Glass House: The Public Records Are In – Time To Talk License Revocation!

What the Glass House (GH) Cannabis raids revealed were very disturbing and very obvious violations of the county’s 2018 licensing regulations. These rules require that our executive office approve signoffs by six departments before renewing a grower’s annual license. So, I filed a Public Record Request to see whether the county was following its own rules when, just 41 days before the raid, Thomas Binnebose issued GH’s 2025 license. After reviewing scores of documents (some regarding P&D that were troubling) and engaging in detailed email exchanges with our Public Information Officer Kelsey Buttitta, this is what I found.

The license was not issued to GH (Glass House) Brands Inc., which is the SEC registered entity that trades publicly. Instead, it was issued to Mission Health Associates, Inc. and while I don’t pretend to know the intricacies of GH’s corporate structure, I do know that licenses cannot be assigned. That said, with approval, they can be pulled between companies. Again, I don’t know the specifics in this instance, but it does raise concern. 

ALL WORKERS, whether direct employees or third-party folks, are required to undergo a criminal background check and verification that they are 21 years of age. For direct employees the Sheriff issues photo ID Badges attesting to their age/criminal free record. It is NOT a defense (as GH flailingly suggested in their August 4 Press Release) to use contract labor. The code is clear, and the county confirmed that GH “is required to ensure all third-party contract labor employees…have had a background check.” Further, thatGH must require all “individuals to wear ID badges” because badges “indicate that an individual has been vetted to work in the industry.” And yes, the Sheriff conducted “site visits” (plural!) leading to some obvious questions: Were the 26 child/criminal workers badged? Were certain workers hidden? Were badges forged? 

According to the Feds there were 14 workers that were under 21 years old (Some as young as 14; wouldn’t their underage status be obvious?) and 12 with a U.S. criminal history.Cannabis cultivation is not serving some grand social purpose and annually it results in $3M ($3M!) of losses so why do we continue to coddle this industry?NOTE:The county confirmed that not a single one of the 12 criminal workers’ names that ICE disclosed had been issued a county ID badge.

On February 2, 2025, the owner of GH signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury that the business complies “with all SB county codes and CA laws applicable to commercial cannabis.” He further acknowledged that any “misrepresentation” was cause for license revocation. Only time will tell if child/criminal labor matters to the county, but at least for now, Ms. Buttitta says it does: “In general, cannabis licensees are responsible for ensuring all applicable vetting requirements for third-party workers are met. Failure to comply with licensing requirements can result in enforcement actions, including suspension or revocation of a license.” 

The GH raids thrust our county into the forefront of the national immigration zeitgeist, igniting questions about our individual and community values. And while their silence is deafening, the raids have also raised questions about our county’s suspiciously cozy relationship with cannabis. FACT: If nationally televised raids don’t result in a license revocation hearing – a due process code requirement – nothing ever will.

Supervisor Roy Lee won the election in large part due to his promise to “fix” Cannabis. Since then, P&D’s sham complaint system remains unscathed and, unbelievably, Lee’s Planning Commissioner has taken to recusing himself from Cannabis hearings. Well, this is a D1 business, and I implore Roy to demand the appointment of a Hearing Officer as the code allows. It’s what GH and the community both deserve!  

Jeff Giordano, SB County Resident