Countywide Cash-generator

[dropcap class=”kp-dropcap”]U[/dropcap]nder a new and unexpected affirmative vote on cannabis businesses in unincorporated areas, Riverside County could see up to 19 cannabis dispensaries and 50 cultivation operations in 2019. On Oct. 23, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 on Ordinance No. 348, amending Article XIXh and replacing it with “Commercial Cannabis Activities” thereby establishing retail and cultivation regulations in unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Over three dozen people spoke out on behalf of cannabis businesses in Riverside County at the four-hour meeting including Inland Empire NORML and CULTURE contributor Lanny Swerdlow.

Cannabis businesses must abide by a 1,000-foot buffer around schools, parks and daycare centers, and no two dispensaries can operate on a single city block. Cannabis businesses won’t be tolerated in areas that are zoned as residential-agricultural, residential-rural and controlled development. Swerdlow said it was “beyond comprehension” that the county was tossing out potential revenue by blocking businesses from those areas. One of the affected areas is Lakeland Village, an unincorporated area next to Lake Elsinore that was home to a string of dispensaries. Under the new changes, cannabis businesses have the potential to operate in Lakeland Village.

Riverside County Supervisor Kevin Jeffries has served on Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee since 2017. “Yes,” Jeffries confirmed to CULTURE. “I was one of the two members of the Board of Supervisors that served on the Cannabis Business Ad Hoc Committee, and worked closely with the Planning Department to try to develop an ordinance that would allow regulated and licensed cannabis related businesses to operate in unincorporated areas of Riverside County without negatively impacting residents.”

“I didn’t vote for Prop. 64, but it is clear that we are losing the war on illegal grows and dispensaries in the county, and providing a legal route to conduct their business and contribute to our quality of life seemed to be the best route forward.”

Supervisor Jeffries—while not a huge fan of cannabis—takes a realistic approach to the changing times and the changing policies surrounding cannabis. “I didn’t vote for Prop. 64,” Jeffries admitted, “but it is clear that we are losing the war on illegal grows and dispensaries in the county, and providing a legal route to conduct their business and contribute to our quality of life seemed to be the best route forward. The goal is to put these businesses in commercial, industrial and agricultural zones, and remove the illegal ones from residential neighborhoods.”

From business permit fees alone, the county could rake in up to $17 million annually. “Our basic fee structure was developed to fully recover the costs of regulating these new businesses, including the hiring of dedicated Code Enforcement officers to ensure that cannabis-related businesses are abiding by our strict regulations regarding public safety and nuisances,” Jeffries explained. “We will also derive revenues from the sales and property taxes collected, and [they could] be eligible for state funds that are only available to counties that license cannabis related businesses.”

Many areas in California took a wait-and-see approach when considering whether or not to opt into Prop. 64. But the economic benefits are hard to ignore. CULTURE asked Jeffries about the details of how and where the revenue could be allocated, and he said that under development agreements, businesses will pay a community benefit fee, which will stay within the community in which they are located instead of going into the county general fund. This could go anywhere from enhanced Sheriff and Code Enforcement funding, to recreational programs, park improvements or street lighting.

There’s so much untapped opportunity in Riverside County, and with the Oct. 23 vote, legal operations can move forward in 2019.