Here's something posted in the comment section of a local L.A. blog. This person posts on my blog, too but not this specific comment and I happen to think it describes the dumb scenario created by dumb Los Angeles City Council, once again, this time relating to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (MMD).
In CD 14 says:
I am still not sure that the city cm's didn't just create their own problems in making the ICO and putting in the Hardship Exemption. That Hardship Exemption was supposed to allow, as I understood it, previously operating MMDs to open up in a location after leaving another site. The net change in numbers would be zero, just a continuation of the previously existing MMD.
So what happened was that the Hardship Exemption was interpretted by applicants for a license to operate an MMD as a loophole to permit them to BEGIN operating a NEW MMD site. The net change for each filing was "add another MMD" to the scene. The city then acted as if it's hands were tied because of that exemption in the ICO.
This still did not make sense to me at all. What business can file an APPLICATION to operate during a moratorium on opening new MMDs and then start up it's operation BEFORE obtaining approval? And then if there is no approval yet given, why was it so difficult to understand that the city should be able to shut them down as being in violation of the ICO?
The hardship exemption was just an item that should have been applicable to only a few of the MMDs in operation at the time of enactment of the ICO, not a blanket approval of any kind.
If it's Rocky's interpretation that barred any of the enforcement of the ICO, or even more blameworthy, his actual involvement at the drafting stage of the ordinance, then chalk up another foul-up for the good old city attorney, nearly as poorly an outcome as the billboard settlement and its consequences for the city.
Then, assuming a hands-off policy was the right action for hardship exemption filers, why was not a single application processed in PLUM at all in the intervening time, nearly two years?
Can't anybody here do anything right?
Now, in the whole scheme of things, no one noticed that the City of L.A., unlike in Oakland and other cities, did not figure in a charge for the cost of handling the work for such MMD applications- or existing ones, for that matter. Surprising to me that such an opportunity was missed to again grab some revenue, and maybe justifiably so, for a change. Among the City Council's quest to create or inflate any and all charges the city has been imposing/inflicting on it's businesses and residents, this slipped through.
Now Wesson says there has to be a "study" to justify charges. What did the other cities do in imposing charges that withstands challenge? So why is L.A. City Council always tripping over it's own untied shoe laces and always coming in last? Other cities seem to be able to avoid all the potholes in the road and L.A., meanwhile, finds and hits every single one.
With all the restrictions in the proposed ordinance, is there any kind of map that has all the banned area mapped out to show banned areas?
I think there is very little area that escapes coverage according to the draft ordinance. It's pretty clear the City wants to prevent new openings of MMD through this device.