Upland City Council Meeting Tonight. Below is the link to the Agenda Packet Looks like District Voting Map, Grant Application Update, Marijuana. Below is a link to the agenda packet for the Upland City Council Meeting Monday Night Hot topics on the agenda: Marcelo Blanco receives his Lieutenant. This page is to share my concerns about Upland and to get your opinion and insights on these matters.
Coalition petitioners needed 5,542 to qualify the initiative for the ballot — a number calculated from 15 percent of the total registered voters in the city. Committee assignments are not a right, they are a responsibility — a responsibility council member Elliott has consistently shown she is incapable of handling,” Stone said. Content is available under unless otherwise noted. Councilwoman Carol Timm has replaced Elliott on the city’s Upland Investments Committee.
Attorneys for the city argued in the case that this ruling could allow the indirect process to be used by city councils or county boards to cooperate with initiative petitioners to bypass the voter approval requirement for taxes entirely.Both of the ruling said that the case would have on other initiative efforts.But Elliott said there was no job evaluation at the first meeting and only a cursory “You’re doing a good job” at the second meeting.
Tom Mitchell, an Upland business owner, spoke about his concerns at a council meeting on February 9, 2015, “I was approached at a Target store here in Upland to sign the petition. UPLAND >> Fissures in the Upland City Council busted open at Monday’s meeting, with the four-member majority kicking off the minority member, from several committees. Upland City Council imposed a ban on medical marijuana about a year ago. Upland has spent over $750,000 fighting to ban medical marijuana.
Get paid to flirt
We gebruiken cookies om inhoud en advertenties relevanter te maken en je een veiligere ervaring te bieden. We gebruiken cookies om inhoud en advertenties relevanter te maken en je een veiligere ervaring te bieden. We understand and support the proponent decision to file legal action against the city. We will not quit until prohibition has ended!
Committee meeting minutes template
While other cities eliminated marijuana sales near their schools, parks and homes, Upland still encourages a black market to flourish. Would create anew definition for "marijuana dispensaries," which would apply to all sites, facilities, locations, uses, collectives, associations, cooperatives, or businesses that distribute, store, sell, exchange, process, deliver, give away, possess, and/or cultivate medical marijuana within the City.
- It is advisable to have several people oversee any informational or newspaper articles that are submitted.
- Those in favor of putting the vote off until 2016 stressed that a special election in June would cost the city $179,800, while adding the initiative question to the regularly scheduled general election in 2016 would cost only $25,000.
- The court’s obligation to "protect and liberally construe the initiative power and to narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit its exercise" means it must err on the side of not applying restrictions to citizen initiatives.
- Article XIII C, section 2, also contains a voter approval requirement for local taxes and a two-thirds supermajority requirement for taxes, such as education or transportation.
Each permit holder would be required to pay an annual fee to the City of $75,000, which could he paid in two installments after an initial permit. Elliott has taken those accusations to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office for investigation. Elliott said it’s simply not true that her committees are in disarray because there has only been one meeting.
There are no provisions for revocation of permits; suspensions can be for a maximum of thirty days. They also argued that the operation of dispensaries would provide increased revenue to the city. They were trying to put on a special election ballot in 2015.
Some citizens came forward and claimed that signature gatherers presented the initiative as a way to increase restrictions on medical marijuana and further remove the drug from the city, instead of lifting the ban and providing for three dispensaries. Some shared Stone’s criticism, saying they found fault with Elliott’s decorum on social media and in public. Speaking by phone Friday, Thouvenell disputes Elliott’s understanding of state law.
City of Upland ruling was specifically about Article XIII C 2(b)—the regular general election ballot requirement for general tax measures—the court case discussed Article XIII C as a whole, and the ruling raised questions about whether the other provisions of Article XIII C, section 2, apply to initiatives, including the requirement for all taxes earmarked for a specific purpose. Clearly, it was not a violation of the Brown Act,” he said.
Currently the medical marijuana dispensaries, mobile medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation of marijuana are prohibited in the City of Upland. Dispensaries are proposed to be permitted in the Community Commercial Zone, only along Foothill Boulevard west of Airport Drive and east of Monte Vista Boulevard, with a maximum total of three permitted.
Citing the state law that requires a local measure that includes a tax to go on a general election ballot combined with the fact that this initiative would have authorized operation fees of $75,000 per year for dispensaries, the city council postponed for this measure until November 2016.
Jon Coupal, president of the (HJTA), said that the ruling could result in city councils and county boards collaborating with tax-increase advocates to use the initiative process to avoid tax measure restrictions that, according to the HJTA, are there to protect taxpayers. Mayor Debbie Stone defended her decision to put an item on the agenda for the rest of the year. Meer informatie, zoals over hoe je je instellingen kunt aanpassen, vind je hier:.
Meer informatie, zoals over hoe je je instellingen kunt aanpassen, vind je hier:. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. On August 28, 2017, the ruled that the provision of Proposition 218 requiring local general taxes to go on the ballot during regular general elections rather than special elections did not apply to.
Opponents also claimed the initiative was badly written and did not have the basic restrictions and rules necessary to keep the operation of dispensaries from attracting crime and producing nuisances for city residents. Opponents argued that the initiative was written largely with the goal of profit for dispensary owners and did not do enough to ensure the safety and comfort of community members. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng. People are getting confused.
Als je op de website klikt of op de website navigeert, ga je ermee akkoord dat we op en buiten Facebook informatie verzamelen via cookies.
This ruling came after the election on Measure U, and, thus, it did not have an effect on the measure's election date. This was the decision suggested by the city attorney since elections law requires a measure seeking to impose a tax or make appropriations to be voted on during a general election, rather than a special election. Today the directors of California Cannabis Coalition and the patients of upland converged on Upland City Hall.
For media inquiries, you can reach us. He also said that supporters of the initiative would ask the courts to order the city to put the initiative before voters in June of 2015. He claimed that the enactment of the measure would result in dispensaries that attract crime and create lots of nuisances for residents. I trust her above all others because she isn’t afraid to go against the grain.
Stone said Elliott has alienated other committee members, and “our own city staff does not want to deal with her. Stone said Elliott has flipped-flopped on two major positions in the city: first coming out in favor of Measure E — going so far as to co-authoring the ballot argument in favor — and Upland Fire Department’s proposed annexation to San Bernardino County Fire, only to change her mind and oppose both. Take the time out of your busy schedule to attend.
Proponents of the initiative vociferously protested this decision, threatening petitions against all three city council members that voted to postpone the election until 2016 rather than putting the initiative on a. Proposition 218 added to the state constitution. Resident Julie Bridge said many of Elliott’s social media posts are filled with inaccurate statistics that made people believe the city was hiding something.
The one-page document with nine directives is signed by Stone and the three other council members. The patients were outraged and wanted access to medicine. The person presenting it presented it as a way to get rid of pot shops in Upland.
Als je op de website klikt of op de website navigeert, ga je ermee akkoord dat we op en buiten Facebook informatie verzamelen via cookies.Although the California Cannabis Coalition v.
The city has failed and now has opened the door for litigation. The council agenda scheduled this decision for a vote at the council meeting on February 9, 2015. The document had nothing to do with the city manager’s evaluation.
- A decision to deny or suspend would be subject to prompt review by the planning commission, city council and/or courts.
- A medical marijuana ordinance measure was on the ballot for voters in, on.
- A spokesman with the DA’s office said protocol dictates he can neither confirm nor deny receipt of the complaint.
- All opponents to the initiative were from Upland.
- Allie Murray said she voted for Elliott in the Nov.
If a vote has been made by the council, a council member should support the decision of the whole council whether they agree on it or not on social media and any public meetings. If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. If you want to voice your concerns, questions, or comments about the "New" direction of Upland.
The purpose of the proposed measure is to repeal existing local laws prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries and replace them with a system for regulating and permitting a maximum of three medical marijuana dispensaries within the City. The ruling came too late to affect Measure U, but was an important lawsuit with regard to local direct democracy in California. There are 24 shops in Upland, including 9 storefronts and 15 mobile dispensaries.
Elliott, who has only been on the council since December, said she has tried to “toe the company line,” get along with everyone and has participated in many 5-0 votes. Filippi said he was troubled by the disclosure of employee information discussed during a closed session meeting. For example, San Francisco's process is direct, and San Jose's requires signatures equal to 5 percent of registered voters to qualify for a general election and 10 percent to qualify for a special election.
Permits could only be denied or suspended by the City for specified reasons. Proponents claim compassion as their motivation; I noted RAND and UCLA findings that for-profit marijuana businesses have strong incentives to market to problem users. Proponents of the initiative also sued the city, trying to force a special election in 2015.
It would allow vaping, consumption of edible pot, and extracts ons ite causing impaired driving and potential accidents. I’m posting my opinions on Facebook,” she said. I’ve been effective on both committees I served. Janice Elliott has taken her concerns to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, she said.
In the article, he recounted his experience at the public, March 9, 2015, city council meeting on the initiative. Instead, and with the city’s public relations consultant present both times, Elliott said the council discussed the disharmony on the council, her social media presence and her two town halls with constituents. It did not address sanitation, neighborhood impact, hygienic conditions, client safety, cash on site, buyer’s authorizations, audits, accounting, taxes, prohibited chemicals.
That case was initially ruled against initiative proponents and in favor of the city's delayed election date. The California Supreme Court later ruled that this provision does not apply to citizen initiatives. The Upland Regulate Marijuana Act of 2016 (URMA) is the common-sense, responsible legislation that the City of Upland needs now. The backers of the marijuana ordinance publically threatened city council members with a recall if they did not agree with their plan.
Upland has tried to end this black market, but has only wasted our taxpayer dollars in vain. Upland needs responsible government. Upland would be required to spend money to enforce the monopoly's ordinance by shutting down competing dispensaries to protect their monopoly. Violent crime attends to dispensaries everywhere they operate, in states that regulate them or not, presenting an “attractive nuisance” to criminals.
- According to Elliott, she was told by interim City Manager Martin Thouvenell that she could come to him anytime because the city wasn’t able to get her training from the League of California Cities, as is customary with new council members.
- Activist in Upland are considering a recall petition as a way to clean up local Upland government.
- After recognizing that bans fail, the City of San Jose passed regulations that reduced the number of dispensaries from more than 100 to only 16.
- Aftermath California Cannabis Coalition v.
Thirteen years ago, Upland's city council banned medical marijuana businesses. This document was reviewed during a closed-door session of the Upland City Council under the guise of a city manager job performance evaluation, Councilwoman Janice Elliott alleges. This gave the city council members the option of putting the measure before voters or approving it directly. This initiative was designed to charge $75,000 per year for licensing and inspection permits.
Roger Jon Diamond, the Santa Monica attorney who represented the California Cannabis Coalition in the case, said that the ruling would not change the supermajority requirements for tax initiatives. She asked the councilwoman to explain what it is she knows that others don’t. So, she was surprised to be called into a private meeting in March with and and find there as well.