Pubdate: Sat, 8 Jan 2005
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal, The (CA)
Copyright: 2005, MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/581
Author: Michael Riemenschneider, For the Daily Journal
Cited: Raich v. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

COUNCIL LOOKS AT RESTRICTIONS ON POT GROWING

Amid all of the events of Wednesday's Ukiah City Council meeting, one
concerned a particular odor. And, no, that odor was not the stench of
the homeless in and around the Pear Tree Center. This issue involved
the marijuana grown throughout the summer in many Ukiah backyards, as
well as the community's worries about the dope.

At the Nov. 3 meeting, the council requested City Attorney David
Rapport to outline the possible manners of restricting cultivation in
the city. He reported back with lots of information and a draft
ordinance. Rapport's report incited a substantial discussion, with
many new ideas including requiring indoor growing and implementing use
permits.

Council members and members of the public supported passing a
restrictive ordinance.

One young mother, Tina Gordon, nearly crying, stated, "I have a
feeling that banning (marijuana) altogether would not be an option in
the county we live in. But I would say great.'"

As it was merely an update, however, the ordinance was returned to
staff for redrafting.

Rapport began the discussion with news of a potential Supreme Court
ruling. The 9th District Court of Appeals decided Congress did not
have the right to enforce anti-narcotics laws in California, because
Proposition 215 (the medical marijuana law) issues do not concern
interstate commerce. Attorney General John Ashcroft immediately
challenged the ruling, leading up to the Supreme Court case, Raich v.
Ashcroft. Reports from the arguments before the Supreme Court seem to
point to an overturning of Raich, and Rapport thought this would
probably influence council members' decisions.

After that, he reported the three-plant maximum sought by many on the
council would probably conflict with state law, requiring more
creative ways to restrict cultivation.

Rapport suggested a requirement of indoor growing, a model developed
in Willits. Most council members and members of the audience expressed
approval of this idea. His suggestions also included a use permit,
requiring a city grower to comply with the city's zoning regulations.
The zoning permit would also require that marijuana not be grown on
parcel adjacent to locations where children are present.

"Kind of like prohibition of a distillery next to a school," Mayor
Mark Ashiku added, in the best analogy of the evening.

With hopes of raising money through such permits, Council member Phil
Baldwin asked Rapport, "Do you think city state law would allow us to
tax mature plants beyond a certain number?"

Yes, but the tax would require a ballot measure, he was
told.

Council member Doug Crane then presented an idea to include a warning
and disclaimer on the use permit. It would state that the federal
government still holds cultivation to be a crime, and the city is not
liable for any federal prosecution.

He also desired that growers have the approval of the owner of the
property on which they grow.

Council member John McCowen hoped the ordinance that passes will be as
restrictive as possible.

Generally, the council does seem to be fully supportive of a
restrictive ordinance, and sent the many options presented at the
council meeting back to Rapport.

As Council member Baldwin stated to conclude the discussion, "I hope
we can be extremely restrictive. I think the people that drafted
(Prop.) 215 thought it was a step toward total legalization, and they
also thought it would bring peace, love and happiness to the world."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake