Speaker 1: It was about a month or so ago that I
Speaker 1: month or two ago I thought that the story, the
Speaker 1: relentlessly shady saga of Terrence Fraser and his nonprofit and
Speaker 1: Central Valley Community Sports Foundation their lease of Granite Park,
Speaker 1: a city owned sports complex, kind of near one point
Speaker 1: sixty eight in Shields, that that saga was over, the
Speaker 1: city was all finally the city council was all finally
Speaker 1: on board with the idea of we need to get
Speaker 1: rid of this guy. The bizarre sort of makeup of
Speaker 1: the board where you had Miguel Arias plus other people
Speaker 1: influenced by as Morel de Suria as Mereldasauria, who was
Speaker 1: engaged to Terrence Fraser. I don't know if they're married
Speaker 1: or I'm not sure what their status is. Uh. Soria
Speaker 1: couldn't directly vote on stuff, but because she was recusing
Speaker 1: herself that there wasn't Basically, her recusal was as effective
Speaker 1: as a no, and there just weren't enough votes on
Speaker 1: the city council for a long time to get rid
Speaker 1: of Central Valley Sports Foundation as the tenant at Granite Park.
Speaker 1: And Granite Park has had a number of problems going
Speaker 1: all the way back to Lee Brand's administration, Brand asked,
Speaker 1: Fraser came to the city for more money. Brand initiated
Speaker 1: an audit. The audit showed tons of financial irregularities. Since
Speaker 1: that time, Fraser tried to sue the city for racial discrimination.
Speaker 1: You know Lee Brand, apparently, Lee Brand, whom if you've
Speaker 1: ever met him, I mean, there are probably some things
Speaker 1: politically I don't all fours agree with Lee Brand about.
Speaker 1: But he's a very nice guy. I mean, he's a
Speaker 1: perfectly affable gentleman. Yeah. The idea that Lee Brand's got
Speaker 1: a ku Klux Klan outfit hiding in his closet, and
Speaker 1: that's why he initiated the audit, just to stick it
Speaker 1: to Terrence Fraser because he's a black. No, he Fraser
Speaker 1: wanted more money. They did an audit because it's public money.
Speaker 1: You got to publicly scrutinize this. They found all these irregularities.
Speaker 1: They said, well, no, we're not going to give you
Speaker 1: more money. Fraser sues the city. Since then, Fraser's business
Speaker 1: partner within Central Valley Sports Foundation, the now disgraced former
Speaker 1: Congressman T. J. Cox. I say now disgraced because he
Speaker 1: has pled guilty to various fraud charges. So the whole
Speaker 1: thing was gross. The whole thing was disgusting. Here was
Speaker 1: this guy who was in a relationship with a sitting
Speaker 1: member of the city council as Melda Sorry, who thank god,
Speaker 1: is now not on the president city Council. Sorry for
Speaker 1: her constituents whom she presents with her assembly district. Finally
Speaker 1: she's out of the city council. Analisa Perea, who certainly
Speaker 1: on a Lisaprea is farm more liberal than I am,
Speaker 1: but it seems like she isn't that exceedingly corrupt, or
Speaker 1: at least she's not literally sleeping with someone who's at
Speaker 1: city tenant. So Analisa Perea does not have the same
Speaker 1: need to play Kate. Terrence Fraser. Terrence Fraser was also
Speaker 1: a big time local Democrat fundraiser and kind of a
Speaker 1: bit of a power broker. You know. He was throwing
Speaker 1: fundraisers at his house for Miguel Arias and stuff like that. Now,
Speaker 1: I had thought that we had finally gotten to this
Speaker 1: point because for a while it was just the mayor,
Speaker 1: Gary Brettefeld, and uh, maybe one or to others on
Speaker 1: the city council. I think Mike Carbasi was not thrilled
Speaker 1: with the whole thing who were saying, this is terrible.
Speaker 1: We need to get this person out, We need to
Speaker 1: get this person kicked out of Granite Park. This is
Speaker 1: not a person that we should be in business with.
Speaker 1: He's delinquent in paying all kinds of things. There was
Speaker 1: a whow where he didn't have appropriate insurance for the
Speaker 1: place he was doing, all this stuff that was shady
Speaker 1: and bad, and finally I thought we were at a
Speaker 1: point of okay, well we've got enough. You know. The
Speaker 1: problem was that various kinds of property decisions like that
Speaker 1: are not really in the hands of the mayor and
Speaker 1: the city manager. The mayor was on board with needing
Speaker 1: to get rid of this guy. City manager was on
Speaker 1: board with needing to get rid of this guy. Some
Speaker 1: of the city council was on board, but not all
Speaker 1: of them. And critically, there was not a majority on
Speaker 1: the city council willing to get rid of this guy. Well,
Speaker 1: clearly now there is okay, even the liberal members of
Speaker 1: the city council. They don't have any ties, any need
Speaker 1: to placate this dude. So they're all okay with getting
Speaker 1: rid of them. That the tide is turned. But now
Speaker 1: Terence Fraser is fighting the eviction process from this city
Speaker 1: owned property. The City of Fresno is going to court.
Speaker 1: The story from GV wire about it, written by David Tobb.
Speaker 1: The City of Fresno is going to court to force
Speaker 1: the nonprofit Fraser Operates to exit the Granite Park Sports Complex.
Speaker 1: The city filed an unlawful detainer lawsuit in January, and
Speaker 1: the judge next week will decide if the eviction case
Speaker 1: continues or ends. Fraser, the president of the nonprofit Central
Speaker 1: Valley Community Sports Foundation, is combating the city in court
Speaker 1: and with his words, I'm willing to walk away from
Speaker 1: the park if city Manager Georgie an White or Mayor
Speaker 1: Jerry Dyer can stand by their state and say that
Speaker 1: I own rent, that I owe rent. If I prove
Speaker 1: to them that I do not owe rent, are they
Speaker 1: willing to leave their job? Fraser told GV wire, I
Speaker 1: don't know that that's I think. If I'm trying to
Speaker 1: judge between Terrence Fraser and Jerry Dyer about whether Terrence
Speaker 1: Fraser owes rent, I think I'm gonna put my money
Speaker 1: down on Jerry Dyer and the city manager. If they're
Speaker 1: not willing to walk away from their job, that should
Speaker 1: tell everybody in the city of Fresno that what they're
Speaker 1: doing is wrong, defamatory and all lies. Fraser said, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's how this works. You're the tenant, you
Speaker 1: owe money, You've done bad stuff. We want to get
Speaker 1: rid of you as a tenant. Like no, Jerry Dyer
Speaker 1: doesn't have to stand, but has to gamble his job
Speaker 1: to demonstrate that you owe rent. Okay, that's silly, Fraser said.
Speaker 1: The city's allegation in this lawsuit quote are premised on
Speaker 1: a complete fiction lacking any basis in fact. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: bet no it's it's premised on a lot of facts
Speaker 1: that are just inconvenient for Fraser. A twenty fifteen lease
Speaker 1: called for Central vallec Community Sports Foundation pays sixty two
Speaker 1: five hundred dollars in yearly rent and share digital billboard revenue.
Speaker 1: The city says that the nonprofit has failed to do so.
Speaker 1: It's this digital billboard revenue that has been a real
Speaker 1: point of contention. The lease also gives Centralveilic Community Sports
Speaker 1: Foundation an additional one hundred and fifty thousand dollars subsidy,
Speaker 1: something Fraser said the city has not paid. Yeah, because
Speaker 1: they've been so delinquent with their other stuff? Why are you?
Speaker 1: I believe that's one of the problems is that the
Speaker 1: city has said that at different points, Central Vali Community
Speaker 1: Sports Foundation has owed like four hundred thousand dollars in
Speaker 1: a billboard revenue. So why give them the one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars subsidy? If they're that delinquent in
Speaker 1: paying thing. If Central Valid Community Sports Foundation is four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars dollars delinquent in paying certain of its
Speaker 1: revenues that it's supposed to pay, why would you give
Speaker 1: them the one hundred fifty thousand dollars subsidy. Without the subsidy,
Speaker 1: Fraser said, he will have to lay off fifty employees. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: whose fault is that God allows the enemy to tempt
Speaker 1: you same as he did with job. So yes, I'm
Speaker 1: getting persecuted, Fraser said, referencing the Bible. This guy is
Speaker 1: a nut. Uh. The January fourteenth unlawful detainer filing said
Speaker 1: the Central Valid Community Sports Foundation owes seven hundred eight thousand,
Speaker 1: two hundred and ninety eight dollars in unpaid rent. The
Speaker 1: litigation followed demands in May and November of twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four from the city. So, really, you want to get
Speaker 1: your one hundred and fifty thousand dollars subsidy when you who
Speaker 1: don't you owe seven hundred and eight thousand dollars. You're
Speaker 1: just going to take that money, spend it all and run.
