San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed is out of central casting for the role of Eliot Ness, the famed Chicago lawman who battled the likes of Al Capone. Now Reed is a no-nonsense, humorless public official out to protect the public from the “evil” purveyors of cannabis in his city—not unlike Ness in the bootleg era of the 1920’s. But like Chicago of the 1920s, this is a losing battle.
The majority of people know prohibition is a failure. Further, unlike alcohol, there is actually science-based research to support the proposition that marijuana had therapeutic effects. Moreover, the care providers of cannabis are not gangsters; they are legitimate entities who provide a needed service, pay taxes and alleviate pain.
Reed’s attempt to shut down these healthcare advocates who provide medicine to their patients through an onerous and unworkable regulation scheme is about to see a huge backlash from the public. A referendum is currently on the street that will challenge both the leader and his professed solution.
It didn’t have to be this way. Reasonable people can agree that some regulation must occur. The current reputable members of the healthcare profession understand that appropriate regulation is a positive step forward for the issue. But prohibition in the form of regulation is untenable and it is a fraud upon the citizens of San Jose.
Consider the consequences of the proposed ordinance; patients forced to use illegal methods to obtain medicine prescribed by doctors, an immediate loss of $3.5 million in revenue to the city, the loss of 1,500 jobs in the midst of recession, economic impacts including buildings going vacant and increased crime as real drug pushers take to the streets.
Reed is a smart guy. But it appears he sees this issue as more a nuisance than an opportunity. San Jose could create a model ordinance that protects patient rights, insures safe access, provides real revenue to a cash-strapped city and allows law enforcement to go after the real bad actors in the business. That’s what a model regulation should do.
But, so far, like the rigid Elliot Ness of television lore, he perceives all patient provider collectives like the “Hotsy Totsy Club”. But he should understand he is on the wrong side of history and—if he chooses—provide the leadership necessary to show San Jose is the place of innovation and solutions not only in technology, but in progressive patient care.
In any case, his first attempt to shut down the industry is about to come crashing down with a referendum, which does not make him, his council or the city look very good. This mayor has, so far, been able to avoid the arrogant public mistakes of some of his predecessors. How he handles this defeat may well define his ability to lead on other issues.
The community is ready, willing and able to work with this city once the referendum is qualified. We hope the mayor will see the benefit in cooperation and not confrontation. Then he will go down in city history not as an infamous, rigid lawman on the wrong side of history, but as the progressive force who solved real problems, increased the city coffers, provided work in a time of recession and, most of all, help heal those people who are among the most in pain. It’s his call.
Richard Robinson is a principal in Robinson Communications, a political consulting firm working to collect signatures for a ballot referendum repealing the council’s medical marijuana regulation ordinance.
Don’t worry about our lying two faced mayor, but that is another story. The Feds are after your behinds, does not matter what you get on a ballot and even if it passes the Feds have the ultimate say!
Say Bye Bye
“Now lets solve the problem and get the recall on the ballot. Let’s show city hall how fed up we are. How the City’s priorities are upside down.”
City Hall problem is Deb Figone who runs city not Reed who just runs meetings,makes speeches and tells peopel what the city problems are while Figone comes up with solution most don’t like
Recall Figone and City Hall will straight up fast,
Try Recalling Reed and you will lose since he is very popular with residents and voters since he is finally addressing city’s major problems some time well many time not so well with a hapless and hopeless Council
The demand that I make of my reader is that he should devote his whole Life to reading my works.
James Joyce
It’s good to be back on SJI. Thanks.
“an immediate loss of $3.5 million in revenue to the city, the loss of 1,500 jobs in the midst of recession”
Amazing how San Jose was able to win the race to corner the “medical” marijuana market against all the other south bay cities.
Get your numbers right, your on the cron. Just don’t throw fabricated numbers out there.
SJ hasn’t cornered any market, but they were smart enough to tax the medicine which helps City coffers. A good regulation would acknowledge that those who paid their taxes and followed the law would be welcome in the City.
BTW: It’s the only medicine we tax.
SJL is that the best picture you got of Chuckie, it was taken at the old (now county owned) city hall. Update your photo base.
Interesting direction for the political and quasi-journalistic blog “San Jose Inside.” So I think Metro bought the blog from the founder(s) awhile ago and they’ve got an online editor and have been working on drumming up readership which has been pretty plentiful with all the pension debate.
Now there’s another initiative on the horizon and the paid consultant posts a blog with his arguments in favor of the initiative. I’m pro-free speech, so I don’t see too much wrong. Would a newspaper publish this same thing as an op-ed piece or would they require political speech to be paid advertising? Does Metro accept paid political advertising and have a stake in this?
Don’t know, but we’ll all probably beat the issue to death talking past each other as usual. Oh, and on the issue itself – how many signatures do they need? I think its based on a percentage of total votes cast in the last city wide election and not that high (8-10,000 maybe?). Paid petition gatherers have been very effective in getting petitions signed and collecting their bounty of $1-3 per valid signature. The best pitch if someone is on the fence about signing is to say “shouldn’t the people have a chance to decide?” which usually get’s ‘em.
In terms of re-writing the city ordinance via the ballot box, its done in California all the time with special interests fine tuning the law to their private benefit from insurance companies to oil and labor. But not every initiative that qualified for the ballot passes and big money usually lines up on both sides to confuse everyone so much, “Does yes mean no, no means yes, etc.”
The old theory was that in a representative government you’d get good thoughtful legislation out of the legislature who’d invest the time and energy to work things through and get it right. This hasn’t really been true in California for a couple of decades. The notion of initiatives is that the folks can exercise direct democracy and break grid-lock in the legislature or force action when legislators are too timid or beholden to special interests. Great idea, but in practice it has opened a back door for special interest to write their own laws and buy their way onto the ballot. Sometimes it works. Maybe it will again.
This is a referendum, not an initiative. Hoping City of San Jose will change course and no such instrument will be needed.
Had to go read the city charter as I haven’t seen the petition. I’m guessing this is a 1603 (b) Referendum where you need 8% of the eligible voters to sign. So is the idea to just repeal the existing ordinance with no replacement?
Why not go with the initiative section 1603 (a) to modify the ordinance or offer an alternative legislative solution? It seems like this would make more sense as it only requires 5% of the eligible voters to sign, and would give people a choice between an existing ordinance and a new one as alternative choices?
Rich,
I agree with the premise of your article, the SJ ordinance is bad legislation. However, you do your campaign a disservice by casting this dispute as Reed VS the Dispensaries. The fact is, there’s plenty of blame to go around for this one.
Reed was just one vote among a majority of the city council who voted in favor of this hair-brained ordinance. Shouldn’t similar criticism be shared by the council majority?
The council voted on a poorly-written ordinance that was the work of the City Manager and her staff, which clearly set out to craft an ordinance that would effectively make it impossible for a dispensary to operate. In doing so, Figone and the city staff ignored the will of 78.33% of San Jose voters who demanded taxed, regulated medical marijuana sales in the landslide victory of 2010’s Measure U!
City staff was uninterested in stakeholder input, ignored the successful ordinances in other cities, and presented an ordinance that would create an inevitable ballot challenge and lawsuits. Nice work, eh?
Next we can blame the Mayor and city council who should have rejected the proposed ordinance outright. Instead, as is often the case with this city council, they simply acquiesced to Commissar Figone. Reed, and the council, should have told the City Manager “Hey Deb, this is ordinance is a load of crap. Forget your personal bias and go do the job voters TOLD you to do, or find other work!” But then, when was the last time anyone on the city council had the spine to seriously challenge their unelected City Manager? (Another issue to be discussed at another time, perhaps?)
Rich, I wish you luck in your efforts to overturn a bad law. If I may offer you some well-intended advice: Please remember that it’s 2011, not 2006. Don’t make the mistake of diluting today’s efforts with old campaign grudges.
Also, a question: where can a non-pot user (who does not go to dispensaries) sign the petition?
It’s good to see you back on SJI!
There are a list of sites on the Metro, but canvassers are out every day—usually at busy locations, grocery stores etc. You can also sign at the UFCW on market St and the Metro Offices starting Monday.
People don’t vote for the City Manager. They vote for the Mayor and Council. When I have a problem in government I don’t go to the appointed officials I go to my elected representatives—for they are the only ones who care.
Don Rocha and Ash Kalra understood the problem. The Mayor and Sam Liccardo understood the regulation had problems—but took a “let’s fix it later” attitude.
Passing laws have consequences, I don’t think the administration or the elected folks really anticipated all collectives would shut. But that would be the result—along with a loss of city revenue, paying jobs and a negative effect on patients.
Moreover, I don’t think the Mayor really likes this issue at any level—nor is it part of his agenda.
The Mayor is the undisputed leader on this Council, the article was written to underscore that fact—though you are right that a majority could have made a difference.
One last thing—an admission if you will—Reed’s public persona is that of a “humorless” elected official. But he has a very good sense of humor—one need only visit the Stage Company in San Jose when he hosted their annual Monday Night Live a few years back. He didn’t taken himself too seriously in that venue.
But the analogy of Reed and Ness, on a public level, was too good to pass up. Though I admit I date myself in using it.
“I don’t think the administration or the elected folks really anticipated all collectives would shut.”
How could they have possibly missed it? Dispensaries, and patients, made this point clear in comments to the city council. Even a casual reading of the ordinance would tell you that it was a thinly-disguised attempt by the City Manager to circumvent the will of San Jose voters by making it impossible for dispensaries to operate. They knew exactly what they were voting on.
I agree with your point that the Mayor is the city’s political leader, and that he really wishes this issue would just go away. My point was that presenting the issue as Reed VS Dispensaries takes away the responsibility of the council majority, and the City Manager who proposed the ordinance. I am not willing to let them off of that hook.
My larger concern, on this issue and many others, is the undue influence the unelected City Manger seems to have over the elected city council, even when it’s obvious that her staff’s work is going to create expensive lawsuits and ballot measures at a time when the city has more pressing problems. The council’s willingness to go along with this poorly-written ordinance, even as some acknowledged that it is bad law, underscores this point.
Thanks for the info on the petitions. If the City Council won’t stand up to Figone, voters will!
Not take anything away from legitimate patients in need, but why did it take the marijuana situation for people to finally realize what those city employees had been saying all along was true. That Mayor Reed is not a good mayor, is not a good person, nor is he doing the right things for the right reasons.
I guess as long as people finally call him out on his BS ploys any one is a good one to start with. Now lets solve the problem and get the recall on the ballot. Let’s show city hall how fed up we are. How the City’s priorities are upside down.
I really don’t like Mayor Reed… However, I think you, sir, are so smoking rocks. We should be like other states and allow cannabis to only be dispensed for a certain listed set of predefined illnesses. Not just, “I have a rash.” Secondly, cannabis should only be dispensed at pharmacies… Not the corner market. My question to you Mr. Author of this article… Would you be opposed to the open availibilty of cannibis at any pharmacy in San Jose? Or is it your profit making way or the highway?
Not opposed to cannabis in pharmacies.
But who is opposed to profit? Drugs of every type needed to alleviate pain—from Morphine to aspirin—are sold for profit. Yet, medical cannabis—which is scientifically proven to alleviate a myriad of symptoms—is only allowed to be sold by nonprofits.
From my understanding of the “occupy” movement one of their biggest gripes is “profit”. THey protest profits earned by major pharmaceutical corps like they protest banking and manufacturing…
They dont seem opposed to profits made by “non-profits” like the clubs. Why is that?
I understand the voters in cali mandated that the clubs be “non-profits” but they sure do make a bundle. Where does it go?
Why does the pro-pot movement claim to be “law abiding” while violating the California law and San Jose laws as they currently exist and disregard federal law altogether? Does pot use give one extraordinary insight into which laws are to be followed and which to be ignored and/or circumvented altogether?
Please save the drivel that alcohol is legal but people ignore the law and drive drunk. Also save the crazy talk your signature collectors use like, “the pharmacy here at_______ has killed more people with persciption pharm’s than all the weed ever grown/sold /smoked…”
George Soros who backed the orginal compassionate use act has stated that the “medical marijuana industry” that evloved after the CUA as become something it never was intended to be. WHat did it become? A phoney front to supply anyone and everyone who wants to smoke weed with a source and made the sellers and whatever criminal entity that is behind the clubs to reap massive profits.
Due to marijuana being illegal on the federal level, no pharmacy in any state may stock marijuana – regardless of state law. Pharmaceutical medication is governed by federal laws.
So while your proposal sounds ideal and one every medical marijuana patient wishes they could get behind, it isn’t possible in the current climate.
So really it isn’t a “profit or the highway” scenario – pharmacies can’t stock this medication, no matter how they, and we, wish they could.
I’ve read through the new regulations in their entirety. I see nothing wrong with them at all.
Pot clubs want to position themselves between a bar and a pharmacy. They call their bartenders/pharmacy techs “budtenders” while claiming everything is done for medical purposes.
I don’t care if we have these clubs in San Jose. I’m a bit of a libertarian, and what adults choose to do with their bodies is just fine by me, as long as they follow the laws and pay their taxes.
Going back to the laws, the council/mayors choice to add new regulation. It was pointed out in fairly graphic detail, that even the most popular club (metro’s 2011 BEST) has an owner with a violent streak. The DA *just* filed charges against him for battery against myself.
He certainly doesn’t have my vote to be eligible to run a club. ABC (alcohol board of California) will shutter your doors if you’re involved in a crime of moral turpitude (battery) until trial and verdict.
What the council did was take/borrow laws from the ABC book, and the laws governing pharmacies, and sort of melded them together.
Laws aren’t just created to keep people in line, they’re also created to reduce the liability for a municipality.
End result is, there’s going to be a thinning of the herd to speak. Only the strongest, most compliant of clubs will survive, which will reproduce even stronger clubs, thereby making the herd stronger as a whole.
The problem is the regulation is an effective ban. Not a single collecitve can comply with the law—thus it is a tautology.
If a government writes a regulation that cannont be complied with—the law is an ass. That’s why it must be overturned. Most libertarians understand that concept.
I would warn those who attack Medical Doctors for writing prescriptions that—until you have a license to practice medicine—we should defer to their opinion.
“I would warn those who attack Medical Doctors for writing prescriptions that—until you have a license to practice medicine—we should defer to their opinion.”
So, I shouldn’t questions any mechanic who tells me I need a $5,000 part for my brand new car because I am not an ASE certified mechanic too right? Or perhaps I should defer to any economist who tells me how to run my small business because I don’t have an advanced degree in finance right? I guess I should accept what any professor teaches in college without question if I don’t have a Phd. in that particular study. I hope you can see the absurdity of your statement.
Just because somebody has a medical degree doesn’t automatically endow them with good judgment and high morals. It is blatantly obvious that there are “medical doctors” who will write a “prescription” for marijuana for any reason at all including their own personal bias towards legalization.
Having said that, I wish they would just legalize it for recreational use and then allow it to enter the competitive market regulated and taxed as alcohol and tobacco are.
It’s not a ban at all… Jeesh.. All they have to do is get compliant.
OK… Growing on site.. This seems to be the biggest bitch from the pot camp..
The new regulations don’t say “You MUST GROW INDOORS” In fact, they say the opposite. You can grow outdoors, the only regulation is you need to have fences high enough to hide the crop.
On little orchard (where there is a high concentration of clubs) there’s a large, open field right next to a business park that several clubs inhabit.
I’ve heard these places are selling about $1000 a day of product. $400@oz sound about right for retail price + tax? So in total, these places are selling about 3oz a day.
If you grow indoors on a 24×7 light cycle, then reduce to 8 on / 8 off you can yield about 4 oz per plant every 4 months. Given that clubs need about 3oz per day.
3oz per day
x 120 days
—————-
360oz
360oz / 4oz per plant
90 plants
So your high volume, $1000@day club is going to need about 100 indoor plants to stay in business.
Now, what I’ve been hearing is because we have 73,000 people in SJ with cards, the pot market is saturated. Wholesale pounds are going for $1500. 16oz per pound at full retail is $6400 giving a profit margin of 76%. Average retail does about a 30% margin (walmart does 3% but that’s a different story) Sorry these new regulations are going to cut into that 76% markup from the “non-profits” (my ass)
Some of the other stuff.. Like having either a doctor or registered nurse on site. Pharmacies MUST have a pharmacist on site. Pot clubs are dispensing “medicine” Seems like a no-brainer here. Go hire yourself a H1B Filipino nurse and you’re set.
Also, they changed the personal grow requirements in the new regulations. They were going to limit personal grow ONLY if you had a 50×50’ property but they nixed that. Most residential homes in SJ are on less than that. Council made a sound decision to rescind the personal grow restriction.
The clubs crying the loudest, are the ones that can’t get their shit together. The few that are getting their shit together are happy that the less than professional clubs will soon be out of business. Why should they have to compete with people that aren’t willing to follow all the laws?
It’s bad leadership on the pot movements part. Instead of saying, “LETS FIGHT THIS” they should be pooling their resources together to get compliant. It’s not impossible, it’s not a tautology as you put it either.
$1000 a day is not high volume in San Jose at all, sir – and therein lies the massive problem with your numbers. Many clubs deal in great excess of these numbers; I can name a few off the top of my head who consider $2000 days “slow” days, implying that the need and demand for this medicine far outweighs what you think it is.
For on-site growth to meet the level of demand found in San Jose (and also the demand from neighboring cities which have placed bans), clubs will have to be Costco-sized warehouses which will be sure to invite the wrath of the DEA.
Of course, clubs may simply decide to stay small, grow their 99 plants and max out at 3oz a day… those clubs will have to turn patients away without medication. How is that okay?
I know the numbers fairly well. 73,000 card holders in San Jose correct?
And you’re right. We won’t meet demand, but San Jose is the first city that’s drafted a good start of regulation for the industry.
Right now there needs to be a shaking out. I personally know a lot of the guys that own these clubs (some of them, since high school) A lot of these guys are shady, and not the kind of folks I’d trust to run a bar, a pharmacy, let alone a dispensary.
I wouldn’t trust them to honestly report their taxes. I wouldn’t trust them to pay their advertising bills to the metro on time (One owner I know is in default for some unpaid ads) Some of them have committed crimes of moral turpitude (one owner I know spent time in Elmwood for dealing LSD after we got out of high school)
I’ve worked in a bar for 10 years. Yah, metro loved making a point of what a useless bit of experience that is for anything else in the world, but where I work, the owners don’t speak English well. I’ve been the “translator” between them and the world for the last 10 years. I’ve delt with the alcohol board of California, their insurance companies, the county, all on their behalf.
It’s the type of people they are that qualifies them to own/run a bar. They’ve never been in trouble, and they stay out of trouble. Once we start doing background checks on some of these club owners, how many of them will we see dropping like flies once we determine if they have a rap sheet that disqualifies them from owning a club?
No… Sorry.. I support 215, but what I see now is 0 regulation, wild west, we’ll do as we please attitude.
those clubs will have to turn patients away without medication. How is that okay?
From what I understand, the “doctors” have already categorized things nicely for you. Most recreational users get a 1 year prescription, while those with real conditions get 5 year ones. You simply turn down the recreational users, and the ones that truly need medicine will get it.
I’ll wait for your reply telling me there’s no such thing as “recreational” users that hold cards.
Maybe you can tell me something… Out of those 73,000 card holders in San Jose, how many of them are on the 1 year plan?
“…the only regulation is you need to have fences high enough to hide the crop.”
That would be a code violation, so code enforcement would make them take down the fence.
Here is the code regarding fences.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/counter/faq/fence.asp
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/building/PDFHandouts/7-9Fence.pdf
7 foot (residential side/backyard) is plenty high enough to hide an outdoor crop. Industrial zone can have fences as high as needed (many have fences as tall as semi trucks in their private lots)
I wish the anti-ordinance people would research a little before posting.
I would urge anyone who is tired of seeing our laws made a mockery of, to decline to endorse this ballot initiative. We can argue the pros and cons of full legalization of pot, but this deceptive, disingenuous, incremental, ‘medicinal’ tactic is not worthy of our legal code and fosters disrespect for the law.
Another good reason not to sign is to send a message to ‘political consultants’ like Mr. Robinson here, that we’re tired of being played by insiders who are paid large sums of money to manipulate public opinion.
If nothing else, join me in the effort to prevent Robinson Communications from profiting by their alliance with the lowlife, parasitic Pothead Lobby.
Not sure cannabis can address mental illness. But there is an obvious need to address this alarmingly growing public heath crisis—especially when it becomes a public nuisnance.
My best to you John, seek help.
A public ‘nuisnance’? In what way am I a public ‘nuisnance’? By expressing an unpopular, minority opinion and taking up 1.5 inches of precious cyberspace on a political opinion website?
You might want to ask yourself which one of us has the mental illness problem, Rich. Would it be the guy who can comprehend the 1st Amendment or the guy who can’t?
Would never deny your right to free speech—not trying to silence you. Simply pointing out your diatribe lacks merit.
The beautiful thing about free speech is that when a person such as yourself is wrong, it is the duty of others to utilize the same free speech rights to point it out.
As Dante said, “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality.”
I don’t want to limit your speech, but I’m simply going to use my right to free speech to point out where you are wrong. Don’t you love liberty?
You just can’t stop doing it, can you? It was so refreshing when you were away for a while. Please reread his post. He wasn’t saying YOU were a public nuisance, knucklehead. He was saying there is a need to address the alarmingly growing public health crisis…especially when the growing HEALTH CRISIS becomes a public nuisance. Always saying dumb stuff.
Hey hey! Nice to hear from you again old friend. I see you’ve changed your name again.
I’m pretty fluent in Sarcasm and I know from past experience that you simply don’t have an ear for it.
But why argue? We can go straight to the horses mouth. (Now settle down. I’m not really suggesting that Rich Robinson is a horse. It’s just an expression).
Rich, would you mind settling an argument? Were you satirically suggesting that I am a public nuisance or that the growing public health crisis is a nuisance? Be honest now.
And while you’re at it RR, consider this.
The second part of my ‘diatribe’ consists of my lament that the electoral power and influence of the people is too often subordinate to the power of special interests and the money they use to grease the political rails in pursuit of their special interest agenda.
This is my ‘opinion’. It’s not for you or anybody else to ‘point out that I’m wrong’.
My take is that it’s both a sign of the hard economic times and a do-anything-for-a-buck lobbyist cozying up to inked up, pierced, glazed over, medical marijuana types for a few crumpled up twenties.
Rich, when you’re done with this I need help getting referendum signatures for a medical paint-huffing initiative I’m trying to get on the ballot.
Rich,
Glad to see you back on SJI Nice article but you need to do your homework, check your facts and tone down “the sky is falling” and “end of world is coming” hysterical language but maybe that is what you are being paid for
Did you write this before you toked up, rather than after when you would have been a lot more mellooooooooow ?
