Index
Tuesday
Apr222014

L.A. CITY HALL: Regulation, medical marijuana, new shops continue to open, finding "new ways to exploit" Prop. D rules, LA Weekly: "How Some Dispensaries Find a Way Around L.A.'s Pot Shop Ban" ....

* LA Weekly:  "How Some Dispensaries Find a Way Around L.A.'s Pot Shop Ban" - From the Weekly:

Amid a historic low number of registered marijuana dispensaries in the city of Los Angeles, a new weed shop recently opened up in Chatsworth. At this point in the game, storefronts aren't really supposed to be opening.

In fact all of the weed stores in the Los Angeles Police Department's local Devonshire Division had been shut down with the help of local city Councilman Mitch Englander who, as a reserve police officer, went out on a raid in 2012 that shuttered the last collective in his district. But police say the Chatsworth dispensary is the second in the area to launch this year - the other is on Reseda Boulevard south of Parthenia Street - and that these businesses could be finding new ways to exploit L.A.'s strict pot-shop rules:

When voters approved Prop. D last year most of the more than 1,000 shops in town were supposed to shut down. Only about 135 remaining since a 2007 city moratorium. . . .went into effect would be allowed to remain via limited immunity from prosecution. The result was that the 1,140 shops that had registered to pay a city pot sales tax in 2013 had been reduced to 462 this spring, according to L.A. Department of Finance records. Threats by the L.A. City Attorney to take operators and landlords to court seemed to be working.

But the allure of the dollar for some of those 135 "pre-ICO" shops might be causing some to multiply. Being pre-ICO is a ticket to millionaire status. It can be more lucrative by far than having a state alcohol license.

A knowledgeable Los Angeles police official who didn't want his name used told LA Weekly that the new shop in Chatsworth, Strain 30 Cap Collective at 21627 Devonshire St., is claiming the same pre-ICO status as a shop in downtown L.A. And he says it's not at all unusual:

Some shops with pre-ICO status are abandoning their original locations, splitting into two dispensaries at spots outside their original police divisions, and then sometimes even brazenly returning to those first storefronts, he said. The result is that one pre-ICO store, which is basically what Prop. D allows, turns into prosecutorial immunity for three separate storefronts. At least in theory...................................

Tuesday
Apr222014

POLITICS (National): U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Michigan ban on affirmative action: "Supreme Court upholds Michigan ban on affirmative action" ....

* Los Angeles Times:  "Supreme Court upholds Michigan ban on affirmative action" - From the LAT:

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of racial affirmative action in its state universities Tuesday, ruling that voters are entitled to decide the issue. The 6-2 decision clears away constitutional challenges to the state bans on affirmative action, which began in California in 1996.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the majority, said the democratic process can decide such issues. “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he said. “It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

In 2003, the high court upheld an affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan Law School. But three years later, the state’s voters adopted Proposal 2 by a 58% to 42% margin. It said public colleges and universities “shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”

But that policy was challenged as discriminatory by two groups that had advocated for affirmative action. And the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati declared it unconstitutional on the grounds that it took away a policy that had helped minority students.

Tuesday’s ruling is not a surprise, since a majority of the sitting justices have been skeptical of affirmative action..........................

Tuesday
Apr222014

POLITICS (National): Various reports, selection of new White House counsel, Neil Eggleston to succeed Kathy Ruemmler: "President Obama picks W. Neil Eggleston as new White House counsel"; "Obama names Washington veteran Neil Eggleston as White House counsel"; "Obama names W. Neil Eggleston next White House counsel" .... 

***Sampling of coverage, W. Neil Eggleston named as new White House counsel....

* Politico:  "President Obama picks W. Neil Eggleston as new White House counsel"

* Los Angeles Times:  "Obama names Washington veteran Neil Eggleston as White House counsel"

* CBS News:  "Obama names W. Neil Eggleston next White House counsel"

Tuesday
Apr222014

MORNING MEMOS: State Superintendent of Public Instruction election, "Antonio Villaraigosa endorses Torlakson rival in state schools' chief race"; San Francisco, United Educators of San Francisco, "San Francisco teachers want hefty raise"; Sacramento, "Resolution introduced to name freeway stretch for Sen. Jenny Oropeza" .... 

***Various items this morning from across the spectrum of politics and/or public policy....

* Sacramento Bee:  "Antonio Villaraigosa endorses Torlakson rival in state schools' chief race"

* San Francisco Chronicle (City Insider):  "San Francisco teachers want hefty raise"

* Los Angeles Times:  "Resolution introduced to name freeway stretch for Sen. Jenny Oropeza"

Tuesday
Apr222014

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Bay Area): Berkeley, litigation, city council redistricting: "Berkeley at war with itself over redistricting" ....

* San Francicsco Chronicle (Chip Johnson):  "Berkeley at war with itself over redistricting" - From the Chronicle:

It's a radical move for a city to file a lawsuit against itself, but when a majority vote of the council is ignored, or bypassed, it becomes a viable option. That's the route chosen by the city of Berkeley, which last month filed suit against three council members to enforce a redistricting map approved by the Berkeley City Council late last year on a 6-3 vote.

Councilmen Jesse Arreguin, Max Anderson and Kriss Worthington are named as defendants along with a handful of citizens who took an active role in supporting a referendum to halt use of the new map. The lawsuit asks the court to order the Alameda County Registrar of Voters and the Berkeley city clerk's office to use the new map in the November election. A hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday and the courts have promised a swift ruling to allow the registrar's office time to prepare materials with new district boundaries for the election.

Matthai Chakko, a spokesman in the Berkeley city manager's office, declined to comment on the pending litigation. But litigation hasn't tongue-tied the opposition to the new maps. They're flinging accusations of gerrymandering, collusion and power politics..............................