Sonoma needs second cannabis dispensary
The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group believes now is the time to move forward with the second dispensary process. Setting this as a high priority will allow the city to receive additional tax revenue sooner than later, as well as provide patients and consumers with fairer, more equitable access to products and services.
Please permit us to quote from the Agenda Report – Second Commercial Cannabis – Procedures & Guidelines contained in item 7.2, November 17, 2021:
“4. RFP. Staff recommends that the City Council consider the second “RFP” process after receiving tax data/reports following a 6-month operational/finance reporting period. This would allow the City Council to not only determine the fiscal benefits of authorizing a second commercial cannabis business to operate in the City, but also provide adequate time to evaluate any community-wide benefits or impacts associated with the use. Staff anticipates being able to report back to the City Council in Fall 2022 regarding any potential impacts and would return to the City Council for direction on the timing of the release of the RFP, ostensibly prior to the end of the calendar year.”
On the evening of November 17, 2021, the city council unanimously adopted two Resolutions. The first approved “Administrative Regulations and Application Procedures and Guidelines”, and the second, “Commercial Cannabis Processing Fees”. These two Resolutions constitute the Request for Proposals document.
Staff anticipated that it would report its findings to the city council in the fall of 2022. We are now three months beyond that 6-month operational/finance reporting period. The newest city council members all showed their support for a second dispensary at the October 10 candidates forum, so we feel the time is right for the city to consider, discuss and act on opening the Request for Proposal Process (RFP) for a second retail storefront commercial cannabis business in the city and that this be placed on the city council’s agenda in February/March.
We understand that the city currently has an interim city manager and interim planning director. We welcome them to their positions and look forward to working with them. Should they need more background on the issue, we refer them to the same agenda item, 7.2, of November 17, 2021.
— SVCG Executive/Policy Committee
Gil Latimer
Josette Brose-Eichar
Perri Ellis Paniagua
Van Solkov
Len Clayburg
Richard Silver
6 thoughts on “Sonoma needs second cannabis dispensary”
Comments are closed.
It would be refreshing to see civic bodies consider, from the perspective of respected researchers, the empirical “truth” concerning those benefits of weed as alleged by dope profiteers. As a start, I suggest the following: The Unfulfilled Promise of Cannabis for Cancer-Related Symptoms
— Medical cannabis is currently too far removed from the standards of medical practice.
by Marcin Chwistek, MD January 14, 2023
While I understand your view point and respect other views, I would like to share my story with you and how in the end it lead me to becoming a member of the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group. After 4 abdominal and pelvic floor surgeries, for endometriosis, pelvic floor collapse, congenital deformities and the resulting scar tissue from my surgeries, I started to do my own research. The main stream medical establishment gave me drugs that were later pulled by the FDA for killing people. They did not help me and my health continued to deteriorate. It took me years. Finding a new diet, not one given to me by main stream medicine, using herbs, specialized and painful physical therapy, again not approved by standard medical practice, and yes cannabis. Keep in mind that one does not need to smoke cannabis, one can take it as a tincture, just like other herbs. While I still struggle occasionally with my health, I am healthy and active. I have very little pain, can take 10 mile hikes, sleep well and generally do pretty well for a 71 year old. I suffered for years because of “standard medical practice”. So I advocate for cannabis for this reason.
Regarding Deborah Nitasaka’s comment regarding “the empirical “truth” concerning those benefits of weed as alleged by dope profiteers”,
1) equating advocates for the medical benefits of cannabis with “dope profiteers” is emblematic of the stereotypes and tropes that by and large are no longer supported by the general public.
2) a careful reading of the doctor’s article shows that he doesn’t deny possible medical benefits, only that physicians need to be better guides. “The underlying irony is that most patients who stopped using it could still potentially benefit from medical cannabis with proper guidance and a process that makes the application of medical cannabis more patient-centered.
I am a member of the Policy Board at the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group and have been for the past couple of years. This comment is absolute rubbish and should be regarded as such. I’m not going to take the time to dissect each point but I will say this: given that I think I know who “Douglas Reed” really is, it strikes me that some of the points are rather self-serving, eh, Jo, er, “Doug”?
(edited by The Sun) My post was removed for no reason. I guess I don’t have free speech in these comments. What a con job this paper is. Opposing views are removed for any reason they can make up. What is the policy that caused my post to be removed?
Douglas: your post was removed because it was mean, rude and libelous. Can’t you make your point (whatever that might be) without being so offensive?