San Bernardino, California, Marijuana Regulation, Measure O (November 2016)

• Text of measure
  • Ballot question
  • Impartial analysis
• Support
  • Official argument
• Opposition
  • Official argument
• Path to the ballot
• See also
  • External links
  • Footnotes
• More
  • Local ballot measures
  • State ballot measures
  • Local politics

Measure O: San Bernardino Marijuana Regulation
The basics
Election date:
November 8, 2016
Status:
a Approved
Topic:
Local marijuana
Related articles
Local marijuana on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Bernardino County, California ballot measures
See also
San Bernardino, California

One of three competing marijuana regulation measures was on the ballot for San Bernardino voters in San Bernardino County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of allowing marijuana dispensaries and regulating marijuana businesses by establishing a regulatory permit process that competed with Measure N and Measure P.

A no vote was a vote against this proposal permitting and regulating marijuana businesses.

Aftermath

After the November 2016 election, four lawsuits were filed regarding Measure O. Two of the lawsuits claimed that the measure was invalid, while the two other lawsuits claimed that Measure O was valid and that the city was obligated to begin implementation as soon as possible. The city also filed its own litigation seeking a court determination on the validity of the measure.

On February 28, 2018, Measure O was declared invalid and unenforceable by San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge David S. Cohn.

Lawsuits overview
First lawsuit
Issue: Invalid ordinance: the measure is not in compliance with state or city laws; Constitutionality of the measure: the measure violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption
Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California
Ruling: Measure O ruled invalid
Plaintiff(s): AMF 1278 LLC, Wendy J. McCammack; Kush Concepts Collective, MJ Dispensary Inc, JFTC Group Inc	Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino; Mark Scott, City of San Bernardino City Manager
Plaintiff argument: Measure O is invalid because it creates a zoning monopoly, which is against laws of the state of California, the city municipal code, and the city's general plan. Also, Measure O's definition of "permit" violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption, and the language that "authorizes a person to conduct commercial marijuana activities" violates federal law, the state constitution, and the city charter.	Defendant argument: Measure O is a valid land use regulation and should be implemented as indicated by voter approval.
Second lawsuit
Issue: Civil rights; the city has not recognized the election results
Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California
Ruling: Measure O was ruled invalid in a separate court case.
Plaintiff(s): Michael Lee, Jama Investments LLC, Yeying Shi, Oasis Wellness Center Inc.; Quiang Ye, 100 Hospitality LLC, Vincent Guzman	Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino
Plaintiff arguments: The city has not performed its mandatory obligation to implement the measure following the election, and is obstructing justice, interfering with the outcome of the election, and violating the civil rights of the plaintiffs.	Defendant arguments: The city has not implemented the provisions of Measure O due to the pending lawsuits with AMF 1278, LLC and Kush Concepts Collective.

  Sources: City of San Bernardino

Election results

Measure O
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		26,037	55.12%
No		21,196	44.88%

Election results from San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:

“

Shall the San Bernardino Regulate Marijuana Act of 2016 be enacted in the City of San Bernardino?

”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Bernardino City Attorney:

“	This measure is an initiative that would regulate marijuana businesses in the City of San Bernardino. This measure was proposed by citizens' petition. Two other measures were placed on the ballot, one also by citizens' petition, the other by the Mayor and Common Council as a proposition. This ballot measure would regulate marijuana businesses by establishing a regulatory permit process. The ballot measure would establish a registration system and would require the City to grant permits meeting the requirements of the measure. The measure establishes an application fee of $250. The measure also establishes annual fees in the following amounts: Cultivation: $5 per square foot of canopy; Manufacturing/Testing: $5 per square foot occupied by the business; Transportation/Distribution: $100 per vehicle and $5 per square foot occupied by the business; Dispensaries: $5 per square foot occupied by the business; Nurseries: $1 per square foot of canopy. These amounts may not be raised by Mayor and Common Council. Marijuana Businesses would be: Restricted to new marijuana business overlay zones, identified by parcel number, established by the ballot measure; Located 600 feet from schools; Located 600 feet from residentially zoned property. Marijuana business dispensaries would be required to follow operating standards, including: Shall not be open between the hours of midnight — 6 a.m.; Processed marijuana and cash shall be kept in a safe during hours the business is closed; Smoking of tobacco is prohibited, but use of marijuana is allowed. If this initiative measure and either or both the competing Council measure and other initiative measure are approved by a majority of voters, only the measure that receives the most votes will become effective. Furthermore, if this measure is approved, the Council would not be authorized to amend or repeal the measure without voter approval. This measure must be approved by a majority of the voters and must receive a higher number of votes than the competing measures. A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of adopting the voter initiative to regulate marijuana businesses. A "no" vote is a vote against permitting and regulating marijuana businesses in the City of San Bernardino.	”
—San Bernardino City Attorney

Full text

The full text of the measure was available here.

