Comments on: Planco Considering Sai Center Use Permit – August 21, 2011

By: Mark Sailors

Mark Sailors — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 04:40:18 +0000

First, it would only be a lie if I knew it to be untrue. This was the common rumor as to why he was able to buy from Arcata patients. If that’s not the case then my mistake.
Any explanation on how the sai center was able to legally buy from Arcata patients?
Now I am curious.

By: me again

me again — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 07:32:31 +0000

I Googled ‘circus’ and got a bunch of Arcata websites. Next search: Pandora’s Box, the fable, not the porn. Maybe then I’ll try to find the origin of that proverb: Be careful what you wish for. Medical Marijuana? “Who ya jivin’ with that cosmic debris?”

By: mike

mike — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 07:56:00 +0000

mark. first off where do you get your info? the icenter is no longer operating in redding and hasnt been since 2010. so saying they are taking weed to and from is a lie. you should atleast get legitimate information if you are going to argue..

source;me former manager of the i/sai center.. and me and steve are not on speaking terms. but for you to lie so blatantly well thats not right.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:45:02 +0000

That dust-up was a he-said she-said thing of little relevance. The concerns expressed in the citizens’ letters to the Planco, and the SaiCenter’s conformance with the LUC guidelines are all that the commissioners can really consider. They have to make relevant findings and then act on them.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:37:09 +0000

I watched this meeting. It was interesting… for an Arcata meeting. The speaker who brought up his lawsuit mentioned a review site. I googled this site and the complaints there are not overwhelming. The speaking style of the individual involved in the lawsuit was remarkably similar to the style of several of the negative reviews which raises my skepticism meter.

Kevin, there must be more to this issue. I hope you will be able to flesh out the facts of story for us.

By: Mark Sailors

Mark Sailors — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:32:47 +0000

Not to mention they are volunteers…Its the quasi-judicial nature of the plan co that bug me about it in the first place… but that’s a different issue all together.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:51:31 +0000

Of course there is a non-police means of complaining, and that’s exactly what Conditional Use Permits are for. Since it’s a land use issue, you can point out CUP violations to Community Development. They, in turn, can and have brought revocation proceedings to the Planning Commission.

If a business doesn’t met the criteria for a CUP as delineated in the Land Use Code, it doesn’t get a CUP in the first place. That is what the process that the dispensaries are currently going through is all about.

Don’t forget that Planning Commissions are quasi-judicial bodies, empowered to adjudicate whether or not businesses and their practices are appropriate for a given location.

By: Ian Ray

Ian Ray — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:58:00 +0000

Mark, in San Francisco, some people have complained directly to the city.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/07/sf_medical_marijuana_dispensar.php

This is an interesting issue. I think Humboldt County made the correct decision by rejecting incomplete regulations of Cannabis businesses.

By: Mark Sailors

Mark Sailors — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 04:54:37 +0000

Like I pointed out, there is actually no place to make a formal complaint about ANY of the local clinics, unless you somehow want to involve the police.

By: kevpod

kevpod — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:50:08 +0000

I don’t think the issue is Gasparas’ personality as much as the impacts of his behavior that have drawn criticism. As fate would have it, the Land Use Code is all about managing impacts.

What makes the CUP a temporary permit?