William Ktsanes – Page 32 – El Cerrito Democratic Club

June 13, 2016June 14, 2016

MOVING BEYOND THE MORATORIUM ON CANNABIS

On Tuesday, May 17, 2016, the El Cerrito City Council considered whether or not to accept applications for a retail cannabis dispensary in order to provide a facility in El Cerrito for patients eligible to purchase medical marijuana.

This is an important issue for El Cerrito; other cities, such as Oakland and Richmond, are collecting significant sales tax revenue from cannabis dispensaries. However, there are intrinsic public safety issues.

The City Council agenda described the item as follows:

Councilmembers Quinto and Friedman request that the council discuss the current prohibition on medical marijuana facilities and the potential impact of the likely passage of a ballot initiative in November 2016 to legalize recreational marijuana use. The item is for discussion and direction only. There is a request to permit a new facility to open on San Pablo Avenue at the former Taco Bell site on the north end of town. It is widely expected that the ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana use will pass in November. By lifting the prohibition and permitting one medical marijuana facility we are able to exercise control, set conditions, and negotiate a substantial tax on gross receipts of the facility. If the City maintains the prohibition and does nothing and the initiative passes the City could quite likely have less control and would likely earn much less revenue. The purpose of the study session is to engage the public and City Council in a discussion in the pros and cons of fast-tracking the proposed facility, which would be called the El Cerrito Wellness Center. Depending on the direction of staff, the current prohibition on medical marijuana facilities would need to be revised and replaced. In the words of Councilmember Friedman, “Having a well run medical marijuana facility in El Cerrito will serve our citizens who need marijuana who currently have to go elsewhere, and provide a significant revenue stream to our city for years to come.”

Several ECDC members commented, including Al Miller, Kip Crosby, Hilary Crosby, Rochelle Pardue Okimoto, and Paul Fadelli.

Mr. Miller’s primary concern was “that the applicant wants to be the only dispensary in town, and, while we may only want one, we should be the ones who choose that one, not the applicant, even if we end with a lower tax rate. I was also very unimpressed with the quality of the draft ordinance/resolution they provided. I think that if they can not even provide a proper document, how are they going to be able to run a complicated business? That said, I think a Medical MJ Dispensary in town…would be a good thing. Related concerns, such as the proposed Adult Recreational MJ proposition, will no doubt be addressed as this process continues.”

Mr. Crosby addressed the ways medical marijuana can alleviate the suffering of mood disorders. Ms. Okimoto is a nurse; she said, “Patients should be able to access all treatments for their ailments. Medical marijuana helps to alleviate many symptoms. For example, pain, appetite, and nausea, are just a few of the symptoms relieved by cannabis. The time has come to leave behind 20th century thought on cannabis and move into the 21st century. While drug companies make millions on the suffering of others, it is time to allow a cost effective medical treatment to alleviate the suffering of our fellow citizens.”

Ms. Crosby addressed the fact that “since legal cannabis is ipso facto less expensive than illegal cannabis, even adding sales tax to the product does not increase the cost.” She pointed out that legally sold cannabis is “the only product that costs less even after being taxed, unlike other products for which levying a sales tax increases the cost to the consumer.”

Mr. Fadelli was concerned that the proposed site, the currently vacant Taco Bell store at the Richmond/El Cerrito border on San Pablo, would place a retail cannabis facility at the gateway to our city.

Ms. Crosby was also concerned that only one vendor had been invited to propose to the council. However, Sean Donahoe, who was the featured guest speaker at the El Cerrito Democratic Club last August delivering a Capitol insider perspective on the historic Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act overwhelmingly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last fall, provided the Council with information.

Mr. Donahoe co-founded a statewide trade association over three years ago, and has spent many weeks on the road through California, assisting cities and counties in crafting policy reform to provide regulated access to medical cannabis.

He pointed out that

El Cerrito, being limited in geography and with neither an industrial nor agricultural base to speak of, obviously would be best served by a storefront dispensary. The cities of Richmond, Berkeley, and Oakland presently provide medical cannabis access to the region, as well as countless state-compliant (but locally not authorized) medical cannabis delivery services. Richmond and Oakland are moving to explicitly authorize delivery services in the coming months. I would make the case that El Cerrito would best be served by considering a prospective medical cannabis dispensary operator that has a proven track record in two crucial fields in today’s (and tomorrow’s) medical cannabis industry: advanced, consistent retail operations in heavily regulated jurisdictions, and advanced product development and formulation.

In the coming weeks and months I would like to introduce to the community a prospective dispensary team that will bring several decades of experience in these unique fields. One of the prospective partners has been a resident of the city of El Cerrito for over two years and has invested in raising a family in a place that also offers a superior option for medical cannabis products and consultation in a safe retail experience. This team has developed proprietary, standardized medical cannabis formulations that have already undergone clinical evaluations, and a variety of medical products, including water-soluble and aerosolized delivery mechanisms, that represent the future of the medical and adult use cannabis industry. These products benefit from long-term working relationships with the leading nutritional and cannabis testing professionals in the world, many of whom will serve on our Advisory Board. They have substantial, well-established retail and cultivation operations in multiple parts of California and Nevada. These retail operations have been secured after both multiple Conditional Use Permit as well as competitive merit-based processes in respective cities. The proposed operators wish to partner with the city to provide a comprehensive approach to providing a continuum of care to patients in El Cerrito and the surrounding area. The proposed operators have excellent existing community relations and community benefits programs, including organizing historic industry support for youth centers. At this point this evening I wish to urge the Mayor and City Council to move forward on this important issue and humbly request that the best operators be considered to provide world-class medicine, solid retail operations, and proven community benefits for El Cerrito.

Successful resolution of this matter promises significant improvement to the finances of El Cerrito. Please consider this article prefatory to a motion encouraging our City Council to take prompt additional action.

Hilary Crosby
President, ECDC

May 26, 2016May 26, 2016

MAY MEETING RECAP: COMMUNITY CONTROL OVER SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND USE

Our presenters are members of the Berkeley North East Bay chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Mimi Bull, JD is an El Cerrito resident and Senior Legal Analyst, and Dr. Bharat Trehan is an economist who used to work at the Federal Reserve Bank.

Ms. Bull provided us with a detailed handout describing nine new technologies that are in use in different parts of California and the country.

The technologies are

Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Body Cameras
Drones
Video Surveillance
Facial Recognition
Location Tracking
Automated Social Media Monitoring
International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) Catchers, and
Data Mining.

(This handout, which includes brief descriptions of each technology, is available on page 4 at the ACLU website as a pdf: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/20160325-making_smart_decisions_about_surveillance.pdf.)

Once we had learned what kinds of tools are available, Dr. Trehan asked, “As more new technology comes into use, who makes the decision of what to buy and what to use?”

He pointed out that currently, law enforcement usually makes the decisions. Police departments and Sheriffs, those concerned with public safety, decide what to buy, where and when to deploy these tools, and how to store and retain data collected. This equipment can make law enforcement more efficient – which is fine and good when it comes to protecting us from gun violence, hate crimes, and burglary.

But the public safety not the only aspect of law enforcement; surveillance equipment means we lose privacy, and the loss of privacy can have a chilling effect on political activity, especially when it challenges the status quo.

Surveillance can learn not just political activities, but also medical information, romantic attachments, financial information. This information probably won’t expose illegal acts, but when in the hand of inexperienced or incompetent data managers, could expose medical conditions that could affect hiring decisions, romantic information that could alter the timing of ending a relationship, and financial information that could have a negative effect on getting financial assistance.

In addition, the costs of these technologies are not just the price of the devices themselves; training and maintenance have costs as well. The most difficult and perhaps the most expensive cost is the staff time to research the purchase and the staff time for training. Learning to use these complex new technologies can take a lot of time.

The decisions to deploy these technologies should take these factors into account!

In Philadelphia there was a purchase budgeted at $651,672 for a video surveillance program using 216 cameras. But it ended up costing $13.9 MILLION by the time all the associated costs were included, for only 102 cameras. And that $13.9 million could have put 200 new police onto the streets.

There are other kinds of problems too. In 2014, the City of San Jose police and fire buried a drone in a $900,000 appropriations request. It wasn’t discovered until several months after the fact. A huge public outcry then resulted, leading to a public apology and impaired relations between the community and public safety.

This delayed the purchase, training and implementation, and the permits required to train the drone operators. The drone MIGHT be used by end of 2016 or early 2017 – 3-year old machine using outdated technology in a field where technology moves very fast, ironically in Silicon Valley.

At the Port of Oakland, there is a Domain Awareness Center which captures data from the port. There was an attempt to expand this to city-wide coverage, using ALPRs, closed circuit television (CCTV), etc., but public backlash forced the city to put a commission in place to advise on how to collect, use and store the data.

The cost to maintain surveillance in Richmond is $300,000 per year.

And the costs of buying, staffing, and maintaining the technology doesn’t include the potential costs for not protecting data. The average data security breach costs private companies more than $3.5 million to resolve. The City of New York paid more than $2 million to settle a lawsuit on improper surveillance of Muslim communities.

Overall, the decision to use the technology is complicated, and carries many risks. To address this, the ACLU proposes the following:

Public should know about that the purchase and use of this equipment is being contemplated at the earliest stage
The decision should be made with the public, elected officials and police
There should be a cost:benefit analysis
The oversight process should not end once the decision to acquire has been made!

There is an ongoing need to insure accountability including annual reporting, review, or counting mechanisms. We can make smart decisions about surveillance that protects the public from real crime.

Overall, the reaction to these proposals has been positive; the International Society of Chiefs of Police have made recommendations are very like the ACLU recommendations. Police chiefs realize they do need this.

In a statewide survey of likely voters in California, there was overall agreement with the ACLU recommendations. Significant majorities want local officials to vote on the adoption of new surveillance technologies and also want local and statewide policies to limit surveillance technology that police can use.

And finally, media reaction has been quite positive. The San Francisco Chronicle, the LA Times, and the San Jose Mercury News have all printed editorials supporting these measures. Santa Clara County may be the first county to pass an ordinance.

One of our visitors, also an active ACLU member, pointed out that there is no right to privacy in a public place, and that the data on the effectiveness of surveillance on preventing crime is contradictory. However, we should also be aware that there is a lot of money to make from selling this technology. This technology is designed to grow in cost and become obsolete, and to guarantee a future revenue stream to the manufacturer.

One of our members brought up the shootings on freeways, and asked how do you find out who is doing the shooting without cameras? How would you stop that kind of crime?

We also considered the deterrent effect of body cameras on police brutality. And that cameras can be valuable and can nail a suspect. But we still have to ask, what are you giving up to nail one suspect – do you give up 40 officers? How much more effective would the 40 officers have been at insuring public safety?

A new member, an El Cerrito Business owner, told us that El Cerrito already has existing surveillance since all restaurants are required to have surveillance cameras and there is a reimbursement policy to defray the costs. Our mayor, and ECDC treasurer, Greg Lyman clarified that there is a city ordinance and that police have access to the data only to solve a crime. The data isn’t collected until after a crime has occurred on the premises.