When it comes to marijuana, Fresno is in the Dark Ages, but that should change soon
Will this finally be the week Fresno’s city leaders offer some clarity when it comes to marijuana?
Because as things currently stand, the picture is hazier than the back of Jeff Spicoli’s van.
Back in December 2018, the City Council by a 5-2 vote approved Fresno’s first foray into retail marijuana sales as well as its commercial cultivation, manufacturing and distribution.
More than a year has passed, and during that time not a single legal joint has been smoked or edible packaged within the city limits. Nor, for that matter, has one cent of tax revenue been collected.
Typical Fresno, right? Too stuck in its ways and beholden to conservative values for such a progressive step?
Certainly, yes. But in some ways, no.
While frustrating for those who’ve waited patiently for Fresno to emerge from the marijuana Dark Ages — it’s been 24 years since California voters approved medicinal cannabis and two since adult use became legal — being the last to do something completely new does have its advantages.
Namely, we get to learn from other cities’ mistakes. Look no further than Sacramento, where eight of 30 dispensaries came under the control of a Ukranian national with shady business ties despite regulations designed to prevent that very thing from happening.
Oopsie.
‘Still a politically sensitive conversation’
Thursday’s Fresno City Council meeting contains a consent calendar item that should get the process moving again. Councilmember Miguel Arias, a co-sponsor of the revised cannabis ordinance, is confident he has the necessary votes along with the go-ahead from Mayor Lee Brand.
“This is still a politically sensitive conversation,” Arias said. “The only thing we’re in complete agreement on, including the mayor, is we are in desperate need of the revenues.”
During council debate over the December 2018 measure, a provision was added to allow only medical dispensaries during the first year. However, if you look at the actual ordinance it reads “within the first year the Article is effective.”
Since the measure went into effect January 13, 2019 — more than 365 days ago — that means Fresno will have adult-use stores as soon as they get up and running.
That’s not my opinion, either. That’s the opinion of City Attorney Doug Sloan.
“There is no doubt whatsoever this provides for all (cannabis) use except medicinal in the first year,” Sloan told me while looking at a highlighted copy of Article 33, Chapter 9 of the Fresno Municipal Code.
Good, because medicinal-only in Year 1 was a stupid idea.
Speaking of stupid ideas, I wonder if Councilmember Garry Bredefeld will re-introduce his motion from 13 months ago to prohibit retail stores in council districts that voted against Proposition 64.
It would be fun to see Bredefeld’s fellow council members take him up on it — on the condition that only districts with pot shops get to share in the tax revenues.
Brand: Fight drugs with cannabis revenues
Where does Mayor Brand, entering his last year in office, fit into all of this? As Bredefeld gladly reminds us, didn’t Brand make opposing marijuana sales one of his campaign promises?
Yikes, he sure did. The mayor, as you may recall, also vetoed Arias’ previous attempt at passing a cannabis ordinance in November.
Will Brand do it again, provided the measure doesn’t receive a veto-proof five votes? Doesn’t sound that way, according to a statement sent over by his spokesman.
“While I remain morally opposed to adult use cannabis sales, I am also pragmatic,” Brand wrote. “We will never be able to significantly reduce the marijuana black market that funds gangs and human trafficking without allowing legal sales and then using tax revenue from those sales to fund a new full-scale drug task force. This task force would aggressively go after human traffickers, gangs and drug dealers who peddle heroin, meth, opioids and other poisons on our streets.”
In other words, Fresno needs money from drugs that aren’t that bad for you (even though we pretended they were all these years) to go after those who peddle drugs that are really, really bad for you.
That’s pragmatic, all right.
Another factor here is that Fresno’s 2019-20 budget includes $500,000 in projected revenues from cannabis businesses. So if the city doesn’t start collecting application fees soon, Brand will have to find another way to make up that deficit.
Besides, if Brand vetoes this ordinance, he wouldn’t be striking down pot shops in Fresno. (That ship sailed in December 2018, remember.) He’d just be tossing aside months of work by his own staff, Arias and Fresno Police Chief Andy Hall, each of whom helped craft the details.
Lower tax rate should benefit Fresno
Those details are worthy of further examination, and if you have time I suggest reading through the 71-page measure. There you’ll find the regulations that dictate how operating licenses will be awarded, social equity, where cannabis businesses can be located, their hiring practices and what security measures must be in place.
By all accounts, marijuana legalization in California has done little to thwart the black market. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is the heavy taxation levied on the industry.
Fresno is taking a different tact. By assessing a 4% tax rate on retail sales and manufacturing (most cities charge 10%, on top of the state’s 15%), there is hope cannabis consumers will opt to buy their products at a legal dispensary. Also, that businesses will be encouraged to hang out their shingles.
But first, the City Council needs to pass a regulatory ordinance. Thursday’s vote should provide a clear path forward.
This story was originally published January 15, 2020 at 10:50 AM.
