Harris blasts city's back-door ordinance, promises litigation in defense of Prop. 215
Item 13 on tonight's City Council meeting
From the Woodland Record – Letter to the Editor:
City Council Members:
I want to share with you my perceptions, etc., on this topic as well as results of some recent and relevant research into profoundly interesting background affairs, including a recent and quite significant string of state appellate court opinions.
Please include this correspondence/memoranda within the official record of the public hearing on this topic.
I notice that in (apparent) response to my criticisms regarding the glaring absence of proper public notice about this proposed ordinance - at the planning commission stage - specific discussion of the relevance of it to Proposition 215 is now being included (at least) within its official staff report.
Read more at the WoodlandRecord.com.
Posts
12 comments:
The city council must have some money stashed away to defend itself from litigation if it approves the ordinance tonight. Wait till the appellate courts rule on this issue; it is only a matter of a few months.
Bobby know more than the legal team advising the city. They have much to gain ($$$$) if the ordinance is challenged legally. It is an irresponsible action. Wait it out.
It is the same ordinance passed by many jurisdictions that has already proven successful in court.
Any litigation will be tossed out.
Did any one hear the report by kfbk news on a doctor in sacramento CA handing out pot med slips like candy this is the tip of abuse that will become a major problem for America and small towns like our's.
Yeah, pot's a huge problem, but getting an assault rifle is nothing....
Bobby Harris here.
Many thanks to Dino for publishing my letter. I'm happy to respond to reasonable questions about this matter.
After all, I've not only just informed the council that I will exhaustively litigate this ordinance -- but have also largely told them how and why the city will lose.
Council members simply have a broad vision of desired policy, and it's perhaps too much to expect them to truly comprehend the precise details of their legal predicament.
This sort of adverse public policy inertia is what lawsuits are intended to resolve.
Please examine the recent appellate court opinion -- for which there is a PDF link within the text of my letter to the council -- in light of my relevant remarks.
Even I -- am not -- in favor of public storefront dispensaries, but for different reasons than council members.
It's well worth observing that many / most such dispensaries operate (some with a security guard), without significant peril to public safety -- and that forcing / inclining qualified persons to resort to the black-market clearly causes crime.
Anonymous who states: "It is the same ordinance passed by many jurisdictions that has already proven successful in court. Any litigation will be tossed out," is incorrect.
Woodland's new ordinance approach (which is now circulating among like-minded local governments) -- has not -- been properly litigated.
Now it will be.
As noted in the letter, this ordinance approach is the brainchild of the general counsel for the associated cops of this state -- and other legal notions of his have actually been -- "tossed out" -- by both trial and appellate courts.
* To understand this situation for youselves, first hand, just read that referenced appellate opinion.
Litigation of a narrower nature, involving medicinal cannabis dispensaries, per se, is due to arrive at an appellate court opinion -- before Christmas.
In this case, the City of Anaheim specifically defines "dispensary" -- while Woodland's new ordinance travels on a different legal course, using this new model now being promoted by the state's police lobby.
This model is overbroad, vague and conflictive, in relation to state law implementing Proposition 215, and is relevantly preempted by it, as litigation will eventually demonstrate.
These dispensaries do not belong in residential neighborhoods.
There is a lot of traffic and risk.
The dispensaries belong in store fronts, visible to police.
What is the big deal about the arms store? They sell guns at Wal Mart and Big 5.
Seems like the City is setting itself up to get sued, again. Since it was legalized by the State, my opinion is let them go in, monitor them and tax the hell out of them.
Glad to see we have a few libertarians on here!
The united STATES is a republic. What gets lost in translation is the "representation."
Dear Anonymous CA gun ban and laws are the most strict in the nation the self loading guns that are not restriced have been emmasculated to the point that owning one is a joke.You should read up on gun types and then you can OPEN your mouth and say some thing meaningful.
Hey 10:16, you got that right. The neighborhoods where families live are the "dispensories" of current. They just don't have a storefront. It is a big white SUV!
Open a dispensory right next to the new courthouse and police if people are worried about diversion and other potential crime that could creep into this arena.
And 9:03 AM, If more doctors handed out these recommendations, only the people who want marijuana would be the ones to get it. Doesn't that remove the black market, and gang activity aroud pot? Then what would the police have to do with all their "extra" time? Maybe they could focus on the REAL criminals.
Better yet have them dispense from the "Cop Shop", they wouldn't get robbed because there are always a few cops around...bulk doughnut sales for the munchies.
Video tape each transaction for tax purposes.
Officer Tim, at least that would be a plan. What the city came up with was nothing!!!
Post a Comment