Josh Harkinson

Josh Harkinson

Reporter

Born in Texas and based in San Francisco, Josh covers tech, labor, drug policy, and the environment. PGP public key.

Get my RSS |

Advertise on MotherJones.com

How a Local "Ganjapreneur" Bummed Oakland's High and Cheated the City out of Thousands

| Wed Dec. 11, 2013 6:32 PM EST
Derek Peterson and Dhar Mann (pictured at right)

In 2011, a Lamborghini-driving 26-year-old named Dhar Mann became a national media sensation when he partnered with a Morgan Stanley investment banker in an audacious plan to create weGrow, a vertically integrated marijuana conglomerate better known as the "Walmart of Weed." Shortly after I wrote the first detailed profile of Mann, however, he split with Morgan Stanley's Derek Peterson amid mutual accusations of unpaid debts and financial shenanigans. Peterson charged Mann with running "a fucking hydroponzi scheme."

Now it looks like he wasn't exaggerating by much. Yesterday, Mann pleaded "no contest" to five felony counts of defrauding the City of Oakland, the Oakland Tribune reports. The scion of a wealthy taxi monopolist and a major local political donor, Mann was accused of pocketing some $44,000 in city redevelopment funds that he was supposed to use to fix up several of his properties. According to court documents, Mann submitted checks to the city that he'd supposedly written to contractors but that were in fact redeposited into his own bank account.

Mann won't face jail time, but still must resolve an Oakland civil suit seeking $345,000 in civil penalties and damages.

Though weGrow got a lot of media attention, it was never very popular among the Bay Area's pot cognoscenti, who saw the company's materialistic and confrontational image as a liability to their wider goal of a truce in the drug war. But now it looks like it was Mann himself, not anti-drug crusaders in the federal government, who planted the seeds of his demise.

Here's How Walmart Could Pay Workers a Decent Wage Without Raising Prices

| Wed Nov. 20, 2013 6:08 PM EST

Walmart has gotten a lot of bad press this week over news of an Ohio store holding a food drive for its own workers, who were unable to buy Thanksgiving groceries on the retail giant's paltry wages. The store managers deserve credit for their thoughtfulness, but wouldn't it be better if Walmart simply paid its workers enough to feed themselves? A new report from Demos, a liberal think tank, suggests that doing so wouldn't be as hard as you might think.

Walmart could continue spending $7.6 billion to buy back its own stock, or it could pay every worker $14.89 an hour.

According to the report, "A Higher Wage Is Possible," Walmart spends $7.6 billion a year buying back stock. Those purchases drive up the company's share price, further enriching the Walton family, which controls more than half of Walmart stock (and for that matter, more wealth than 42 percent of Americans combined.) If Walmart instead spent that money on wages, it could give each of its 1.3 million low-paid US employees a $5.83 per hour raise—enough to ensure that all of its 1.3 million workers are paid a wage equivalent to $25,000 a year for full-time work.

Walmart and its defenders like to argue that raising wages would require it to raise prices, which would in turn hurt its low-income shoppers. But Demos disagrees: "Curtailing share buybacks would not harm the company's retail competitiveness or raise prices for consumers," the report says. "In fact...higher pay could be expected to improve employee productivity and morale while reducing Walmart's expenses related to employee turnover."

A spokesperson for Walmart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Tue Mar. 27, 2007 12:20 AM EDT
Tue Mar. 6, 2007 2:15 PM EST
Tue Feb. 6, 2007 9:01 PM EST
Thu Jan. 25, 2007 6:10 PM EST
Thu Jan. 25, 2007 2:55 PM EST
Fri Jan. 19, 2007 8:11 PM EST
Fri Jan. 19, 2007 5:12 PM EST
Tue Jan. 16, 2007 11:26 PM EST
Tue Jan. 9, 2007 9:49 PM EST
Fri Dec. 15, 2006 6:05 PM EST
Wed Dec. 13, 2006 8:22 PM EST
Tue Dec. 12, 2006 9:51 PM EST
Mon Nov. 27, 2006 4:10 PM EST
Fri Nov. 17, 2006 4:33 PM EST
Thu Nov. 9, 2006 9:20 PM EST
Thu Nov. 9, 2006 4:46 PM EST
Thu Nov. 9, 2006 2:29 PM EST
Wed Nov. 8, 2006 4:05 AM EST
Tue Nov. 7, 2006 11:25 PM EST
Tue Nov. 7, 2006 5:19 PM EST
Tue Nov. 7, 2006 2:29 PM EST
Mon Nov. 6, 2006 8:50 PM EST
Fri Oct. 20, 2006 10:28 PM EDT
Wed Sep. 20, 2006 3:56 PM EDT