Speaker 1: I mean, why should the city pay its subsidy if
Speaker 1: you're not upholding your end of the bargain. Those employees
Speaker 1: aren't going to be able to last anyway. The litigation
Speaker 1: followed demands in May and November twenty twenty four from
Speaker 1: the city the Central valid Community Sports Foundation quit the
Speaker 1: lease for failure to pay. The nonprofit refused to leave,
Speaker 1: remaining in operation. In illegal declaration Georgia and White, the
Speaker 1: city manager listed reasons for an expedited eviction hearing. One
Speaker 1: the city continues to lose rental income. Two the city's
Speaker 1: inability to use the premises for supervised sporting events with
Speaker 1: necessary safety measures. Three increased legal exposure from potential jury, injuries,
Speaker 1: vandalism or nuisance complaints at the park. White also made
Speaker 1: several other accusations. They include Central Vali Community Sports Foundation
Speaker 1: failing to clean up after events, using tents on the
Speaker 1: property in violation of fire codes holding the February nineteenth
Speaker 1: celebration of Fresno Native and Kansas City Chiefs star Xavier
Speaker 1: Worthy while not legally allowed on the premises, and they
Speaker 1: got a picture of Xavier Worthy. Xavier Worthy is a
Speaker 1: draft He was like a first round draft pick or
Speaker 1: something by the Kansas City Chiefs and played in the
Speaker 1: Super Bowl this year. Defendant's persistent non compliance dating back
Speaker 1: to at least twenty twenty three reflects a clear disregard
Speaker 1: for the terms of the lease, White said. White also
Speaker 1: accuses Huntrebollo Community Sports Foundation of letting its workers compensation
Speaker 1: insurance expire, also back there. This is a train wreck.
Speaker 1: Fraser denied those allegations, sharing an email with Gvire from
Speaker 1: his insurer that coverage renewed on February eleventh without a lapse, okay.
Speaker 1: Fraser also alleged that well, it renewed on February eleventh
Speaker 1: without a lapse. Was there some other period that you
Speaker 1: had a lapse? Well, because there were other insurance policies
Speaker 1: over the course of this saga, over the last like
Speaker 1: three years. There was one point at which they didn't
Speaker 1: have appropriate insurance for anyone to consume alcohol on the
Speaker 1: premises and they were allowing like alcohol sales or something
Speaker 1: or like. They had all kinds of insurances that they
Speaker 1: didn't have on file. And like anyone who runs a business,
Speaker 1: I mean, I have to do this for I have
Speaker 1: to do this for right to life. I had to
Speaker 1: do this for ro Obia Clinic when I was at CEO.
Speaker 1: There's like a bevy of different insurances that any business
Speaker 1: has to maintain and has to get renewed year over year.
Speaker 1: With nonprofits, you also have to have officers and directors insurance,
Speaker 1: you have to have employment practices, liability insurance, you got
Speaker 1: to have workers comp you got to have your general
Speaker 1: liability covers. You know, your premises, liability, slip and fall,
Speaker 1: you know, stuff like that. Everyone has to maintain that stuff,
Speaker 1: and it seems like they were run so poorly that
Speaker 1: they were having these big lapses. Fraser also alleged that
Speaker 1: the city quote continued to coerce baseball tournaments to leave
Speaker 1: Granite Park and use facilities of Fraser's now arguing that
Speaker 1: he's coercing that the city is coercing baseball tournaments to
Speaker 1: leave Granite Park and use city facilities, falsely alleging that
Speaker 1: the lease has already been terminated. Well, if the city
Speaker 1: is contending that the lease is terminated and that there's
Speaker 1: certain kinds of insurances that aren't covering the event, what's
Speaker 1: the city supposed to do? So? Oh yeah, come on in,
Speaker 1: come on in keep having events set this park and
Speaker 1: increasing the potential liability risk to the city for this
Speaker 1: train wreck of an operation where we don't know what
Speaker 1: insurances they have on the books, or don't know what
Speaker 1: insurances they have on the books, and someone that we're
Speaker 1: not even sure is legally allowed to be operating the
Speaker 1: park and who has all these other violations, tents, and
Speaker 1: all kinds of things that are up to snuff. Central
Speaker 1: Valley Community Sports Foundation, represented by attorney Lance Armo, filed
Speaker 1: a demurr, which is a defense arguing that the city
Speaker 1: that the plaintiff's motions are defective. The city, through its
Speaker 1: law firm Whitney Thompson and Jeff and Jeff Coach, wanted
Speaker 1: to speed up the originally scheduled demur hearing of March twelfth.
Speaker 1: Judge Judge Robert Whalen on Monday set the date for
Speaker 1: March fourth. Fraser said he's paid millions of dollars from
Speaker 1: his own pocket in attorney's fees fighting the city. It's
Speaker 1: cost me a lot of money and it actually changed
Speaker 1: my entire lifestyle because I'm fighting for these kids. I'm
Speaker 1: fighting for these kids. I'm fighting for the citizens of Fresno.
Speaker 1: Is there anything less believable than I'm just doing this
Speaker 1: for the kids, Like, come on, bron, don't give us.
