Marijuana? Not in Riverbank, petitions say
Marijuana opponents made good on a promise to challenge the City Council’s approval of a second recreational weed dispensary.
Petitioners on Thursday delivered 1,134 signatures to City Hall asking that a pot shop at 6609 Third St. downtown not be allowed. If enough signatures are valid, the City Council would reconsider its January approval for the future Riverbank Cannabis Collective, or put the issue before voters throughout the city in a formal referendum.
It’s a repeat from two weeks ago, when petitions were turned in challenging council approval for Flavors, a future marijuana dispensary on Patterson Road between Galaxy Theatres and McDonald’s. Neither dispensary has opened yet.
Council members had embraced both companies, saying they prefer to regulate an industry approved by most California voters in fall 2016, and to receive tens of thousands of dollars each month in payments from the dispensaries. The council then put a six-month moratorium on additional applications, giving them time to evaluate how the first two do before granting more.
Both approvals came despite heartfelt pleas from many opponents, some of whom continue approaching the council during open-mic portions of public meetings.
“You’re not paying attention to what the community is telling you: We don’t want it,” resident Ramon Bermudez told the council at Tuesday’s meeting.
Ashley Edwards, a youth leader with First United Pentecostal Church, said young people are struggling with enough problems without having to confront easily accessible marijuana. “If, in a small community, we can stand against accepting that, maybe we can make a difference,” she said.
Jennifer Miyakawa read a letter from U.S. Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, who noted that marijuana use is “still in violation of federal law and subject to prosecution by federal authorities,” despite California law.
“I believe legalizing drugs, including marijuana, is a detriment to society and will endanger future generations,” Denham said in the letter.
Gathering signatures for the second petition was more challenging, Art Hidalgo told The Modesto Bee, because many people who signed the first did not understand that the second required a separate petition. “I think there was confusion,” he said.
But petitioners still collected 1,134 signatures, City Hall confirmed, and 992 must be valid to force council reconsideration or a referendum. The first effort gathered 1,153 signatures; Stanislaus County election officials still have a few weeks to verify those before starting on the second batch.
Garth Stapley: 209-578-2390
This story was originally published March 2, 2018 at 4:38 PM with the headline "Marijuana? Not in Riverbank, petitions say."