Voters to decide on cannabis

Supporters say the ordinance will establish well regulated, low-impact and environmentally friendly businesses that would help revitalize the city’s withering agriculture industry.

“The big farms and little farms can’t operate and make payroll by just growing flowers, pumpkins and organic artisanal Brussels sprouts,” said Roy Salume, who spoke during the public comment period. “Indoor greenhouse sales have consistently lost $10 to $15 million dollars every single year for the last 20 years. That is unsustainable and farmers have sold their land because of it. It is our collective interest to reverse the trend and we can do it.”

Eric Hollister, who is looking to open a cannabis nursery in Half Moon Bay, said the industry is indeed profitable and his site alone would bring 23 jobs with a “decent” rate of pay and benefits.

Detractors, on the other hand, see the ordinance as a first step toward large-scale commercial operations that they say would bring a range of impacts, including crime and addiction.

While Hollister said communities that have OK’d nurseries in Salinas, for example, have not seen an uptick in crime, the health and safety of children was the primary concern expressed by numerous parents and members of the city’s religious and Latino communities, many of whom cited past forums and petitions that suggest a majority of Half Moon Bay residents don’t want nurseries.

That will officially be determined in November when voters consider the ordinance along with three advisory measures gauging public opinion on commercial cultivation of mature cannabis plants, retail sales and manufacturing of edibles, tinctures and other products. The council also decided to scrap a planned citywide survey on the topic, which it felt would be unnecessary considering the upcoming ballot measures.

The city is currently conducting several studies on the potential impacts of cannabis businesses and the tax revenue they could generate, which many speakers felt should be completed before a vote on the nursery ordinance. Councilman Rick Kowalczyk agreed.

“For me it comes down to process,” he said, adding that he believes the majority of statements made on both sides of the issue are true. “We’re putting the cart before the horse in terms of process. ... I don’t have fear of the outcome, I have real reluctance that we’re not following the normal process and I have concern that by doing that we don’t have transparency.”

Councilmembers appeared sympathetic with that perspective, but they also made their own positions on the issue abundantly clear.

“The arguments against starter plants are emotional and not based on reason,” said Mayor Deborah Penrose. “I don’t understand why a 4-inch plant that’s not psychoactive is going to lead to addiction problems in our community … I can’t allow myself to get into this fear-based idea that because we support our agricultural heritage we’re somehow harming our children.”

Opponents to the ordinance believe cannabis nurseries don’t just pose a threat to children, but to the character of the community. Supporters say that threat already exists and nurseries are part of the solution, not the problem.

“Easily our agricultural land could disappear. Almost none of the open space in our community is publicly owned and most of it will be open to development over time,” said Councilwoman Debbie Ruddock. “[Cannabis nurseries] are another way to help our growers, gives them another leg on their financial stool to help them stay in business. Otherwise you’re going to see these lands transformed into the kind of development that many in this community who oppose cannabis also oppose — residential subdivisions and hotels. We have to have a bigger picture about the kind of community we want to have and what it’s going to take to have that community.”

zachary@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ex. 102