevy Tahoe to the security guard. Reinke joked, somewhat seriously, that the security guard was the only person pulling down a steady paycheck.
When neighbors expressed concern that 18 to 19-year-old students from nearby Santa Barbara High School might purchase marijuana and take it to school, Lee said he hiked the minimum age for co-op members to 20.
Lee and Reinke now face the same reality as Graham: closing in six months or filing a monetary claim against the city, neither of which they want to do.
“I apologize to the taxpayers of Santa Barbara, although it shouldn’t be me apologizing, it should be the city council,” said Lee. “It’s going to cost them around a half a million dollars if they want to settle the damages with us.”
Looking back, Lee and Reinke wondered why they bothered to obtain a city permit in the first place. Or, for that matter, why any prospective business owner would ever bother to apply for a city permit again, since in the case of the Green Well, the city’s word wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.
“It doesn’t matter what business it is,” Lee said. “What the city council has done is they’ve turned the permitting process into a complete joke.”
Lee and Reinke aren’t the only ones who recognized the potentially damaging message the city’s decision sends.
Councilman House, who owns a sewing machine shop on Canon Perdido Street, said he wouldn’t take kindly to the city council deciding that sewing machines couldn’t be sold on that street.
“I can’t imagine what it would be like to be those two fellas on the corner of Haley and Milpas streets,” House said, referring to Lee and Reinke. “They’ll be effectively out of business with leases that they have to honor, or find somebody to take over, and a lot of money put into improvements.”
House continued, noting that the Greenlight and Green Well bent over backwards to be the kind of businesses the city wanted: “It’s not as if they did something that was contrary to the city’s ordinance to get into that situation. These were ones that were a real example of what we’re talking about.”
Councilman Williams, who voted in favor of the ordinance, said the fate of the Greenlight and Green Well was the most unfortunate result of the process.
Nevertheless, he said the need to get a new ordinance on the books trumped, in his mind, the future of the Greenlight and Green Well.
“I kind of feel like we’re punishing the folks who are playing by the rules and aren’t punishing the ones who aren’t playing the rules and I think that’s a problem,” Williams said, making a reference to one dispensary, the Pacific Coast Collective, that has run into legal problems but could stay open under the city’s new ordinance. “However, the reason I voted for it is because it’s an untenable situation to not have these regulations in place.”
Williams said he put forward a number of proposals to the council that would have preserved the Greenlight and Green Well, but nothing stuck.
Despite his support for the ordinance, Williams acknowledged the inequity, saying the Greenlight and Green Well, in his opinion, were being treated “worse than any other commercial business that has ever existed.” He went on, saying the ordinance and its treatment of the pair of dispesaires was “precedent setting and every business owner should be concerned.”
When Lee and Reinke sought a permit, they did so because they assumed it offered certain legal and procedural protections, they said.
Supporters of the new ordinance, like Councilman Francisco, noted the fluid nature of the laws regulating medical marijuana. Although he conceded the demise of the Greenlight and Green Well was unfortunate, Francisco said any dispensary owner should have known that the rules could change.
“I agree that changes like this can be a hardship on a business, no question about it,” Francisco said. “But it’s the reality of this particular kind of business, not just here but all over the state.”
But because the owners of the Greenlight and Green Well purposely waited until regulations were in place to open, they were blindsided when the city wrote its new ordinance in stone and went back on its word.
“By the end of that meeting we had been traded out of the deal,” Lee said. “We’re collateral damage in the political negotiations.”
A CHANGE OF HEART
When the entire city council took its first look at the draft ordinance, the five-dispensary model was in tact, and the required number of votes — five — to put the new laws on the books, existed.
But an eleventh-hour change of heart by Councilman Hotchkiss threw the ordinance into flux.
A few days before the ordinance was expected to go before the council, Hotchkiss, who had helped draft it, withdrew his support, saying he became convinced the new regulations weren’t adequate.
“There are just too many things wrong with [dispensaries],” he told the Daily Sound on June 7, in a story about his unexpected U-turn. “You try to repair one problem and another becomes apparent.”
The fallout from Hotchkiss’ lack of support was vast. In addition to sparking a flurry of compromises from various council members, who jockeyed for the adequate number of votes, it prompted a suggestion that a measure be placed on the November ballot that, if approved, would simply ban storefront dispensaries altogether.
