Thursday was a milestone in California’s regulation of cannabis with 20 recreational/medical retail permits being issued by the state Bureau of Cannabis Control. Retail sales of recreational cannabis can begin in San Diego, Santa Cruz, and tiny Shasta Lake as early as 9 a.m. on Jan. 1 with first-quarter adult use cannabis taxes due April 1. This is great news for those communities that already have ordinances in place. They’ll be among the first to enjoy the fruits of cannabis regulation including increased jobs, tourism, economic stability and tax revenue.
Unfortunately, here in Benicia, we have a very vocal minority that seems bent on thwarting any sensible approach to cannabis regulation in our town. It seems as if, having failed to stop the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) in 2016, they’ll do whatever it takes to block the measure in Benicia now. The same tired arguments against the AUMA (youth, safety, cost, image, federal law, crime) keep getting rehashed on social media, public hearings, etc. It’s high time (pun intended) to move on like other sensible communities and enjoy the many benefits of cannabis regulation.
You don’t have to go far to see what a potential cannabis dispensary in Benicia might look like. Drive down Benicia Road to Solano Avenue and take a look at the ReLeaf dispensary on the corner. It’s just another business. I’m glad to see the security guard and other workers gainfully employed and wish them well.
Recent posts on social media have cited incidents of crime against cannabis businesses as reasons to block dispensaries or deliveries in Benicia. It may come as a surprise, but any time you have money or valuable goods around, you attract criminals. I’m used to seeing security cameras and security guards at Target, Best Buy, banks, etc. Jewelry stores routinely take down their displays at night and lock everything up in a safe. Pizza delivery is a dangerous job for a reason. Yet, we don’t stop all commerce because there are criminals lurking about. We find ways to mitigate the problem. The whole point of the AUMA was to get cannabis out of the hands of criminals and into a regulated environment. We should all embrace that, and figure out the best way to accommodate it. Jewelry stores attract criminals, yet most of us would welcome such business here, trusting the city permitting process will work with the owner to minimize crime risk. The same goes for a cannabis business under the proposed ordinance.
Many were disappointed that cannabis business on First Street was denied by the City Council. First Street would have given us the most “bang for the buck” by attracting more customers to First Street businesses and enhancing the boutique ambiance of downtown. Some claimed they would avoid the downtown if a cannabis shop were located there. This seems a bit mean-spirited to me and suggests an underlying prejudice against cannabis and folks who enjoy its many benefits. I doubt those same people avoid the restaurants and ice cream shop adjacent to the cigarette stores in Southampton and downtown.
Since First Street is off limits, it’s now more important for the Council to maximize opportunities elsewhere in town. Attracting a quality cannabis enterprise to Benicia is not a “slam dunk” as some would suggest. As with any business, location is important. The more areas that are available, the better chance that a suitable location with a willing landlord will be found. Crime risk is another factor. One wouldn’t stick a jewelry store in some dark corner of the Industrial Park. Dispensaries should be located in areas that are already patrolled by the police and have regular pubic presence during business hours. To that end, the ordinance should endeavor to minimize the use of no-dispensary buffers beyond those required by the AUMA (600 feet around schools).
Further, to assure this new economic development is successful, the ordinance should provide for at least two dispensaries in town. It’s never wise to put all your eggs in one basket. So, if the demand exists, we should strive to meet that demand. These will be fledgling businesses with much to learn and they’ll need our support. By having more than one, a failure at one location won’t end the benefits of this industry in Benicia and we’ll learn more from successes or mistakes.
Despite all the noise coming from the anti-cannabis crowd, no one has articulated how a dispensary in town will change anything to the negative. Assuming Benicia dispensaries are successful, they will move a lot of product and make a lot of money (and tax revenue and jobs). Isn’t that what we want for any business in town? What’s wrong with that?
Craig Snider is a Benicia resident who retired from the US Forest Service in 2014 where he fought forest fires among other things.
Sharing is caring!
Sorry Craig you are incorrect. Your so ,called vocal minority is not a minority. It is a very big majority voice and growing. The educators, students, parents, C of C, BIP {No retail}, BPOA and many others. I could go on and on. You just insulted these fine folks. You will not get their vote if you run for City Council.. Retail is not the answer to your dreams Craig. Yes we may get two Retail Recreational Cannabis stores in Benicia. But there will be barriers. Craig the real tax benefit is in the BIP and the Siino property. Manufacturing and distribution etc. The excise tax will not go on the ballot until 2018 and if passed will be effective in 2019. I hope the amount is 10% and it passes. The ten percent gives you flexibility to lower it below the 10% and then up it back to the 10% by council vote. We very well could see a flood of inquires to the BIP and now some developers talking to Siino about a purchase. Craig just imagine what could be done with that Siino property. A vast retail complex and for sure a very attractive area for light industry which the main use would be cannabis manufacturing and distribution. All the electricity supplied by solar and the water needs recycled. Think of that retail area as a Hybrid and Electric car sales dealership all under one roof and other retail needs for Benicia. The Enviro Greenies will be dancing in the streets. That is what this city needs not some pie in the sky cannabis retail stores. This city is in a world of financial hurt. We will not meet the revenue projections for the new fees and the CalPers amount will go up about $700,000 a year every year. Right there you are close to 1 million in the hole. Vice Mayor Young ghost recreational cannabis store that he says will bring in 1 mil is also a fantasy. He has no info to share other that it will do 1o million sales and bring in 1 mil in taxes. Craig do you know how much revenue Vallejo brings in with eleven Medical Cannabis stores. Remember until Jan 1st they can tax medical cannabis. The city gets 12% for an amount of 2.5 million. So what do you expect two Benicia stores to bring in? No more than $400 to $500 thousand if that. I am generous on the projections. So as you see Craig retail is not the glamorous tax saver for this city. Manufacturing and distribution is. Those products could be shipped state wide. We could have the needed square footage to make that happen. If Mayor Patterson and Vice Mayor Young follow the residents desires {remember Craig these are voters you have already lost} they will vote NO on retail recreational cannabis in Benicia. If they vote yes their political careers are over just like yours. I urge the city council to vote NO. Follow the residents desires which you were elected to protect.
Yes Craig, you are correct. There is “an underlying prejudice against cannabis”. It is wholly rooted in antiquated, and highly flawed dogma, with a lack of any foundational substance, across the board. However, Benicia is subject to being perpetually a few steps (years) behind the curve, and risk averse. Therein lies the issue. Countless residents agree with this. It will never change.
Another excellent and clear-headed commentary. Our ship comes in tonight. We have three resolute elected officials that will be remembered as the ones that turned Benicia’s fortunes. Only the most rabid anti-cannabis crusaders will persist in trying to flip them. I expect an evening of shading, shaming, emotion and rhetoric to try and stop regulation, taxation, and education. The alternative is continued un-mitigated dark market activity, sales tax leakage, sales tax avoidance, and loss of local tax implemented on 2018 ballot.
As Councilman Schwartzman opined several months ago, prohibition is over. It is a time to regulate and educate. There will be over ten thousand of us at home backing the three wise ones that will deliver our early Xmas present. Other cities will look to Benicia’s leadership on regulated cannabis. The state has established a comprehensive set of rules that will regulate the industry. There is no need for Benicia to do any more than approve the land use component and start counting the money. Staff time should be no more than any other new business processing. It’s that simple.
Stan you may be correct that the council will approve the two stores in Benicia. But just tell us about the money. How much Stan. You refuse to tell us how much. Your 10,000 is a fake number. The real number is the folks that appose you, Thomas and Craig. They count and their votes count. Your 10,000 does do not even make the cut. Sorry Stan again you are over glamorizing this issue. As I said it may pass but with big barricades. So now tell us where these two stores will go. Up by Jack-in-the Box. Lower arsenal? Just where Stan. Tell us. For sure not in the BIP. Your Christmas present will be a tainted one.
I do not believe Craig is correct. The local residents/voters are correct. Electing officials to carry out their views and views of this fine city. Putting them down is of no help. It shows lack of understanding.
I’m basing my assumption on the fact that 63% or voting residents voted in favor of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Also, my observation that on social media sites here, on Benicia Happenings, and on Nextdoor, the discussion threads are running about 10 to 1 in favor of dispensaries. Yes, some of the education establishment managed to stir up some parents and others with a lot of biased statistics and fear mongering. I wouldn’t say they are the majority. I see no argument with using the Seeno property or BIP for manufacturing of cannabis, etc. The concern is with missing the opportunity to get retail dispensaries in town. We need to seize the moment and not allow our community to suffer needlessly due to residents who are simply prejudiced against this substance and its benefits. To date, no rational argument against adding cannabis dispensaries to the suite of other Benicia businesses has been put forth. So it seems foolish to pass it up.
