p-3cwPeRbeWWgGk
In a 5-0 vote The budget for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) were approved and 3 lucky nonprofits will be splitting $25Gs for worthy causes in the coming year.
The dreams of Gonga-r-us went up in smoke. 29 Palms will not be having some guy from North Hollywood opening up a head shop in the downtown area real soon. The Council voted down a Development Code change that would have allowed Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in a 4-1 vote, Spear voting in favor of the measure.
In a 5-0 vote the Council approved language in the Development Code that will allow Farmers Markets. Ordinance 227 will allow farmers markets in the (SC) Commercial Service and (CI) Community Industrial Zoned Districts. (PS guys my 1 acre Commercial Service zone lot available for Temporary Permitted Use. Make me an offer I can’t refuse.)
Sherry Hall just did not have a pleasant evening. After she was disappointed that she was not able to get her pot local, she was told she is out of the Vacation Home Rental Business (VHR) in the City of Twentynine Palms for the foreseeable future. In a 5-0 vote the Council sent the VHR issue back to the Planning Commission with instructions to look very closely into if the city even wants to go with the idea. Vacation Home Rentals don’t look like a good investment for you out of towners looking for a way of making a quick buck on our depressed real estate market.
Other issues heard were City Energy Efficiency and Solar Projects, Alternative Work Week, The chamber rental agreement and that damned sign in front of the City’s Visitors Center. All those I’ll report those mañana.
Cactus Thorns has been online in one form or the other since 2001. What started as a personal blog documenting the corruption and lack of Due Process of the 29 Palms Community Development Department has turned into over these many years into a hugely popular Independent Alternative News Media Outlet. We have partnered with other media including The Desert Star Weekly, Joshua Tree Star, other blogs, indie media and an incredible staff of volunteer Reporters, Commentators and Opinion Makers to create one of the most read, honest and dependable alternative to the Local traditional Media services in the country. Thanks to you the reader we are in the 5% of most read sites in the World.
Related posts:
What we have here is a nightmare come true. Elected officials who set their own policy to suit themselves, rather that live within popularly established laws.
Let’s say if there were Senate and Assemble Bills incorporated into California codes, as well as solid judicial decisions upholding laws which prohibited unreasonable restraints on vacations homes, local officials would most likely honor it because they all took oaths to uphold the law.
But when it comes to a popular mandate from the people of California, Senate and Assembly bills, California Codes, and appellate and Supreme Court judicial decisions making compassionate use of a harmless plant legal, local officials obstreperously chose which laws they will honor, and which they will not honor.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is anarchy. If there is just one person out there in Internet land that will stick his or her head out the window and shouts, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,” that would make my day.
There is in fact room to accommodate a legal dispensary in town. It’s law. Uphold it or kindly exist from office with further ado. Watch the door on the way out.
Now we have mini-monsters in local government who hid behind zoning laws — they will make up — to band California law and flaunt that they will not follow good law or California court decisions in their town.
This is spooky because they dishonor thir office, and defy their very own oath.
This calls for serious concern. Who needs law breakers like these in office? These people in my best opinion are un-American and un-democratic. They haven’t the ability to carry out their duties in any credibly way. How many have lost faith in their ability to serve the public and uphold their oath to the California Constitution.
This is treasonous. I demand resignations. We have four spooky 29 Palms councilmen.
We do not have a nightmare, you do.
You missed the point again.
At no time did the City vacate any California laws, Senate or Assembly bills, California Codes, appellate or Supreme Court judicial decisions concerning compassionate use.
I am no fan of this council, but what they did was to clearify the fact that that form of “business” is not allowed and it never was.
My question to you sir is, where were you at the meeting and why are you not the one shouting?
It seems as though you want it all but are unwilling to take the lead to get it.
At no time did the City say the those that are allowed, under the law, to possess, process, and use medical marijuana.
I have said before that I do not disagree with the law. What I don’t like is the fact that it was so piss poorly written that it is crap.
No regulatory controls, no book-keeping, non-profit my ass, sell to any punk that can pay a doctor to write a scrip, and on and on and on.
Here is my challenge to you; put up or shut up.
Seems a planning commissioner has ruffled feathers over a little satire. His post speaks more on the bias of the commissioner and lack of respect for a process that makes his view less important and the laws more important.
The U.S. Government Code states: “cities may not authorize the operation of dispensaries, or even cooperaatives or collectives, for the purpose of cultivating or distributing marijuana for medicinal purposes. Further, Governmanet Code 37100 states that a city’s “…legislative body may pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the State or the United States.
govcodesearch says, “Further, Governmanet Code 37100 states that a city’s “…legislative body may pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the State or the United States.”
