By James Egan, M.D.
Special to the Herald
In Sunday’s Herald, I mined the information in the Benicia Town Hall cannabis survey to reach the conclusion that a large majority of those responding did not favor retail distribution of recreational cannabis outside of the Industrial Park. While on the topic of the survey, it is worthwhile to look at some of the other raw data with respect to how the Council has handled our opinions in requesting the proposed ordinance. Have they been honored or ignored?
1. Question 4: dispensary buffer zone around schools. A supermajority of 67 percent favored stricter regulations (“e.g. 1,000 feet from schools”) than state law requires.
–Ordinance reads: 600 feet.
2. Question 5: dispensary buffer zones around parks. A supermajority of 69 percent favored a 500-foot buffer zone.
–Ordinance reads: No buffer zone.
3. Question 8: Should the City allow outdoor cannabis cultivation for personal use on private property? “No”, or “only if screened (i.e. in a greenhouse)” 53 percent. Ordinance reads: Yes, no screening required.
–Answer: Ignored.
In her Jan. 25 e-alert, Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, responding to an impassioned anti-cannabis letter from Denise Lee, notes that “The political world is made up of bullies, bystanders and bravehearts.” Regarding the cannabis ordinance, the majority of the council and the mayor appear to have cast themselves in the role of bullies. All signs suggest that the council will approve the cannabis ordinance at tonight’s meeting despite their awareness that a large proportion of the community opposes it. Is this right? No. The code changes outlined in the cannabis ordinance have the potential to fundamentally alter the face and spirit of our community. Granted, even in a democracy our elected leaders cannot be expected to vote according to their constituents’ preferences on every issue, but on issues of major importance, such as this one, the will of the people should not be subjugated by the governing body.
What price might we and the council pay for their potential failure to accurately assess and wisely respond to the expressed opinions of the community on cannabis? Answering this are two cautionary tales from Marin and Stanislaus counties.
Nearly 70 percent of Marin voters favored Proposition 64, a greater margin than Benicia’s 63 percent support. Following almost two years of rule-making and application processes, including many public hearings, the Marin County Supervisors passed an ordinance allowing up to four medicinal dispensaries on unincorporated land. But, quoting the San Francisco Chronicle, “It turns out that many residents are fine with the idea of cannabis capitalism, as long as it isn’t happening in their backyard.” Ten subsequent applications for licenses to operate dispensaries were subsequently turned down because of public opposition. The Assistant Director of the county’s Community Development Agency, Tom Lai, described a “near frenzy” of opposition, including petitions with hundreds of signatures opposing dispensaries in their neighborhoods due to being too close to homes, schools or passing children or simply incompatible with neighborhoods. Per the Chronicle, citing Lai, “No area was low-profile enough.”
Devaluation of real estate values was also an issue. Subsequently, the Supervisors repealed the 2015 ordinance allowing the dispensaries, and now “the county is guaranteed to be almost totally devoid of marijuana shops for the foreseeable future.”
The Stanislaus County story is worse. As reported in an Associated Press article by Paul Elias, having collected taxes from legal marijuana growers since 2016, the Board of Supervisors recently voted to ban marijuana in the county after the election of four new Supervisors who ran on anti-marijuana platforms. Two hundred farmers with permits that cost them $5,000 each were given three months to terminate operations. The County Sheriff estimated that in addition to the 200 licensed cultivators more than 1,000 farms operated illegally in the county.
Quoting Mr. Elias “The influx has cause a backlash among residents and led to the ouster of some leaders who approved marijuana cultivation. Ban proponents complained that a sudden influx of new marijuana growers dramatically changed the regions makeup and damaged the environment.” The action by the Council is believed to have “paved the way” for lawsuits from growers who previously received permits and paid taxes.
These, then, may be the fruits of proceeding with pro-marijuana ordinances while a major portion of the community remains in opposition. Years of futile hearings, organized resistance to proposed locations, division of the community, deposition of elected officials, and civic litigation potentially amounting to millions of dollars.
Could this happen here? If the council approves the current marijuana ordinance they will give birth to large group of angry, disenfranchised voters, who may be expected to respond actively to their marginalization. Once the permitting process begins, look for lobbying of residents, retail property managers and property owners to disallow retail cannabis facilities in or near their homes and retail outlets. The angry will also be voting, and a shift in the council majority on this issue with a one-issue November election could lead to the same adverse circumstances that Stanislaus County finds itself in currently. The mere existence of such a group may act as a deterrent to potential permit applicants.
Like many others, I don’t believe that there has been enough research, deliberation or interaction with the community by the council to proceed with approving the distribution, cultivation or processing of cannabis products in Benicia currently. My hope in responding to Vice Mayor Young’s explanation for his Dec. 19 vote is that he and Councilmember Campbell will get a better idea of the real magnitude of cannabis resistance in the community and that they will respond by regrouping, reversing their recent votes on the cannabis ordinance and joining Councilman Hughes in leading the council to an answer more acceptable to the thousands of concerned citizens and parents who are stakeholders in this issue.
There are many issues associated with residential and commercial cultivation and cannabis processing that the public has not been adequately educated on, including ecological and quality of life concerns that may conflict with the General Plan. These processes merit full vetting by the community after the issue of distribution has been settled, and before their respective ordinances are voted on by the Council.
James Egan is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Very good second part. What you say is correct. The 2018 election will for sure see a new member to the council that will be anti cannabis in Benicia. It will get even better in 2020. If all three elected officials chose to run for re-election you will see two go down to defeat big time. The Mayor and Vice Mayor Young. The residents will have spoken with a vote. I would hope to see some changes tonight but I have very little hope of that.
