City Hall Sends "Informational Mailer" On Its Marijuana Tax Measure MA; It's A "Blank Check" Tax That Council Says It'll Prioritize For These Uses

LBReport.com

News

Not immediately clear who authorized City mailer or how much it cost

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

Paid political content
Attention Long Beach, Signal Hill, San Pedro & Catalina:

NEW: MARTHA FLORES GIBSON won't do what our current Assemblyman did. SEE how he behaved on VIDEO:
Apple/iPhone, here
Android / Windows, here

See MARTHA FLORES GIBSON on why she'll do a better job in Sac'to Assembly
Apple/iPhone, here
Windows/Android, here

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT www.MarthaFloresGibson.com
Paid for by Martha Flores Gibson for Assembly 2016 (Dist.70) State ID # 1387345

Paid advocacy content
AND for VIDEO and FURTHER INFORMATION on EL DORADO AUDUBON, CLICK HERE.
Paid for by El Dorado Audubon

(Oct. 15, 2016) -- On Oct. 14, a number of Long Beach residents reported receiving an 8.5 x 11 (flat/cardboard) double-sided mailer from the City of Long Beach, that it self-describes as informational and not advocacy, about Measure MA, a City Hall-written ballot measure that would tax LB entities selling marijuana for adult recreational or medical uses, and cultivating, processing, testing and distributing marijuana, if voters approve separate ballot measures approving such uses.

Late Friday (Oct. 14), LBREPORT.com asked a City spokesperson for the approximate City cost for the mailer; from what general budgeted area the sum came; and who authorized the mailer expenditure [to our knowledge there was no Council vote on this.] The spokesperson indicated an answer may be available on Monday; we'll add it here as received. The mailer echoes some of the points recited on the City of LB's website at this link..

The CA Supreme Court has basically held (Stanson v. Mott (1976) and Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) that government entities (cities) can't use public resources to advocate or oppose a ballot measure coming to their voters but can provide "informational" material that doesn't expressly advocate the measure.)

City Hall's Measure MA would impose a gross receipts tax on marijuana operations conducted within the city; it's a general tax (a "blank check" measure) meaning the City Council can spend its revenue on any general fund items. On Oct. 11, the Council approved a non-binding resolution (8-0, Mungo absent) [similar to the non-binding resolution the Council adopted in putting its Measure A sales tax increase on the June ballot] voicing the Council's "intent" to "prioritize" spending the marijuana tax revenue "on the costs of providing public health and safety services in Long Beach. This includes costs related to emergency response, police and fire services, continuum of public safety services, homelessness, drug prevention and treatment, environmental and food safety services, and other health and safety services."

The Council resolution also states: "Although this resolution expresses the intent of the current City Council to spend future marijuana tax revenue for certain priorities, this resolution is non-binding on any future or subsequently constituted City Council..."

On July 19, city staff agendized a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed LB medical marijuana measure (Measure MM) that recited multiple anticipated city taxpayer costs (including police, fire, health, administrative) visible at this link. An August 2 city staff report predicted City Hall's proposed Measure MA marijuana tax would generate roughly $13 million annually (revenue projections at this link).

[Scroll down for further.]

The marijuana tax doesn't take effect unless LB and/or CA voters approve one or both pending marijuana measures. LB voters will decide Measure MM, a petiton-initiated measure that would require City Hall to let medical marijuana outlets (currently banned) operate in Long Beach. CA voters statewide will decide Prop 64 that would legalize marijuana under CA law for adult recreational use (i.e. getting stoned.)

Congress hasn't changed federal law on marijuana, and the FDA hasn't reclassified cannabis, so smoking/ingesting the plant remains illegal under federal law...although the Obama administration's DOJ has indicated it won't generally prosecute federal marijuana offenses if states allow marijuana uses that meet very specific DOJ guidelines.