Measure B: low revenue, high greed

Plumas

We of the Cannabis Citizens Group do not oppose medical or recreational use of marijuana. We oppose commercial cannabis activity in Plumas County.

The Medicinal and Adult Use of Marijuana Ordinance (MAUCO), written and supported by proponents of commercial cannabis activity in Plumas County, will appear as Measure B on the November 2018 election ballot. Thank you Board of Supervisors for requesting a report from the county department heads as to the fiscal impact Measure B would have on our county.

Low revenue

Regarding the General Fund, reports from the county auditor-controller and the treasurer-tax collector indicate that the revenue generated from Measure B’s proposed General Tax (two percent of cannabis businesses’ net income) may not cover county costs to regulate the proposed ordinance.

Measure B backers keep telling us that millions of dollars will flow into the county coffers as a result of the passage of this ordinance. According to proponents, everything will be just great—no increased crime and no increased costs to the county.

High greed

Not sure what to think about Measure B’s revenue claims?

Follow the money—not the money flowing into the county, but the money that would be packed into the pocketbooks of local commercial growers and cannabis business owners.

I urge you to stand with us against Measure B by clicking Team and having your name added as a supporter.

6 comments on “Measure B: low revenue, high greed

  1. Greg Kinne says:

    Kathy, You forgot to include license fees in you revenue estimate. The Planning Dept. impact report states that in addition to the 2%, license fees would be between $571,000 and $776,000 per year. As for money flowing into the county, The University of Pacific “financial impact report of Cannabis in Calaveras” shows that the Direct impacts were: Sales value-$257 million, Employment-2,605 jobs. The Calaveras experiment in 2016 was approximately 10 times bigger than Mauco, and I don’t think over 200 jobs with Mauco is unrealistic. Money undoubtably flows into the counties where Commercial cannabis is allowed. As do Jobs, and we need to face the fact that if we have no Commercial cannabis we are passing up a huge opportunity to put people to work=stronger families= community benefit. Many communities are designing Commercial Cannabis ordinances that are successful in mitigating the negative impacts, and using new mapping systems that integrate licensing and compliance with great success in combatting illegal grows. Last, I really don’t have a problem with the self-employed making money. I’ve been self-employed (as a contractor, then an artist) for 40+ years and it ain’t easy.
    It is great to see you writing! Thanks for participating.

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Hi, Greg

      I always appreciate your respectful discussion style—it’s refreshing.

      Questions: Do you consider your equation of “work=stronger families= community benefit” to exist in a vacuum? What I mean is how do you reconcile the possible negative effects of allowing commercial cannabis into our county with community benefits?

      Also, you may have forgotten to factor in the estimates contained in the fifth paragraph titled, Impact on County General Fund Expenses in the county impact report located here: http://www.countyofplumas.com/DocumentCenter/View/17854

      When you do, you may rethink your confidence concerning county revenue and community benefit.

      1. Greg Kinne says:

        Patrick, Your questions are on point with the bigger picture. Jobs don’t exist in a vacuum. And Mauco falls short of effectively mitigating some of the negative impacts of Commercial Cannabis that could, in turn, negatively affect our community. And, as it says in the Planning Dept. impact report, basically, the revenues would not cover the direct costs to the county. I personally think we could design a good, low impact Commercial cannabis ordinance if we as a community wanted it, but it is obvious from the efforts of the Citizen’s group that a lot of people just don’t want it. I’ll be happy either way as long as we consider it objectively. The citizen’s group has done good work, and your forum for discussion is valuable.
        Thanks, Greg

  2. Kay Christenson says:

    Thank you for the information and for the comments.

  3. Kathy Felker says:

    Dear Mr. Kinne:

    I appreciate your civil and rational response to my letter to the editor. After all, no matter what happens we all will be living in Plumas County in the future.

    Although, I did not mention the license fees, I did not forget them. There are questions according to the BOS Impact Report as to what licenses will be available if MAUCO passes. Therefore, there are inconsistencies with the purported amount of money that is expected to be raised through license fees. After reviewing the Impact Report it is almost impossible to determine exactly how many employees the county will need to hire to meet the requirements of the new ordinance. Is it only 5, as the MAUCO ordinance proponents say, or is it at least 6 or more that I can find listed in the impact report?

    In addition to employees, there are multiple costs mentioned, such as vehicles, office space, equipment, software, etc., that will surely eat up any money raised by license fees. Additionally, the Auditor-Controller states that revenues raised by the 2% tax on net profits may not be enough to cover the costs. The report goes on to say that the net gain in revenue to the county will be negligible. That’s just the problem, nobody knows for sure, it is all just conjecture on the part of the MAUCO proponents, and we the citizens of Plumas County are just supposed to stand by quietly and except their predictions for a rosy future.

    As far as your comparisons to Calaveras County go, you didn’t mention all the problems associated with legalized cannabis commercial activity that caused the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors to rescind their approval of commercial cannabis. Apparently money isn’t everything, at least in Calaveras County.

    I, too, have no problem with self-employed individuals making money. After all, small business entrepreneurs are the backbone of America’s economy. I do, however, have a problem with those individuals claiming that the “only” way to make money here in Plumas County is through growing marijuana. There are countless small businesses thriving here without the addition of commercial cannabis activity and its associated problems. Plumas County has survived the boom and bust of the gold rush, the depression of the 1930’s, and the loss of logging jobs in the last 30 years. We are still here and surviving.

    My children came back to Plumas County because of the lifestyle and small town atmosphere that is available to them and their children—my grandchildren. I’m not willing to risk their future with an unknown entity like commercial cannabis. The MAUCO ordinance was written to satisfy a small group of local growers to the detriment of the rest of the citizens of our county. It was written to override the Planning Commission process and to not give the elected BOS any method to change any part of the ordinance.

    If the Measure B passes, there will be no way to override any of the unknown issues that may occur. The BOS and the Planning Commission will have their hands tied. Are you willing to live with the unknown consequences of MAUCO? I’m not.

    Kathy Felker

  4. Taurin Wilson says:

    Hi Kathy, it’s good to hear from you, and thanks for all your help when I working at the post office, it was genuinely appreciated.
    I respect your opinion, and I don’t think revenue from commercial cannabis will instantly solve all of our problems, but when compared to the financial impact of enforcing the moratorium it is hard for me to see a regulated market as being fiscally worse for the county.
    Even if we don’t chose to allow a legal commercial market, the county will unfortunately continue to have an illegal commercial cannabis market, from which we collect zero revenue to mitigate negative impacts. Regulating cannabis would allow more effective enforcement, we simply don’t have enough money to be all places at once.
    Thanks, that’s all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *