The Funding Needed To Do So Would Come From Revenue Collected Under The Marijuana-business Tax.

However, the plaintiffs, who own cannabis-related businesses in the county, argue that it qualifies in essence as a special tax in light of its close association with specific spending priorities and therefore needed to clear the two-thirds threshold required for such taxes. The lawsuit, if successful, would upend a compromise that members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have embraced as a way to please both law-abiding cultivators and residents fed up with the hostile atmosphere that outlaw growers have introduced into their neighborhoods. Members of the commission and the board have softened a general ban on cultivation in residential neighborhoods by allowing existing grows to operate for two years after passage of the still-developing Medical Marijuana Cultivation Regulation, but neighbors, outraged by the aggressive guard dogs, Marijuana Stocks excessive traffic, unsightly fences, and lawlessness they have endured, have insisted on the immediate prohibition of grows in all neighborhoods. Officials kept the two-year grace period but have pledged aggressive enforcement of the laws provisions, which would presumably cull the stubbornly non-compliant elements of the industry. The funding needed to do so would come from revenue collected under the marijuana-business tax. Beyond the special-general distinction, the lawsuits primary argument, the plaintiffs attorney, Larry Rosen, argues that his clients have been unfairly lumped in with the people actually responsible for damage to county roads, illegally diverted water resources and other nuisances. The contention is, in the words of the ballot initiative, that legal marijuana businesses have caused that cost, Rosen said. That is not true. Illegal marijuana businesses cause all sorts of costs, and the legal marijuana businesses are as interested as anyone else in having those problems solved. Advisory measures are common, including ones that point toward spending priorities, she said. Indeed, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County ruled in a substantially identical case that a nonbinding advisory measure specifying preferred targets of spending did not alter the general nature of a tax created by a separate measure.

To read more visit http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/article/NP/20170211/NEWS/170219977

Share This Post

Recent Articles

Leave a Reply