The medical marijuana collectives facing elimination in Long Beach have vowed to keep fighting for their right to exist — in the face of a second reading to finalize the law this January.
During its Dec. 14 meeting, the City Council passed a first reading for the medical marijuana ordinance that will eliminate as many as a dozen more collectives. Many of those collective owners have come out publicly, or through an attorney, pleading with the council to allow for relocation.
Some collective owners said they are trying to remain optimistic they will get an opportunity to relocate.
The original ordinance was enacted in the late summer, eliminating many of an estimated 90-plus collectives through an application and lottery process. After the lottery, the number of potential collectives was reduced to 32.
Then in early November, Third District Councilman Gary DeLong, Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske and Fourth District Councilman Patrick O’Donnell introduced an agenda item for further restrictions. The council decided to enact park buffers. It was believed then that an additional nine collectives would be eliminated with the newer restrictions added.
Vance Watson, president of One Source Discount Caregivers, 5115 Atlantic Ave., said he believes his operation has legal grounds to stop the city from shutting it down. His dispensary was a winner in the lottery earlier this year, but would be shut down by the new ordinance restrictions not allowing collectives near a park.
“They pulled the rug right out from under us,” he said.
Watson said he has been working with three different lawyers in regards to what types of action his dispensary can take, depending on whether the council passes a second reading with no changes from the Dec. 14 vote.
To some owners, the process has been discredited with the latest round of restrictions, which appear to single out certain collectives — including Herbal Solutions Naples, 5746 E. Second St.
In a statement released by ownership, Herbal Solutions accused the council of “trying to exercise their legislative powers in an unabashed attempt to change the outcome of the lottery.”
“This is not a minor issue and all citizens of the city should be concerned with the precedent that this amendment sets,” the statement says.
Watson said the City Council removing beaches from the definition of parks also has raised some eyebrows.
“Who benefits from them not including beaches?” he said. “Aren’t kids still at beaches? What kind of politicking is really going on behind the scenes?”
Ninth District Councilman Steven Neal initially brought up striking beaches from the definition during the council meeting. He said his intent has been to move forward with rules that follow the original ordinance as closely as possible.
“The city has been levied with several lawsuits to date, and any changes would add further lawsuits,” he said.
The removal of beaches from the parks definition is likely to spare one or two collectives, according to initial estimates.
DeLong said his intent with further restrictions were motivated by his constituents.
“My goal is to significantly reduce the amount of dispensaries and we accomplished that goal on Tuesday (Dec. 14),” he said. “It’s hard to predict the future, but I don’t expect any additional changes going forward. However, I do expect changes a year from now (when the moratorium on accepting applications ends).”
There is still some optimism that relocation will be allowed for the nine-plus collectives that are scheduled for displacement, Watson said.
“Everyone in my situation believes the city will allow for relocation,” he said.
Herbal Solutions also is holding out hope.
“Herbal Solutions Naples has publically offered to relocate its collective out of Naples in a good faith effort to address community concerns,” the statement said. “The city’s refusal to provide relocation is baffling and amounts to nothing more than a penalty and spot zoning. Herbal Solutions Naples remains hopeful that the council will vote to allow impacted collectives to relocate when the ordinance is considered again in January, but is prepared to take legal action to protect its rights in the event that the council insists on adopting an unjust and unlawful amendment.”
Watson said his lawyers are looking at the law in regards to vested rights issues and potential impact studies they feel the council should have authorized before voting on the law.
The City Council does have the right to revisit the issue in January (Jan. 4 is the next scheduled council meeting) before passing a second reading, assistant city attorney Mike Mais said. He said the city’s attorney’s office is confident the law will stand up in court regardless.
“We feel like we’re on legally solid ground,” he said. “We’ll do our best to defend it.”
Source: Gazettes
Posts
