A local cannabis tax ballot measure may appear on future municipal ballots in Arroyo Grande, changing the landscape for commercial cannabis activity, which isn’t currently allowed in the city.
“I just want to reassure folks that responded to the survey, … if they’re worried about a safety issue here,” City Councilmember Kate Secrest said at the Dec. 9 meeting. “With my past experience, I can say going into the local dispensary is very, very similar to going into prison. It’s so secure.”
Secrest, the former San Luis Obispo County deputy district attorney, added that her previous office prosecuted three home invasion homicides involving people dealing marijuana out of their homes. People were killed over it because of large amounts of unsecured money, which wouldn’t be an issue with retail cannabis operations, Secrest said.
At the Dec. 9 meeting, Secrest and fellow Arroyo Grande City Council members engaged in a study session about the possibility of placing a cannabis tax measure on the 2026 ballot for Arroyo Grande voters.
Their discussion happened roughly two weeks after city staff conducted a survey to gather community input on cannabis policy. Forty-five percent of residents who participated opposed commercial cannabis activity, while 40 percent supported it. The remaining 5 percent of participants were either neutral or undecided.
The City Council agreed on allowing cannabis businesses in Arroyo Grande with a focus on storefront retail for recreational cannabis use in the West Branch area.
The City Council’s stance on cannabis operations in Arroyo Grande is a change from its cautious approach almost a decade ago.
In 2017, a year after voters approved Proposition 64 legalizing possession and recreational use of cannabis for adults 21 years and older, the Arroyo Grande City Council amended its municipal code to continue prohibiting all commercial cannabis activity within the city, banning outdoor cannabis cultivation, and regulating indoor cannabis cultivation.
Since then, the cities of Paso Robles, Morro Bay, SLO, and Grover Beach encouraged commercial cannabis operations and benefited from the revenue it brought in.
According to Arroyo Grande’s staff report, SLO and Grover Beach have seen year-over-year declines in overall tax revenue that now amount to around $1 million annually.
Council members ultimately directed staff to prepare a local cannabis draft measure along with draft tax language for future review. Staff will also draft regulations to allow commercial retail cannabis uses, and return with zoning, permit processes, and a draft ordinance.
“In 2016, I said we don’t want to be on the leading edge of this, and I think we’re well behind the leading edge here,” Councilmember Jim Guthrie said with a laugh during the meeting. “I think even that poll does show there is still some queasiness in the community.” ∆
This article appears in 2025 Year in Review.
Before Arroyo Grande rushes into allowing commercial cannabis, residents should remember San Luis Obispo’s very recent corruption history tied directly to cannabis licensing. This isn’t theoretical—it already happened here.
We had a major operator, Helios Dayspring, convicted after admitting he bribed a county supervisor—part of a broader FBI public corruption investigation that cast a long shadow over how cannabis policy and licensing were handled locally. And the controversy didn’t stop with Dayspring.
Look at how the “winners” of the local dispensary licensing era were intertwined and politically connected: Megan’s Organic Market (Megan Souza and Eric Powers), SLO Cal Roots (Austin Connella), and the broader political ecosystem around City Hall at the time—including Heidi Harmon. Add in the persistent questions the public has raised about insider relationships and influence, including names like Nick Andre that keep coming up in local discussions of how decisions got made and who had access.
Maybe none of those people get charged. That’s not the point. The point is this county has already shown how cannabis licensing can become a magnet for pay-to-play politics, backroom financing, and selective enforcement—while the public is told it’s all “transparent” and “for the community.”
And here’s what makes the timing even more questionable: cannabis is being rescheduled to Schedule III, which moves it toward FDA-style oversight, physician authorization, and ultimately a pharmacy distribution model—meaning CVS/Walgreens and medical systems can eventually dominate dispensing under federal medical and compliance standards. That fundamentally changes the retail dispensary rationale.
So why is Arroyo Grande approving a new storefront system right as the industry is shifting toward doctors/pharmacies and tighter federal control? Are we building a regulatory house of cards that will be obsolete—or worse, recreating the exact kind of local license economy that already produced scandal?
Given this area’s track record, the burden should be on proponents to prove this won’t become another influence-driven gold rush. Skepticism isn’t “anti-cannabis.” It’s basic civic self-defense.
That sounds like a BS reason to not allow extra tax revenue to flow into the city’s budget.
The Lucia Mar School District is THE WORST school district in existence and could do for some serious improvement with extra cash flow coming in from cannabis sales. In Oregon, the state put in a ton of investment to their education system thanks mostly in part due to the extra taxes being generated from cannabis sales. With that type of money, the school system in AG could actually match the same quality as the Manhattan Beach School District in Los Angeles. That to me is the standard of how schools should be run and funded.
There is always going to be some aspect of bribery happening no matter which industry it is. It’s up to the community to challenge the individuals responsible for it, not blame an entire industry and reducing options for the average consumer.