FAQ challenges hardship standing
April 12th, 2009 | by Don Duncan |A new document published by the Los Angeles Planning Department may portend trouble ahead for hundreds of medical cannabis dispensing collectives (MCDC) that opened or relocated in Los Angeles since the City Council adopted an Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) establishing a moratorium on new facilities in September of 2007. The Planning Department quietly posted “Medical Marijuana FAQ” under the What’s New heading on its web page earlier this month. The document is welcome clarity in light of sometimes-inconsistent information from city staff and a lack of enforcement that has led to a dramatic expansion in the number of new MCDC in the last eighteen months.
Hundreds of new MCDC have opened or relocated since the effective date of the ICO. Most of these associations filed hardship applications with the City Clerk’s office and continued to serve patients pending the City Council’s decision on the application. However, the FAQ clarifies that filing a hardship application does not allow an MCDC to operate before the as yet unscheduled hearings to consider the applications. That means all MCDC operating under a hardship applications are in violation of the ICO – including those associations that registered before the effective date and subsequently relocated due to DEA intimidation.
The city seems reluctant to enforce the ICO, but growing pressure from neighborhood groups and media reports may force their hand. MCDC with hardship applications face a very uncertain future if the Planning Department or Los Angles Police Department moves to close them under the ICO. Legal opinions differ, but many land use experts doubt hardship MCDC can make a persuasive case to remain open under existing law. It remains to be seen how threats of litigation, accusations of inconsistency in implementation, or a new proposal to simply ignore hardship applications will impact the outcome of this debate. This may be a very interesting year for medical cannabis providers and city staff alike.
By 420Lawyer on Apr 21, 2009
Your statement “That means all MCDC operating under a hardship applications are in violation of the ICO – including those associations that registered before the effective date and subsequently relocated due to DEA intimidation.” is incorrect, reread the FAQ page, it specifically states those that were not registered can not operate, not those who were.
Unfortunately, one (or more) of my fellow attorneys, (and several who just pretend to be), are not telling new dispensaries that they are not allowed to open until their hardship application has been heard AND approved by the Council. These people are committing fraud and giving the medical community a bad name.