Personally although I do not smoke or use, prefer a cold beer, have for years thought we should legalize, regulate and tax all ” vices ” – marijuana, gambling, prostitution etc like legal vices we have alcohol, cigarettes and card clubs
Downtown at night and weekends would be be a fun place with less trouble and fights if all the vices were legal, available and taxed
San Jose city would not have a budget problem and we could be California’s Las Vegas without waiting for airline flights
Back to your blog:
” they are legitimate entities who provide a needed service, pay taxes and alleviate pain. “
no, only 71 of 140 pay city taxes and no one knows how of many pay sales, state and federal employee and income taxes
” patients forced to use illegal methods to obtain medicine prescribed by doctors, “
No one is forcing them to use illegal methods or stopping them or their caregivers from growing their own
Many local grow shops will provide equipment and advise on how to grow you own and fed will not bother you
According to DA Rosen there are only 1500 + SC County issued medical marijuana cards but with 140 collectives or dispensaries / 1500 / 140 = 1 dispensary per 11 patients with county cards
So who are the 1000’s of other buyers? Surprise, recreational users with or without very easy to get ( Oh doctor I have pain from my tennis elbow can I get a card, Of course that will be $30 ) “doctors” prescription. Every recreational user should get a card and avoid fines and trip to jail
Reed is a lawyer and trying to not get city in trouble with feds, so is trying to come up with a workable solution
Doyle does what he is told by Council as we have seen in past when city lost $60 + millions in court settlements so Doyle does what Council and City Manager tells him
Your problem is City Manager Figone who runs Police Department and has always strongly opposes any medical marijuana dispensaries or sales in San Jose.
She has been dragging the public meetings out , studying the issues out and proposed on- site growing and other objectionable regulations that will kill regulations and will end up in court for years and years long after Reed is gone as she intended
Figone is probably laughing hysterically while she drinks her 3 martinis ( wine or alcohol ) with her lunches and dinners to dull the pain of listening to Council endlessly debate trivia
To each his / her own vice
Up in Smoke – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUWD-FflZPI
All you got to do is put a Drink in my hand – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usGv0gB2zEU&ob=av2e
Reader – Great comments
City Manager Figone as you stated has again ignored wishes of voters and council when she gave Council a bad biased ordnance designed to end up in court because it goes against the intent of California law or city ballot referendum if Rich can get enough signatures which will cost city more taxes we do not have
Voters did not elect Figone, we elected Mayor and Council who lets Figone do what she wants
Council never objects or tells her to go back and rewrite bad ordnance or budgets to be reasonable and workable
Looks like another unnecessary court fight which city will lose again, as it has many times in past because City Managers and City Attorney’s are either giving bad advise or Council ignores their advice
Normally can’t tell if City Manager and City Attorney are at fault or Council This is clearly City Manager’s fault
The city could avoid paying $1 million or more for
coming ballot referendum, high court costs for both sides after city loses, and damages that are all unnecessary and could be avoided if Council would tell City Manager to rewrite ordnance to not conflict with state law
Rich.
“People don’t vote for the City Manager. They vote for the Mayor and Council. When I have a problem in government I don’t go to the appointed officials I go to my elected representatives—for they are the only ones who care.”
But an non elected official is responsible for city administration and drafted an unworkable ordnance that will cost city million taxes because we have a weak divided Council
” Normally can’t tell if City Manager and City Attorney are at fault or Council This is clearly City Manager’s fault ” How true
” The city could avoid paying $1 million or more for coming ballot referendum, high court costs for both sides after city loses, and damages that are all unnecessary and could be avoided if Council would tell City Manager to rewrite ordnance to not conflict with state law “
Voters passed a charter change so that City Maager can be recalled by voters if City Manager , after another City manager lost $60 nillion in pension funds
This City Manager has created a very negative attitude toward city employees and continues to recommend spending taxes on non essential services, bailouts , selling city property cheap to insiders and doing secret hidden deal
Ask residents, city employees and voters what they think of City Manager – you will hear few positives and many negatives and marijuana ordnance which she drafted will cost city millions for ” ballot referendum, high court costs for both sides after city loses, and damages that are all unnecessary and could be avoided if Council would tell City Manager to rewrite ordnance to not conflict with state law”
It’s a real shame. Your City Manager makes all of that money and it sounds as if she is “effin” up your city. If that is true, I don’t know how you’ve let it go on for so long. Where I come from, if our city had an incompetent manager, no way would he or she be allowed to remain. What is the matter with your people? Are they afraid to dismiss her for some reason?