LEGISLATIVE LADDER
It’s no secret that there’s been a constant struggle between medical cannabis collectives and the city of Upland for some time now. The city has made many attempts to shut down unregulated and untaxed medical cannabis collectives, and have spent an estimated $600,000 in legal fees to fight against them. Many other cannabis collectives have been fighting similar battles against their cities that want to keep collectives out, but in this particular instance, the battle between collectives and Upland is rising higher in the ranks of the legislative ladder all the way up to the California Supreme Court.
It all started when medical cannabis advocates were joined with the California Cannabis Coalition (CCC) to draft an initiative that would ask voters to approve collectives within the boundaries of the city. The CCC ballot measure, which was announced in late 2014 and eventually put before voters for the first time in June 2015, would lift the ban on medical cannabis collectives, allowing three collectives to operate within the western industrial section of the city, and it would establish a list of regulations and requirements, including a $75,000 annual licensing and inspection “fee.” The petition was able to gather enough signatures, about 6,000, for a special election. However, aside from the city’s normal clash with collectives, it was the “fee,” which they believed to actually be a tax that caused further tension and eventually, a court case to argue whether the terms “fee” or “tax” were applicable. In mid-March of this year, the Fourth District Appellate Court chose to side with the CCC, believing that the $75,000 is indeed a fee, not a tax. According to Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, that would have been the end of the debate, as the city of Upland was ready to give up on the case by May, but then the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) entered the picture.
The HJTA, along with the National Taxpayers Association, Pacific Legal Foundation and seven other groups recently filed amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs, all strongly believing that this particular case could undo tax protections set by Propositions 13 and 218. Prop 13 states that a 2/3 vote from voters must be obtained in order to set a specific tax and Prop 218, called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act” which was also sponsored by the HJTA, was passed in 1996 and provides protection for voters by requiring that voters be able to make their voice heard regarding local government taxes. The amicus curiae groups believe that the ramifications are much larger than simply disallowing collectives in Upland, asking the California Supreme Court to either review or at least depublish the decision made by the Court of Appeals. The former, of course, was the chosen action from the Supreme Court.
The results of this case could have other unintended consequences too, specifically in San Diego. Should the restrictions of Prop 13 and 218 be undone, it could directly affect two initiatives on the November ballot in San Diego. One initiative aims to raise the hotel tax in order to fund the newly proposed stadium, and the other would raise taxes for other purposes. The California Supreme Court’s review could affect the required votes to get those San Diego measures on the ballot, with the possibilities of either a “50 percent-plus-one or two-thirds of the vote,” stated the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
It was on June 30 that the California Supreme Court agreed to review the HJTA’s petition of the previous appellate court ruling. As of this writing, there is no further news as to when the Supreme Court will review the case at hand yet or what the ultimate verdict will be for the Upland medical cannabis community.
