Wed. Apr 17th, 2024

Measure BB sucks

Apparently someone has been soliciting campaign contributions from certain Santa Ana medial marijuana collectives for the City of Santa Ana’s flawed and fraudulent Measure BB, and implying that this will help them to get a conditional use permit in Santa Ana – but only if the City’s badly written Measure BB is wins on Nov. 4, according to OC NORML.

There are several reasons why this is not a good idea:

  1. The City’s Measure BB is badly written and will be litigated immediately.
  2. Any medical marijuana that rolls over for the City of Santa Ana’s blatant extortion campaign will be scrutinized by the media as this arrangement with the City of Santa Ana is blatantly corrupt.
  3. You simply cannot trust the City of Santa Ana!  How many times have they burned local businesses and residents!  Even now they are trying to pass a Utility Tax Increase, Measure AA, that is masquerading as a tax decrease!

  1. The Measure BB campaign got a very late start and has no volunteers to speak of.  Their campaign signs have been placed randomly all over the city – in some cases on public property and in others on private property – without permission.
  2. The City’s Measure BB, if passed, requires everyone to shut down their dispensaries the day after the election, on November 5.  And any dispensary that has ever had a licence or permit denied or received a code enforcement violation will not be able to apply for a Measure BB City Permit.
  3. The City’s version includes a massive $30k fee and a sketchy lottery process.
  4. Telling dispensaries they cannot gain legal status in Santa Ana unless they contribute to the City’s Measure BB is flat out extortion and corruption!  Everyone should have the same opportunity whether they gave money or not.

READ the City’s full measure before getting involved and don’t trust people coming down from Sacramento. And you can still cancel your check if you have given one to the Measure BB hucksters.

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE BB

A majority of Santa Ana Community Leaders urges a NO VOTE on  Measure BB. Voting No on Measure BB will send a clear message  to the City Council that they cannot lie and deceive the Citizens and  Voters of Santa Ana.

THE CITY COUNCIL’S Measure BB will restrict Medical Marijuana  Dispensaries to such a small area of Santa Ana that SUPER RETAIL  sites will be the only option to responsible Cannabis providers.

The Santa Ana City Council Measure BB sponsors have lied to the Voters about:

  • Measure CC was promoted by concerned Patient Advocates, NOT MARIJUANA GROWERS or Dispensary Operators.
  •  Petition Signature qualified Measure CC does NOT allow Mobile Trucks at all.
  •  Measure CC has adequate taxation rate to pay for Police Enforcement.
  • Measure CC does not SET ANY HOURS of operation. The City Council can enact reasonable hours of operation if the City Council could find the will to cast a vote as they were elected to do.
  • Measure CC duplicates State Law requiring a 600 foot separation from schools.

Proponents of Measure CC attempted to engage the City Council since 2010 to draft a law that would be to the Council’s satisfaction.

The City Council forced Citizens to gather signatures to place Measure CC on the ballot. Direct Democracy was used when Santa Ana Elected Officials ignored the needs of their Citizens.

Vote NO to the City Council’s Measure BB.  A NO VOTE on Measure BB will tell the City Council to do the JOB  they were elected for.

s/ Guy A. Lopez
Resident
s/ Elisabeth F. Lopez
Business Owner



By Editor

The New Santa Ana blog has been covering news, events and politics in Santa Ana since 2009.

20 thoughts on “Is the City of Santa Ana extorting Measure BB campaign contributions from marijuana dispensaries?”
  1. Art, why are you supporting CC and not BB? This article is written by CC supporters so it’s hard to tell what your thoughts are. I would’ve expected you to recommend a “no, no” vote or to support BB which the major backed and 3 other city council members supported. CC was written by a marijuana advocacy group. At least BB was written by the city with what we all hope is the city’s best interest at heart. Just curious about your position.

    1. My personal sentiment is that our City Council bungled this issue by not developing a Conditional Use Permit for dispensaries in the first place. The voters of this state made medical marijuana legal. The cities were responsible for figuring out how to make that happen. The Santa Ana City Council punted. Why?

      BB may have been written by the City but it is poorly written and is a train wreck. CC at least is well written. Again however it should not have come to this. The City Council dropped the ball and now we are all paying for it. So there is no way I am supporting the Council’s measure. Why reward them for a fiasco they created?

