Connect with us

Politics

Pot Fight Between DC Mayor, Congress Could Cost the City

Published

on

Rica Madrid poses for a photograph as she rolls a joint in her home on the first day of legal possession of marijuana for recreational purposes, Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015, in Washington. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser defied threats from Congress by implementing a voter-approved initiative on Thursday, making the city the only place east of the Mississippi River where people can legally grow and share marijuana in private. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Rica Madrid poses for a photograph as she rolls a joint in her home on the first day of legal possession of marijuana for recreational purposes, Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015, in Washington. Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser defied threats from Congress by implementing a voter-approved initiative on Thursday, making the city the only place east of the Mississippi River where people can legally grow and share marijuana in private. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

BEN NUCKOLS, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The new mayor of the nation’s capital gave her constituents what they wanted — the ability to legally grow and share marijuana in private.

Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser had little choice, given the overwhelming voter support for the legalization initiative and the unanimous opinion from her legal team that Congress couldn’t block it.

“D.C. residents have spoken,” said Rica Madrid, 34, a public-relations consultant and activist who said she feels less anxious about smoking at home now that it’s legal. “People here in this urban area, we see that the harm of the drug war is much more intense than the harm of the drug itself.”

But that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for the District of Columbia.

Republicans in Congress are angry that the city went ahead and legalized pot Thursday, despite their warnings that it would violate federal law. They’ve even suggested Bowser and other city officials could go to prison. While that’s highly unlikely, Republicans could get their point across by reducing or restricting some of the federal money that flows to the city every year.

“We provide half a billion dollars (annually) to the District. One would think they would be much more compliant with the wishes of Congress,” Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican and one of the most vocal pot opponents, said in an interview Thursday.

Actually, the District received more than $670 million in federal funding last year to support its $11 billion budget. The federal money is earmarked for specific programs — including the city’s court system.

Republicans will “find some areas where perhaps we have been very generous with the citizens of the District. That will all come with time,” Harris warned.

Harris didn’t mention any specific programs, but Congress could make another run at loosening the city’s tough gun-control laws. It could also reduce funding for school construction, HIV prevention or a popular program that gives District residents a break on tuition at public universities in other states.

Even top advocates of city autonomy are preparing for tough times on Capitol Hill.

“I do believe it’s likely this is a short-lived victory,” said Kimberly Perry, executive director of D.C. Vote. “Members of the House are going to come after D.C. with a vengeance on appropriations for 2016.”

The fight over pot illustrates the always-fractious relationship between the city’s elected local leaders and Congress, which has the final say over the city’s budget and laws. Bowser has pledged to strengthen the city’s relationships on Capitol Hill and work together to advance common goals. Now, that might not be possible.

Congress has already ensured that the District can’t allow marijuana to be sold legally, like in Colorado and Washington state. The new law makes it legal to possess up to 2 ounces of pot or up to three mature plants for use in the home. People can also give away up to 1 ounce.

Smoking in public and possession on federal property remain illegal. The main difference is that city police will no longer be issuing $25 civil fines for possession.

Before legalization took effect, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee, sent Bowser a letter urging her to reconsider and warning her that the city is violating a law that bans federal agencies from spending money they don’t have.

Bowser spoke with Chaffetz by phone just before announcing in a news conference Wednesday that she wasn’t backing down. She emphasized that her goal was not to defy Congress, but to honor the will of the voters, said her spokesman, Michael Czin.

“I think that we’re going to continue with our good-faith discussions with the chairman around the issues that are important to the District,” she said Wednesday. “We do disagree on a matter of law. There are reasonable ways to resolve that without us threatening him or he us.”

Bowser’s predecessor, Vincent Gray, also had high-profile skirmishes with Congress, but was able to work with the previous oversight committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, to push for what District leaders call “budget autonomy” — the freedom to spend local tax revenue without authorization by Congress.

The warnings from Chaffetz and Harris suggest the District can’t expect to win any more independence.

“Mr. Issa had a more pragmatic perspective and was willing to hear us out, work with us and not be public about the battles,” said Janene Jackson, who was Gray’s liaison to Congress and is now a lobbyist with Holland & Knight. “This is a very public difference of opinion. The letter stated severe consequences. It does not bode well.”

___

Follow Ben Nuckols on Twitter at https://twitter.com/APBenNuckols.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Alameda County

Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

Published

on

At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.
At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.

The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.

According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.

Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.

However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.

Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.

“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”

Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.

A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.

So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.

Continue Reading

Activism

Families Across the U.S. Are Facing an ‘Affordability Crisis,’ Says United Way Bay Area

United Way’s Real Cost Measure data reveals that 27% of Bay Area households – more than 1 in 4 families – cannot afford essentials such as food, housing, childcare, transportation, and healthcare. A family of four needs $136,872 annually to cover these basic necessities, while two adults working full time at minimum wage earn only $69,326.

Published

on

Affordable housing is the greatest concern for consumers, it’s followed by the cost of groceries. Courtesy photo.
Affordable housing is the greatest concern for consumers, it’s followed by the cost of groceries. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

A national poll released this week by Marist shows that 61% of Americans say the economy is not working well for them, while 70% report that their local area is not affordable. This marks the highest share of respondents expressing concern since the question was first asked in 2011.

According to United Way Bay Area (UWBA), the data underscores a growing reality in the region: more than 600,000 Bay Area households are working hard yet still cannot afford their basic needs.

Nationally, the Marist Poll found that rising prices are the top economic concern for 45% of Americans, followed by housing costs at 18%. In the Bay Area, however, that equation is reversed. Housing costs are the dominant driver of the affordability crisis.

United Way’s Real Cost Measure data reveals that 27% of Bay Area households – more than 1 in 4 families – cannot afford essentials such as food, housing, childcare, transportation, and healthcare. A family of four needs $136,872 annually to cover these basic necessities, while two adults working full time at minimum wage earn only $69,326.

“The national numbers confirm what we’re seeing every day through our 211 helpline and in communities across the region,” said Keisha Browder, CEO of United Way Bay Area. “People are working hard, but their paychecks simply aren’t keeping pace with the cost of living. This isn’t about individual failure; it’s about policy choices that leave too many of our neighbors one missed paycheck away from crisis.”

The Bay Area’s affordability crisis is particularly defined by extreme housing costs:

  • Housing remains the No. 1 reason residents call UWBA’s 211 helpline, accounting for 49% of calls this year.
  • Nearly 4 in 10 Bay Area households (35%) spend at least 30% of their income on housing, a level widely considered financially dangerous.
  • Forty percent of households with children under age 6 fall below the Real Cost Measure.
  • The impact is disproportionate: 49% of Latino households and 41% of Black households struggle to meet basic needs, compared to 15% of white households.

At the national level, the issue of affordability has also become a political flashpoint. In late 2025, President Donald Trump has increasingly referred to “affordability” as a “Democrat hoax” or “con job.” While he previously described himself as the “affordability president,” his recent messaging frames the term as a political tactic used by Democrats to assign blame for high prices.

The president has defended his administration by pointing to predecessors and asserting that prices are declining. However, many Americans remain unconvinced. The Marist Poll shows that 57% of respondents disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, while just 36% approve – his lowest approval rating on the issue across both terms in office.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.