I have one simple question:

Why?

Why are we discussing rolling back protections that have existed for more than a decade?

Why are we considering removing buffers that protect parks, youth-serving spaces, churches, rehabilitation centers, residential neighborhoods, and other community gathering places from marijuana businesses and on-site consumption lounges?

Why would we move in the opposite direction when the impacts are becoming more apparent, not less?

Parks are where children play. Churches host youth groups and family programs. Recreation centers serve thousands of Sacramento youth. Rehabilitation facilities help people overcome addiction. Residential neighborhoods are where families raise their children.

These are not random land uses. They are the places where Sacramento’s most vulnerable residents spend their time.

Yet we are discussing allowing businesses that sell highly intoxicating products—and potentially facilities where marijuana is actively smoked and consumed—to move closer to these sensitive uses.

Again, why?

If marijuana businesses are so low risk, why does the City require armed security guards?

If there are no public safety concerns, why are we continuing to see robberies, burglaries, shootings, and violent crime associated with cannabis facilities?

Just last month, a Sacramento cannabis facility was the site of a fatal shooting during a burglary. Following the investigation, the security guard involved was arrested and charged in connection with the incident. The event generated extensive regional media coverage and serves as a reminder that these facilities can attract serious criminal activity.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sacramento/news/sacramento-thys-court-cannabise-warehouse-shooting-arrest/

This is not fearmongering. These are documented events.

The answer should not be to move these uses closer to parks, youth facilities, churches, rehabilitation centers, and neighborhoods where children live.

For over ten years, Sacramento recognized that certain places deserve additional protection. Those protections were created because city leaders understood that children, families, and vulnerable populations should come first.

So before any protections are removed, I ask each Commissioner to answer one question:

Why are we doing this?

What public benefit is achieved by placing marijuana businesses closer to children, closer to families, closer to parks, closer to recovery centers, and closer to the very populations these buffers were designed to protect?

If that question cannot be answered clearly and convincingly, then these protections should remain exactly where they are.

I respectfully urge the Commission to support maintaining all existing sensitive-use protections and to advocate for policies that continue to prioritize the health, safety, and well-being of Sacramento’s children and families.

Thank you for your consideration.