Pubdate: Wed, 26 Jan 2011
Source: Daily Sound (Santa Barbara, CA)
Copyright: 2011 Daily Sound
Contact: http://www.thedailysound.com/contact/Letters-to-the-editor
Website: http://www.thedailysound.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4995
Author: Nick C. Tonkin
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/topic/Dispensaries

Pot Shops:

SANTA BARBARA VOTES TO ALLOW UP TO 5 MEDICINAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES

In a 6-1 vote, the Santa Barbara City Council voted to introduce an 
amendment to grandfather in two Eastside medicinal marijuana 
dispensaries, but opened the possibility of a different settlement.

Since a federal court granted an injunction on the city's order to 
close down the Green Well dispensary, City Attorney Stephen Wiley 
advised the Council to amend the council's June 2010 ordinance to 
allow the two dispensaries, or up to five, to operate.

Last week the amendments were approved by the ordinance subcommittee 
and came before the council yesterday.

Wiley told the council that while the ruling wasn't final, it 
indicated that the judge is inclined to side with the owners of the 
Green Well Dispensary at 500 Milpas Street.

The Green Well opened in January of 2010 after receiving a permit 
from the city under the original 2008 ordinance controls.

But in June, the city council drafted a new ordinance that, among 
other things, extended the minimum distance between a dispensary and 
a school from 500 to 600 feet.

The Green Well, 532 feet from Santa Barbara Junior High, found itself 
in violation of the new ordinance and sued when the city tried to 
shut them down.

Some members of the public were opposed to the new amendments, 
feeling the city should pursue the lawsuit and appeal the decision if 
the judge ruled against them.

Neighborhood activist Jim Westby said the council should let the 
court case play out. He felt that the city should settle if 
necessary, but the dispensary should not be allowed to stay.

"We changed the law so we owe them something," Westby said. "But we 
don't owe them so much that they can exist here forever."

Wiley said the city could pursue the case, but it ran the risk of 
having the judge invalidate the ordinance and having to pay the 
plaintiff's legal fees.

"You could be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal 
fees," Wiley said.

Mayor Helene Schneider said attorney fees weren't as worrisome as the 
possibility that the judge could throw out the ordinance altogether.

"To me, the bigger issue is invalidating an ordinance that took 
twenty-plus meetings, an election, and a lot of grief and angst to 
get to where we are," Schneider said. "The last thing this community 
needs is for us to start all over again on a new ordinance."

Council member Grant House agreed.

"That's a present danger and puts us in a very important position 
when we make our decision today," House said.

Dale Francisco, an outspoken opponent of dispensaries within the 
city, supported the ordinance but wondered if another solution to the 
litigation could be found.

"If these dispensaries are what they claim to be, compassionate, 
nonprofit operations helping the seriously ill we can probably find 
some other compensation suitable to them other than indefinitely 
grandfathering them," Francisco said.

That suggestion proved to be popular among the council. Michael Self 
believed that finding another solution that didn't involve keeping 
the dispensaries around indefinitely would be better for the community.

"Let's face it, dispensaries, legal, illegal, whatever, are expensive 
to the city," Self said. "By keeping the two nonconforming 
[dispensaries] we're going to have enforcement expenses, legal fees, 
and intimidation to the neighborhood."

Council member Randy Rowse was the lone voice of dissent. Rowse 
acknowledged the legal implications, but said he couldn't bring 
himself to vote for it on principle.

"It may be the wrong thing to do for the benefit of the city itself," 
Rowse said. "But I'm having a real struggle ethically with going 
forward and saying 'Well the ordinance says three but maybe five.'"
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom