Otter Brands, the author of Measure K, says it has spent five years trying to get Sausalito City Hall’s permission to open a cannabis outlet in town.
Fed up with an unpredictable timeline, the company’s representatives are taking a shortcut, going directly to voters on the November ballot.
The company, which has an outlet in San Francisco, is seeking voter support to end the city’s ban on cannabis outlets. In particular, one outlet, Otter Brands.
Measure K would end the city’s ban, allowing one storefront dispensary and one delivery business. Written into the measure is a provision that would limit the storefront permit only to businesses that sought city approval before April 1, 2021.
The measure is written by Otter Brands and for Otter Brands. It is a political end run around the City Council, whose members say they are considering allowing the sale of marijuana, but haven’t yet agreed on the local rules for an outlet.
2016’s Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana for adults over 21, won a 77% majority vote from Sausalito voters.
But City Hall has taken a wait-and-see approach to permitting storefront outlets. Its cautious stance is similar to the stance taken by most of Marin’s cities, even though storefront outlets have opened in other Bay Area communities. Some Marin towns have allowed manufacturing and have limited local sales to delivery-only businesses.
For many in that 77% majority, the city’s slow approach has to be frustrating. But most of the visible political pressure local officials have gotten has come from community groups rightfully worried about drug use and addiction among local youth. They worry that opening a local storefront sends the wrong message to kids.
Measure K includes provisions keeping an outlet at least 1,000 feet from any school. It also requires onsite security. In addition, it requires the storefront retailer and delivery-only businesses to pay the city 7.5% of its net profits or $50,000 per year, whichever is greater.
Tax revenue has been a big reason why many municipalities have opened their doors to the cannabis industry. But that metric should be set by the city, not by the business.
The debate over Measure K boils down to whether it is the right way to conduct the city’s business. Is it right to let a storefront business write what is essentially its own monopoly into the city’s laws?
In recent years, California voters have seen a string of ballot measures where businesses seek voters’ approval of changes that specifically enhance their profits. They are convinced going to the ballot is worth the multi-million-dollar investment. Most of those campaigns have buried their motives beneath promises of popular public benefits. It is a cynical approach toward governance and voters. Fortunately, in most cases voters have seen through them.
Measure K is an example of that on a local level.
A business frustrated with the city’s go-slow approach goes to the voters to approve its plan, including making sure that it has a corner on the local market.
Even supporters of Proposition 64 can see that this is not the right approach for the community.
In fact, according to Sausalito’s city attorney, if there were to be more than the Measure K-allowed single storefront or delivery outlets, it would require voter approval to amend the law.
Measure K is not about recreational marijuana; it’s about the way decisions are made in Sausalito.
Members of the Sausalito City Council have said they are open to considering proposals to allow retail cannabis shops. That’s a step recognizing the will of the 77% of voters who backed Prop. 64.
It may be slower than Measure K, but having the elected City Council write local laws, not a business that would benefit from them, is the way Sausalito should be run.
The IJ editorial board urges a no vote for Measure K on the Nov. 8 ballot.
November election endorsements are being prepared now. Find them as they are published at marinij.com/opinion/endorsements.
Be the first to comment