Sonoma Index-Tribune: Paul Elias: California regulators approve cannabis deliveries statewide

Sonoma Index-Tribune: Paul Elias: California regulators approve cannabis deliveries statewide

SAN FRANCISCO — California regulators on Friday said marijuana deliveries can be made anywhere in the state, even in locales that ban cannabis. Law enforcement groups and the California League of Cities opposed the move, arguing that pot deliveries to places that ban cannabis erodes local government control and will increase crime in those areas. Read More …

Sonoma Index-Tribune: Jason Walsh: Sonoma commercial cannabis moratorium extended; Sebastiani fundraising deadline extended

Sonoma Index-Tribune: Jason Walsh: Sonoma commercial cannabis moratorium extended; Sebastiani fundraising deadline extended

The City of Sonoma’s “clip” on commercial cannabis activity will hold firm for the foreseeable future, as the City Council on Monday extended its moratorium on pot sales for another six months. The council voted 4-1 at its Oct. 22 meeting to place its third extension of an urgency ordinance banning marijuana sales, with an Read More …

Whether cannabis or wine, Sonomans have been a thorn in the side of prohibitions Sonoma Index-Tribune: Bill Lynch

Whether cannabis or wine, Sonomans have been a thorn in the side of prohibitions Sonoma Index-Tribune: Bill Lynch

As the debate over whether the City of Sonoma should allow a cannabis dispensary in our midst, or at least a vote by local citizens, meanders on, I’m reminded of a similar controversy that lingered here for more than a decade, involving the rights of local vineyardists to make, and of local citizens to consume, wine and other alcoholic beverages.

marijuana and wine

It began with the passage in 1919 of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also known as the Volstead Act, it placed a prohibition on alcohol that dramatically affected not only the economy of Sonoma Valley, but the consumption preferences of most of its citizens, including most of the Sonoma City Council, local business leaders and the editor of the Sonoma Index-Tribune, my grand aunt, Celeste Murphy…Read More…

Video of July 23 City Council meeting

For those interested, the July 23 city council meeting can be seen below:

Timeline:

56:00 – Start
57:00 – City Attorney Explanation
1:11 – Public Comment
1:39- City Attorney answers questions
1:46 – 2:11 Council members’ Comments
2:17 – END

We must thank Councilwoman Rachel E Hundley and Mayor Pro Tem Amy Harrington for supporting the idea of putting a competing measure on the ballot that would have give the city more control over a number of aspects of cannabis businesses.

Councilwoman Rachel Hundley worked very hard to fashion a competing ordinance that would have been a much better fit for the city of Sonoma.

Amy Harrington made a wonderful comment/suggestion (2:11:00) that before spending $25,000 on another study, she would rather buy every single child who cannot afford school supplies whatever they need until the 25,000 runs out before she’d spend a penny on any further study.

Statement added to IT Comment section of article in previous post.

Statement added to IT Comment section of article in previous post.

At the council meeting on Monday, July 23, Jon Early’s petition to place a cannabis ballot measure petition on the November was postponed to November of 2020. The council decided to order a 30-day, $25,000 study on the proposed ordinance. The delivery of this study wouldn’t be until after the Aug. 10 deadline for placing the measure on the November 2018 general election ballot. Once again, the city council has moved to thwart the will of the people. The following is a comment I made to the Comments section of the IT article mentioned in out previous post.

“That the city council would choose option 3 was a very easy call. Jon Early has no sense of this town and who the city council really is. Nor did the attorney who represented him, nor those who supported that measure. Why in heaven’s name did they think that the city council would swallow an ordinance that opened Sonoma up to all manner of cannabis businesses without allowing it any real control? And the irony is, Mr. Early’s measure never included a clause for personal outdoor cultivation because he thought *that* might be a deal-breaker. Let us remind that the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group (not to be confused with the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Enthusiasts) played an instrumental role in the city’s decision to permit personal outdoor growing.

Councilwoman Rachel Hundley made great effort to fashion a competing ordinance that would have been a much better fit for the city of Sonoma. The majority of the council should have taken her up on it, but instead continued to cling to each other in their backward-thinking certainties. Let’s be clear. The three council members can’t keep running for cover because there is very little of it left. The more they dig in their heels, the shakier the ground becomes.

The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group has worked tirelessly over the past year to convince the city council of the need for a local medicinal dispensary, to no avail. We will now turn our focus to helping elect new council members who will actually understand the issue and enact Councilwoman Hundley’s ordinance.

Gil Latimer

Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group

Sonoma City Council refuses to allow a November 2018 vote on permitting dispensary

Sonoma City Council refuses to allow a November 2018 vote on permitting dispensary

This by way of the Sonoma Index-Tribune:

CHRISTIAN KALLEN

INDEX-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER | July 26, 2018, 2:06PM

“When faced with two clear paths – to approve a validated petition to legalize cannabis businesses in Sonoma, or put the measure up for a vote in November – the City Council chose the third.

At the council meeting on Monday, July 23, the cannabis petition was the major agenda item that drew a sizeable audience to the Council Chambers. Following a series of options outlined by city attorney Jeff Walter, and bypassing the choice of either approving the petition as city ordnance or putting it on the ballot for voters to decide, the council instead opted to order a 30-day, $25,000 study on the proposed ordinance, a study that would be delivered well beyond the Aug. 10 deadline for placing the measure on the November 2018 general election ballot.

The next firm opportunity for a public vote, according to Walter, would be in 2020, as there are no statewide elections scheduled in 2019…” more

Reportedly, Jon Early was “gobsmacked” over the decision. That Mr. Early, the petitioner of the ill-conceived ballot measure, believes he was blind-sided shows he has little clue of the makeup of the city council and what makes it tick. More on that in the next post…

Gary Edwards, David Cook and Mayor Madolyn Agrimonti have always voted against any notion of a dispensary within the city limits of Sonoma. There was no good reasoning that would suggest any of the three would swing the other way. Meanwhile, Rachel Hundley and Amy Harrington continued to support permitting a dispensary, but were the minority.

Let’s remember there are three city council seats open for the coming November election. The results can open the door to an ordinance better tailored to the needs of Sonoma.