###

En la reunión de hoy, la Junta de Supervisores del Condado de Humboldt se enfrascó en un tenso debate sobre la equidad de la Ordenanza de Licencias de Minoristas de Tabaco del condado.

En el centro de la disputa se encuentra una cláusula de no transferibilidad que impide que las licencias minoristas de tabaco se transfieran cuando se vende un negocio. La ordenanza, que solo se aplica a minoristas que operan en áreas no incorporadas del condado, permite la transferencia de una licencia a un “padre, hijo, cónyuge o pareja doméstica para la venta de tabaco en la misma ubicación minorista” si el titular actual de la licencia está en buenos términos con el condado. En todos los demás casos, “se requiere una nueva licencia minorista de tabaco cada vez que cambian los propietarios de una ubicación de venta de tabaco”.

Al comienzo de la discusión, el Supervisor del Primer Distrito, Rex Bohn, y la Presidenta de la Junta, Michelle Bushnell, admitieron ambos que debieron haber pasado por alto la cláusula de no transferencia cuando la junta adoptó la ordenanza en julio de 2023.

Bohn | Captura de pantalla

“Escuché la parte de la excepción — fue mencionada — [pero] pensé que eso significaba que podrían transferirla a cualquier persona,” dijo Bohn, quien fue designado al comité ad hoc de la Ordenanza de Licencias de Minoristas de Tabaco junto con el Supervisor del Quinto Distrito, Steve Madrone. “Aún estamos en desacuerdo sobre lo que considero ser … un error de cómo [la ordenanza] fue presentada y de cómo se presentó a los minoristas.”

Bohn cuestionó si el personal de la División de Salud Pública del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (DHHS) había hecho un trabajo adecuado en investigar la ordenanza y comunicar impactos potenciales a los minoristas locales.

El personal del DHHS proporcionó a la junta una presentación detallada sobre los esfuerzos de divulgación continuos del condado, que comenzaron en 2022. Sofia Pereira, directora de salud pública del condado, enfatizó que el enfoque principal de la ordenanza es proteger a los jóvenes y reducir la accesibilidad a productos de tabaco. Destacó que el personal estaría dispuesto a investigar enfoques tomados por otros condados para abordar algunas de las preocupaciones planteadas por los dueños de negocios.

Bohn mencionó una disposición en la ordenanza del condado de Sonoma que permite la transferencia de licencias, y sugirió que el condado adoptara algo similar. También destacó a un minorista de tabaco local que opera “más de 30 tiendas” en todo el estado, incluidas seis en Humboldt. La única vez que tuvo un problema al cerrar una transacción en uno de sus negocios, dijo Bohn, fue cuando recientemente intentó vender una tienda en Humboldt.

“De cinco condados y este fue el único lugar donde no pudo hacerlo,” dijo Bohn. “No creo que nadie entendiera que iban a tomar una parte viable de su negocio … y hacerla insignificante si cambiaba de manos a menos que pasara a un pariente. Esto ha tenido un gran impacto financiero en este individuo. En realidad, ha degradado los valores del negocio.”

During public comment, several local business owners claimed they didn’t know anything about the ordinance before it took effect. Tom Bero, owner of the Redwoods Market & Deli in Myers Flat, said he didn’t know about the non-transfer clause until he listed his business for sale.

“We didn’t get any information on the new ordinance,” Bero said. “Our market’s been there for about 50 years, and it’s always been able to sell tobacco. We’re in the middle of trying to sell our business … and the person purchasing the business does not want to purchase it unless he can apply for a new license or we can transfer our license. Our family relies on the sale of this business because we want to move on and do something else. … It’s getting to be too much.”

Dan Noga, owner of Country Club Market in the Humboldt Hill community, recalled county staff inspecting his business, but said he was never told that he couldn’t transfer his license. Noga asked why the county has set its sights on tobacco retailers rather than liquor stores and cannabis dispensaries. 

Noga | Screenshot

“Ingesting any smoke into your lungs is not good for your health,” he said. “Yet, there’s tons of marijuana shops that are being approved, and there’s no restrictions on them. … Liquor is bad for your health — just like cigarettes are — yet a liquor license is transferable. I don’t see the problem with transferring a license from one retailer to the next retailer. I understand if you don’t want a new retailer with a tobacco license.”

One speaker, who did not identify himself, noted that most of the business owners who rely on tobacco sales to stay afloat don’t have pensions or retirement funds. “This business is the pension,” he said. “If somebody loses a [significant] portion of their sales, they will not be able to sell the business.”

Following public comment, Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo noted that the board has had “no less than 10 meetings about tobacco retail licensing” and pushed back on the assertion that staff hadn’t done an adequate job in informing business owners about the new ordinance. 

“I’m, frankly, a little bit miffed about the way that we’re talking about the outreach that has happened and the meeting conversations that we’ve had,” Arroyo said. “Not very often do I get ruffled by this board, but thank you for just kind of bearing with it to the staff that are working on this.”

Arroyo said she was open to potential amendments to the ordinance that would lessen the impact on local businesses, as long as those changes didn’t increase the cap on tobacco retail licenses in a given area. “I would actually love to see more restrictions on smoking products,” she added.

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson felt similarly, emphasizing that the goal of the ordinance was to “reduce smoking and the harms of tobacco in general.” He recalled in 1998, when California became the first state to ban smoking inside. 

“I remember very, very clearly the sort of language around the Armageddon that would occur [to] these businesses if that was to happen,” Wilson said. “Well, it turned out some months later that people still went to bars and people still went out. … I think the way that we deal with these changes over time is through caps, and that we do this through attrition. But I think the attrition that we were talking about was the transfer of these licenses.”

Madrone emphasized Arroyo’s previous point about outreach, noting that “it didn’t happen in a vacuum.” He also echoed Wilson’s point that the whole idea of the ordinance was to “reduce the number of outlets down to a cap based on our population.”

“And the way that was going to happen was that if a business [was] sold to somebody other than an immediate family member, that they would lose that license,” Madrone continued. “All of a sudden, it sounds like some people feel like they didn’t have any communication, but my understanding was that every effort was made to do that.”

Madrone also voiced frustration over Bohn “trying to push” his opinion at ad hoc meetings. “I don’t want to hear his comments for the 20th and 30th and 50th time on the same stuff over and over again.”

Después de un poco más de discusión adicional y un intento desordenado de una encuesta informal, la junta finalmente indicó al personal que investigara más a fondo las transferencias de licencias, con un límite potencial para los propietarios de negocios con múltiples licencias de venta de tabaco. La junta también pidió al personal que investigara un límite en las licencias dentro de un cierto radio unas de otras.

La moción fue aprobada con un voto de 5-0.