Jump to content
Last login: Tuesday, May 8, 2012
San Diego workers deserve better than to be left without Social Security OR pensions. Prop B may especially burden LGBT families as they don't receive survivorship benefits and being left without social security or pension could be disastrous.
This is a needless "risky retirement" initiative that represents a windfall to Wall st. Say No to Prop B! https://www.facebook.com/events/38063...
May 8, 2012 at 1:34 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Let's not forget, prior to the referendum Medical Cannabis supporters ran the largest letter writing campaign in San Diego history, and probably the largest grassroots response to any ordinance in San Diego history, asking the council to "Amend and Approve" an ordinance.
There were a total of nearly 3800 letters sent to Council, both signed form letters and handwritten letters, and I'm willing to bet the council people received more constituent communication on that issue than any other since being elected and at least 80% of it came from people demanding safe access.
At the city council meetings, hundreds of first time attendees spoke to the council directly asking for the ordinance to be amended and approved.
In fact, this ordinance was so restrictive that Stephen Hill from Todd Gloria's office admitted that the city didn't even have software to generate a map indicating how restrictive it was! The largest areas of "access" on the deceptive map the city did release? Qualcomm Stadium and MiraMar Airbase. Obviously there isn't going to be access for patients at those locations.
So after approving an ordinance over unprecedented opposition (I encourage you to check with Council offices to see if they received more letters on any other ordinance), Council imposed an ordinance so restrictive the mapping software wasn't able to map it that would close EVERY COLLECTIVE IN THE CITY and require them to undergo processes that would take a YEAR OR LONGER to reopen. Guaranteeing San Diego patients would be without safe access at all during that period.
The five to seven locations - at best - that would be able to open after a year would be in the far flung industrial areas of the city. Obviously it is not ideal for a sick person to spend hours on public transit with medical cannabis.
My point is that advocates did everything "right" and were ignored by the City Council (with the notable example of Alvarez who noted the response and respected it). The City Council chose not to insert a grace period allowing collectives to remain open while becoming compliant. They refused to allow more zones for people in mid city communities. They refused to honor the largest constituent response to an ordinance in San Diego history. They refused to honor the recommendations of the medical marijuana task force they created.
I think that it's important in covering this issue to note that thousands of people chose to get involved and communicate their wishes to City Council, if anyone deserves blame, it certainly shouldn't be the patients who relied on a referendum as a last ditch effort AFTER putting forth the largest opposition campaign to an ordinance in city history.
October 20, 2011 at 1:46 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2013 KPBS