I live in SF, where there are a variety of shops. The ones I walk by all seem clean, orderly, and well run. Certainly more so than some liquor stores I can think of. So I'm happy to have them as neighbors. That said, I understand why other cities would have been more reluctant to license. Not everybody needs or wants to be a pioneer.
If we're still having the same problems 5 years out, I'll be more concerned. But personally, I'm a big fan of subsidiarity, the principle that decisions should be made as low down in the power structure as possible. [1] That different people are deciding differently right now is how we'll learn the best ways to do it. There's no urgent problem here that requires a centralized solution.
The same principle as with for example right to vote with no voting place in N (for sufficiently large N) miles radius.
That seems like a strong way to put it... How about "stripped of opportunities not taken away by the state"?
California didn't give anyone a "right" to buy/use weed, they just said they wouldn't stop you. Notably, it's still illegal at the federal level...
I think the total across all races in the entire county (school boards, ballot measures, multiple city councils, water districts, everything) was about $33 million for all candidates. SD County is so big that if it were a state it would be about 20th.
See for example — https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/aug/10/latest-fundraising-num...
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-san...
Recreational pot sales is probably a pretty small issue in the scheme of things and will likely sort itself out eventually since there's money to be made. But the idea that local control is fundamentally a good thing seems pretty suspect to me based on how many examples there are of it going so badly.
The examples you raise seem to be ones where you're saying that local control is not consistent with resolution of the issue. So it seems like you're agreeing with the principle, not contradicting it.
Climate change and transit offer pretty clear examples where people have decided local control isn't sufficient, so they're resolving it at higher levels. See, e.g., the Paris accords, BART, and the various state and federal highway systems.
Housing is clearly more complicated, but it seems like the principle is often being applied there too. Most control is local, but where that doesn't work, we see attempts to resolve it at higher levels. E.g., California's recent battle over the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and Prop 10.
Do you have an alternative principle in mind? If we don't start with the assumption that local control should be preferred, then what do you suggest instead? Historically it was the divine right of kings, which I'm not a fan of. And giving all power to the UN or the national government unless they decide otherwise also doesn't seem great.
On the other hand, some systems do just fine navigating a complex problem space by just solving large number of local optimization problems. See for example slime molds, which are colonies without centralized nervous system, yet manage to move and forage for sustenance successfully as long as the environment is solvable.
It's more efficient if everyone get's their own breakfast but the central bank should take care of the interest rate affecting the money that's used to buy the breakfast. Etc
IDK if this mindset is widespread enough in California. But coincidentally such an approach does improve the bottom line of large / established sellers.
You can choose to heed their views or not, but they still get to vote the same as you.
Why would it take the ability to have a "100% mobile business" to make it a booming market?