But one of the key compromises that led to the Greenlight and Green Well being written out of the ordinance, according to Councilman White, was the reduction of allowable dispensaries to three — a number White himself was in favor of.
“They went through a very arduous planning process, and yet at the end of the day, this was a key ingredient in putting together a compromise that resulted in a new ordinance,” White said last week in an interview. “There would not have been a new ordinance without [the number three] being part of it.”
It was presumed that Francisco and Councilwoman Michael Self never would have gone along with the ordinance, five dispensaries or not. Their eventual support hinged on the inclusion of a ballot measure.
Francisco’s unwillingness to support a new ordinance was built on his belief that storefront dispensaries, even the nonprofit kind, aren’t allowed under state law. But with a ballot measure as part of the deal, Francisco and Self went along.
Asked if he felt making the new ordinance retroactive sent a dangerous messages to local businesses, Francisco said he didn’t. And unlike some of his colleagues, Francisco said he didn’t see the new ordinance as being particularly rare.
“It’s not unprecedented,” he said, noting that in the 1970s, the city down zoned the number of residential units that could be built per parcel, which sucked value from many properties. “And the decision, again, was based on what people wanted to see in Santa Barbara.”
Asked last week about the fate of the Greenlight and Green Well, Hotchkiss, channeling concerns by community members that the dispensaries weren’t following the rules, said: “None of these guys could legitimately say that they were a collective. They were wolves in sheep’s clothing and council rightly saw that and said ‘Sorry guys, take a hike.’”
For Lee and Reinke, who have gone to great pains to make sure the Green Well is operating as a true nonprofit, Hotchkiss’ accusations were surprising.
“I don’t even think that’s worth responding to,” said Lee.
Reinke, making reference to Hotchkiss’ last-minute switcheroo on the ordinance, said: “He made a joke of the ordinance committee.”
The Greenlight and Green Well will likely have their doors open in November when voters have their say on the future of storefront dispensaries in Santa Barbara.
But regardless of what the electorate does, the grinding wheels of the legislative process has left Graham, Lee and Reinke floored by the audacity of a city that told them to go ahead and open their businesses, only to turn around and make them close.
“They’ve made it clear that it’s not necessarily about following the rules,” Lee said. “It’s about who you know in this town … It is about politics.”
Comment on this article
Unlawful Taking : 7/7/2010
The City council has naively just opened themselves up to a huge lawsuit from these two dispensaries, and I hope that the dispensaries get back everything that they have put into their operations. Lucky for the council that these are not "for profit" operations or they could win the next 10 years' profits too. . It is obvious that Francisco, etc. have never operated a business.
Shame on all of you (except Grant House)!
BeachGuy
Big Brother : 7/7/2010
Re writing the local vote to serve themselves. We shall do the same at the next election. Who are these people who think they know better? Bunch of bull.
ann
: 7/7/2010
GOD BLESS OUR PRESIDENT!
RESPECT OUR PRESIDENT AND HIS DESICIONS!
It's not good business : 7/7/2010
To operate in this manner no wonder people don't want to lease stores on State street. Someday Santa Barbara could become a ghost town because of your actions.
Bill Cherbak
: 7/7/2010
i'm no lawyer, but this does not sound like a fiscally responsible move by the council. this wil come back and take a large bite out of the city's a.
nemo
The real problem : 7/7/2010
The real problem lies with the City Attorney's Office and the Steven Wiley, the city attorney. He should not have allowed council to even open ONE of the "dispensaries". Grant House had no option but support the pot shops as he has a wallet full of campaign money from the pot dealers.
Grant House and the City Attorney should be on their asses out of a job. Santa Barbara should have NEVER opened this pandora's box- It has given us nothing but increased crime, indoor growers and a new population of pot heads from around the State and country.
What a Joke : 7/7/2010
The Santa Barbara City Council should be ashamed of themselves.
I smell a lawsuit brewing.
MesaMan
More pot : 7/7/2010
Is Colby Frazier a customer there?
This needs detail on why these pot shops are deemed a nonprofit collective.
Shameful : 7/7/2010
The City Council made a huge mistake. What a joke they're making of our city! My sympathies are entirely with the business owners -- I really couldn't care less that they're marijuana dispensaries. This is just totally unfair.
Boo on the City Council.
SanRoque Res
Good Riddance : 7/7/2010
These businesses were illegal from the beginning and will have their cases thrown out of court. Of course the city would have been wiser never to have opened the door to them in the first place. But at least the council is beginning to wise up.
West Downtown Resident
Wow : 7/7/2010
House is right. This is an absurd use of power driven not by logic but by political agenda's ruled by a vocal minority with no facts to back up their moral argument.
How sad that the laws that are in place to foster commerce and protect those who follow the rules are changed at a whim based on a few misguided moral objections by a few ignorant folk.
Guide
Taxpayers Screwed Again : 7/7/2010
There is no way that any business can amortize all of the start-up costs for a business in Santa Barbara in 6 months. So that leaves the business owners with 2 choices - walk away with a large financial loss or sue the City. Since they followed the City process and were authorized by the City to open their businesses they stand a very good chance to prevail in a lawsuit.
The unfortunate thing is that the taxpayers, not the individuals that are responsible for what has transpired, will pay the bill. And the Council, City Staff, etc. will continue to get paid and suffer no penalties for their irresponsible behavior.
Art
Just the facts : 7/7/2010
Thanks for shining some light on this situation. It's easy to brush this off as just two pot shops that have to close, but it's great to see the fact that these are just a couple business men getting the shaft from the city. Nice reporting. This has opened my eyes a bit. The city was wrong to allow ANY pot shops to open, but they did, and we all have to live with the consequences. There will be lawsuits for sure.
Local business man
Demand a penalty (s) : 7/7/2010
Those on City Council who initially approved these pot shops should be recalled; City Attorney Office who IS SUPPOSED to protect the City from these issues should have a personnel audit and the top city attorney needs to LOSE HIS POSITION WITH THE CITY!
Pot Shop restrictions : 7/7/2010
This issue forced a divided Council into a compromise no council member likes. If the two pot shops, put out of business through the need to amoritize occupancy of their existing locatons, wish to sue the city, so be it. We are a nation of laws and suing is a guaranteed right.
We are also a nation with a more or less free enterprise system and "business risk" is a fact of business life. Business negotiations break down easily in risky ventures and what business could be more risky to enter than opening a "pot shop" on the flimsley legal foundation non-existent in the Commpassionat Use Act and muddled by the State Attorney Gereral comments? These cowboy business opportunists took the " bull by the horns" and got gored. That's what business risk is all about.
But first things first. Medical Marijuana Storefront Dispensary businesses are completely illegal in the State of California. Retail sales of marijuana even for medical purposes is illegal. Storefront dispensary operators have played successfully to the progressive politicians locally and statewide that favor legalization before the fact. These so called medical marijuana dispensaries are nothing more than a back door approach to legalization and nearly everyone concerned with this issue knows that by now.
Do you think it's for altruism and serving the truly seriously ill that these pot shops are considering suing the city? Be honest. It's all about the money and all pot shops are in it for the money. Progressive arguements eminating from our City Council are meaningless. Statements like a "ban is an illusion" are meaningless. The storefront model cannot be enforced in a responsible manner by this or any other city or county jurisdiction, and operators know this and that's why they were in support of the ordinance until the shoe dropped allowing three dispensaries instead of the five or more favored by progressives.
The city erred in not inviting all the city stake holders to the table from the get go when they decided to write the ordinance to begin with (first adopted in March 2008). Dispensary operators put out cash for their businesses in hopes the community would remain asleep at the wheel. The community woke up and looked carefully at the law the ruse perpetrated on them in the form of storefront dispensaries whose intent to illegally profit is unmistakable.
Recently at Venice Beach in L.A. a friend called to inform me of seeing pretty young girls in bikinis wearing masks, smoking marijuana, and toting signs advertising immediate sign ups for sign ups for medical marijuana cards.
I'm not oblivious to the failed war on drugs. However, as long as we are a nation of laws I think we should defer to the law and the courts for guidance through this issue and treat it as a national issue with national leadership streping up since it's a national problem.
This is no issue for local ordinance committees. The state approved Compassionate Use Act deals with cultivation for use by the seriously ill. Nothing else. Retail storefronts were never mentioned or I would never have voted for the inititive.
Three dispensaries are a compromise. I favor ZERO private dispensaries. Medical marijuana can be grown by the sick or there primary caregiver. Its been estimated that we may have about 350 people in the entire county who are seriously ill and qualify for use of the drug.
Sorry cowboys, it's time to saddle up and get out of Dodge.
