Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Cannabis Social Equity topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Social equity cannabis operators press City for audits, enforcement and direct relief

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Dozens of social equity operators and applicants told the Budget and Finance Committee the Department of Cannabis Regulation has delayed grants, charged excessive fees and allowed illegal dispensaries that undercut licensed businesses; the committee approved the DCR recommendations on the consent calendar.

Dozens of social equity cannabis operators and applicants urged the Los Angeles City Council Budget and Finance Committee on March 11 to audit the Department of Cannabis Regulation, provide direct grants and tax relief, and step up enforcement against illegal dispensaries.

The speakers said the city’s social equity program, created to help people harmed by the war on drugs, has produced delays, high fees and little direct assistance. "The program that was meant to help us is draining us," said Evelyn Brinson, a social equity operator, recounting delays, late fees and what she said were ineffective DCR help-desk responses. "Before you allocate another dollar, demand a full audit and ensure these funds actually reach the people they were meant to help."

A string of other operators echoed the request for oversight and financial relief. "We need direct grants. We need tax forgiveness," said Whitney Beatty, who identified herself as a social equity owner and single mother. Alfred Toregano, a social equity advocate, asked for an independent oversight committee to protect licensees from predatory investors and landlords. Brandon Brinson and Christopher Martinez described fees and application costs they said burden operators and recommended fee waivers or direct grants instead of using the state equity grant as a city revenue source.

Why it matters: Social equity was a central theme of public comment at a meeting that otherwise covered budget forecasts, wildfire recovery and transportation policy. Multiple residents said the combination of licensing delays, late fees and competition from unlicensed storefronts is threatening the viability of licensed, equity-owned dispensaries in Los Angeles — and they urged immediate, enforceable changes from DCR and the city.

What the committee did: The committee approved the consent calendar, which included "adopt recommendations from the Department of Cannabis Regulation Report" (agenda item 13). The chair moved the consent approval; the clerk recorded five ayes and the items were adopted as stated by the chair.

Details and claims from speakers (as stated to the committee): - Christopher Martinez (social equity advocate/operator) said the city has 1,403 licensed cannabis businesses and 470 are social equity operators; he said the city collected $10,700,000 in initial application fees and that renewal fees of $4,002.33 per license had produced roughly $5.9 million (figures provided by Martinez as part of his comment). (Source: Christopher Martinez.) - Multiple speakers alleged the Department of Cannabis Regulation is "supplanting" state grant funds (that is, using them in place of — not in addition to — existing cannabis fund allocations). Several asked the committee to require an audit before allocating more city or state grant money. (Speakers: Evelyn Brinson, Brandon Brinson, Alfred Toregano, Asia Allen.) - Several license holders asked for: an independent oversight committee for the social equity program; grant relief or tax forgiveness; stronger enforcement against illegal dispensaries that operate without taxes or licensing; and streamlined, one-on-one technical assistance for applicants. (Speakers: Alfred Toregano, Whitney Beatty, Robin McSweeney, Brandy Brown, Kika Keith, Damian Martin.)

Discussion vs. decision: Public commenters asked elected officials for audits, enforcement and program changes. Committee members placed item 13 on the consent calendar; committee members did not debate DCR funding or take new policy direction during the hearing beyond approving the DCR report as part of the consent items. The public requests for audits and oversight were recorded in public comment but did not produce a motion specifically adopting those demands.

Ending note: Operators said the harms are immediate: many reported large holding costs, liens, and business debts accrued while awaiting licensing and grant assistance. They urged the city to provide tangible relief and oversight rather than more process. "We are done waiting," Asia Allen said.