Now I’m not for pot shops but I really am curious, can you show me where in the Constitution that the government has authority to tell a city what ordinances it may or may not pass in regards to pot? I know a city may not enter into a treaty and is beholden to the sovereign state in which it rests, but other than DC I am at a loss to figure where the Federal Government has much Constitutional Control over a city. Maybe I missed something… What Article and section would that be under?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=37001-38000&file=37100-37200
or if you prefer to get there from the homepage--for legitimacy
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/gov_table_of_contents.html
under:
CHAPTER 3. GENERAL POWERS
(about 1/2 way down the page)
Not trying to be a smart ass, and as I have stated before I oppose pot shops, your post that said, “The U.S. Government Code states: “cities may not authorize the operation of dispensaries, or even cooperaatives or collectives, for the purpose of cultivating or distributing marijuana for medicinal purposes.” is really my concern.
Federal Code no matter how onerous it may sound is not a part of the Constitution of the United States. Since I am at a loss to find anywhere in the United States Constitution where the Federal Government has direct control of a organ of a sovereign state, other that having some control of the city’s purse strings, I would have to disagree with you on the validity of the US Code or at least is enforceability.
Article 1 Section 8 Reas as follows:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Supreme Court agreed. Back in 1819, Chief Justice Marshall (McCulloch v. Maryland) ruled: “This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.”
Not to be argumentative but show me where the Federal Government can Tell a city a dog gone thing? Isn’t it the duty of the States as cities are a political subdivision of States to either enforce or not to enforce law upon a city?
I love a person who tests my brain power. It took me a few, as my printed copy is a bit worn at the top with the web address so I had to do a bit of leg work (hopefully my legs are still working)
http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=92889236139+9+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
also of note should be read the following articles which can also be found under keyword “marihuana”
title 21 chapter 13
(a) Unlawful acts
Except as authorized by this subchapter, it
shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or
intentionally—
(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense,
or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute,
or dispense, a controlled substance
http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=92852830629+20+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=92889236139+41+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Federal Law U.S.C.856 (a) states: “It shall be unlawfully to knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, or make available for use, with or without compensation, (a) building, room, or enclosure for the purpose of unlawfully manufaturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.”
Here is my point we are a Federal Republic. The Constitution enumerates to the Federal Government certain powers, none of which include authority to write many of those Federal Laws that regulate “controlled Substances.”
While I think it was wrong headed for the people of the state of California to legalized Pot, it is well within the states 10th Amendment Power and its citizens rights to do so.
The question I posed to you this morning was a unfair and a trick question and its answer could not be found because the the Federal Government does not have the those Constitutional powers granted to it.
The only reason the Federal Government gets away with it is by threat of force of arms if the states do not comply. The memory of the last civil war still haunts State Governments.
Quite frankly, to leve any of this to our city government is the failure here.
I merely was pointing out that under the CA code 37100 legislative body may pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the State or the United States. Now, I could also point to the fact that our federal law is set up to supercede state laws. But with our court systems and findings, we wont go there. My intentions were to start a lively debate on 37100.
That said I should have ommitted the other part of the post to achieve that.
I have have enjoyed the refreshing side of the news from this site.
also, after further research, I do believe I misspoke regarding “cities may not authorize the operation of dispensaries, or even cooperaatives or collectives”. My colleagues and I went back and forth on this matter and now realize (a few years back when we originated this statement)this was a determination made from opinion and interpretation, not an exact quote. I am a stickler for citing materials, quotes etc so it was good to have it brought to my attention so that I can correct it not to infer to it as a written document.
Well we sort of have a conflict with California Law and Federal Codes. The US Constitution does not give cover to the Federal Code. I really don’t see it in the enumerated powers… But then again the DEA has machine guns… so… who am I to argue the point?
Repeating…. Medical Marijuana is legal!!!
Not going to argue that.
Cities HAVE THE RIGHT to NOT allow dispensaries.
Did you hear that Gary Dontknow!!!
BTW Cactus Thorns I love who your the sponsors are!!
Hi There,
I think that maybe a bit of truth is being missed here.
The Sheriff of this county and I think Riverside County fought this matter to the Supreme Court and did not prevail.
When the People vote and win that should mean something.
I had no dreams of prevailing at the Council meeting. My only hope was to awaken those that do not speak.
Prop 215 is in place. But as HDENT has so porperly said it leaves much to be desired.
We, as a city, had a chance to chart new ground in regards to Prop 215. It was decided to not chart that course.
