By Rupert Clayton, Shira Noel, and Richard Ivanhoe, HANC Board Members
For our October general meeting, we had scheduled arguments by proponents and opponents of Propositions C and D, and a discussion of Senate Bill 1045, which provides for conservatorship of those detained multiple times. Opponents of Proposition C were invited, but did not make an appearance.
Cannabis Dispensary Applicants
During our announcements, representatives from Cole Ashbury Group, LLC, introduced themselves and announced that the Office of Cannabis had selected them to move forward with their application for a dispensary at 1685 Haight Street (currently Silver Sprocket). Representatives from Haight Partners, Inc., who had submitted an application for a dispensary at 1673 Haight Street (currently Stanza Coffee Bar), also introduced themselves.
Current regulations do not allow dispensaries to exist within 600 feet of each other, so only the earliest application to be completed and received goes forward with the process. One step in the process is a conditional use hearing at the Planning Commission, which is estimated to be heard in about five or six months. The HANC Board is examining the dispensary approval process, and will likely discuss it further at a future general meeting.
Proposition D
HANC’s October member meeting heard from proponents and opponents of Proposition D, which is on the ballot for the November 6 election. The measure would impose a gross receipts tax of between 1% and 5% on cannabis businesses operating in the city with certain exemptions. This would raise revenue for the city’s general fund of $2–4 million in 2019, rising to $7–16 million in 2022. Businesses with sales of less than $500,000 would be exempt, as would retail sales of medical cannabis. In addition, the measure contains an unrelated provision that would allow the city to collect sales tax on out-of-state companies that sell more than $500,000 of any goods to San Francisco residents.
Sophia Kittler—a legislative aide for Supervisor Malia Cohen, who proposed the measure—highlighted programs that could be funded with the tax revenue: education about the effects of cannabis; compassion programs for low-income patients; equity programs for business people from impacted communities; and enforcement of the city’s cannabis permitting laws.
David Goldman and Kenneth Koehn from the Brownie Mary Democratic Club spoke against Prop D. They voiced support for the proposed programs, but contended that Prop D represented excessive taxation for cannabis businesses in the city. These businesses start at a disadvantage, they said, because federal law prevents them from writing off many of their expenses against their income because the IRS regards these companies as carrying on an illegal drug business. The result is that their apparent net profit is inflated. Beyond that, they pay all the same taxes as other businesses, plus state taxes specific to the cannabis business: a per-ounce tax for growers, plus a 15% excise tax for retailers.
Koehn and Goldman said the retail price of legal cannabis is already far above the black-market price, posing a threat to the whole legalization initiative. They criticized the proposed tax rate (several times higher than for non-cannabis businesses) and said the medical exemption was too limited, as it did not apply to producers or wholesalers.
Conservatorship
Shira Noel, HANC Board member, and Policy and Advocacy Coordinator for the Homeless Youth Alliance provided perspective on SB 1045:
On September 27th Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law SB1045 which is a five year pilot program that extends our current conservatorship laws to include substance abuse and enables the Sheriff’s Department to petition for an individual to become conserved due to repeated 5150 holds (8 in a 12 month period).
This has been opposed by a coalition of community groups and people who work with people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, seniors and transitional age youth. The Lanterman-Petris- Short Act already allows for conservation of individuals whose mental illness prevents them from accessing food, clothing, and shelter, as Laura's law allows for court mandated outpatient treatment.
While everyone agrees that more needs to be done to help folks experiencing mental health and or addiction, further criminalizing is not the solution. We do not need to create pressure for the police to increase their use of 5150 holds as a way to address homelessness, mental illness or substance abuse.
Conservatorship is a serious event. It strips away an individual’s rights at every basic level. They no longer have the right to say what happens with their bodies, their money, their property, their pets and where they choose to be. By giving law enforcement the ability to petition for conservatorship, it further incentivizes a police response to people in mental crisis when over 64% percent of people fatally shot by police are mentally disabled. This is happening at a time when not only providers, but also people experiencing these issues on the street, are struggling to access the limited mental health resources and scarce housing supply. SB 1045 has no funding attached to it and does nothing to expand comprehensive mental health services to help prevent conservatorship in the first place.