Sacramento supervisors’ dubious rationale for giving up millions in marijuana revenue
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors rejected the possibility of legal cannabis sales in unincorporated areas at its most recent meeting, delaying a measure that could curtail illegal marijuana sales and put sensible regulations in place for the health and safety of residents.
Supervisors Sue Frost and Don Nottoli seemed more concerned with the morality of cannabis use than the regulation of it, despite California voters’ overwhelming approval of cannabis for recreational use in 2016.
County staff estimated that cannabis tax revenues could approach $9 million. With that kind of money expected, it’s a wonder that the supervisors aren’t begging cannabis owners to open up shop in the unincorporated areas of the county. Through its Cannabis Business Operations Tax, the city of Sacramento has seen cannabis tax revenues grow from $4.8 million in fiscal 2017 to $25.4 million in 2021, according to the city budget.
County supervisors recently deliberated intensely over allocating a comparatively meager $1.4 million to keep Project Roomkey motels open for the unhoused. And yet they’re taking a pass on a major revenue source that is already working well for the city?
Imagine what Sacramento County Director of Human Assistance Ethan Dye and his team could do with some or all of the nearly $9 million in marijuana tax money to help people in need. Or imagine how many more tiny home communities for Sacramento families, veterans, women and children could be constructed. Or do what youth advocacy groups have been asking for, and use that money for preventative programs and communities harmed by mass incarceration from years of unfairly enforced drug laws.
We may never know.
Frost encouraged anti-marijuana residents of her district to pack the meeting. Then she argued that it wasn’t fair for unincorporated Sacramento County to be affected by voters living in the city of Sacramento, where cannabis businesses are already approved. That proved once again that Frost is unwilling to recognize the will of the majority in the face of a vocal minority.
Besides, Sacramento County can’t be separated from the supposedly godless, pot-smoking liberals living in the city of Sacramento. County residents use cannabis, too.
District 3 supervisor Rich Desmond pointed out that the board can vote down the ordinance once the entire county has had a chance to vote, using the level of support from unincorporated residents to inform their final decision.
“But I can’t get to that point until we put this on the ballot and hear from the unincorporated county residents,” Desmond said. “Cannabis products are prolific in the unincorporated county. It’s everywhere, and the tax revenue is all going to the city of Sacramento. So we’re not only leaving money on the table; we are allowing a different municipality to be the only one making decisions about how the tax money is spent.”
Supervisor Phil Serna, in an attempt at appeasement, jumped on Frost’s rapidly derailing train of thought. At the end of the meeting, after the vote on the measure had failed, the District 1 supervisor directed county staff to look into a special revenue tax that could be voted on by only the unincorporated parts of the county.
“I refuse to accept that board members can’t find common ground to ... give Sacramento County voters the opportunity to consider generating tens of millions in additional revenue,” Serna wrote in a text after the meeting. “That’s why I directed staff to come back to the board of supervisors on July 26th with options to place on the November 2022 ballot the ability to tax cannabis activities and use the additional revenue to enhance county programs to house and serve our unhoused constituents.”
But county sources told me it’s unlikely that the county counsel will find a way to mollify Frost in time to get a measure on the November ballot by the deadline at the end of this month.
Even though the cannabis measure received three of the five supervisors’ votes, it needed four votes to pass. Nottoli, who joined Frost in voting against it, reasoned that cannabis was already available nearby and therefore didn’t need to be allowed in the unincorporated areas. Nottoli argued that “it’s not always about the revenue” while simultaneously acknowledging that the “most awful time in (his) career” was laying off thousands of county employees during the last recession.
It’s a confounding argument when nearly $9 million could help the county so much, particularly in unincorporated areas that tend to be in greater need of investment and revitalization.
With the threat of another recession at our doorstep, Sacramento County cannot justify forgoing millions in unrealized revenue when recreational cannabis use is already legal throughout California. The voters have already decided that this is no longer a moral issue.
This story was originally published July 14, 2022 at 10:34 AM.
