“A Sausalito cannabis initiative will be removed from the November ballot after a Marin judge ruled that the measure is invalid because its proponents are not residents of the city.”

Never mind that Pearson’s initiative was thrown out because neither he nor Paul Austin actually live in Sausalito (how could Pearson make such a stupid mistake??), there was a much more questionable aspect to this story.

In the cannabis industry, “social equity” means ensuring people of color, and those with marijuana offenses prior to legalization, be given an opportunity to participate in the cannabis industry.

In my opinion, Pearson cynically used the social equity angle when he hooked up with Paul Austin, a person of color and Marin City resident. Pearson’s measure read that “an Equity Owner is an individual who owns no less than ten percent (10%) of the Applicant Entity”.

But in this case, the “no less than 10%” clause suggests manipulation. Does Paul Austin have an agreement with Pearson that he (Austin) would have 11% of the business? 30%? And what would Pearson’s percentage be? We’ve no idea because the ordinance Pearson wrote doesn’t provide that answer.

It’s important to know that many existing SE programs mandate that equity-eligible partners own or control a minimum 51% interest. This is to help prevent tokenism and gaming the system.

You can knock us for beating this horse, but this is just another example of how sparc ownership seeks to manipulate the system at the expense of people he should be serving honestly.