Speaker 1: We saw like we've seen an audit of your enterprise.
Speaker 1: I kind of know the game here. The city is
Speaker 1: not doing this out of a demonic like this is
Speaker 1: not the devil being allowed to tempt and test job.
Speaker 1: You haven't paid a bunch of stuff you owe. If
Speaker 1: you were paying all the stuff you owed, the city
Speaker 1: wouldn't be doing this. This is nonsense. This, this thing
Speaker 1: has been such a train wreck for the city at
Speaker 1: a time when the city could really you know, is
Speaker 1: strapped for cash. You know, the city's running a deficit,
Speaker 1: and here we've got this, this thing that should be
Speaker 1: a There's no reason. I mean, maybe there are reasons.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe there's something wrong with the fundamental
Speaker 1: business structure of a place like this. It doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to me, like, you know, if the city got into
Speaker 1: this with the idea that this could be a revenue
Speaker 1: generative property for the city, a successful nonprofit running all
Speaker 1: kinds of youth sporting events, advertising revenue. It clearly that
Speaker 1: there must have been some way in which running this
Speaker 1: would be a revenue generative thing for the city, and
Speaker 1: instead it's just been an absolute eyesore. And I guess
Speaker 1: my question would be, what's the what's the plan going
Speaker 1: forward once they're able to finally get Fraser out of there,
Speaker 1: which eventually they have to do. I mean, he can
Speaker 1: only go so long not paying money. The basic reality
Speaker 1: that he owes about eight hundred thousand dollars in rent
Speaker 1: is somewhat inescapable, and at some point he will get
Speaker 1: out of there. What's the city going to do with
Speaker 1: this property? And you know, if it's not something that's
Speaker 1: revenue generative, is there a way for the city to
Speaker 1: sell it or is it something that could be run
Speaker 1: better with someone more intelligent in charge. When we return,
Speaker 1: more city news, a proposal to target smoke shops and
Speaker 1: shut them down in the city of Fresno. That's next
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show. Just getting all kinds of
Speaker 1: city news for today, probably better after my yesterday just
Speaker 1: talking about international geopolitics. John Girardi ranting about it was
Speaker 1: yesterday's show was a real moment of as our beloved
Speaker 1: producer Agent Squires always says, I'm just a simple country
Speaker 1: boy out here trying to make a living. But which
Speaker 1: is his way of sort of disclaiming any criticism for
Speaker 1: what you're about to say, just a I don't know anything,
Speaker 1: but here's what I think. Anyway. That's me when I
Speaker 1: talk about geopolitics. I feel like I'm a little firmer
Speaker 1: ground talking about stuff like a City of Fresno business ordinances.
Speaker 1: And there's this ordinance in front of the City Council,
Speaker 1: in front of well, actually right now, it's in front
Speaker 1: of the Fresno Planning Commission, a proposed ordnance that could
Speaker 1: result in the closing of about seventy different smoke shops
Speaker 1: in Fresno the Fresno City Council. Here's a story from
Speaker 1: gvire about it, by Edward Smith. As the Fresno City
Speaker 1: Council will consider an ordnance Thursday, potentially closing down about
Speaker 1: seventy smoke shops. A coalition of business owners has retained
Speaker 1: an attorney who says the city's proposed action verges on
Speaker 1: eminent domain. The ordinance from council members Miguel Arius Nalisiprea
Speaker 1: and Nelson Esparza. It's interesting that it's the the real
Speaker 1: hardcore liberal block of the court doing this Arius Onalsaperea
Speaker 1: and Nelson Esparza, but you know it makes sense. I
Speaker 1: mean a lot of the regions of Fresno where they
Speaker 1: have tons of these smoke shops, and I do agree
Speaker 1: with them that they are a real blight, so anyway,
Speaker 1: good for them. The ordinance from council members Miguel Arius
Speaker 1: Nalisiperea and Nelson Esparso would force future and existing smoke
Speaker 1: shop owners to apply for conditional use permits. The ordinance
Speaker 1: only allows seven per district, and it doesn't allow smoke
Speaker 1: shops to be within one thousand feet of a school
Speaker 1: or other sensitive sites, so that would mean we could
Speaker 1: have forty nine total of these shops in the city.
Speaker 1: The President of Planning Commissioners at their meeting February nineteenth,
Speaker 1: recommended increasing the number of permits, grandfathering in businesses near schools,
Speaker 1: extending how long businesses have to clear out inventory if
Speaker 1: not approved, and making approval for permits based off of
Speaker 1: merit rather than a lottery council members, So it seems
Speaker 1: like the planning commissioners they're not as on board. But
Speaker 1: my guess is that this is something that's within the
Speaker 1: decisional domain of the council members. Council members say smoke
Speaker 1: shop owners bring blight to the area. True. Code enforcers
Speaker 1: and police have found marijuana, guns, and illegal gambling at
Speaker 1: some locations during inspections. City Attorney Andrew jan said all
Speaker 1: businesses they inspected had code violations. Only businesses without signals
Speaker 1: nificant violations would be eligible for approval, So we have
Speaker 1: to lower the bar so far. Yeah, you had code violations,
Speaker 1: but they weren't significant, so we'll let you, let you
Speaker 1: keep existing. But okay, this is what's happening. Legal weed
Speaker 1: was introduced into cal You know, maybe I'll save this
Speaker 1: for I might save this for the next segment, maybe
Speaker 1: do a broader rant about legal versus illegal marijuana. Needless
Speaker 1: to say, I totally agree these smoke shops are bad.
Speaker 1: They are bad for the city. Basically a lot of
Speaker 1: them just have become a front for you know, there
Speaker 1: are only so many legal marijuana dispensaries in the city
Speaker 1: of Fresno, which, by the way, here's a fun game
Speaker 1: to play. Anytime you see illegal marijuana dispensary, look at
Speaker 1: its name and think whether that name would work for
Speaker 1: or maybe has been used for a non nominational Christian church.
Speaker 1: That there's one that's near my work. It's near a
Speaker 1: place where I a Mexican joint where I go to
Speaker 1: get tacos for lunch sometimes. And this works at one
Speaker 1: hundred percent. Works like do just anytime you see a
Speaker 1: marijuana dispenser, look at the name and think, would that
Speaker 1: work is the name of a non denominational church. I
Speaker 1: bet it would. But basically these places have become fronts
Speaker 1: for selling marijuana illegally because basically there are only so
Speaker 1: many legal marijuana dispensaries in the city of Fresno, and
Speaker 1: there continues to be a really large market for illegal
Speaker 1: weed because guess what, potheads don't like paying taxes. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about that next. This is the John Gerardi Show
Speaker 1: on Power Talk. President City Council is considering an ordinance
Speaker 1: that would result in the band of some seventy smoke
Speaker 1: shops throughout the city of Fresno. You've all seen these.
Speaker 1: They all have the same distinctive looking kind of weird
Speaker 1: sort of not really christmasy rope lights, but these kind
Speaker 1: of like very bright like white white or red sort
Speaker 1: of string of lights all around the windows, really brightly
Speaker 1: lit up. And in part because I think their hours
Speaker 1: of operation are always crazy. It's to accommodate the hours
Speaker 1: when potheads are awake. Generally, potheads are not up and
Speaker 1: doing their grocery shopping at the smoke store at eight
Speaker 1: o'clock in the morning. They're showing up at eight o'clock
Speaker 1: at night, ten o'clock at night, et cetera. Now, these
Speaker 1: smoke shops are bad. I am down with the City
Speaker 1: Council of Fresno in wanting to get rid of them,
Speaker 1: wanting to limit them, wanting to curb them. I think
Speaker 1: it's it's a bad thing for the community. These are
Speaker 1: not These are businesses that I think very often are
Speaker 1: just fronts for people to sell marijuana illegally, and they
Speaker 1: a lot of these stores managed to get I think
Speaker 1: at some point that there was reporting out about how
Speaker 1: a lot of these stores managed to get city approval
Speaker 1: claiming to be like grocery stores because they sell like,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, Fredo's chips and potatoes, you know,
Speaker 1: snacks and basically for you know, stuff that's funions, you know,
Speaker 1: stuff that's appropriate for someone who has ingested some kind
Speaker 1: of a drug that gives them the munchies. And a
Speaker 1: lot of these smoke shops that they're very like open
Speaker 1: about what they're about. This is about weed paraphernalia, drug paraphernalia.
Speaker 1: And again out of the back of a lot of
Speaker 1: these places, they're smelling, they're selling the weed illegal and
Speaker 1: in some of these places have been fronts for even
Speaker 1: worse crimes than that. There's some allegations of like prostitution
Speaker 1: and all kinds of gambling operations, which is not as
Speaker 1: bad as prostitution, let me make that clear, and all
Speaker 1: kinds of things that are just bad, bad, bad, bad bad.
Speaker 1: It brings blight to a community. It's bad good for
Speaker 1: the city trying to curb it, you know, not often
Speaker 1: that I'm going to come on here and say Miguel
Speaker 1: Larius Nelson Asparza and Elisa Barea are totally right on
Speaker 1: the money. But I will say that here they are
Speaker 1: right on the money. I think it's great idea that
Speaker 1: they're trying to target this stuff. And I don't know
Speaker 1: this whole GV Wires story that says, could it cost
Speaker 1: taxpayers millions of dollars in tax revenue. There's there's no
Speaker 1: way that there isn't some other kind of business that
Speaker 1: could operate in those spots that wouldn't be more productive
Speaker 1: than a smoke shop. Just forget about it. Like the
Speaker 1: idea that that's all, thank god we have these smoke shops.
