Should Alameda Double the Number of Pot Shops?

Despite rising local opposition to the rushed efforts to weaken the city’s marijuana laws, the city council is poised to vote on doubling the number of pot shops at the Tuesday, Jan. 15 City Council meeting, Agenda Item 6B.

Even though less than 20% of California cities have chosen to allow recreational pot sales, Alameda has seemed to want to be one of them. According to the LA Times, the other 80 % + are choosing to take a wait and see cautious approach.

The push to weaken the city’s cannabis law, originally passed in late 2017, seemed to have been sped up at the end of 2018, as two of the three marijuana supporters on council were up for re-election. In their haste, the council took legislative short-cuts and chose to double the number of full-service dispensaries at their Oct. 16 meeting without adequately stating so in their published agenda. As a result, a Sunshine Ordinance violation complaint was filed by this author and the complaint was sustained by the Open Government Commission on Nov. 14, rendering the vote taken on all the amendments in October, “null and void.”

Despite disputing the Commission’s ruling and even the Commission’s authority to invalidate the vote taken, the city staff has agreed to have council re-hear the amendments, providing an opportunity for residents to voice their concerns.

The changes being considered include: 1) changing the dispensaries from medicinal only to recreational; 2) doubling the number of permits to be issued to dispensaries to four; 3) reducing the buffer zone protections for youth, tutoring, and child care centers from 1,000 feet to 600 feet; 4) allowing dispensaries in neighborhood business districts and commercial manufacturing districts ( Exhibit 1 - Map of Zones); 5) eliminating the 1 mile dispersion between dispensaries; 6) allowing two recreational dispensaries on either side of Grand street with no proximity restrictions; and 7) adding a definition for tutoring centers.

In a separate controversial action last year, the Council approved stripping most youth-focused establishments from any buffer zone protections on Dec. 17 by changing the definition of what facilities could be considered “youth centers.” The new city definition is far less protective than what state law provides which identifies youth centers as places that primarily serve youth. Proposition 64 which California voters approved in 2016, promised to bar “marijuana businesses from being located within 600 feet of schools and other areas where children congregate.”

The city’s changes eliminated any buffer zone protections for youth programs that are not exclusively serving youth under 18, and explicitly singled out martial arts schools and establishments providing cultural or similar education and physical fitness for youth. These include most locations where children and youth congregate and frequent – while still maintaining protections for schools, childcare centers, and parks recreation centers – some which do provide martial arts classes and which have adult participants.

A newly released book, The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence, by Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter, is generating national attention by calling out legalization supporters for dismissing scientific research that shows that marijuana use increases the risk of psychosis and schizophrenia – as well as an increase in violent crime in states after legalization.

Decades of research into the proximity and density of alcohol outlets in cities has shown that there is a direct correlation to increased underage alcohol use with proximity to outlets. In Colorado where recreational marijuana has been legal since 2012, marijuana dispensaries are located most densely in low income communities and that negative impact has been documented.

A National Institute of Health research article in 2016 on marijuana dispensaries in California found that marijuana hospitalizations increased with proximity and density.