Submitted Anonymously by “Concerned Davis Residents”
The Davis Enterprise owner Foy emailed Davis City Council members a few months back to influence the selection of cannabis dispensary applicants. The McNaughton’s gave Council members an ultimatum to allow for their dispensary applicant to go into a Enterprise owned property at 325 G Street (the old hair salon), or the Enterprise would be forced to close due to financial circumstances?
Now the Enterprise continues to report on the cannabis dispensary selection process, most recently publishing letters against applicants other than their own, while never mentioning that the Enterprise has a horse in the dispensary race.
The City of Davis staff are allowing dispensary candidates to submit application information after the application cut off date of 10/13/17.
This new information is being included in staff reports to the Planning Commission and surely be in staff reports to City Council. Applicants such as California Grown who applied on 2nd Street provided no information beyond the Conditional Use Permit application in their initial application.
Even though the City of Davis requested dispensary operational information, the applicant chose not include it. Their application was still allowed to be submitted even though it did not include the required CUP documentation or the additional answers to additional questions asked by the city.
However, the recent staff report to the Planning Commission shows full site plans as part of their application and review by the commission. The City of Davis staff are working behind the scenes with applicants allowing these applicants to strengthen their applications in various ways.
City of Davis staff chose to not follow the typical process of providing staff feedback on each proposed CUP applicant. No analysis of any kind is being provided to the Planning Commission prior to 
the meeting this Wednesday. Therefore, the commissioners are walking in blind to the merits and concerns of each cannabis dispensary application.
This is not the process the Commission is accustomed to, yet they are supposed to evaluate 13 dispensaries based off of the 10 minute presentations the applicants give and the what will mostly be negative comments of the general public? How is this fair to Commissioners to assist the in providing recommendations to City Council?
City of Davis staff are allowing dispensary applicants who may have lost their lease at their proposed cannabis dispensary location to continue to seek Conditional Use Permits. Why is the staff allowing these applicants to present a plan based on a physical location with zero chance of becoming an actual dispensary site?
It is a waste of time and discredits all those involved. These insincere dispensary applicants will hold on to any hope of getting selected even at the expense of making the selection process and all those involved look bad for approving a site that cannot exist. I do not know how many applicants still have leases for their proposed locations, but at least the applicant in the old 3rd Space on Olive Dr. is known to have lost his by Ashok.
The City of Davis is allowing cannabis delivery owners who went in front of City Council and admitted to multiple types of illegal cannabis delivery operations to now apply for temporary delivery licenses? How could the City of Davis staff encourage City Council to reward their illegal behaviors with a framework for temporary licenses? City Council ultimately approved temporary licenses in the name of patients. What about the admission of illegal behaviors and consequences for those delivery businesses? If City of Davis staff and City Council members are not holding cannabis delivery businesses accountable to the ordinances and laws in place, what tone is this setting for cannabis dispensary stores and other cannabis businesses for the need to follow all laws and regulations?
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Planning-Commission/Agendas/20180228/05A-Cannabis-Retail-Dispensary-CUP-Applications.pdf
Reading the staff report, it appears that staff is looking for commission and public comments… likely to screen the 13 applications, to winnow (“weed out”?) applications so that those that are clearly ‘no-gos’, so that staff can vet the potentially viable ones more thoroughly before the next PC consideration of the matter March 28…
No “action” is proposed this Wednesday…
That appears to be a reasonable approach…
Polite users were quietly ignoring the law for the last 50 years. Prices were relatively stable and true free enterprise was occurring. Now that it is all “above board” the prices rise by 10-30% every month while the politicians are trying to make sure they get their cut.
John
“politicians are trying to make sure they get their cut.”
Do you have any evidence what so ever to back this claim ? On what level ? Local, county, regional, state ? Just whom are you accusing of what here ?
“Do you have any evidence what so ever to back this claim ?”
That’s what regulation is all about.
What was the old mantra? “Gas, ass, ‘grass’, no one rides free”?
Perhaps I read the “getting their own cut” as “lining their own pockets” since I do not necessarily read politicians wanting more funds for their personal use but rather to enable them doing the things that the community has indicated that they want done. Perhaps I read too much into the comment ?
Tia… there has pretty much always been a “quid pro quo”… alcohol, nicotine/tobacco, where legality was tied to taxation… MJ is no different… usually at the State level, as the Feds cannot tax something they still consider illegal… and in Davis, other than sales taxes, as a “general law” city, they cannot impose a special tax on MJ…
Why do you require additional proof about “getting their cut”… some would say the same about “sugary drinks”… which would have been local or State…
I read the “get their cut” as referring to the fees and taxes that are being applied to this new industry.
And, I agree… fees for service for processing, enforcement, bottom line, HELL YES!
As to taxes, should be sales, and like alcohol and tobacco, I’m open to the proverbial “sin taxes”… no more, probably not much less… but that is at the State level… not local, in Davis…
Bad writing, much?
Publishing article with lots of implications of facts and little facts and need for inside information to understand, much?
Ignoring again the pitfalls anonymous authors, much?
This is a litany of unsubstantiated allegations and dubious analysis. I can certainly understand why they chose to remain anonymous. I would not have published this without some fact-checking at the very least.
I understand that many CA cities are giving the OK to legally sell ready to smoke marijuana, but I have not heard of anyone selling ready to plant marijuana plants. My last Dead show was when they played with Dylan at the Oakland Coliseum over 30 years ago so I am out of the loop on the new pot laws but I am curious if this would be legal (and if so if Don has thought about selling 5 gallon plants for backyards or little pots of “pot plants” for window boxes)?
