|
Have we come a long way?
City Council members in Sacramento unanimously voted to support their most liberal proposal to date regarding medical marijuana dispensaries at their Tuesday, July 27, 2010 meeting.
Sacramento, California has quite a few medicinal cannabis collectives operating openly as storefront businesses in the city. Elected officials had, thus far, been leaning towards a proposal that would have capped the number of dispensaries allowed in the city at 12. Tuesday’s decision obliterated that cap. The limit of 12 was criticized by many as arbitrary. The change was welcome news to a thriving local patient community that previously feared a local crackdown on its dispensaries.
The vote to approve the new liberalization was unanimous, although Council Member Ray Tretheway was absent. A cheerful ovation erupted after the vote, and many of the comments by citizens and city officials were also followed by enthusiastic applause.
Replacing the numerical cap on dispensaries allowed within the city, council members opted for a so-called “Citywide Special Permit,” approach. Under this plan, prospective dispensaries will need a special permit to open in any area other than industrial zones.
However, in industrial areas, dispensaries will simply have to abide by a pre-determined set of conditions. A de facto cap will evolve, as the “sensitive use” clause will limit dispensaries’ proximity from several types of facilities, including other dispensaries. Just what will be on that list of sensitive use items is still unclear. The council is considering having it include schools, parks, day care centers, substance abuse centers, churches, other dispensaries, theaters and cigarette stores. The last 2 items were proposed by Council Member Bonnie Pannell, and agreed to by Council Member Sandy Sheedy. Ms. Pannell was concerned about the proximity of a dispensary to a movie theater in her underserved Meadowview district. It is unclear what her concern is regarding cigarette stores.
City council members and citizens universally praised city staff for their extensive behind the scenes work in bringing many divergent factions together to try to make a workable ordinance.
Max Del Real, the smooth-talking lobbyist for the 15 member Sacramento Alliance of Collectives, a local dispensary trade organization, thanked the city council. “You are very close, Sacramento, to figuring out a very complex and important arrangement,” gushed Mr. Del Real. “I’m going to encourage you as policy makers and decision makers and leaders in Sacramento to continue to get it right. We are very close to putting Sacramento on the national map, on a leader item in the 21st century. It is medical marijuana and the cannabis industry - and it will save jobs, create revenue, advance public safety and in the end, help us all in our communities. Thank you for your leadership.”
It was a triumphant moment for intrepid local medical marijuana advocate Ryan Landers. Council Member Lauren Hammond credited Landers with constantly reminding the council to take action on the issue - ever since California’s medical marijuana law was approved by the voters. And Council Member Robbie Waters also praised Landers for his persistent advocacy, “Special thanks to Ryan Landers who basically educated me about 4 years ago on the importance of this,” said Waters, “because I quite frankly had the cop view from all those years of illegal sales. And so I wanted to thank you, Ryan, for your stick-to-it-ive-ness and bringing all these people with you.” This admission was significant, because in 2006, Waters personally summoned the D.E.A. to shut down a midtown dispensary, Capitol Alternatives. Additionally, in 1999, Waters introduced a city ordinance that bans public consumption of medicinal cannabis. That ordinance was passed by the city council, and is still on the books today.
Many of the items intended to be in the dispensary ordinance have already been agreed upon by the city council. But, if they do not act before November 2, it will be a different council, with different members that will vote on the final language. The new council members may or may not agree with the proposal.
Some of the less controversial items that the city council agreed upon include an 8,000 square foot limit on venue size, mandatory fire, burglary and robbery alarm system with cameras that retain videos for at least 30 days, on-site security during open hours, signage of up to 6 square feet or 10% of window area, business hours not to exceed 7am to 9pm, and no alcohol sales or consumption. Nuisance complaints will be handled by code enforcement, and criminal complaints will result in a visit from the police.
One of the more novel proposals is that all products be labeled with a disclaimer absolving the city of all liability should any harm come to the consumer. The city even suggested language for the label, “Neither the City, County, or any other public agency has tested or inspected any marijuana product distributed at this location.”
A few of the suggested stanzas in the proposed dispensary ordinance are contested. Dispensaries are to be located at least 500 feet from “sensitive uses,” but the definition of sensitive uses is in dispute. Numerous members of the medical marijuana community have chided the city for trying to include churches in the list of proscribed facilities, because many forward-thinking churches have chosen to distribute medical marijuana as a service to the poor and needy.
The city insists that no minors and no felons on parole may work at dispensaries. The latter, in particular, has been criticized by many medicinal cannabis advocates as being unfairly discriminatory towards a demographic that needs to be integrated back into society with solid employment. It has also been pointed out that many felons carry that stigma simply because they got caught with too much marijuana at one time. Otherwise upstanding, law-abiding citizens, these individuals may be the best equipped to handle dispensary operations, because they may have prior experience selling marijuana.
The city manager will have wide discretion with which to approve or deny prospective dispensaries’ permits. This section is unpopular with medical marijuana advocates, who would prefer to have the ability to have an appeal to the city council if their permit is denied.
Smiling, Council Member Sandy Sheedy asked rhetorically, “Have we come a long way? It was a major, major problem to do, and it looks so simple in the end. After getting to know the owners and the businesspeople, and after hearing from some of the patients, 39 is not a big number. It’s just another number.” This was a substantial departure from her comments at a stakeholder’s meeting on September 21, 2009, when she complained that 39 was an “awful lot” of dispensaries. Pleasing local dispensary operators even more, Sheedy expressed a desire to, “grandfather in some of the owners that are in the right areas,” allowing them to remain open with less regulatory hurdles to overcome.
Council Member Lauren Hammond declared, “There’s not gonna be 39 dispensaries. I personally can’t support an arbitrary number of 12. I’ve said that all along. And, frankly, there are some folks that probably aren’t as good as others, and the hope is that’s who we’ll be able to weed out. I made it a point of going to a dispensary in my council district, and I was pleasantly surprised! I will still say that it’s still a little pungent odor in there, but I couldn’t smell it outside. I was truly impressed with the security and the cleanliness of the operation, and how professional those folks were.”
Council Member Kevin McCarty noted, “I haven’t had many complaints about the 3 or 4 in my district.”
Council Member Cohn summarized the journey that the proposed ordinance has taken. “The level of dispute here is down to very little. This was highly contentious, and had the potential for a very major dispute here in this council. I think a lot of credit goes to our staff and what they did.” In a gracious gesture towards the roomful of medical marijuana advocates, Cohn continued, “But it also goes out to the folks here who worked very hard, and didn’t just come in and demand things, or come in and only say what they wanted, and not listen to others. We have a lot of people here tonight who really listened to other people. I think that is a key to why this is coming to a better place, and I think you’re teaching us something. How to listen.”
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed