This is a follow up to my last email. It seems as though the majority of those in attendance prefers to recommend a strategy for the city council of “hope the cannabis ordinance on the ballot doesn’t win”. Hope rarely wins elections. The city can’t campaign against this initiative. Residents should expect a campaign of ads, mailers, and a variety of promotional stunts.
Meet the person driving the Hermosa Beach Cannabis initiative that will be on the ballot:
https://www.instagram.com/catalyst_ceo/
Check out his videos. He will be spending a lot of money to win. He’s already spent a substantial amount on paid canvassers to to obtain the necessary number of signatures to get his initiative on the ballot.
Direct links to videos of interest:
CEO on Los Angeles 10% Tax Rate: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CbXeOo0Dszi/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
CEO on embracing “toxic”: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CaSWjCmJcL_/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
CEO on leading the recall of a Redondo Beach council person: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CaI4dAmJb2D/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
If you voted against the city creating a competing initiative, perhaps hearing directly from the Catalyst CEO will make you reconsider.
Whether you’re for or against maintaining the current ban, it’s not up to you. It will be up to the voters. Please recommend giving the council some tools, beyond “fingers crossed”.
Again, if people don’t want retail cannabis in Hermosa, they can just vote no on both.
Thanks for listening,
Claudia Berman
Hermosa Resident
Hello, I think consideration should be given to adding restrictions to the aesthetics of the retail storefronts. I've noticed that many existing cannabis storefronts are frankly quite impressive in a way that is cool and appealing to not only their clientele, but also in a way that is arguably aspirational to teenagers. And while underage patrons would not be allowed enter the retail stores, the storefronts tend to be highly visible and glamorize and legitimize cannabis that may lead teenagers to seek out cannabis through non-sanctioned sources. I recognize that building aesthetics are difficult to regulate, but at a minimum it would be nice to have some regulation that requires the storefronts to blend into the community rather that serve as giant billboard for cannabis. Thanks
The March 22 memo that Suja prepared to the City Council is NOT an accurate portrayal of what happened at the last meeting. At 2:47:20, Suja asked the members very specifically: Would the group recommend that the council consider adopting its own ordinance to place on the ballot.
Tom, Jason and Heidi were clear NO votes. Nathan, Matt and Russ were clear YES votes. Cammie and Andrea’s answers were unclear. How, then was a staff report to the City Council prepared with the following commentary:
The group was also polled regarding its support for a possible competing measure should Council to determine that approach as the best course of action for the community. A slight majority was supportive of a competing initiative with significant regulation to protect community interest.
The above statement is a mischaracterization of what happened. That sentence needed to be prefaced with the clarification that: The group was polled regarding its support for a competing measure supported by the City Council. The votes were 3 in support, 3 against, 2 undecided (if this was truly the case for Andrea and Cammie). Further discussion surrounding the possibility that if the City Council were to support a competing initiative, the following consensus was: xxxxx (provided context provided by Tom and Heidi, etc).
When these meetings are recorded for all to see, and when we know the community is watching, it is highly disturbing to see a distortion of the facts.
This needs to be corrected not just for the City Council, but for the community.
Again, these meetings continue to be advocacy driven, and what I am describing above is yet one more example of this. These are not unbiased discussions and the presenters are mainly advocates, with minimal information provided on the harms to the community.
Disappointing, to say the least. Residents deserve to hear the truth and the harms of cannabis.
On a final note – there has been zero mention of the environmental damage caused by cannabis growers. Considering the environmental focus of the council, this is another glaring absence of pertinent data. Supporting crops that consume tremendous amounts of water hurts our environment, particularly when we are in a continuous drought. These growers are depleting wells and water tables. Promoting dispensaries and the use of cannabis hurts our environment in numerous ways. Please do the research on that one.
Dear Cannabis Working Group,
This is a follow up to my last email. It seems as though the majority of those in attendance prefers to recommend a strategy for the city council of “hope the cannabis ordinance on the ballot doesn’t win”. Hope rarely wins elections. The city can’t campaign against this initiative. Residents should expect a campaign of ads, mailers, and a variety of promotional stunts.
Meet the person driving the Hermosa Beach Cannabis initiative that will be on the ballot:
https://www.instagram.com/catalyst_ceo/
Check out his videos. He will be spending a lot of money to win. He’s already spent a substantial amount on paid canvassers to to obtain the necessary number of signatures to get his initiative on the ballot.
Direct links to videos of interest:
CEO on Los Angeles 10% Tax Rate: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CbXeOo0Dszi/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
CEO on embracing “toxic”: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CaSWjCmJcL_/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
CEO on leading the recall of a Redondo Beach council person: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CaI4dAmJb2D/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
If you voted against the city creating a competing initiative, perhaps hearing directly from the Catalyst CEO will make you reconsider.
Whether you’re for or against maintaining the current ban, it’s not up to you. It will be up to the voters. Please recommend giving the council some tools, beyond “fingers crossed”.
Again, if people don’t want retail cannabis in Hermosa, they can just vote no on both.
Thanks for listening,
Claudia Berman
Hermosa Resident
Hello, I think consideration should be given to adding restrictions to the aesthetics of the retail storefronts. I've noticed that many existing cannabis storefronts are frankly quite impressive in a way that is cool and appealing to not only their clientele, but also in a way that is arguably aspirational to teenagers. And while underage patrons would not be allowed enter the retail stores, the storefronts tend to be highly visible and glamorize and legitimize cannabis that may lead teenagers to seek out cannabis through non-sanctioned sources. I recognize that building aesthetics are difficult to regulate, but at a minimum it would be nice to have some regulation that requires the storefronts to blend into the community rather that serve as giant billboard for cannabis. Thanks
The March 22 memo that Suja prepared to the City Council is NOT an accurate portrayal of what happened at the last meeting. At 2:47:20, Suja asked the members very specifically: Would the group recommend that the council consider adopting its own ordinance to place on the ballot.
Tom, Jason and Heidi were clear NO votes. Nathan, Matt and Russ were clear YES votes. Cammie and Andrea’s answers were unclear. How, then was a staff report to the City Council prepared with the following commentary:
The group was also polled regarding its support for a possible competing measure should Council to determine that approach as the best course of action for the community. A slight majority was supportive of a competing initiative with significant regulation to protect community interest.
The above statement is a mischaracterization of what happened. That sentence needed to be prefaced with the clarification that: The group was polled regarding its support for a competing measure supported by the City Council. The votes were 3 in support, 3 against, 2 undecided (if this was truly the case for Andrea and Cammie). Further discussion surrounding the possibility that if the City Council were to support a competing initiative, the following consensus was: xxxxx (provided context provided by Tom and Heidi, etc).
When these meetings are recorded for all to see, and when we know the community is watching, it is highly disturbing to see a distortion of the facts.
This needs to be corrected not just for the City Council, but for the community.
Again, these meetings continue to be advocacy driven, and what I am describing above is yet one more example of this. These are not unbiased discussions and the presenters are mainly advocates, with minimal information provided on the harms to the community.
Disappointing, to say the least. Residents deserve to hear the truth and the harms of cannabis.
On a final note – there has been zero mention of the environmental damage caused by cannabis growers. Considering the environmental focus of the council, this is another glaring absence of pertinent data. Supporting crops that consume tremendous amounts of water hurts our environment, particularly when we are in a continuous drought. These growers are depleting wells and water tables. Promoting dispensaries and the use of cannabis hurts our environment in numerous ways. Please do the research on that one.