Extending the ICO
June 18th, 2009 | by Don Duncan |The Los Angeles City Council will consider amending the Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) establishing a moratorium on new medical cannabis collectives at tomorrow’s meeting. Councilmembers Huizar, Zine, and LaBonge have asked for an amendment to close the controversial hardship clause. More than six hundred collectives have filed for a hardship exemption to the ICO since the City Council adopted the measure in September of 2007. Most advocates agree that collectives have had a sufficient amount of time to file applications, and the hardship clause should be removed to prevent the further proliferation of collectives – a trend that is fueling a community and media backlash against medical cannabis collectives in the city.
(Download the relevant documents from the LA City Clerk’s website.)
Advocates are skeptical, however, of an amendment to the initial motion extending the term of the moratorium for another six months (until march 2010). Councilmembers Reyes, Rosendahl, and Zine proposed that friendly amendment to give city staff more time to write a permanent ordinance regulating collectives. Advocates worry that the extension violates California Government Code 65858, which prohibits cities from using an Urgency Ordinance to establish a moratorium for more than two years. This may generate litigation when the initial two-year moratorium expires on September 14, 2009, and new collectives try to open.
City staff argues that work on the permanent regulations is underway, and therefore, the extension is defensible. This may be true, but delays caused by litigation will certainly complicate the already chaotic path towards regulations. The situation is even more complex because, as a Charter City, Los Angeles has the constitutional right to make its own law. Whether or not state law preempts Los Angeles from adopting longer moratoria under Section 253 of the City Charter is unclear. That section can be read as allowing longer Urgency Ordinances, although it is reasonable to assume a court would disallow an open ended ban on any activity temporarily prohibited under Section 253. This may have to be settled in court if the City Council extends the moratorium beyond two years.
What the city needs now is clarity and concrete progress. The City Council would be wise to leave the original deadline in place and prod city staff into action on the final ordinance before the original two-year ICO expires.
The City Council will consider the amendments at 10:00 AM on Friday, June 19, in Council Chambers (Room 340) at City Hall – 312 N. Spring Street at Temple Street in downtown Los Angeles.
Tags: collectives, draft ordinance, Los Angeles, mcdc, medical cannabis, moratorium
