Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I want to ask a simple question:
Why?
Why are we here?
Why are we even having a conversation about rolling back protections that have been in place for over a decade?
Why are we considering allowing marijuana dispensaries and on-site consumption smoke lounges to locate directly next to the very places we have always agreed should be protected?
For years, the City of Sacramento established clear, common-sense boundaries — sensitive-use buffers — to keep marijuana activity away from children and vulnerable populations.
Those protections exist for a reason.
So again — why are we undoing them?
Why are we talking about allowing these uses next to:
Churches and places of worship, where children attend services and youth programs
Parks and recreation areas, where families gather and kids play
After-school programs and youth-serving facilities, where children go every day for care and development
Residential neighborhoods, where families live and raise their children
Drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, where people are actively fighting addiction
Childcare centers and school-adjacent environments, built specifically to protect early childhood development
Why are we opening the door to place marijuana storefronts — and more importantly, active smoking lounges — directly next to these environments?
This is not theoretical. This is real-world proximity.
Children will see it.
They will walk past it.
They will be next to it.
So again — why?
Why are we normalizing exposure at younger and younger ages?
Why are we increasing the risk of impaired driving in areas where families and children are present?
Why are we placing individuals in recovery directly next to environments where marijuana is actively used?
Why are we allowing the clustering of high-cash, high-target businesses into residential and youth-centered areas — when we already know the public safety risks are significant enough that the City requires armed security at dispensaries?
And if those risks are real — why would we move these uses closer to children, not farther away?
Why are we replacing clear, enforceable buffers with a Conditional Use Permit, when we already know a CUP does not guarantee protection?
We have seen this fail.
We have seen incompatible uses approved despite community concern.
So again — why are we going backwards?
These protections have worked for over a decade.
They created consistency.
They created distance.
They created a baseline level of safety for every neighborhood in Sacramento.
And now, we are considering removing them.
Not strengthening them.
Not improving them.
Removing them.
Why?
This is not just a policy discussion — it is a decision about what we prioritize as a city.
Do we continue to protect children, families, and vulnerable populations?
Or do we accept placing them directly next to environments involving smoking, impairment, and exposure?
I urge you to pause and seriously ask yourselves the same question:
Why are we doing this?
And more importantly — is this a decision we can justify to the families and communities who rely on these protections every single day?
I respectfully ask that you maintain all existing sensitive-use buffers and reject any proposal that weakens these long-standing safeguards.
Because if we cannot clearly answer “why,” then we should not be making this change.
Sincerely

I support this presentation of Child Action,they had an office in my district for several of them years,even after there precense they held Starbucks barista training,but that's another issue, another item.