The number of licenses are skyrocketing. This industry is off and running. What caught my attention in this article is the Hawaiian company that is going to cultivate indoors in Shasta County. My guess is they will replicate the soil type and climate conditions of Hawaii that produces the legendary equatorial sativa Maui Waui.
https://tinyurl.com/ycudz3yq
Not sure if we are talking about spatial proximity of physical objects, or not But, probably not.
Not sure what you are talking about. It is not legal till 2018. Now you figure that one out.
Done.
Here is how BS gets started:
One of the grossly under-informed drama moments in last night’s public testimony came from 2018 City Council candidate Strawbridge. She told of how she visited a Vallejo cannabis shoppe (ReLeaf) to check it out, observed a minor in the dispensary, and expressed how we don’t want that to happen in Benicia (presumably by allowing cannabis retail sites). Fact is, all dispensaries are mandated to have “separate and distinct” waiting areas. You have to be let in by security to get to the “limited access area” (where the cannabis is sold). The layout of my dispensary in Cotati is the same design. I see minors in the waiting room occasionally as their parents shop in the limited access area. The waiting rooms have staff and security present at all times. The ReLeaf site is across the street from the Vallejo Police Department, and has the most glass front of all Vallejo dispensaries as it used to be a coin laundromat. Anyone on the outside can see all of the waiting area. Does it seem logical that ReLeaf would allow minors in a prohibited area and risk losing their license after five years of regulated and crime-free activity? Basically, Strawbridge observed a minor in the waiting room, not in the dispensary.
Anyone not reading or sharing this corrected information on the “minor in the dispensary” observed by Strawbridge is now left to believe dispensaries are run fast and loose, in this case shading the folks at ReLeaf in the process.
The question is, how was she able to observe the limited access area without having a recommendation? And, who and why would one go to check out a dispensary?
If a minor is actually in the limited access area, they must be a patient with an attendant parent or guardian, or an emancipated minor with documentation. A business owner can escort a non-patient through their facility, so Strawbridge being in the limited access area was not in itself a violation of any law. So if a minor was in there, they were a patient with their guardian and completely legit. Maybe Strawbridge will jump in here to clear up where the child actually was.
The City of Vallejo recently approved a Municipal Code amendment to govern cannabis activity of the 11 dispensaries there in the wake of Prop. 64. They will permit only M license activity beginning Jan. 1 so all dispensaries need only acquire their state licensing. The organized local cannabis industry has been frustrated by the slow movement to adult use permitting, so they engaged the citizen initiative process to force a public vote on adult use. The initiative acquired the requisite number of signatures to make it eligible for consideration by the City Council. They could have voted to amend the VMC to permit adult use or place it on the 2018 ballot. They elected to put the question to the people of Vallejo, basically a modified do-over of Prop. 64 approval in Vallejo. I added up the precinct totals in Vallejo several months ago and found over 64 percent approved legalization. Many cannabis operators in Vallejo feel they were back stabbed by 6 of the seven council members, including the Mayor and Vice Mayor, who all gladly accepted MMD contributions during their respective campaigns. Vallejo staff has indicated a “phased approach” post MAUCRSA. One senior staffer told me they wanted to “try medical for a while to see how it goes”. Well, it’s been going quite well, and fattened their GF to the tune of millions of dollars for the last five years of local regulated activity. This is a city where voters approved an added local tax by 76 percent and legalization by 64 percent, so why they would waste time and money to go to the voters next November on adult use is a real head shaker. Remember, it’s the same exact product with different packaging requirements and dose limits. The folks in the industry I speak with expect an increase of “designated patient” activity in lieu of permitted adult use access. A Prop. 215 patient can purchase half a pound of cannabis per day. An adult use consumer is limited to purchasing one ounce per day. For example, a group of adult friends all chip in to cover the cost of one of them to get the MD/DO recommendation for medicinal access. The patient acquires the cannabis order and is rebated the cost of it, without profit, by the others. All taxes have been paid so everybody walks away with clean hands. When adult use activity starts in Benicia, the members of such a group will be able to come here to browse and buy for themselves. Most likely many will stick around and spend at other local businesses. I expect there will be a huge surge of consumer spending in Benicia once the ribbon is cut on the first cannabis storefront. We can capitalize on Vallejo foot dragging to attract and retain a healthy portion of cannabis spending from Vallejo in addition to recovering lost revenue from Benicians spending there as well. It’s that simple.