I disagree with Lee Heller’s support of Supervisor Williams, expressed in her letter “Cannabis” (Vol. 25, No. 47). I don’t believe Williams shows much desire to help his constituents over the cannabis industry.
He rejected Planning Commission recommendations to verify affidavits permitting cultivators to get state licenses before county ordinances could be enforced. This suggests he wanted the cannabis industry to gain as much momentum as possible. Why would a supervisor whose job it would be to enforce those ordinances want to allow so many in the pipeline? I think the answer is so he could show later that he was restricting some while plenty of others would still go through. He would then seem to control things when in fact he is the one who allowed the momentum that inevitably would allow a large number to go through.
The LA Times supports this theory. Williams apparently gave reassurances to those in the cannabis industry that they didn›t have «anything to worry about.» Other articles suggest that in exchange, he received considerable financial support. So, it is not surprising that Ms. Heller, a key supporter, would say that he is working hard to remediate the impact.
I also disagree that tax benefits will be large. Oregon and Colorado cannabis gluts have forced them to destroy crops. How does that generate promised income? So, our community smells like a skunk with big questions about revenue. Ms. Heller suggests that the county needs income because the county had a deficit. But that deficit did not materialize. Scare tactics are unacceptable.
Finally, I object to Ms. Heller’s claim that the state is going to take charge if we don›t. But Proposition 64 shows that local authorities are completely in charge of all the rules. Again, a scare tactic.
Many of us in wonderful Carpinteria Valley are upset our elected officials don’t protect us. It doesn’t help when news organizations promulgate falsehood.