The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group is aware of many of the names on this list and it exemplifies the abject failure of a program that should be helping those most in need, but instead rewards abuse by some of the most eminently undeserving participants in the county’s cannabis community. Erich Pearson and his cronies pulled in 22% of that $635,000, a nice chunk of change, yet he operates 7 dispensaries across the Bay Area. His feigned support for social equity is the height of hypocrisy. We are also greatly disappointed to find a number of others on that list, people and organizations in whom we placed trust and confidence that they were working for patients and consumers, but apparently were more interested in exploiting an opportunity and subverting the whole idea of “social equity”. Where is the equity here? Mr. Wallach’s excellent article only raises more questions and they deserve much better answers than “The grant recipient met the eligibility criteria as specified” and the county “will be reviewing and updating the eligibility criteria in the coming months”. The county has not only failed in this endeavor, it opens the door to questions of corruption of process.
The money in this program is specifically earmarked for the cannabis businesses sector. So it must be used to help and support those businesses. But, once again we have the county giving money to those that do not need it. Thank you, Ezra for pointing out the hypocrisy here. Is this the same in other counties across the state for this program? If so it is a worthless program, simply enriching those that are already well off and running thriving and very profitable businesses.
According to the Reason Foundation's recent report, "MARIJUANA’S SOCIAL EQUITY MISFIRE", "The well-heeled have been able to manipulate existing social equity programs to their own benefit in nearly every location to have enacted a program.
In some cases, large companies have simply recruited individuals who satisfied social equity criteria to serve as front men for a license application. In Los Angeles, media reports say recruiters have canvassed low-income housing projects on the city’s south side, offering $7,000 to individuals with previous cannabis convictions in order to list their name on an application. In other cases, financiers have offered to pay social equity applicants an annual salary from the business of around $35,000 while financiers assumed total operational control and rights to earnings. In still more reported cases, individuals who met social equity criteria allowed their names to be listed as majority owners on license applications even though profit-sharing agreements signed with financiers entitled them to only 10 percent of net profits."
Gee, that last bit sounds very familiar, considering the Sausalito ballot initiative Erich Pearson wrote for a social equity applicant stated, "To be eligible for a Commercial Cannabis Business Clearance an Applicant Entity must be owned by an Equity Owner. An Equity Owner is an individual who owns no less than ten percent (10%) of the Applicant Entity..." Thankfully, a Marin County Superior Court judge removed the measure from the ballot due to the sheer stupidity on the part of Pearson for not realizing he and his equity applicant did not reside within Sausalito's city limits.
WOW! Finally a legitimate article which discusses the true purpose of 'equity' programs in Sonoma County. 'Equity' has been weaponized to benefit those at the top with little to no community engagement to support the underserved who must navigate the treacherous waters of cannabis permitting and licensing. 'Underserved' can apply to all races who are financially struggling and lack resources afforded to those in the higher income brackets.
As they stand, 'D.E.I. & Equity' programs need to D.I.E. I am livid that people of color are frequently used as the face on a flyer while rarely eligible to participate in these programs. It is clear as to who is benefitting from 'equity' in Sonoma County. How come the 'Equity Office' did not encourage and invite 'BIPOC' individuals to apply? I am grateful for this young journalist's efforts to bring these matters to light.
Well done article! Thanks for digging in and doing the research on our local cannabis industry and our pathetic County government that caters to them. Our cannabis industry likes to present themselves as progressive passionate group providing an necessary servive to the public, yet they have their hand out again for another Gov't handout. How morally can the people on this list justify taking the money?
This shouldn't be considered a reflection on the "cannabis industry" overall, just a few bad actors. And not all of those recipients were necessarily undeserving - it wouldn't be fair to paint this issue with too broad a brush.
Excellent article
Thank you Ezra.
The Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group is aware of many of the names on this list and it exemplifies the abject failure of a program that should be helping those most in need, but instead rewards abuse by some of the most eminently undeserving participants in the county’s cannabis community. Erich Pearson and his cronies pulled in 22% of that $635,000, a nice chunk of change, yet he operates 7 dispensaries across the Bay Area. His feigned support for social equity is the height of hypocrisy. We are also greatly disappointed to find a number of others on that list, people and organizations in whom we placed trust and confidence that they were working for patients and consumers, but apparently were more interested in exploiting an opportunity and subverting the whole idea of “social equity”. Where is the equity here? Mr. Wallach’s excellent article only raises more questions and they deserve much better answers than “The grant recipient met the eligibility criteria as specified” and the county “will be reviewing and updating the eligibility criteria in the coming months”. The county has not only failed in this endeavor, it opens the door to questions of corruption of process.
100% spot on, thank you!
The money in this program is specifically earmarked for the cannabis businesses sector. So it must be used to help and support those businesses. But, once again we have the county giving money to those that do not need it. Thank you, Ezra for pointing out the hypocrisy here. Is this the same in other counties across the state for this program? If so it is a worthless program, simply enriching those that are already well off and running thriving and very profitable businesses.
According to the Reason Foundation's recent report, "MARIJUANA’S SOCIAL EQUITY MISFIRE", "The well-heeled have been able to manipulate existing social equity programs to their own benefit in nearly every location to have enacted a program.
In some cases, large companies have simply recruited individuals who satisfied social equity criteria to serve as front men for a license application. In Los Angeles, media reports say recruiters have canvassed low-income housing projects on the city’s south side, offering $7,000 to individuals with previous cannabis convictions in order to list their name on an application. In other cases, financiers have offered to pay social equity applicants an annual salary from the business of around $35,000 while financiers assumed total operational control and rights to earnings. In still more reported cases, individuals who met social equity criteria allowed their names to be listed as majority owners on license applications even though profit-sharing agreements signed with financiers entitled them to only 10 percent of net profits."
Gee, that last bit sounds very familiar, considering the Sausalito ballot initiative Erich Pearson wrote for a social equity applicant stated, "To be eligible for a Commercial Cannabis Business Clearance an Applicant Entity must be owned by an Equity Owner. An Equity Owner is an individual who owns no less than ten percent (10%) of the Applicant Entity..." Thankfully, a Marin County Superior Court judge removed the measure from the ballot due to the sheer stupidity on the part of Pearson for not realizing he and his equity applicant did not reside within Sausalito's city limits.
WOW! Finally a legitimate article which discusses the true purpose of 'equity' programs in Sonoma County. 'Equity' has been weaponized to benefit those at the top with little to no community engagement to support the underserved who must navigate the treacherous waters of cannabis permitting and licensing. 'Underserved' can apply to all races who are financially struggling and lack resources afforded to those in the higher income brackets.
As they stand, 'D.E.I. & Equity' programs need to D.I.E. I am livid that people of color are frequently used as the face on a flyer while rarely eligible to participate in these programs. It is clear as to who is benefitting from 'equity' in Sonoma County. How come the 'Equity Office' did not encourage and invite 'BIPOC' individuals to apply? I am grateful for this young journalist's efforts to bring these matters to light.
Well done article! Thanks for digging in and doing the research on our local cannabis industry and our pathetic County government that caters to them. Our cannabis industry likes to present themselves as progressive passionate group providing an necessary servive to the public, yet they have their hand out again for another Gov't handout. How morally can the people on this list justify taking the money?
This shouldn't be considered a reflection on the "cannabis industry" overall, just a few bad actors. And not all of those recipients were necessarily undeserving - it wouldn't be fair to paint this issue with too broad a brush.