Thursday, July 16th, 2009
Two stories should raise an eyebrow for medical cannabis patients and advocates in Los Angeles on Wednesday. The LA Weekly ran an expose on the “wild west” medical cannabis situation in Los Angeles. The article features a “patient” diverting medicine and a very unfortunate depiction of a Hollywood collective/ministry. This article is more fuel on the fire for medical cannabis opponents. We can expect it will influence the PLUM Committee and full City Council in their deliberations regarding hundreds of hardship applications and permanent regulations. Medical cannabis collective operators and patients must be careful in what they present to the media. Not all press is good press. One individual’s fifteen minutes of fame may have serious consequences for everyone in the community.
A second story in the Daily Breeze announced Councilmember Hahn’s proposal to adopt a new city tax on medical cannabis. The Councilmember seems to be following the lead of the Oakland City Council, which recently placed a similar measure on the ballot at the urging of local cannabis collectives. The collectives hope paying extra tax will garner favor in the public eye, and some advocates think the proposal creates an incentive for jurisdictions to tax and regulate collectives instead of ban them. The verdict is still out on both counts. What is clear is that there is no consensus among collective operators or patients about the proposal. Tax-paying operators may balk at more over head, and patients have a reasonable fear that collectives will pass along the cost to the end user. Much more debate is needed before the community gets behind this proposal.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | No Comments »
Tuesday, July 7th, 2009
Angelinos got some indication about what direction city staff will take in developing an ordinance regulating collectives and cooperatives in Los Angeles when the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee heard status updates at this afternoon’s meeting. Input from city staff is encouraging, but it is clear there is still significant work to do in crafting policies that protect access and patient privacy, while addressing community concerns.
The Planning Department has assembled a project team to craft a land use ordinance that specifies in which zoning districts collectives and cooperatives can establish storefront facilities and how far they must be from other medical cannabis facilities, sensitive uses, and businesses prone to nuisance activity (liquor stores, adult entertainment, etc.). The Building and Safety Department is coordinating on separate operational protocols, which are likely to include regulations concerning hours of operation, required security, and other measures.
Observers were surprised by a proposal from the Planning Department for a more lenient permit process than the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) proposed by advocates. City Planner Alan Bell told the committee that permits may be available to any collective or cooperative that meets the land use and operational requirements without a public hearing, while other facilities can request an exception to some requirements through an administrative hearing process. We can anticipate some controversy on this topic. Neighborhood groups want more input in the permit process, and even some advocates want a tougher process to allay community concerns.
The City Council’s legislative analyst has already circulated language for the ordinance to various departments for review, but has not yet discussed the matter in detail with newly elected City Attorney Carmen Trutanich. City staff is doing technical analysis on the draft ordinance now. Part of this process includes developing maps showing what territory would be off limits given differing requirements for distances between collectives and sensitive uses. PLUM Committee Chairman Reyes asked staff to report back on their timeline in two weeks.
A representative from the Code Enforcement said that his department is already enforcing hardship application denials, saying that five facilities have already closed and six have been referred to the City Attorney’s office for further enforcement. Newly elected City Councilmember and PLUM Committee member Paul Koretz was the first member to sound a cautionary note regarding hardship applications. Koretz questioned the wisdom of closing facilities that might ultimately qualify under the new ordinance. It remains to be seen whether this represents a softening of the committee’s hard line approach to hardship applications.
I encouraged committee members to be careful about recommending any regulations containing a laundry list of sensitive uses, pointing out that the well-regulated facilities anticipated by this ordinance would not be problematic for neighbors. Councilmember Huizar echoed this sentiment. He related his positive experience visiting Cornerstone Research in Eagle Rock. The Councilmember said there was no reason that facility could not be near a sensitive use, adding he was rethinking a proposed 1,000-foot requirement in the current draft.
I also encouraged the committee to abandon plans to require collectives to disclose the names of patient-cultivators. Chairman Reyes agreed to hear more on this topic. Reyes also expressed concern about doctors writing recommendations too freely. I reminded committee members that enforcement for doctors falls to the California Medical Board, which has already sanctioned doctors who fail to uphold the agency’s standards.
In a subsequent item, the PLUM Committee also recommended denial of a hardship application for a collective on Venice Blvd. When questioned by Councilmember Koretz about what constitutes a hardship under the moratorium, a representative from the City Attorney’s office said that the decision was a exclusively legislative one, which must only have a “rational basis.” The representative reiterated that the hardship application did not give anyone permission to operate in violation of the moratorium.
Posted in Medical Marijuana Information | 2 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 »
