Pubdate: Tue, 23 Nov 2010
Source: Grunion Gazette (Long Beach, CA)
Copyright: 2010 Grunion Gazette
Contact:  http://www.gazettes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3434
Author: Jonathan Van Dyke

RESTRICTIONS UPSET COLLECTIVE OPERATORS

Further restrictions on the city's medical marijuana ordinance have
left some collectives frustrated by the process -- and looking at how
best to move forward.

"(The collectives I represent are) distressed, upset and sort of
feeling betrayed by the system," said Carl Kemp, lobbyist for three
collectives. "You go through a process and so much work goes into it
and so much investment is made based on the word of the council and
the ordinance -- we thought this was final. You can imagine how that
feels when it gets changed just before the permit was to be issued."

Passed earlier this year, the new medical marijuana ordinance placed
buffer zones preventing collectives from being located near one
another and schools. During last Tuesday's meeting, the City Council
passed a motion that would place an added 1,000-foot buffer zone for
parks. The initial restrictions proposal would have added parks,
daycare centers and libraries.

Kemp said at least two of his three clients would be displaced by the
newer restrictions. They will be requesting that the City Council
allow affected applicants a 60-day period to find a new location --
something that was in the original memo for further restrictions, but
was not adopted last week.

"The city believes we are on solid ground in the direction we went
with further restricting the ordinance with marijuana dispensaries,"
Third District Councilman Gary DeLong said.

DeLong helped author the request for further restrictions, and during
public comment, many of the residents present who were in favor of the
newer restrictions were from Naples. The new park-restriction
eliminated Naples' Herbal Solutions -- and by early estimations, any
possibility of a collective opening there, DeLong said.

"To my understanding, it does eliminate Naples as a potential
location," DeLong said.

There also was concern by City Council members before the vote that
changing the ordinance could expose the city to more lawsuits -- there
were already six pending against the city. The council met in a closed
session before the vote to discuss the matter, and when it voted,
lawsuits were never mentioned.

"I think at first blush, it would look like the city is more
vulnerable," said Mike Mais, assistant city attorney. "But it goes to
a technical issue of vested right. Under the law, you don't have a
vested right to do something unless you have a permit in hand and that
you've expended a considerable sum in reliance of that permit.

"Our argument is since no one had a permit in hand, any improvements
they would have done to their own property -- they did it to their own
detriment. In other words, since they didn't have a permit to operate
a medical marijuana collective, any money they spent can't be
recovered from the city."

The attorney's office is working to have the final ordinance draft in
front of the City Council for its meeting on Dec. 14. At that time,
the ordinance will be presented for first reading, as will a separate
motion to adopt a one-year moratorium on collective applications.
There likely would be a second reading the next week to finalize the
vote. If that passes, the ordinance would be effective 30 days later.

As of this week, no hearings had been set in the lawsuits filed
against the city.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt