YES, POT DUOPOLY POSES PROBLEMS

Re "Pot duopoly poses problems" (Editorial, March 24):

Your editorial endorses the concept of not imposing an arbitrary limit
on dispensaries, but rather letting the land-use/zoning regulation
self-regulate, so to speak, in that it will allow only a certain
number of dispensaries due to setbacks required, etc., and the
marketplace or willing landlords of such parcels/buildings would
likely limit or reduce the practical number of potential sites further.

At the March 1 meeting I made the motion to do just that, but it
received no support.

My recollection of what [Mayor] Ann [Schwab] advocated for was the
"on-site closed-loop" concept, a concept I do not support. As you
noted, ultimately the on-site closed-loop concept was rejected in
substance, even though first passed in form. [Councilman] Jim Walker
was the vote switch, or vote for both on that issue. Otherwise we were
three for and three against on those two votes (closed-loop and
subsequently closed-loop in name but allowing satellite growing anyway).

I concur that the city engaging in the selection of who gets to be the
chosen two is the wrong way to go, or certainly not the best way to
go.

I voted for a numerical limitation after my motion to have no imposed
limit other than that of the ordinance and marketplace failed, so I
can ask that it be revisited when it comes back from the Planning
Commission. As indicated above, however, I do not believe there
presently is council support for the "let the zoning ordinance decide"
concept.

Andy Holcombe

Chico