Love Santa Barbara.
2YDSS
City Council : 7/7/2010
I think they have a case and the money to go after the City for a snooty, snotty little screw over.
city council is in panty trama nosedive
Total cluster-you-know-what : 7/7/2010
I don't have sympathy for the pot shop owners. This whole pot shop business was cooked up by entrepreneurs looking to make a fast buck on hazy state laws, and city councils (including ours) just didn't do their homework to know how illegal all this was because pot shop owners lobbied them it was all so mainstream now, dude. Nothing in Prop 215 authorized pot stores, and our city passed a lax ordinance in 2008 without checking whether these things were really legal under state law. The Planning Commission was the highest body of approval under the 2008 ordinance and they approved the two that now have to close. Both shops had significant neighborhood opposition that appealed their permits. Both appeals were denied. The neighborhoods then pressured City Council to change the ordinance. Those shops were wrong for those neighborhoods, and 631 Olive is next to the Girls Inc (which was one of the appellants) and is two blocks from the Santa Barbara Jr High School. It's right in the path of kids walking to and from school. Kudos to City Council for waking up and putting the lid on this situation. It's past high time, pun intended.
downtown voter
Non Profit? : 7/7/2010
Why is everyone saying these guys are making money hand over fist? The permitted collectives have to be non-profit. If these guys are profiting (at all) the SBPD could have shut them down at any time without having to resort to retroactively changing a zoning ordinance.
It is easy to fall back on the tired trope of pot cowboys coming to the wild west to seek their fortune, but realistically that's not the case with the two collectives mentioned in this article. These two that are mentioned are the ones that have done everything right so far - meeting or exceeding every guideline supplied by the city, including being completely non-profit.
high as hitler : 7/7/2010
If it wasn't for our leaders telling me how bad marihuana is, I would have never known, and probably would have even ending up trying it myself. I heard that science proved it dangerous.
blitzkrieg bro
non-profit is not same as not-for-profit : 7/7/2010
Non-profits can make profit as much as they want. They just don't issue stocks and pay dividends like for-profits do. A non-profit is supposed to invest the profit they make back into furthering the mission of the org. Think about that in terms of the product pot shops sell, and the legalization initiative on the ballot. The Milpas store asked businesses nearby for 100k in investment, promising to double their money in months. Making tons of money? You do the math.
milpas business owner, legitimate one
It's ALL about the $ : 7/7/2010
So the potshops are not for profit huh...? Then why was the potshop on upper State St. LAUNDERING profits (that's MONEY) through the LAME & OVERPRICED Pizza Guru...
Ditto on Good Riddance........ : 7/7/2010
Shame on the Ex-Mayor, current Mayor and the City Council for opening the city gates welcoming pot shops to our city. If they would have all paid attention to what our School Superintendent, School Principal, Teachers, Health Professionals, Drug and Rehab Counselors, and all the concerned residents have been saying for over a year...."We don't want pot shops in our neighborhoods nor our City!" the city wouldn't be in this mess. And please give us a break!! These young entrepreneurs didn't apply for permits and jump through hoops because of their compassion for the seriously ill... they did it for the MONEY! They invested hundreds and thousands of dollars to remodel, have security cameras, hire security service to have a storefront to sell pot...THIS IS ILLEGAL. One of the entrepreneurs stated in the INDEPENDENT his concern for his 50 clients.....really only 50 clients!?!! Who would spend thousands of dollar to only serve 50. Thank you Mr. Hotchkiss, Mr. Francisco, Ms. Self and Mr. White..........you have been listening.
Eastside Resident
Of course it'$ about the money : 7/7/2010
The ignorant and fearful squeal about dispensary operators "making tons of money."
Money is what keeps your neighborhood clinics open for access to health care. Money buys food for the hungry. Money pays for services when government funding get cut. Money keeps the public swimming pool open in the summer for our children to enjoy. Money keeps libraries open. Money pays teachers. Money pays rent, utilities and bills. Philanthropy without money is "volunteer work."
If storefront dispensaries disappear, the money does not magically disappear. Where does City Council want to see the money go?
Apparently, Francisco is content to see the money go back criminal enterprises willing to skirt regulation and remain illegal operators. Francisco's interpretation of the law is exactly what criminals want to hear.
