Thank you letter to the city council, sent on Friday:

Hello City Council and Staff,

We would just like to thank the city council for addressing our cannabis question to the candidates. There are many people out here, not just in Sonoma, but in the entire Valley, who really appreciate all the hard work you’ve put into this issue over the years. It has been a bit of a roller coaster, but we’re closing in on a great finish that will benefit all of us.

Best Regards,

Gil Latimer
Ken Brown and Jewel Mathiesen, in Spirit
Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group

The following Letter to the Editor by former Mayor Ken Brown was published in today’s IT. Below it, is the Comment we posted to the letter.

Loss of enthusiasm

EDITOR: I find it a bit ironic that, as the Sonoma City Council reviews its selections for Rachel Hundley’s vacant council seat, I am resigning from the board of the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Enthusiasts.

I no longer feel that the enthusiast organization fits with my views on cannabis in the Sonoma Valley.

I joined this group with my late wife, Jewel Mathieson, grounded in the principles of good medical cannabis policy.

The recent lobbying by those connected to the industry is disrespectful to Jewel’s core belief in unfettered public access to medicinal cannabis.

I will continue to advocate for a second dispensary at council meetings, and for positive conversations with folks in the industry and concerned citizens of Sonoma.

I am a prompt responder to phone calls and emails, so please feel free to contact me.

Ken Brown

Sonoma

Our Comment:

Ken:

Know that the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group fully supports your decision to step away from the SVCE. Not to be confused with the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group, which has worked tirelessly for the last 3 and a half years to bring a cannabis dispensary to Sonoma, elements connected with the SVCE did indeed lobby the city council to reconsider permitting a second dispensary. Why would an organization that purports to be for cannabis business in the Valley actually work against the best interests of our medical patients and adult consumers?

Gil Latimer
Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group

The city council will be interviewing candidates to fill the seat from which Councilperson Rachel Hundley recently resigned. We are asking the council to please include a question regarding their stands on cannabis business in Sonoma.

The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb 17, 6pm:

Item 6.2: Interviews of Potential Appointees to the Sonoma City Council (Interim City Manager & City Clerk)

RECOMMENDATION: Interview prospective Council appointees.

Agenda Report – Interviews of Potential Appointees – Pdf

As we stated above, on January 20, the city council voted to amend our ordinance to permit an additional walk-in retail dispensary. A very good thing! A second retail outlet will provide additional service to the 45,000 people living in the greater Sonoma area. Competition means more product choice, lower prices and better services.

But, the battle is not over. There are forces within the industry that have worked against the second dispensary option and would now prefer that the new permit process be slow-walked. Here is our public comment made at the latest council meeting:

“Once again, members of the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group would like to thank the city council for its decision to permit a second dispensary. A second outlet will bring additional resources, more product choices, and help keep prices competitive. It’s what medical patients and adult consumers of the Sonoma Valley deserve.

Frankly though, we’re pretty ticked off that certain elements within the local cannabis industry have actually lobbied against the second dispensary. Why did Michael Coats, who is the president of that Sonoma Cannabis Enthusiasts organization and who also handles Sparc’s public relations, write a letter to the Council suggesting that 1, if the city added a dispensary, it would disenfranchise the voters who chose No on Measure Y, (not true) and 2, recommending that the council, “let the approved dispensary get up and running, then evaluate before jumping too far ahead.”

Why would an organization that purports to be for cannabis business in the Valley actually work against the best interests of our medical patients and adult consumers?

And by the way, that cannabis enthusiasts organization is not to be confused with our team, the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group. We have spent 3 ½ years communicating with the city council on behalf of Sonoma’s medical patients. No “enthusiast” ever showed up to a City Council meeting, save one member, because it was in that member’s own business interest.

Putting dollars before patient access is unacceptable. It smacks of cynicism and arrogance. We could go on and on in detail about this, but a Council meeting isn’t the proper venue.

In lieu of that, we would just ask that the council ignore the negative outside forces and please find its way to expedite any new process to permit an additional dispensary.”