Pot Club Compromise on the Way?

A day before New Year’s Eve, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters validated the necessary amount of signatures for a referendum to go forward on the City Council’s medical marijuana ordinance. While some city officials were offering tough talk in the final months of 2011, statements by Mayor Chuck Reed on Tuesday seem to suggest a softened stance that would allow for a compromise on the ordinance rather than the referendum going to voters.

Reed is now reportedly open to the Planning Commission’s suggestion of 25 collectives instead of a cap of 10, as well as some off-site cultivation. He is even reportedly open to changing the way collectives are selected. The City Council will discuss the matter at its Jan. 24 meeting.

“There are some changes I could support,” Reed told the Mercury News. “The question is whether a council majority will support them. My preference is that we can negotiate some kind of ordinance that we can all live with.”

Putting on our Pot-stradamous hat, here is what that means: Councilmembers Kansen Chu and Xavier Campos don’t think any medical marijuana collectives should exist in San Jose, so count them as two ‘no’ votes for any compromise. Then there is Madison Nguyen and Sam Liccardo, who have been adamant about a cap of 10 and no on-site cultivation. They might budge, but it’s no sure bet. For now, maybe that’s four ‘no’ votes. Then there is Nancy Pyle, who, to be honest, seems to only want kids clear of pot, and Rose Herrera, who might not want to touch this issue as she works to be re-elected. That is somewhere between two and six ‘no’ votes on a compromise.

However, councilmembers Pierluigi Oliverio, Don Rocha and Ash Kalra seem like they could get down with Reed’s compromise. After all the pot club disagreements that took place last year between those three and the mayor over this issue, that would be quite the turnaround.

Josh Koehn is the news editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Newspaper. Email tips to josh@metronews.com or follow him on Twitter at @Josh_Koehn.

6 Comments

  1. Something fishy as always with Chuck.  Wants to put a ballot measure on pension reform in June but does not want a measure referendum going to voters on medical clubs.

    You know why because he knows he will lose.  Willing to work with pot clubs but not willing to work will his own unions.  Then willing to lose millions in court cost.  But remember while that will be going through the courts he will be long gone from office along with Deb and several others.

    In order words pass the buck so it is someone else’s problem.

    • Unlike the Unions the pot clubs went to the people.  They gathered thousands and thousands of signatures.  Bet you didn’t know a percentage of the tax was to go to Police Services.  Thats what happens when your in a rudderless ship as the rats jump off.

    • “Reed is now reportedly open to the Planning Commission’s suggestion of 25 collectives instead of a cap of 10, as well as some off-site cultivation. He is even reportedly open to changing the way collectives are selected. The City Council will discuss the matter at its Jan. 24 meeting.”

      This potentially means a 150 percent increase in collectives, off-site cultivation—which the DA’s office said is fine in its protocol but some on the council adamantly opposed—and getting rid of the first-come, first-served approach.

      JK

  2. Hey Josh.
        The clubs will be here.  Nxt month Nxt year but soon.  Like alcohol it needs to be regulated.  Like alcohol It needs to be taxed.  Like taxes in the past, this is not a cash cow to be spent for items like ping pong ball art.  A structured plan should be made.  Hopefully people will understand if they take the crime out of this business it might make SJ safer.  I am sure the Cartel isn’t happy just like the gangsters during prohibition.  I also hope and see a NEED for Police monitoring and protection of the clubs.  They are HERE.