Bruce Wayne
: 7/7/2010
To Eastside Resident
Just for the record, you are wrong about ex-Mayor Marty Blum. She voted against the origional medical marijuana ordinance but could not muster the other votes on council to kill it when it was brought to the Council by the Ordinance Committee.
Love Santa Barbara
Vot yes to legalization and taxation : 7/7/2010
Section B of Proposition 19
(#7 is the most important about possession and consumption)
B. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing,
transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis
by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within
that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts,
except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9. (up to a 1/2 pound for medical marijuana patients)
The rest of the Proposition 19 can be found at
www.taxcannabis.org
THANK GOD for the DEEP POCKETS of Americans for Safe Access(ASA) : 7/7/2010
ASA is also challenging the city's contention that medical cannabis collectives have no status as prior nonconforming uses. Nonconforming status is a significant component of the lawsuit filed by ASA on March 2 seeking to overturn some of the more restrictive portions of the city's medical cannabis ordinance.
"Our research and experience show that sensible regulations reduce crime and complaints around collectives, while preserving access for legal patients," said Duncan. "We must not let those who oppose medical cannabis or misguided city staff use the regulatory process to roll back safe access to medicine. That is why ASA remains committed to fighting for reasonable regulations in Los Angeles and other jurisdictions."
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/182/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1181418
I HOPE THEY SUE : 7/7/2010
The council is right Prop 215 doesn't say anything about pot shops but SENATE BILL 420 does
- PROPOSITION 215, the California Compassionate Use Act, was enacted by the voters and took effect on Nov. 6, 1996 as California Health & Safety Code 11362.5. The law makes it legal for patients and their designated primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana for thier personal medical use given the recommendation or approval of a California-licensed physician.
- SB420, a legislative statute, went into effect on January 1, 2004 as California H&SC 11362.7-.83. This law broadens Prop. 215 to transportation and other offenses in certain circumstances; allows patients to form medical cultivation “collectives” or “cooperatives”; and establishes a voluntary state ID card system run through county health departments. SB 420 also establishes guidelines or limits as to how much patients can possess and cultivate. Legal patients who stay within the guidelines are supposed to be protected from arrest.
We Donate Money because we cant donate LAND or TIME to get our meds
ALL I NEED IS A TAX ID FROM NOW ON TO RUN A BUSINESS : 7/7/2010
i want to start a cellphone accessories stand at the mall does this mean i dont need permits from the city if they dont hold up anyway??
Im serious can how much trouble would i get in. any business law people please help
: 7/7/2010
ACCORDING to CADA THEIR poll in the last month 76% of high school students chose Not use Marijuana(maybe you have seen their commercial on the local T.V. stations)
- http://cadasb.org/home/advocacy/marij...
Marijuana dispensary have been in santa barbara for 5-10 years.
The National Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted by the CDC found 37% High School students said they had used marijuana. ( http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/2... ) Thus Santa Barbara is below the national average of High School Marijuana Use(AND WE have marijuana dispensaries)
CADA Stands For (Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse) : 7/7/2010
That legalization initiative is bogus : 7/7/2010
Here's the part they don't publicize: the state is PROHIBITED from taxing MJ. Only cities and counties can enact tax schemes, or choose not to allow sales period. This is prop 215 all over again. Don't be fooled twice, CA. And if cities do tax it? Here we go with the black market again so people can grow / buy MJ without paying the city tax. What a rip-off. And as for SB420 allowing pot shops, read it again, from your own quote: allows patients to form medical cultivation “collectives” or “cooperatives. That is the entire law regarding pot shops. Notice they aren't mentioned. And patients can come together under SB420 to collectively cultivate in a closed-loop system. It's a cultivation model. In a co-op, all profits earned are distributed back to the members. You never see pot shops here operating like that. And pot shop owners are not patients themselves. That's in violation of the state law. Sorry, gang, but you can't have your convenient pot store, and eat it too.
Can actually read
Santa Barbara Reactionaries : 7/7/2010
Evidence of inbreeding.
Fred
VOTE YES ON PROP 19 : 7/8/2010
VOTE YES ON PROP 19
Then all of this b-s will be a bad memory...see you at the ballot box in November!!!
Fuck your F'N kids!
