Thursday, June 18th, 2009
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.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | No Comments »
Wednesday, June 10th, 2009
The Los Angeles City Council quickly denied fourteen hardship applications today for medical cannabis collectives that opened or relocated since the city adopted a moratorium on new facilities in September of 2007. Observers expected a hard line from Councilmembers, who have come under increasing pressure from neighborhood groups and media in light of the proliferation and clustering of new collectives under the moratorium.
I joined five Councilmembers at a press conference before the meeting, where they reiterated their commitment to protecting safe access and enforcing local law. Councilmembers Zine, Hahn, Huizar, Reyes, and Garcetti all answered pointed questions from media and promised an aggressive response to the neighborhood concerns. Councilmember Zine also acknowledged the work of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) by name, thanking them for diligent work in promoting sensible regulations.
The City Council later approved a motion by Councilmember Huizar to remove the controversial hardship provision, and surprised advocates by extending the city’s moratorium on new facilities for another six months. The provisions will take effect when the City Council votes on a new ordinance next week. Councilmember Huizar said that staff needs more time to craft permanent regulations. City staff reassured concerned advocates that the extension was legal – despite the fact that it exceeds the usual two-year limit for urgency ordinances.
Observers were surprised to hear strong words of support for medical cannabis and cannabis law reform from Councilmember Alarcon, who has so far been silent on the topic. Councilmembers Zine, Rosendahl, Huizar, Reyes, LaBonge, and Hahn also rose in vigorous support of medical cannabis – and all worried aloud about abuse of the system. Councilmember-elect Paul Koretz will replace outgoing Councilmember Weiss, an opponent of safe access, as a solid pro-access vote in July. The growing cadre of medical cannabis supporters on the City Council means sensible regulations are almost certain to be adopted (when they are finally finished). Only Councilmembers Smith and Parks rose today to oppose the Council’s pro-medical cannabis agenda.
Hardship applicants would fare no better in hearings before the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee later this afternoon. The committee denied one application after cursory testimony. Chairman Reyes continued a second hearing so that Councilmember Rosendahl’s office could confirm the applicant’s claim that the collective was not already open, and therefore, not in violation of the moratorium.
Today’s press conference and 15-0 scorecard make it clear that the City Council and PLUM Committee sent a message to hundreds of hardship applicants awaiting hearings. The rapid proliferation and anecdotal reports of bad behavior have generated a backlash against which applicants must fight. For most, the outcome is likely to be bad. This is especially unfortunate for the unknown number of collectives that registered with the City Clerk before the moratorium, but later relocated as a result of federal intimidation.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | No Comments »
Saturday, June 6th, 2009
The Los Angeles City Council will take up fourteen hardship applications for medical cannabis collectives in Eagle Rock and Highland Park on Tuesday morning. These are the first of approximately five hundred hardship applications filed for medical cannabis facilities that opened or relocated after the City Council adopted a moratorium on new collectives on September 14, 2007. Increasing pressure from neighborhood groups and bad media coverage have embarrassed the City Council in recent weeks, and observers expect all or most of the applications will be denied. The City Council will also vote on a motion by Councilmember Huizar to remove the hardship provision from the city’s moratorium. If approved, the motion will prevent any new hardship applications.
Later on Tuesday, the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee will discuss permanent regulations, which the City Council plans to adopt before the moratorium expires September. Medical cannabis advocates joined City Councilmember Dennis Zine earlier this year in rejecting a draft ordinance prepared by outgoing City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. That misguided measure regarded collectives as illegal and would have forced every facility in Los Angeles to close. The PLUM Committee is expected to send recommendations for improved regulations to the full City Council on Tuesday. The Council will then forward the recommendations, including any amendments, to the City Attorney’s office with instructions to write a new ordinance.
An alphabet soup of advocacy organizations has been working with Councilmembers and city staff for over a year to craft the permanent regulations – Americans for Safe Access (ASA), Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance (GLACA), Patients Advocacy Network (PAN). These groups join other local players, including patients, law enforcement, and neighborhood groups. The final phase of writing the ordinance will be controversial, as various interests compete to shape the next draft. Expect differing strategies and priorities.
There is likely to be something in the draft ordinance to which every stakeholder objects. Ultimately, every measure must be evaluated based on its benefit or harm to legal patients. It will be even more important now that every medical cannabis supporter in Los Angeles stay plugged in and let Councilmembers know which provisions help facilitate access to medicine – and which will roll back patients’ rights.
The City Council meets at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, June 9, in Room 340, City Hall, 200 North Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles. Arrive early to complete a public speaker’s card. The PLUM Committee meets at 2:00 PM just across the rotunda in Room 350.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | 1 Comment »
Thursday, June 4th, 2009
The City of Goleta in Santa Barbara County adopted a ban on medical cannabis collectives on Wednesday, but asked staff to come back with recommendations for regulations before September. The City Council opted for a ban on collectives because city staff indicated they did not have time to prepare a permanent ordinance before the city’s two-year old moratorium expires on August 30. State law prohibits local government from renewing a moratorium on any business for longer than two years.
Patients at Wednesday night’s meeting complained that the staff report supporting the ban was one sided – focusing only on law enforcement claims that collective attract crime. City staff presented reports from police officers from San Diego and San Bernardino Counties, but did not include research by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) showing that regulations reduce crime and complaints.
The City Council heard emotional testimony from local patients and providers, who vowed to keep fighting for regulations in the city. There is no word on what the city intends to do with the two collectives that survived a federal crackdown on property owners renting to collectives last year.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | No Comments »
Saturday, May 30th, 2009
Update June 2 – The PLUM Committee approved Councilmember Huizar’s motion this afternoon. It will be considered by the full City Council on Friday.
—
The Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee will consider a motion by Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar on Tuesday that would remove the controversial hardship provision from the city’s Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) establishing a moratorium on new medical cannabis facilities. Hundreds of new and relocating patients’ associations have filed hardship applications and opened since the City Council adopted the ICO in September 2007. According to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) published recently by the Planning Department, applicants should have waited for approval of their hardship applications before opening. However, inconsistent information from city staff and a lack of enforcement contributed to hundreds of new collectives opening in the last eighteen months.
Councilmember Huizar’s motion is aimed at stopping the proliferation of new medical cannabis providers in light of a growing public backlash. Media, neighborhood groups, and law enforcement are speaking out against the continued proliferation citywide and the clustering of facilities in some neighborhoods. The public outcry comes at an inconvenient time for patients and advocates. The City Council is debating the terms of a permanent ordinance for medical cannabis associations in Los Angeles right now. The growing controversy is likely to influence that debate and the contents of the final regulations.
The PLUM Committee is likely to recommend that the full City Council approve the motion and amend the ICO. No additional hardship applications will be available if the City Council approves the measure at a future meeting. Councilmember Huizar’s motion will not directly impact hundreds of hardship applications already filed. These must still be heard separately by the PLUM Committee, before going to the City Council for final approval or denial. No date has been set to hear the hardship applications at this time.
The PLUM Committee meets at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, June 2, in Hearing Room 350 at City Hall – 200 N. Spring St. at Temple in downtown Los Angeles.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | No Comments »