Speaker 1: They're keeping the you know, like Atlas holding up the
Speaker 1: globe there, or the only thing keeping the city budget afloat. No,
Speaker 1: that seems silly to me. I don't know. Maybe you
Speaker 1: can make the argument that some of these places there's
Speaker 1: no other likely productive tenant. It's gonna take those spots,
Speaker 1: and that a lot of those places are just gonna
Speaker 1: lie fallow and be vacant. Okay, maybe, but I still
Speaker 1: think that the social impact of these things is net bad.
Speaker 1: But here's the main point of this. The proliferation of
Speaker 1: these smoke shops is a real testament to what a
Speaker 1: lie and what a flop. The ongoing proliferation of legal
Speaker 1: weed has been in California. The whole premise of legalizing
Speaker 1: marijuana was basically, why are we criminalizing this activity? It's dangerous,
Speaker 1: it empowers drug cartels. You know, it's bad for people.
Speaker 1: Why not take this activity which isn't that bad, you know?
Speaker 1: And then all these studies come out to try to
Speaker 1: say that marijuana is not that bad. Although now there's
Speaker 1: more studies coming out that there's all kinds of stuff,
Speaker 1: psychosis and all kinds of things that are linked to
Speaker 1: marijuana use. More and more, the evidence coming out is
Speaker 1: showing marijuana it's not good for you. It's clearly depressive,
Speaker 1: it's clearly something that's not a good thing as a
Speaker 1: lifestyle choice for you. But the idea was, hey, let's
Speaker 1: take these transactions out of the dark into the light,
Speaker 1: have it be sold legally, and hey, while we're at it,
Speaker 1: let's tax it. And if there's one thing that is
Speaker 1: absolute canip for state and local governments, it's a new
Speaker 1: source of revenue where you're not imposing attacks on everybody,
Speaker 1: a voluntary activity that you can tax that generates revenue.
Speaker 1: City governments, county governments, state governments love that stuff. Why
Speaker 1: because city, state, and county governments, unlike the federal government,
Speaker 1: they can't spend into the red indefinitely. Federal government can
Speaker 1: just keep on printing money. State of California can't do that.
Speaker 1: State of Colorado can't do that, State of Vermont can't
Speaker 1: do that. State governments can't do that, and certainly the
Speaker 1: city can't do that. Certainly the county can't do that.
Speaker 1: So local and state governments have this gree sort of
Speaker 1: inquisitive nature that they take on of. They will do
Speaker 1: anything for a new source of revenue. If it's a
Speaker 1: federal dollar, they will bend over backwards and break their
Speaker 1: own spine to get that, you know, gusher of federal money.
Speaker 1: If it's something that You've also seen the proliferation throughout
Speaker 1: the country of casinos. Okay, why are we having so
Speaker 1: many casinos? Why are there so many new casinos? If
Speaker 1: you go out into the great American hinterland beyond California,
Speaker 1: casinos are popping up all over the place. States are
Speaker 1: legalizing gambling in all kinds of ways. I remember living
Speaker 1: in Springfield, Massachusetts, and they were like, yes, we're gonna
Speaker 1: bring us casino to Springfield, Massachusetts. It's like, all right, well,
Speaker 1: why would why are we doing that? Why would someone
Speaker 1: go to Springfield, Massachusetts for a casino rather than go
Speaker 1: to you know, I don't go to Atlantic City, which
Speaker 1: is not very far away. Well, because nobody has to gamble, right,
Speaker 1: nobody has to gamble. It's a totally voluntary activity. And
Speaker 1: the attitude of the average taxpayer is, all right, sure
Speaker 1: have a casino that generates revenue. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: go gamble, but you know, some some moron will. It's
Speaker 1: basically a tax on dumb people, a tax on people
Speaker 1: who can't do math, much like the lottery. So state
Speaker 1: governments love taxing, a voluntary activity that dumb people engage in.
Speaker 1: And because it doesn't feel the same as like increasing
Speaker 1: a sales tax. You increase a sales tax, everyone's like, well,
Speaker 1: this sucks. Now I have to pay more money in
Speaker 1: sales tax You forcibly forced me. Is there any other
Speaker 1: way to force someone? I guess you forced me to
Speaker 1: pay more in sales taxes. That stinks. Why is the
Speaker 1: government forcing this? Ah? Right, right, rare. All of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you're spouting off libertarian slogans like taxation is theft and
Speaker 1: stuff like that. But if it's again, if it's a
Speaker 1: voluntary activity, if you're only being taxed because you go
Speaker 1: to table, mountain, casino or chick chance to go whatever, well,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm not gonna get mad at the government
Speaker 1: because they tax you know, casinos, they tax revenue from casino.
