Let’s fantasize about Oakland’s future.

Imagine a low-crime, bike-first city as a tourist destination like Amsterdam, but with charismatic marketing that lures travelers to shops, cafes, restaurants and bars — spending that translates to tax revenue for the city.

A merry, interracial couple walk out the door of an Airbnb and plop into an Uber — ding, ding, ding for the city’s cash register. They’re eager to explore Oakland, recently crowned the undisputed leader of the cannabis industry. They’ve remembered to pack sweaters for the nighttime chill.

The first stop is the hip “cannabar” with an old-school hip-hop vibe the culture websites have raved about, a lounge where Millennials and geezers swap stories in the new Stoned Age. The cannabis bar has a pastry chef whose baked marijuana-infused menu items such as Make It Raindrop cupcakes and You Will Snickerdoodle cookies sell out daily.

There’s a line wrapped around the block, of course. But the couple wait so they can check in on Facebook and humble-brag on Instagram. Then they skip arm in arm around Lake Merritt while eating their gluten-free treats.

The imaginable possibilities for Oakland to cash in on the multibillion-dollar cannabis industry are endless, which is why I’m astonished that the city can’t get its act together over what to do for local pot businesses. Why would anyone want to open a pot business in Oakland when the City Council has taken almost two years to set the rules — and then is having second thoughts about them?

Right now, if you wanted to get an application for a pot business license in Oakland, you couldn’t, because the city will not begin issuing them until the council settles its differences over what plan to use.

Why not go to Richmond, a city with its arms wide open? In June, Richmond cut to the front in the race to become the leader of Bay Area marijuana cultivation by lifting restrictions on the number of permits for cannabis grows. It also applies to businesses making edibles: candies, tinctures and baked goods.

In Oakland, the council is locked in a policy skirmish as it attempts to unravel the permitting system it unanimously passed in May at the behest of Councilwoman Desley Brooks.

To obtain a permit, cannabis businesses must wait until the city permits another business that falls into a very narrow category: Its owner must have had a past marijuana conviction or have lived for at least two years in an East Oakland neighborhood with high marijuana arrests in 2013. Half of what are called equity neighborhoods are in Brooks’ district, and the other half are in Councilman Larry Reid’s.

It’s a 1-for-1 deal that’s sure to create a logjam for permits.

If that wasn’t discouraging enough, Brooks, Reid and Councilman Noel Gallo are proposing amendments to force cannabis businesses to gift wrap 25 percent of their profits and reserve at least one seat on their board of directors for the city. It should be called the Up-in-Smoke deal, because it’s what would happen to any business that signed the laughable contract.

Brooks has pushed the program as a way to counteract drug laws that have disproportionately affected people of color. And she doesn’t want blacks and Latinos to be denied a slice of the ambrosial marijuana pie.

I don’t want that to happen either. There needs to be an equity component in Oakland’s laws, and Brooks is right: It has to be a legislative fix. Her council members agree. But the solution can’t help two districts while sabotaging the rest of Oakland. Equity can’t be achieved without fairness.

When the council meets Nov. 14 to decide on a plan, it will have more to consider than the Brooks-Reid-Gallo amendments. Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan will present her own plan, as will council members Dan Kalb, Abel Guillen and Annie Campbell Washington.

That is sure to lead to a contentious debate, or worse. Brooks has repeatedly used ploys — disrupting a Rules Committee session, calling for a vote before Tuesday’s election and requesting the Department of Race and Equity conduct a thorough analysis of proposals — to derail amendments to her plan.

The Oakland Cannabis Regulatory Commission has estimated that there are hundreds of existing grows and at least 50 delivery services operating in the city. All are at risk of not getting a permit. How long before they leave, taking their customers with them?

The council needs to figure it out in the next 12 days so we can get back to dreaming about the city’s future.

Otis R. Taylor Jr. is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist whose column appears Tuesday and Friday. Email: otaylor@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @otisrtaylorjr