If only you could read english MR I Can actually read then go to www.taxcannabis.org and download initiative.pdf : 7/8/2010
prop 19
does regulate tax
"7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis"
if the city doesnt want the tax money then the city doesnt have to have retail stores. But the law will make legal to possess and consume 28 grams of marijuana if the city doesnt get on board then they lose the tax money
but the money would go to local municipalities
pROP 19 : 7/8/2010
Proposition 19 is another ruse to allow pot promoters to make big money. They make the money at the expense of our community. No thank you. You fooled me once with Proposition 215. I'm not dumb enough to be fooled twice.
If legalization is ever to happen common sense tells you that it must be handled as a national issue in order to establish legal consistency throughout the whole country, not just California.
Love Santa Barbara
Try that taxation ruse again : 7/8/2010
The initiative prevents a statewide tax on marijuana. It says:
Cities and counties have to decide whether to allow sales, and whether to tax.
So that means EACH individual city and county has to make a decision here, and enact an ordinance on the subject. There are 430 cities in CA! Come on, you think it's really efficient to make EVERY ONE of them write individual ordinances figuring it all out? Talk about a waste of taxpayer money! No freakin wonder we're going in the hole.
It will take a decade for every city to wind its way through, just like it's taken 15 years for cities to figure out what to do with marijuana dispensaries, and to date, only 260 cities have made a formal decision.
This is extremely inefficient, and a poor way to go about doing things.
Vote no. If you like legalization, then at least insist they do it right, not stupidly like Prop 19 does.
Can read, and understand, thank you
Money Talks : 7/8/2010
I wonder who paid off Hotchkiss to get him to change his entire perspective at the 11th hour?? Regardless of anyone's personal opinion on legalization, there are business regulations that have been set forth by our city that we need to be able to trust in. What's the point of jumping through hoops pulling a permit and getting all the appropriate licenses if they are going to change their mind the next day.
This is all one big political scam, just like the raid on Hortipharm. It's not a coincidence that all of these "changes" and raids happened directly after elections. There's new opinions and new money funding office that's determined to flex their power. It would be nice if the voice truly came from the majority not the majority of money.
I'm a tax payer and I'm willing to support your lawsuit.
Sick of the political game
when 12million people in the state CA smoke Marijuana : 7/8/2010
The DEA can not enforce Fedral law and CA being one of the biggest states in the nation CA could dictate to the rest of the nation to legalize it.
DEA Budget
To accomplish this, DEA requests 9,772 positions (including 4,387 Special Agents),
9,597 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE),1 and $2,421,949,000.
http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2011justification/.
The National Drug Control Budget Summary identifies resources and performance indicators for programs within the Executive Branch that are integral to the President’s National Drug Control Strategy. The Strategy, which is the Administration’s plan for reducing drug use and availability, is based on three pillars: (1) Stopping Use Before It Starts, (2) Healing America’s Drug Users, and (3) Disrupting the Market for Illicit Drugs. In Fiscal Year 2009, the President requests $14.1 billion in support of these key elements.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/index.html
The majority of arrests are marijuana related
Marijuana arrests accounted for 47.4% of the drug abuse arrests : 7/8/2010
In 2007 the Department of Justice reported that there were 1,841,182 drug arrests in the United States; the report also stated that there were more drug abuse arrests than any other category of offenses. Marijuana arrests accounted for 47.4% of the drug abuse arrests. This allows us to estimate that about 872,720 persons were arrested for marijuana offenses.
(so if marijuana was legalized DEA would lose almost half of its offenders and half of their funding)
This is why they do not honor the true account on the medical benefits and uses of cannabis in the 1999 Institute of Medicine book - Marijuana and Medicine - which is available for free at the National Academies Press.
(National Academies Press) located at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6376#toc
is $1.2 billion per year really worth it? : 7/8/2010
"The total cost to taxpayers of marijuana-related incarceration exceeds $1.2 billion per year, according to the study published in the Federation of American Scientists' "Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin."
"FBI, 87% for personal possession of marijuana, rather than sale or manufacture.
According to the new study:
* At any one time, 59,300 prisoners charged with or convicted of violating marijuana laws are behind bars. (Because many serve less than a year, the total number who pass through the prison system each year, while difficult to estimate, is even greater.)
* Of the people incarcerated in federal and state prisons and in local jails, 37,500 were charged with marijuana offenses only, and an additional 21,800 were charged with both marijuana offenses and other controlled substances offenses.
* Of the marijuana-only offenders, 15,400 are incarcerated for possession, not trafficking."