Speaker 1: I'm not mad at it. I chose to go there.
Speaker 1: It's my own dumb fault if if the government gets
Speaker 1: a bunch of money off of me. Same thing with weed.
Speaker 1: But here's the problem. Potheads like paying for cheap weed.
Speaker 1: When weed is taxed, it's more expensive. So guess what happened.
Speaker 1: There's still like a sixty billion dollar industry of illegal
Speaker 1: weed in California. It's enormous. People are still buying illegal weed.
Speaker 1: All the people who were able to get weed with
Speaker 1: relative ease prior to California legalizing marijuana for medical purposes
Speaker 1: or recreationally. And by the way, plenty of people were
Speaker 1: able to get marijuana prior to California legalizing it, and
Speaker 1: those people have said, hmm, should I I had a fruitful,
Speaker 1: easy going relationship with my marijuana dealer prior to legalization.
Speaker 1: The weed I was able to get was an text,
Speaker 1: it was cheaper. There's very little risk of me going
Speaker 1: to jail as a results of it. Why would I
Speaker 1: change that just because weed's now legal? Why not just
Speaker 1: keep paying for weed illegally? And that seems to be
Speaker 1: the calculus that many of much of the citizen rya
Speaker 1: Fresno has decided upon. And that's why these weed shops
Speaker 1: are all springing up all over the excuse me why
Speaker 1: these smoke shops are all over the place. It's people
Speaker 1: selling weed out the back. There are only so many
Speaker 1: legal dispensaries in Fresno. There are way more potheads than
Speaker 1: there are legal dispensaries. Now, one of the arguments that
Speaker 1: will be made is, well, why husband Fresno approved way
Speaker 1: more legal dispensaries, all right? Really that that's your solution.
Speaker 1: Just more weed, more weed for everybody. This is a
Speaker 1: really productive, healthy for society. Great, Make America healthy again,
Speaker 1: make America stoners again. This is great. Basically, much of
Speaker 1: the argument for legalizing this is my cynical and I
Speaker 1: think correct view. When weed legalization was being introduced, who
Speaker 1: did you have on one side and who did you
Speaker 1: have on the other side. On the pro side, we're
Speaker 1: venture capitalists looking to get in on the ground floor
Speaker 1: of what could be a multi multi billion dollar industry,
Speaker 1: tens of billions of dollars. If you're the grower, if
Speaker 1: you're the shipper, if you're the distributor whatever for legal weed.
Speaker 1: If you're going to be the owner of franchise, you're
Speaker 1: going to start a franchise, and you have franchises all
Speaker 1: over California or something. For weed legalization, you're looking to
Speaker 1: make gazillions of dollars. Yes, who was on the other side, Well,
Speaker 1: a bunch of people looking to vindicate Christian virtue. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: there's not a lot of money in that. So all
Speaker 1: the money was on one side of that debate. Oh,
Speaker 1: here's all this research that marijuana's that came out in
Speaker 1: the two thousands of twenty tens, that all marijuana's not
Speaker 1: habit forming, even though these people really seem to have
Speaker 1: a pretty consistent habit. Oh here's a long term it's
Speaker 1: not that bad for you. Oh it's not nearly as
Speaker 1: bad as cigarette smoking. Blah blah blah blah blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, even though it's just more toxic chemicals
Speaker 1: that you're breathing into your lungs. Oh, it's not that bad.
Speaker 1: It's not that bad. M What a cuinky dink That
Speaker 1: the side with all the money starts seeing all the
Speaker 1: research in their favor, and of course they have all
Speaker 1: the money. They have all the money to pay for
Speaker 1: lobbyists to lobby for their position. And again, who are
Speaker 1: they pitching it to state and local governments? State and
Speaker 1: local governments that would break their own arms, sell their
Speaker 1: own mother if it meant there was another source of
Speaker 1: revenue for the state, or for the county, or for
Speaker 1: the city. So of course, legal weed has not become
Speaker 1: the panacea that everyone said it would be. If anything,
Speaker 1: what is it done? Pretty much every state that's adopted
Speaker 1: legal weed has seen the number of young people smoking
Speaker 1: weed increase. It's led to more traffic fatalities, more marijuana use.
Speaker 1: In total, it's just not good. And this is really
Speaker 1: where libertarians and conservatives, I think their paths diverge. Libertarians
Speaker 1: basically say, well, if they want to do it, it's fine.