Sale of cannabis plants isn’t presently legal. If my business was in possession of more than six plants of any size, I would be in violation of the state law. And in any event, all of this is a violation of federal law.
http://www.canorml.org/faq.html
I am with Don on this one. My questions for John above could equally well have been directed to the authors of this article.
Yes… and another reason they may have posted, anonymously, was because they are “applicants”… and wanted to clear the playing field for themselves… might be a “conspiracy theory”, or might be “reality”… I say, “toss up”…
As to Alan’s implied’ point about anonymous vs, full disclosure of identity, I’d use a COI or ‘where is your bread likely buttered’ test… not just interest or belief, but “financial interest” [that’s what COI laws are ALL about!]… and COI laws only apply to decision-makers who may uniquely personally gain, financially… voting to reduce taxes, across-the-board, fails that test…
Yet, hidden “personal financial interest” (disclosing where your bread is buttered) can be insidious, but legal… but the VG should probably vet authors who may/likely have ‘money in the game’ a tad more… we all can recognized when a developer posts a article advocating their “project”… we directly or indirectly know, and can ‘judge’… here, we can’t…
Yes, dreadful writing, but that’s not the worst of it. Group anonymity prohibits we–who are asked to believe–cannot apply the same standard of conflict-of-interest to the authors of this mess.
The Enterprise’s “ultimatum.” If this writing is available somewhere, can we receive the quoted text that leads this to being summarized as being an ultimatum? Wordsmiths such as a newspaper editorial staff probably would probably take particular care not be depicted as giving ultimatums to local government entities.
Agreed…
Mayhaps, there is something “rotten in Denmark (where I think MJ is legal)”, about the article… the authors should be “outed” before the end of March… just saying… they can out themselves, or by using IP addresses, perhaps the VG could…
That would be investigative reporting…
And David/VG board, should not the words “more conflict” been in quotes? Or a question mark at the end? Or, to be accepted at face value by the ‘headline’? It is indeed, an accusation… and as others have pointed out, questionable as to facts and/or “spin”… as written, it indicts some of the applicants, and “staff”… and “Foy”, aka Foy McNaughton… since the staff report cites two staff authors (see above) are they particularly accusing them? How does all this fit with the “VG policy” of no personal attacks? Is this a “backdoor” I can use to attack individuals by implication, with no moderation?
Who chooses the ‘headline’? Authors or VG? Originally, I assumed David/VG authored it… I respectfully suggest David/VG really look at how things are ‘headlined’… at times, appears as yellow-dog-journalism…
I think the VG messed up a tad here, by posting it ‘anonymously’… but the train has left the station… there is inertia, no turning back… perhaps “lessons learned” category?
Some clarifications… from the city…
“The application period for cannabis dispensaries did close on October 13, 2017. The anonymous poster may be confused about normal processes related to land use applications. It is customary for applicants on land use applications to supplement their application as they answer questions from staff, prepare for hearings or just wish to provide additional information. All applicants have the right to provide additional information or modify their application up until the final hearing. The October 13, 2017 cut-off period was for an applicant to submit an application with a secured location. After the cut-off date, the applicant’s location was fixed but not their application materials.”
“The process has been transparent and all the applications have been posted on the City website for nearly 5 months. We received supplemental information from various applicants which has also been posted under a separate heading. As we receive more information, we will post that as well. “
“Staff is reviewing each application against the considerations established in the ordinance adopted by City Council. Staff will be reporting out on our analysis to the Planning Commission in the March 28, 2018 staff report. This was described in the staff report that was delivered to the Planning Commission for the February 28th meeting (http://documents.cityofdavis.
In regards to loss of leases, “staff has not received any correspondence from owners of property that a lease has expired. Property owners are also required to sign the CUP application.”
“The City Council did allow for a Temporary Administrative Use Permit process for mobile cannabis delivery services that were delivering to customers in Davis prior to January 1, 2018. This allows for patients to continue to be served for up to 120 days following the issuance of a TAUP. This process was acted on at the January 23rd City Council meeting and is further described in the associated staff report located at: http://documents.cityofdavis.
Thank you, and whoever gave you the clarification from the City, for facts, truth, and transparency… everything in that staff response to you rings true… unlike the “article” submitted”…
Unfortunately, we are probably going to have to re-think how we publish articles. I’ve always allowed local submissions breathing room.
Good “lesson learned”, IMHO… suggest sooner than later, before we fully get into the ‘election cycle’… your call, tho’…
Clarification… local submissions are not the issue… local anonymous submissions AND attacking (overt or implied) individuals are another matter entirely… I see a place for anonymous article submissions on ‘opinion’ (if they share their reason for anonymity, for you and/or VG board to judge)… one thing… this one is different… and not a good precedent, in my opinion, unless you have reason to know it was neither financial nor ‘malicious’… yeah, you have to keep a certain amount of ‘privacy’/discretion with those who submit stuff like this, but if you know who they are, I suggest an off-line admonition… “thus far, and no farther”…
My main point was that anonymous postings make it easier to write badly written articles (as you don’t have to take heat for your grammar skills, nor answer questions if no one understands). Badly written articles don’t clarify, they confuse. Journalism should help clarify.
Understood… yet, one of the DV ‘rules’ is not picking on ‘grammar’ (global)… another “unwritten one” is someone, anonymous or otherwise, can pick and choose what ‘questions’ from others that they will respond to… I have no real problem with either, but not answering fair (clarifying) questions can be irritating… [“loaded questions” are best ignored…]