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/095/marijuanaprisoners.shtml
im starting a new job! : 7/8/2010
im not opening a "pot" shop. im going to start selling high quality medical marijuana to anyone who convinces me they need it. near a park, in the dark, at the beach, at a bar, in a car, or in the councilfu..... yards. im also going to use my profits for legal defense for violent gang member defense teams. if santa barbara residents want to be petty, then im going to provide for myself and defend gang members since this city has got everything at a 134 degree f-up.
you asked for it by ignoring violence to promote your foolish fanatacism.
rambo
If you sell Marijuana is SB your in the wrong business to many white WOMAN REPUBLICANS that are old : 7/9/2010
violent gang members make $80 per 1 gram of coke, pure meth extracted from Riddlin or ephedrine on the street is worth $90 to $150, Maximum for a gram of Cannabis $25. You must be smoking Crack at $10 a hit if you really think cali pays for Cartel Activity, The main Cartel activity comes from Texas and yes brick weed is $300 per pound because it is illegal and my friends south of the boarder like to control the market like OPEC does for OIL. Because has a simi-legal marijuana law Mexican cartels can not penetrate the market in CA like they can in states like TX & AZ because of the low quality of marijuana, here in CA i know people selling it to Mexico at a higher rate than CA (in CA 3000 per LB and in party towns of Southwestern and Northwestern Mexico they sell it at $6000 per LB for the first time in American history we are selling drugs to Mexico.
I am a conservative independent white male that believes 1984 will soon be upon Woman will soon ruin this country because they never see combat up close
EDIT *** : 7/9/2010
Because CA has a simi-legal marijuana law Mexican cartels....
The one before this
you missed the whole damn point : 7/9/2010
KEEP POT ILLEGAL : 7/9/2010
Quotes from Harry J. Anslinger, our first drug czar: "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men." "Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing." "...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind." ...and of course... "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
Concerned Resident
the closure of the Green Well : 7/9/2010
Mr Lee's statement of disapointment "Its about who you know in this town...it is about politics" is absolutely correct.
They should have never been permitted to begin with. The planning commision handed the process over to the City Council because they knew it was so controversial and after many meetings were local East Side buisnesses, families, individuals, schools voiced their concerns. Even the city's Housing Authority and City Attorney advised against the approval as well as the Santa Barbara police department.
So Yes it is a political process that allowed it to get as far as it did.
Fortunately for in the larger picture of true democracy, the majority of the City Council finally got the message from the majority of the community and took the position that they did.
Councilman House's statement "It just gets down to fundamental fairness, not to mention legal defensibilty" is an odd statement, since when is anything fair in politics. The legal defensibility in this case that is so far in the grey area it is slippery is no surprise. The compassionate care act was not crafted to have dispensaries as retail storefront operations.
Councilman House's comments regarding causing a reputable buisness who is obeying the law to go out of buisiness , that's not an apropriate action for us, the City " Rediculous!
Respectable is in the eyes of the beholders. Obeying the law, what law? Legal by state law and not Federal?
The political process worked, neither side was entirely pleased and the majority was respected.
Out with Green
: 7/9/2010
Quick close them down before it starts attracting jazz musicians. There might even be some undesirable brown skinned people on Milpas street if you allow them to remain open. Won't someone please think of the white women?
Integrity in business dealings : 7/11/2010
Mr. House, please help your colleagues in this regard more ...
Have to agree with a number of other posters, in that these two businesses who are now being told to close should consider action against the city. And whomever thinks investments of a new business can be recouped in 6 months .. !
There's still just too much ignorance and bias going on regarding this topic of medical marijuana.
Allegri
Alice Huffman is the president of the California State Conference of the NAACP : 7/11/2010
"She cited a recent report by the Drug Policy Alliance, which supports legalization of marijuana. African Americans represent less than 7% of the population but 22% of marijuana arrests, according to Stephen Gutwillig, state director of the alliance.
Huffman also read a statement from Julian Bond, former chairman of the national NAACP, in which he congratulated her for her stand on decriminalization."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-huffman-marijuana-20100708,0,2938864.story
Closing of Medical MArijuana dipensaries : 7/12/2010
I along with 100 of my fellow Santa Barbara business peoplewill bve doing everything in our power to unseat the city councilpersons that voted to "steal" these two businesses. This takes "eminent domain" to a new place! In the midst of the worst business climate in our generation, the city council decides it's a good idea to close two businesses that have invested thousands of their life savings to start a business in our community, abide and exceed evey requirement set in front of them and then stab these business people in the back and ruin their lives and careers so that they can make political points with a certain number of ignorant individuals. Parents and the city need to start taking personal responsibility for their own children's behavior> Pot is not the problem. Irreseponsible people are the problem!