Speaker 1: It's just up to them. Everyone's allowed to do whatever
Speaker 1: they want within the perimeter of their swinging fists, and
Speaker 1: as long as you're not hurting other people, it's fine.
Speaker 1: And conservatives would say that's an unrealistic way of looking
Speaker 1: at ethics or humanity. Everybody impacts everyone. Human beings are
Speaker 1: not an island unto themselves. Everyone has connections of family, friends, work, society,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Man is a political animal. That means not
Speaker 1: that every man likes watching Fox News, but it comes
Speaker 1: from the Greek word polis, which means the city, the
Speaker 1: political community, the Aristotelian principle that human beings, by their
Speaker 1: nature are meant to be in community, to live in
Speaker 1: communities with other people and interact with other people. It's therefore,
Speaker 1: I think, a totally legitimate function of government to say that,
Speaker 1: you know, while there's a certain degree to which the
Speaker 1: regulation of private activity is going to start causing more
Speaker 1: harm than not, and the regulation of private action can
Speaker 1: become sort of deleterious to public flourishing, nonetheless, the idea
Speaker 1: of the state saying, and in America we have this
Speaker 1: sort of two tiered system where state governments have more
Speaker 1: authority over this than the federal government, I think it's
Speaker 1: totally reasonable for a state government to say, hey, this
Speaker 1: is not good. This is not good for society in general,
Speaker 1: it's not good for kids. It's something that has it
Speaker 1: takes people sort of out of the realm of many people,
Speaker 1: not every person, but many many people, out of the
Speaker 1: realm of productive citizenry. So, in short, I think the
Speaker 1: the proliferation of these smoke shops that, oh, this is
Speaker 1: bad and deleterious to society. Look, guys, if you proliferated
Speaker 1: legal weed licenses as broadly, there's probably gonna be a
Speaker 1: bunch of deleterious. It's going to have a similar blighty
Speaker 1: effect as the smoke shops do. It's gonna be the
Speaker 1: same people selling much of the same crap, doing many
Speaker 1: of the same shady things out the back. And by
Speaker 1: the way, throughout all this weed legalization, you know who
Speaker 1: hasn't suffered at all, drug cartels because they move from
Speaker 1: weed to fentanyl, they move from weed to heroin, they
Speaker 1: move from weed to other stuff, or they move from
Speaker 1: weed to still selling weed because there's still this massive
Speaker 1: illegal weed market. Potheads often don't have a lot of
Speaker 1: money and they're not gonna want to pay premium for
Speaker 1: getting stoned. When we returned the person in the Trump
Speaker 1: administration who is happiest with the constant fixation on Elon Musk. Next,
Speaker 1: there's this constant focus in the media on Elon Musk
Speaker 1: and what Elon Musk is doing. Oh, it's terrible. The
Speaker 1: the controversy, nontroversy DuJour, is that Elon Musk attended a
Speaker 1: cabinet meeting. Elon Musk isn't in the cabinet. How come
Speaker 1: he's attending a cabinet meets. He's not Senate confirmed. If
Speaker 1: he's doing Senate confirmed things, he needs to be Senate confirmed.
Speaker 1: This is Meanwhile, we ignore that Jill Biden practically ran
Speaker 1: a recent you know, Biden cabinet meeting for reasons that
Speaker 1: are now obvious. By the way, do you see that
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper is publishing a book on Biden's mental decline
Speaker 1: in the last year? A classic? This is a classic
Speaker 1: of the genre. After it matters, and after it would
Speaker 1: have threatened the relationships that he needed to maintain as
Speaker 1: a journalist. Now he empties his notebook and tells us
Speaker 1: all the dirt that would have been really useful to
Speaker 1: know prior to the election or at any point during
Speaker 1: the Biden administration about how Seni Al Biden was. Anyway,
Speaker 1: nobody is happier with this fixation on Elon Musk than
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller. Who's Stephen Miller. Steven Miller is like one
Speaker 1: of President Trump's in Trump one and Trump two most
Speaker 1: important policy advisors, and he has a couple of different
Speaker 1: nonsenate confirmed positions in the Trump administration. He's an architect
Speaker 1: of most of Trump's policy. He is so thrilled that
Speaker 1: there's this fixation on Elon Musk. No one is thinking
Speaker 1: or talking about him, and he's getting everything he wants
Speaker 1: out of this Trump administration. And by the way, fundamentally,
Speaker 1: if the president wants an advisor to do stuff within
Speaker 1: the executive branch, it's going to be hard to stop him.
Speaker 1: Constitutionally and legally, that'll do it. John's already shows you
Speaker 1: next time on Power Talk.