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:

• Vincent Guzman, San Bernardino resident

Arguments in favor

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:

“

Citizen-backed Measure O brings comprehensive reform to medical marijuana laws and delivers $19-24 million in new revenue and 2,750 living wage jobs to San Bernardino. This forecast was confirmed by independent experts at Whitney Economics. Measure O is the only one to generate significant tax revenue for San Bernardino. It funds both enforcement and general city services. it reduces the number of dispensaries and eliminates them near our schools and homes. Despite a 10-year ban, San Bernardino has dozens of illegal, unregulated and untaxed marijuana shops that attract crime near schools and homes. Competing measures protect these dispensaries while blocking new, professionally managed dispensaries. Competing Measures Won't Tax Dispensaries San Bernardino desperately needs new tax revenue, but Measure P includes no revenue for all city services - only fees for enforcement. Meanwhile, illegal dispensaries support Measure N that offers a new tax but exempts dispensaries! Like Measure P and Measure N, Measure O offers strict controls for inspections, operations, security and more. But only Measure O raises significant revenue for both enforcement and all city services, taxing all marijuana businesses without sneaky exemptions. "Considering the amount of money the city has spent chasing down dispensaries, it certainly makes sense to consider bringing the market above ground and generating some revenues from it," wrote the San Bernardino Sun's editorial board. "If anything has been accomplished by decades of prohibition, it is the enrichment of the black market." While competing measures protect black markets and exempt them from taxation, only Measure O raises funds that San Bernardino desperately needs. Only Measure O brings $19-24 million each year to support law enforcement and city services. San Bernardino needs responsible government that reforms a broken system and raises significant taxes. Competing measures fail this important test. Yes on Measure O. Learn more at www.sbrma2016.com

”

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:

• R. Carey Davis, Mayor, City of San Bernardino
• Jim Mulvihill, San Bernardino 7th Ward Councilman
• Darren Espiritu, Parks and Recreation Commissioner
• John Hillman, San Bernardino resident
• Francesca Hillman, San Bernardino resident

Arguments against

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:

“

Vote No on Measure O Measure O will repeal San Bernardino City's ban on the sale and cultivation of marijuana. Even though the harmful effects of marijuana are well documented the proponents continue to advocate for its legalization. The legalization experiment in Colorado and Washington Is a disaster. The "Regulate and Control" policy attempt has failed, yielding huge Increases In underage and adult use, and drugged driving. According to the 2015 Rocky Mountain HIDTA data, marijuana poisonings were up 148% In Colorado: up 153% among children 0 to 5 years old. In Washington One-third of all DUI cases now test positive for THC, the psychoactive Ingredient in marijuana. Drivers In fatal accidents with THC In their blood Increased over 120% from 2010 to 2014. 49% of young adults (ages 18-25) who used marijuana in the past month had driven a car within three hours of getting high. Marijuana driving fatalities nearly match alcohol driving fatalities. Marijuana poisoning calls to the State Poison Center rose 54% from 2012 to 2014. Source: Northwest (HIDTA) office in Seattle. On August 23, 2016 the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted to continue its ban on marijuana cultivation and sale in unincorporated areas of the county. According to a public health analysis published by UC San Francisco in February 2016, the advertising and marketing restriction included In Proposition 64 (The Adul Use of Marijuana Act included on the November 2016 California state ballot) will not prevent targeting underage persons or other vulnerable populations. Let's protect our youth and keep our streets safe by voting no on measure O.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Bernardino Local marijuana. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

San Bernardino, California, Marijuana Regulation, Measure O (November 2016) - Google News

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2016
• Local marijuana on the ballot

• San Bernardino County measures

California

• November 8, 2016 measures in California
• Local ballot measures, California
• San Bernardino, California

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

External links

Suggest a link

• San Bernardino County Elections Office website