I use medical marijuana for a severe condition. I need it to manage my pain. Now I will take whatever enery I have this next two years to do whatever I am able to do through the democratic process to expose any city council person who makes one wrong move or one bad decision. You don't represent us. You represent your political party.
Signed: A Santa Barbara business person who works and lives near Milpas St.
Wrong : 7/13/2010
How can these Knuckleheads believe that closing a business that they just approved is right. The problem with their stupidity and blatant unfairness it that WE THE TAXPAYERS MUST PAY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. They owe damages to these business owners. Really makes you hate fools like these in government.
Big B
Go Sefton! : 7/14/2010
Just because Proposition 215 doesn't mention selling pot at retail locations in no way prohibits people from doing so. Keep fighting Sefton!
So vote yes on 19 in November!
An aunty
Thats a good fact it doesnt say anything : 7/15/2010
where in the law does it say RETAIL SHOPS ARE NOT Legal and if its not then how come OAKLAND CAN Legally Tax it?
-{{ PROPOSITION 215, the California Compassionate Use Act, was enacted by the voters and took effect on Nov. 6, 1996 as California Health & Safety Code 11362.5. The law makes it legal for patients and their designated primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana for thier personal medical use given the recommendation or approval of a California-licensed physician.
- SB420, a legislative statute, went into effect on January 1, 2004 as California H&SC 11362.7-.83. This law broadens Prop. 215 to transportation and other offenses in certain circumstances; allows patients to form medical cultivation “collectives” or “cooperatives”; and establishes a voluntary state ID card system run through county health departments. SB 420 also establishes guidelines or limits as to how much patients can possess and cultivate. Legal patients who stay within the guidelines are supposed to be protected from arrest.}}-
GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE August 2008 : 7/15/2010
D. Taxability of Medical Marijuana Transactions.
In February 2007, the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) issued a Special
Notice confirming its policy of taxing medical marijuana transactions, as well as its
requirement that businesses engaging in such transactions hold a Seller’s Permit.
(http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf.) According to the Notice, having a
Seller’s Permit does not allow individuals to make unlawful sales, but instead merely
provides a way to remit any sales and use taxes due. BOE further clarified its policy in a June 2007 Special Notice that addressed several frequently asked questions concerning
taxation of medical marijuana transactions. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf.)
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General
Support : 7/16/2010
Support The Green Well, and The Greenlight!
MesaMan
Throw the bums out : 7/18/2010
The city council is not made up of wonderful free thinkers,no they serve the hand that feeds them and that may not be the majority of voters!?Huge suprise?Not!Somebody has lit a fire under thier buts and is preasuring to run pot dispenceries out of town ,duh..If the true motives were exposed they would not be as purely in the public interest as claim.Take note of these clowns and vote them out as soon as possible. Would sure like to know who is lighting the fire.
Voter
Contact Us!
411 E. Canon Perdido, Ste 2
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone (805) 564-6001
Fax (866) 716-8350
Click here to view the PDF Edition
Subscription Required
Tile Ads
Most Read Stories
Check out these most read stories.
- Santa Barbara Police Department cites 21 for driving without a license at weekend DUI checkpoints
- Searching for a cure: Dos Pueblos graduate pursues stem cell therapy to battle Lyme disease
- Santa Barbara budget showdown - 'heat is on' as police union, city management clash
- Santa Barbara church hit by '666,' graffiti four times in year
- Rising pension costs sink city's budget
Most Talked About Stories
Check out these recent talked about stories, and voice your opinion...
- Report suggests Santa Barbara Police Department targets illegal immigrants
- Santa Barbara Police Department cites 21 for driving without a license at weekend DUI checkpoints
- Arrests made in pot shop extortion
- ICE initiative targets dangerous illegal immigrants
- Santa Barbara County greenhouse marijuana bust near Highway 101 leads to two arrests; pot value as high as $80 million
- Forum tackles Santa Barbara's homeless issues
- Santa Barbara budget showdown - 'heat is on' as police union, city management clash
- Lois Capps, activists rally in support of women's reproductive rights
