Candidates for Board of Supervisors Take Positions on Cannabis

Will New Supervisors Change the Cannabis Program in 2027?

 We have known for a year that Supervisor Gore (District 4) was retiring and in early March learned that Supervisor Rabbitt (District 2) would also retire. Four candidates are running to replace Rabbitt: John E. King, Sylvia Lemus, Shelina Moreda, and Joanna Paun.   Three candidates are running to replace Gore: Melanie Bagby, Todd Lands, and Tom Schwedhelm. With several candidates for each office, it is possible that no one will achieve 50% to win in the June 2 primary. If there is no outright winner in June, the top two candidates for each  district will compete on the November 3 ballot. As a nonprofit organization, the Neighborhood Coalition cannot endorse candidates. We are allowed to provide information about the various candidates’ positions on cannabis issues, which is the goal of this newsletter. The cannabis industry supports candidates who serve their needs in all five districts - residents need to do the same thing if they want their voices to be heard. Even if you cannot vote for these candidates, neighbors can provide financial support and endorsements.

The Neighborhood  Coalition’s Questionnaire      

We began drafting a questionnaire when Gore’s was the only open seat. We focused on four issues decided by 3-2 margins in the recent Cannabis Ordinance Update in which Gore cast one of the deciding votes that harmed neighborhood compatibility. If the new District 4 Supervisor holds a different view on any of the four issues, the policy decision could be reversed. Now that Rabbitt has also retired, the voters should determine whether the new District 2 Supervisor supports  protecting the public and neighborhood compatibility.

The questionnaire asked about: (1) requiring the same minimum 1,000-foot setbacks between cannabis cultivation sites and neighboring property regardless of zoning; (2) allowing neighborhoods to request designation as exclusion zones; (3) rescinding the ministerial crop swap program; and (4) removing cannabis from the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance. We also asked whether property and sales taxes should subsidize the cannabis industry. We emailed the questionnaire to each candidate’s campaign address, and for those who did not respond after a second email query we sent copies of the questionnaire to each candidate’s campaign address by U.S. mail. We also made telephone requests to respond to Bagby and Moreda.

Assessment of Candidates for Supervisor District 2

We received responses from John King and Sylvia Lemus which are attached in full without editing. Please read them. Neither Shelina Moreda nor Joanna Paun responded. For this reason, we believe that Moreda and Paun are in different to neighborhood concerns. We encourage them to respond if they wish to persuade us otherwise. For additional information we watched the League of Women Voters Candidates Forum on April 8 for District 2, which can be watched here. We encourage you to view all 90 minutes, but cannabis is specifically addressed from about minutes 55 to 60.

King seems very knowledgeable about and critical of the entire cannabis program. He supports major changes, including longer setbacks, exclusion zones, rescinding the crop swap program, and removing cannabis from the Right to Farm Ordinance. He opposes “subsidizing cannabis in any form.” During the Candidates Forum, King emphasized his belief that the current cannabis land use ordinance needs to be rewritten and needs a major overall. He specifically identified water  sustainability, odors, and protecting neighbors as issues that need to be addressed.

Lemus said she needs more education on cannabis issues. She opposes longer setbacks but seems open to exclusion zones, rescinding the crop swap program, and removing cannabis from the Right to Farm Ordinance. Her position on subsidizing cannabis seems vague. During the Candidates Forum, Lemus mostly reiterated that she needs more research on cannabis issues and seems to be sympathetic to increased setbacks from homes.

While Moreda declined to respond to any of our questions, some of her responses in the Candidates Forum suggest agreement with our concerns. Moreda seems to agree that cannabis should not be in the Right to Farm Ordinance because cannabis is not agriculture under State law. While vague, she expressed concerns about impacts on rural communities, especially about setbacks and water use.
 
Besides ignoring our questionnaire, Paun could not identify a single policy to change in the cannabis land use ordinance during the Candidates Forum. She endorsed more children’s education. Paun may be the diametrical opposite of Rabbitt on cannabis issues and possibly another pro-cannabis James Gore.
 

Assessment of Candidates for Supervisor District 4

We received a response from Tom Schwedhelm which is attached in full without editing. Please read it. Neither Melanie  Bagby nor Todd Lands responded. For this reason, we believe that Bagby and Lands are indifferent to neighborhood concerns. They can respond if they wish to persuade us otherwise. For additional information we watched the League of Women Voters Candidates Forum on April 9 for District 4, which can be viewed here. We encourage you to watch all 90 minutes, but cannabis is specifically addressed from about minutes 62 to 67.

Schwedhelm seems reasonably informed on cannabis issues and provided thoughtful responses to our questions. While he thinks the current setbacks are satisfactory, he is open to exclusion zones, rescinding the crop swap program, and removing cannabis from the Right to Farm Ordinance. He does not like the idea of subsidizing cannabis but does not seem eager to increase taxes on the cannabis industry. During the Candidates Forum, Schwedhelm noted that during the ordinance revision process, neighbors did not feel they were heard. He endorsed more restrictions on cannabis cultivation to protect neighbors and existing agricultural operations, including increased setbacks (a change from his written response to our questionnaire) and exclusion zones.

Bagby declined to respond to our questions and lauded the supervisors for making progress in updating the cannabis ordinance. While Bagby conceded that neighbors should be protected, she emphasized her focus would be on supporting the economic potential of the cannabis industry and that she viewed Proposition 64 as a positive.

While Lands also failed to respond to our questionnaire, some of his responses in the Candidates Forum suggest he agrees with some of our concerns. He said that allowing exclusion zones would be a priority, and that cannabis like any industry should pay for itself.