***NOTICE*** HUGE FLAW WITH AUMA : ****NOTICE****

by Joe Hemp
your-vote Aliso Viejo is floating the attached ordinance, that Prohibits EVERYTHING

except if you want to grow INDOORS, under AUMA

they will be requiring an Indoor Cultivation Permit

So if you don’t rat yourself out to them, by getting a permit

then you actually have NO RIGHT TO GROW

Under AUMA…do the Voters Know This?

 

also in that ordinance they prohibit the recreational industry outright.
Didn’t AUMA say that the voters had to have a say in the Bans?
HMM, Lets see what happened?

Is Aliso Viejo Correct?

 

HERE IS A MAJOR ISSUE that EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW:
The November Filing of AUMA says Local Vote of the People prop 64 marijuana legalization auma

(NOVEMBER Version) Page 2 of 15-103 Section E “and to ban marijuana businesses by a vote of the people within a locality.”

and
( d) Allow local governments to ban nonmedical marijuana businesses as set forth in this Act.

Chapter 20. Local Control
26200.
(a) Nothing in this division shall be
interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local
jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to second hand smoke. However, nothing in this division shall be interpreted to require a licensing authority to undertake local law enforcement responsibilities, enforce local zoning requirements, or enforce local licensing requirements.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), no local jurisdiction shall:
(1) Completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses
licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction unless approved by a majority vote of the voters of the local jurisdiction.

silence

But in the Revised Filing…
(DECEMBER Version)
Chapter 20. Local Control
26200.

(a) Nothing in this division shall be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to second hand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction.
(b) Nothing in this division shall be interpreted to require a licensing authority to undertake local law enforcement responsibilities, enforce local zoning requirements, or enforce local licensing requirements.
(c) A local jurisdiction shall notify the bureau upon revocation of any local license, permit, or authorization for a licensee to engage in commercial marijuana activity within the local jurisdiction. Within ten (10) days of notification, the bureau shall inform the relevant licensing authorities. Within ten (10) days of being so informed by the bureau, the relevant licensing authorities shall commence proceedings under Chapter 3 of this Division to determine whether a license issued to the licensee should be suspended or revoked.
( d) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section……

AS YOU CAN SEE, the original November filing had that local vote provision, and message to the voters was that they had a say in recreational shops being allowed or not…

but here we find the authors have purposely omitted the local vote…..proponents of AUMA are again misleading the public, and continuing the BANAPLOOZA that we already have, so tell me again where is the benefit to the people who want recreational cannabis?
LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE? liarliar-pants-on-fire

 

What Else did they change?

3 Attachments

Preview attachment Aliso Viejo Staff_Report.pdf

Aliso Viejo Staff_Report.pdf
1.7 MB

Preview attachment 15-0103 (Marijuana)_1.pdf

15-0103 (Marijuana)_1.pdf
1.2 MB

Preview attachment 15-0103 OLD Nov 7th.pdf

15-0103 OLD Nov 7th.pdf
4.8 MB

Leave a Reply