Post by crudo on Sept 25, 2006 16:44:17 GMT -5
City aims 2nd shot at pot clinic
Modesto wants to close a loophole keeping nonprofit dispensaries open
Modesto is rewriting its ban on medical marijuana dispensaries because its first draft failed to shut down a McHenry Avenue pot clinic.
A measure the City Council unanimously passed in December banned for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries, a strategy aimed at closing the California Healthcare Collective by July.
But the collective is a nonprofit, meaning the city ordinance doesn't apply to it, said James Anthony, an attorney representing the clinic.
The council on Tuesday is scheduled to consider banning nonprofit dispensaries, too.
"This is to close that loophole," City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood said.
She said the rewritten measure wouldn't go into effect until later this fall, after the Planning Commission votes on it and after another council vote.
Anthony said the attempt to ban nonprofit medical marijuana clinics defies California's Proposition 215, which allows chronically ill people to use the drug even though federal law prohibits it.
"Any policy attempt to ban dispensaries is short-sighted, irresponsible and illegal," he said.
In December, former City Attorney Michael Milich argued that allowing the pot dispensaries put the city in the position of violating a federal law. The council voted 5-0 to prohibit the clinics, but none of the members explained their decisions in public.
Previously, the Planning Commission rejected a ban of pot clubs by a 5-2 vote. The council overruled the commission.
Anthony said the city should regulate marijuana clinics by taking steps such as establishing an area where they can do business or limiting the number that can operate in the city. Other cities have taken similar measures.
"Citizens should be outraged that the city is irresponsibly wasting tax dollars trying to ban a beneficial community nonprofit," he said.
The collective opened in late 2004. It incorporated as a forprofit business in the secretary of state's office, but Anthony said the clinic's directors wrote bylaws defining it as a nonprofit.
The clinic since has established itself as a nonprofit, Anthony said.
It is allowed to make enough money to pay the salaries of its 15 employees and to turn some profit to put back into the operation. It cannot sell shares or give dividends, Anthony said.
It earns $220,000 a year, according to an analysis from Dun & Bradstreet, a business information database.
Wood said the rewritten marijuana dispensary ban would give the clinic six months to close, enough time to make up the investment of its backers.
Anthony said those terms are not acceptable to the directors. He said they would seek a license to remain in business for 20 years or enough money to cover what they would earn in that time.
"You cannot close it unless you want to buy it," he said.
He filed a lawsuit last month in Stanislaus County Superior Court, protesting the ordinance. He did not serve the city with the lawsuit. He said he would if the city does not assure him it won't enforce the ban.
Modesto wants to close a loophole keeping nonprofit dispensaries open
Modesto is rewriting its ban on medical marijuana dispensaries because its first draft failed to shut down a McHenry Avenue pot clinic.
A measure the City Council unanimously passed in December banned for-profit medical marijuana dispensaries, a strategy aimed at closing the California Healthcare Collective by July.
But the collective is a nonprofit, meaning the city ordinance doesn't apply to it, said James Anthony, an attorney representing the clinic.
The council on Tuesday is scheduled to consider banning nonprofit dispensaries, too.
"This is to close that loophole," City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood said.
She said the rewritten measure wouldn't go into effect until later this fall, after the Planning Commission votes on it and after another council vote.
Anthony said the attempt to ban nonprofit medical marijuana clinics defies California's Proposition 215, which allows chronically ill people to use the drug even though federal law prohibits it.
"Any policy attempt to ban dispensaries is short-sighted, irresponsible and illegal," he said.
In December, former City Attorney Michael Milich argued that allowing the pot dispensaries put the city in the position of violating a federal law. The council voted 5-0 to prohibit the clinics, but none of the members explained their decisions in public.
Previously, the Planning Commission rejected a ban of pot clubs by a 5-2 vote. The council overruled the commission.
Anthony said the city should regulate marijuana clinics by taking steps such as establishing an area where they can do business or limiting the number that can operate in the city. Other cities have taken similar measures.
"Citizens should be outraged that the city is irresponsibly wasting tax dollars trying to ban a beneficial community nonprofit," he said.
The collective opened in late 2004. It incorporated as a forprofit business in the secretary of state's office, but Anthony said the clinic's directors wrote bylaws defining it as a nonprofit.
The clinic since has established itself as a nonprofit, Anthony said.
It is allowed to make enough money to pay the salaries of its 15 employees and to turn some profit to put back into the operation. It cannot sell shares or give dividends, Anthony said.
It earns $220,000 a year, according to an analysis from Dun & Bradstreet, a business information database.
Wood said the rewritten marijuana dispensary ban would give the clinic six months to close, enough time to make up the investment of its backers.
Anthony said those terms are not acceptable to the directors. He said they would seek a license to remain in business for 20 years or enough money to cover what they would earn in that time.
"You cannot close it unless you want to buy it," he said.
He filed a lawsuit last month in Stanislaus County Superior Court, protesting the ordinance. He did not serve the city with the lawsuit. He said he would if the city does not assure him it won't enforce the ban.