      1. Uh, editor, you can’t be serious. BB might be bad but have you really looked at CC?

        “Some form of dated documentary evidence that the collective or cooperative had begun operating at the location prior to December 31, 2011, including but not limited to, a lease, a utility receipt, a State Board of Equalization Seller’s Permit, or a Federal Employer Identification Number.”

        That’s a very unusual provision to put into an ordinance. Basically the pot shop would have to have been operating illegally prior to 2011. So CC is A) rewarding illegal operators and B) likely written by store owners that have been operating prior to December 31, 2011.

        I don’t particularly want them in Santa Ana period but the writing is on the wall. I definitely don’t want an ordinance written in the best interest of these pot shops.

        1. They were never illegal. California voters legalized medical marijuana awhile ago. All this means is that Santa Ana City Councils have been kicking the can for a long time. Again my preference would be for the City to formulate a CUP. They didn’t so now we’re stuck with these measures and there is no way I’m supporting the City’s measure.

          1. Store front dispensaries (pot shops) are illegal in Santa Ana – read the muni code. I expect both pot shop measures to fail.

  2. total tax fees including business license is about $2500 to $3000 depending on number of full time employees / full time workers. The state of Colorado is between 20 to 30 thousand dollars and the state of Washington is 25% at whole sell and plus another 25% at retail.

        1. some little birdie at a fundraiser tell you that Roma? I suppose that’s an easier source of information than combing through campaign finance forms to see who’s holding company or cover corporation was donating to a particular campaign. hmm…

          1. Many of Reyna’s supporters will hide behind independent expenditures. That is certainly the case with the high density apartment developers.

  3. Charities are forbidden from making campaign donations. Dispensaries are supposed to be charities.

    So if you find a dispensaries on a campaign report form, a complaint should be made to the FPPC.

    1. cook,
      The individuals who rake huge profits off of these so-called “non-profit” cooperative dispensaries are allowed to make political contributions – and they will BIG TIME.

      1. No Editor – you know better than that – individuals associated with the pot shops may make political payoffs – I mean contributions.

          1. The fact that the dispensaries cannot make political contributions is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless – political contributions will be made by individuals associated with the pot shops. Council members will get their political payoff for doing the bidding of the pot shops.

    2. Actually, to be very technically clear here, the law only bars tax exempt charities (501C3) from donating to political campaigns. An MMJ collective usually does not qualify as a tax exempt organization. So contributions are allowed. On the other hand, if a political candidate were offering an open spot to a collective directly in return for something as petty as a small political donation, I would find that hard to believe because:

      1) it’s definitely a career ender for the candidate, and

      2) the collective would be the victim in such an obvious scam, not the perpetrator, because last time I checked, the city charter prevents council members from seeking contributions of $250 or more from people impacted by a license, permit or other entitlement within three months of the decision.

      If you look around you, you see evidence of the intense political involvement of collectives in campaigns for both candidates and issues. In fact, this is how the protect the interest of access for their members. Should they leave their members defenseless in the face of the constant attacks to deny them their medicine from politically motivated marijuana prohibitionists? I think not!!

      Look at the bigger picture. The city’s vetting process is nebulous at best with BB. With measure CC, the process is very clear. IN ADDITION, THE CITY CAN AMEND OR REPEAL BB AT ANY TIME, SO THE VOTERS WOULD BE TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS, AND THE MEASURE THAT THEY VOTED ON WOULD VERY LIKELY NOT BE THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY ULTIMATELY INHERITED. In truth, there are a lot of holes in measure BB that would result in it having no more impact on the medical marijuana landscape in OC than a nerf gun aimed at a charging bull.

      Those who REALLY do want to regulate the collectives while still allowing access for the city’s patients have a perfect opportunity to do so with Measure CC.

      Measure CC = CLEAN CONTROL
      CLEAR CONTROL
      COMPASSIONATE CONTROL

      Measure BB just a BROKEN BILL.

      As a disclaimer, I’m the chica who helped Kandice get this beautifully drafted ordinance on the ballot. I chose to do so because it is well written and it serves those who I advocate for–the patients and the community in which they live.

      Regards 🙂

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Verified by MonsterInsights