Last Updated Projects in Business
|project id||project title||project type||project status||project scope||address||zipcode||city||county||state||country||description||desired outcome||published by||publishing date||forwarded by||forwarding date||creator||creating date||archived||featured||page id||page title||issue ids||agency ids||official ids||last modified||latitude||request||longitude||initiator cover photo||allow moderator photo upload||pinned solution id||sponsored||banner image||profile image||step ids||active step id||archetype||group id||person id|
|659357||Stop the Injustice in LA and Grant Social Equity Marijuana Business Permits Now!||Active||State||Los Angeles, CA, USA||Los Angeles||Los Angeles County||CA||US||Despite marijuana being legal ,the city of Los Angeles has 15 million people and only 300 licensed dispensaries. Compared to 50,000 bars licensed (not restaurants) .||We need permits granted and we need them now!||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||Justin Hartfield||2019-12-04 13:59:28||no||0||320857||Proj:587473||113||46568||49752,49753,49755,49764,49761,49756,49763,49762,49758,49760,49757,49759,49754,49751,49750||2019-12-04 14:03:27||34.0522342||No||-118.2436849||Yes||45435||no||Cityscape of Los Angeles Los Angeles County California United States size-k.jpeg||0||0||0|
|470524||Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment||Active||Washington D.C., DC, USA||Washington||District of Columbia||DC||US||Twenty-nine States have enacted laws that allow patients access to medical marijuana and its derivatives, such as CBD oils. 61% of Republicans and a whopping 76% of Independents favor making medical marijuana legal and available to their patients who need it. 80% of Democrats feel the same way. Despite this overwhelming shift in public opinion, the Federal Government continues its hard-line oppression against medical marijuana. Some people are suffering and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way, and that is what is happening. The State governments have recognized that a doctor has a right to treat his patient any way he sees fit, and so did our Founding Fathers.||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||2019-11-22 04:58:05||no||0||320822||Proj:504993||113||47372||999688||2019-11-22 06:57:10||38.9071923||No||-77.0368707||Yes||10818||no||Project banner 470524.jpg||0||0||698581|
|270469||USDA Hemp Regulations: What Was Expected, Unexpected and Unanswered||Active||Denver, CO, USA||Denver||Denver County||CO||US||On October 29, 2019, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its long-awaited hemp cultivation regulations, marking the first federal hemp farming regulations in the United States since the crop was banned in 1937. These regulations implement provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill and are effective October 31, 2019.
What provisions were unexpected? 1. Transportation - Given all of the on-going interstate transportation issues (major issues - including multiple seizures of lawfully grown hemp, arrests of drivers, and criminal charges) and the need for businesses, regulators and enforcement agencies to clearly identify legally grown hemp and transport it without risk, the USDA previously hinted it would create a uniform shipping manifest. Instead, the USDA simply repeated the interstate transportation protection outlined in the 2018 Farm Bill, clarifying that states, tribes, and territories cannot prohibit the transfer of hemp across their borders. 2. “Acceptable hemp THC level” - While many were optimistic that the USDA would allow for a reasonable margin of error in testing, we were surprised by their approach. The USDA incorporated the margin for error inherent in potency testing, (termed the “Measure of Uncertainty”) into the potency calculation for a given sample, specifying that a cannabis plant is legal hemp for USDA purposes if the tested THC level plus or minus the Measure of Uncertainty is 0.3% or below. Notably, this level has no impact on potential CSA liability. 3. DEA-registered testing facilities - In what feels like a throwback to prohibition and reefer madness, the rules require that all laboratories testing hemp must be registered with the DEA. USDA is also considering adding a USDA approval requirement for labs testing hemp. ISO 17025 accreditation is not required at this time but is being considered. Most testing labs currently testing hemp do not have a DEA registration. 4. Zero tolerance for “Hot Hemp” - We anticipated law enforcement agencies wouldn't allow the USDA to give much leeway in the remediation of plants that test hot. Still, we were hopeful that some reasonable re-testing or remediation would be permitted, as many states have allowed, given the numerous factors that can result in a hot crop without malfeasance by a farmer. However, the rules are clear that “Hot hemp” is considered marijuana as defined in the Controlled Substances Act and must be disposed of in accordance with the CSA and DEA regulations by a person authorized to handle marijuana (a DEA-registered reverse distributor, federal, state, or local law enforcement officer)... meaning opportunities for remediation or “alternative means of destruction” are non-existent. 5. Third-party sample collection - All samples of “cannabis” intended for delta-9 THC concentration testing must be collected by designated third-party samplers, such as approved federal, state, or local law enforcement, within 15 days prior to harvest. This will potentially require state departments of agriculture to stop sampling hemp crops unless they are included as authorized third parties.
