City Government

Did Oakland Councilmembers Violate Council Procedures to Pass Cannabis Proposal?

Published

9 years ago

October 7, 2016

Councilmembers Dan Kalb and Abel Guillén may have violated City Council procedures last week when they tried to take a cannabis resolution that died in the Rules Committee, and then schedule the failed proposal for a vote at the full City Council.

At issue is whether or not the City of Oakland can reap profits from the booming cannabis business. If passed, the item would require cannabis business owners and those who lease their property to hand over 25 percent of their profits to the city in exchange for permits, which would be restricted to people who have lived in Oakland for at least five years.

The 25 percent regulation would only apply to manufacturers or cultivators that had preexisting operations, which are illegal under the current law. Kalb and Guillén want to grandfather them in.

The money would go towards a Cannabis Equity Fund, which would support cannabis entrepreneurs through loans, job-training programs, and also fund community beautification and a council district activities fund.

Sources told the Post that Councilmember Kalb, who is running for re-election in District 1, has received several large campaign contributions from people in the cannabis industry, which is opposed to utilizing industry profits for community benefits.

“At Rules Committee, (Kalb) tried to take the item that died in committee and reschedule it to a full Council meeting, but the city’s procedures say you can’t bring the same item in that way,” said Councilmember Desley Brooks.

“We are trying to establish a fair process,” she said, but the two councilmembers tried to push their agenda without properly following council procedures.

According Brooks, the proposed 25 percent regulation – opposed by both Kalb and Guillén – would help offset the advantages that cannabis operators from outside of Oakland and outside of California currently have.

Of the 133 cannabis operators in the city, only 47 are Oakland based, Brooks said. The rest are not from Oakland. Of eight cannabis dispensaries in the city, only one is owned by an Oakland resident.

“This is an economic justice issue,” said Brooks. “Is the money generated in Oakland going to stay in Oakland?”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Van Jones, Democratic Party Endorse Rebecca Kaplan

Don't Miss

Op-Ed: Council Needs to Ensure Hiring of Black Workers on City Projects

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

2 days ago

January 2, 2026

Oakland Post

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.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

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

Published

1 week ago

December 25, 2025

Oakland Post

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.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

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

2 weeks ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

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 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.