More unfounded scare tactics from James. For instance: “The code changes outlined in the cannabis ordinance have the potential to fundamentally alter the face and spirit of our community.”.
It will be interesting to hear how the Rejectors will address the six plant guarantee included in the ordinance.
They should not be any more concerned than if I was growing tomato plants. Unless, of course, they hate liberty and freedom.
A non-resident reply is meaningless and not at all important.
Ad hominem.
Bob, does that go for Dennis Lund and Bruce Robinson also?
BTW is does not. Bruce writes articles as does Dennis. When Dennis comments it is pointed at Petersen and there is a very good reason for that. Dennis comments very rarely and Bruce not at all if so rarely. Dennis is a person living out of town commenting back to a person that apparently no longer lives in town.. Nothing at all wrong with that. Contributing writers from out of town is very good for the paper and residents. But someone who apparently no longer lives in town putting down a local is rude. Michael has to live here. His comment is very concerning for the safety of all residents. Others comment on cannabis because they think it is a good thing. Are you going to the meeting and comment. If so bring Petersen. Maybe both of you would have a chance to Meet Dr. Egan. A very nice person and well informed from a medical standpoint.;
Should I be flattered that so much attention (regardless of whether any comment is about me is valid) is being paid to me. “Boy, am I lucky.”
Is Rojee Kitsap valid?
Not really sure. But, most of your comment above is not.
The DR is the Daily Republic. You comment there all times. Yes you are Rojee Kitsap. Do you deny that? You have ID yourself Rojee. He He
Is that an on-line newspaper, Alhambra? If you can’t provide proof (similar to your pack of lies on February 6, 2018 at 4:55 pm – see above), you have got nothing. HaHa!
Thomas, my advise is to admit it and move on. You are all over the Daily Republic on-line comment section. That’s fine, but to call me a liar is a little much. Try this this http://www.dailyrepublic.com/wires/rep-adam-schiff-leading-democrat-in-Russia-probe-gets-a-trump-nickname/
Interesting comments Bob. I went to the link and indeed “Rojee Kitsap” responds to a question using the new name “Thomas Petersen”.
Judging also by the level of discourse at that site, from the people on the left, I can understand why someone would use a fake name.
Thomas I just provided proof. You know what I am talking about. Better to admit it.
I really don’t see what you are implying, or why. As far as your “advise” is concerned, I’m fairly certain that you that you have come to realize by now, that I don’t value it. Re: the February 6, 2018 at 4:55 pm comment, I’ll stand by what I said. Good day!
Thomas AKA Rojee Kitsap, I do know how embarrassing this must be. Very clear evidence and now you ,are trying to move away from being outed. Very sad.
Outed for what? AKA? Did you make comments on another website using my name or something? Now that would be sad. I’m wondering, if so, did it coincide with your attack on me here?
Oops. that is your answer on the DR. You are in deep Thomas. I would own up and move on. The blame game. Stick to the subject Thomas. All I am doing is pointing out that you appear to post as someone else. Now you deny it. Prove it.
Did you really just write “stick to the subject”? That’s rich! Look again. I don’t think you posted ,”Oops”using my name. Prove it was not you and we can move on. As an aside, are you a lurker on that website? Can’t imagine you would spend time there and not comment ( when not commenting under my name).
Are exceptions made for “non-residents” who still own property and therefore pay taxes in Benicia?
I will also say this: I rarely comment on local politics, but prefer to comment on issues beyond the tranquil shores of my old stomping grounds.
“Devaluation of real estate values was also an issue.” This statement, made by James is not really backed up with any data, and appears to be purely subjective. As a counter point to his assumption, researchers found that Denver, CO home prices in the immediate vicinity of recreational marijuana dispensaries rose at a fast pace subsequent to legalization.
“the county is guaranteed to be almost totally devoid of marijuana shops for the foreseeable future.” This is not a good thing. This, of course, points to how a small minority of people can sabotage things for others.
BTW, do you want to meet at city hall? Or, should we grab a bite to eat first?
Sorry, Thomas, but I’ll probably be out of town. But I’m sure I’ll see you at the next “deep state” meeting.
OK. In the meantime try not to become subject to the local doxer’s pathetic attempts.
Thomas Petersen had you ID yourself as Rojee Kitsap he might have been there. Thomas you ID yourself as Rojee Kitsap on the DR by a mistake. I called you that a long time ago. You are no longer a credible resource for anything. Very sad that someone has to stoop that low.
What is a DR? As an aside, what will I ever do, if YOU ( of all people) don’t consider me credible?
“Marijuana Can Save Lives”
By RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/opinion/marijuana-opiates-jeff-sessions.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
Good link BTW. I wonder if James would consider writing his next piece on the opioid epidemic.
As far as Sessions goes: “the biggest gateway drug of all, mother’s milk.” – Gil Kerlikowske
I am a Korean War veteran. I have been using cannabis for over twenty years and grow my own. This is no big deal, believe me. We need the tax money badly. Thank you,
Frances you are correct on one thing. The city does need the money. Cannabis will not even come close. A little bit does not help. Millions could help. That will only come from econ dev. First there will be cuts, a reduction in force and then maybe some reduced hours, out sourcing/contracting of services. Is that what this city wants? No. They want econ dev action and now. Watch for a movement to oust the Mayor and councilmember young
If nobody has anything left to say on cannabis or Dr. Egan’s article, I would strongly suggest moving on. If this comment section continues to become derailed, then it will be locked. This will be your only warning.
THANK YOU! I’m a bit tired of being in an elementary school playground a lot of the time!
Thanks, I agree. Those that come here merely to derail the conversation should really think a bit before they even start.