Change is a challenge -- only time will measure the course that this city will follow.
I believe you are referring to the lawsuit filed by San Diego and San Bernardino counties. The lawsuit which had to do with the implementation of the marijauna ID cards. Which I might add is a voluntary program for the users of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Most of which will not pay the 160ish dollars required to obtain one (unless of course you are on medi-cal then its discounted). If thats not the one, which fight in the supreme court might you be referring to?
While the text of 215 was passsed by the people, the bill not passed by the people was SB420, which illegally ammended prop 215 (the senate cannot ammend a prop voted in by the people, only the people can)Also, SB420 lead to the “Guidelines” issued by CA ATTRNY GEN Jerry Brown. Which I might add were not voted in by the people either. Many people voted on 215 under the context of helping those terminally ill and suffering (who wouldnt?), however, if I recall the opposition did forsee the problem we face today.
And, Mr Spear (not to pick on you here)but I might correct you as to the problems Yucca Valley has seen with the dispensary there. There have been some; rocks through windows, threats, burgularies etc. Most often dispensaries fail to report crimes. After all, How would it look to the general public?
I stick to my comment that placing the burden of right or wrong, to profit or not to profit is unfairly placed in the hands of our council members. Also making it difficult for law enforcement to determine the difference between medical marijuana vs recreational marijuana.
govcodesearch said, “I stick to my comment that placing the burden of right or wrong, to profit or not to profit is unfairly placed in the hands of our council members. Also making it difficult for law enforcement to determine the difference between medical marijuana vs recreational marijuana.”
[choice] is Unfairly placed upon our Council? If not the Council then who? The Federal Government? Just as all politics is local, social conduct, crime and most issues of society are local issues. If one believes that local government can regulate the size of your lot, the content of your yard, the placement of a night club, the width of a street, the requirement to hook up to sewers, the requirement to buy a business license, if the city is wet or dry. etc… why then punt an issue like Pot to a supposed higher authority? I don’t think so.
Once again the higher authority should be in this case is State and local governments.
The choice of having a dispensary or not should be a local decision like any other local issue. Now it turns out that the Council chose not to have a dispensary this time, but if the council had decided to have one that choice would have been as valid in my opinion.
I believe in the concept of that States and even municipalities are the laboratory of democracy. I do not believe that the Federal Government has a voice in the discussion. While I am against pot dispensaries I also understand that others will disagree with me. If those that believe that dispensaries are needed in this town and they feel they are in the majority, they should move to nullify the Councils action and propose a local referendum to repeal their actions. Put it to the vote of the people.
The problem with folks is they will bitch and moan about what the Council did or should have done but will not do the things that the law allows them to do and practice local democracy. I’ve been a political activist for years and the one thing that is a constant, is public apathy.
first, I am not bitching or moaning about the choice, Nor did I want to come off that way. Also, I do not believe I have stated if I am for or against dispensaries (purposefully). I was simply making a different observation. I exercize my rights to speak in my city at my council on every topic I find of interest to me (and would encourage everyone to see their LOCAL politics up close and personal). Your point is made, and respected, regarding the fact that you believe this should be left in the city council hands. I think I made my point clear I disagree, our laws are vague and left to each city to “hammer out”. What we have is one set of rules that differ for neighboring cities. Same thing for counties. If in riverside hash is legal, but san bernardino claims it to be illegal, what happens to the enforcement of a law if a person is travelling from say yucca to palm springs. Granted the LEO of the counties may know their rules but what about our state leo? their rules are seperate. Now in my opinion we have a conflict of state vs county (flashbacks to federal vs state). Which umfairly ties up our legal system hammering out the details.
Healthy differences of opinion are important to society. Perhaps we differ only on the details.
‘NUFF SAID?
I apologize if I came across as inferring I was talking about you in particular. I was making the point in general.
As I still think it is a local decision. One way or the other the town will have to either live with the decision of the Council or repeal their actions in a referendum.
I also agree as you in a round about way say, the state can preempt the cities from passage of ordinances that conflict, but that would take some courage at the legislature. Courage in Sacramento is something that is lacking.
All good points and well taken.
It is a pleasure to see three people debating the merits to an issue without resorting to name calling and such.
I do think that the issue was a local issue that the Council had the power to address.
Federal laws may differ but it should be the right of the locals to determine their own course of action save the right of the Federals in the time of war.
Again, thanks to both of you for voicing your thoughts without prejudice -- refreshing!
Thank you ,,, that was fun wasn’t it.
That it was!
think it will last?