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||2019-11-16 03:04:55||no||0||320715||Proj:298694||113||47353||999673,999674||2019-11-22 07:13:34||39.7392358||No||-104.990251||Yes||519188||no||Project banner 270469.jpg||0||101||5250802|
|749497||Amendments to Chapter 9 to add Medical Cannabis Uses (Transporation Distribution Testing)||Active||Global||Cathedral City, CA, USA||Cathedral City||Riverside County||CA||US||At issue is whether the City desires to require that testing labs, transporters and distributors be subject to the same CUP process as other medical cannabis uses, or to consider an alternative process such as allowing the businesses as a use by right, with appropriate conditions, in areas where similar uses are allowed. Other localities, such as Oakland and Santa Rosa, have taken, or are considering taking, this approach. Since the potential impact to these businesses is likely less than the other license types, and these license types are not pre-existing in the City, allowing them as permitted uses may be appropriate and efficient to administer. Testing laboratories, for example, could be allowed in zones where medical offices or laboratories are currently permitted (PPO, PLC, MXC, NBP), and distribution/transportation facilities could be permitted uses where storage facilities and/or warehouses uses are currently permitted (CPB-2, I-1). These license types could also be permitted as conditional uses in zones where similar uses are only allowed as conditional uses (PCC).||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||2019-11-16 02:55:05||no||0||320714||Proj:824069||113||25563,997372||26237,999677,999679||2019-11-16 04:55:21||33.7805388||No||-116.4668036||Yes||993403||no||Cityscape of Cathedral City Riverside County California United States size-k.jpeg||0||101||5250802|
|420291||City of Cathedral City RFQ: Expert Legal Assistance in Cannabis||Active||Cathedral City, CA, USA||Cathedral City||Riverside County||CA||US||The City of Cathedral City, California is seeking expert legal assistance in the development of an ordinance allowing and regulating medical marijuana cultivation, processing and testing operations and potentially as Council considers possible amendments to the existing dispensary ordinance.||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||2019-11-16 02:45:52||no||0||320713||Proj:499928||113||25555||26229||2019-11-16 02:50:25||33.7805388||No||-116.4668036||Yes||459869||no||Cityscape of Cathedral City Riverside County California United States size-k.jpeg||0||0||7340465|
|73782||Airbnb's Complaint Against the City of Boston for Injunctive Relief||Active||Local||Boston, MA, USA||Boston||Suffolk County||MA||US||This is a case about a city trying to conscript home-sharing platforms into
enforcing regulations on the city’s behalf, in a manner that would thwart both federal and Massachusetts law. The City of Boston has enacted an Ordinance limiting short-term residential rentals by hosts. But it goes much further than that. The Ordinance also enlists home-sharing platforms like Airbnb into enforcing those limits under threat of draconian penalties, including $300-per-violation-per-day fines and complete banishment from doing business in Boston. Airbnb believes that home-sharing may be lawfully regulated, and it has worked with dozens of cities to develop the tools they need to do so without violating federal or state law. Boston’s heavy-handed approach, however, crosses several clear legal lines and must be invalidated.
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||2019-09-28 04:47:54||no||0||320561||Proj:153248||117||16115,997365,16260||16704,999661||2019-09-28 06:42:47||42.3600825||No||-71.0588801||Yes||145166||yes||Cityscape of Boston Suffolk County Massachusetts United States size-k.jpeg||0||0||1435418|
Top Agencies in Business
Top Officials in Business