Pubdate: Thu, 31 Mar 2011
Source: Chico News & Review, The (CA)
Copyright: 2011 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.newsreview.com/chico/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/559
Author: Meredith J. Graham
Bookmark: http://www.drugsense.org/cms/geoview/n-us-ca (California)

WEEDING THROUGH INSPIRATION

Butte County's Medical-Marijuana-Cultivation Ordinance Is More Costly 
and Restrictive Than the Laws It's Based On

Hundreds of medical-marijuana proponents made their voices heard last 
month when the Butte County Board of Supervisors held its first 
meeting outlining a proposed cultivation ordinance. They had a beef 
with several of the requirements, particularly the high cost of 
permits and the low number of plants allowed on certain-size parcels.

The ordinance was based on similar legislation in Mendocino and 
Tehama counties, County Counsel Bruce Alpert assured everyone.

So, how are those ordinances working for those other counties? Pretty 
well, it turns out. In fact, both counties have been sued over their 
legislation, and in both instances the counties won in court.

But, "loosely based on" would be a better way to characterize the 
relationship between Butte County's draft ordinance and those in 
Tehama and Mendocino.

In Tehama County, if you have less than 20 acres, you can grow up to 
12 plants; between 20 and 160 acres, you can have up to 30 plants; 
and on more than 160 acres you can grow up to 99 plants. A $40 fee is 
attached to each site. In Mendocino County, anyone can grow up to 25 
plants without a permit. For more than that, the lot must be at least 
5 acres in size, and a $1,500 "cooperative license" must be granted. 
In addition, each permitted plant requires a $50 zip tie.

Butte County's ordinance borrowed from Tehama's lot-size regulations 
and added one: on lots 1 acre or smaller, only two plants can be 
grown. It also borrowed from Mendocino's zip-tie program, except it 
calls for ties (costing $40) on all plants on lots larger than an 
acre. Butte County's ordinance also added a graduated permit fee, 
ranging from $832 to $1,231. So, a Butte County grower with a 
1.5-acre lot and the maximum of 12 plants would pay $480 for 12 zip 
ties and $832 for a permit, equaling $1,312.

"We were looking at what would be reasonable to grow on a small lot 
with a next-door neighbor," Alpert explained by phone earlier this 
week. "We were looking at what kinds of complaints and nuisances 
would be created. Obviously, on larger lots you can grow more with 
less disturbance to neighbors."

In Mendocino County, as in Butte, illegal marijuana gardens are a 
huge problem. So when the Board of Supervisors passed a 
marijuana-cultivation ordinance there nearly two years ago, its 
intent was to decrease the number of complaints about legal grows 
while freeing up the sheriff's time to go after criminals. So far, it 
seems to be working.

"This program is working only because there are people who wanted it 
to work," explained Mendocino County Sheriff Thomas Allman, referring 
not only to himself, but also the Board of Supervisors and the 
growers themselves. "Last year we had 18 cooperatives that went 
through an inspection process-these are people who met the criteria 
that Attorney General [Jerry] Brown set forth [in his 
medical-marijuana guidelines]."

That means anyone else is either growing only up to 25 plants or is 
growing illegally in the unincorporated areas.

"In Mendocino County last year, even though we had this program 
going, we still eradicated 641,000 marijuana plants," Allman said. 
"[The ordinance] has freed up my time to go after large commercial 
marijuana grows."

Just last week, Allman said, he got word that a decision on a lawsuit 
against the county challenging the ordinance upheld the legislation 
as written. In Tehama County, too, growers sued and the judge ruled 
in favor of the ordinance.

"We were not surprised," said Arthur Wylene, assistant county counsel 
in Tehama County. He'd just received notice that the case was being 
appealed. "We think the law is pretty clear and we remain confident."

At that February meeting in Oroville, Supervisors Bill Connelly and 
Kim Yamaguchi spoke to those in the audience, asking them simply to 
be good neighbors. That's really what it seems to come down to.

"You have to take into account not only your needs but your 
neighbor's needs," Alpert explained by phone earlier this week. "When 
you're not a good neighbor, these problems come up. If you choose to 
grow plants right up next to the fence, are you really creating a 
nuisance that doesn't have to exist?"

Fredrick Johnson, a grower in Durham who heads up the newly formed 
Save Butte Growers Rights group, understands that point of view.

"I can understand not wanting pot hanging over your back yard, as a 
neighbor," said Johnson, who started a Facebook page to get growers 
and other proponents together before the February supervisors 
meeting. "But on bigger lots, when they're 5 or 6 acres, they're more private."

Johnson's group hired an attorney to draft a list of proposed changes 
to the ordinance. He believes the supervisors are taking them into 
consideration, and Alpert confirmed that, in amending the document, 
"We've looked at issues of number of plants, setbacks and costs of permits."

Alpert didn't go into specifics regarding how the fees or number of 
plants allowed might be changed, but looking at Tehama and Mendocino 
counties, their ordinances are much more accommodating on both fronts.

"If we see a marijuana garden that's causing environmental 
degradation, that's a top priority," Sheriff Allman said. With the 
ordinance in place to keep track of law-abiding growers, law 
enforcement has had more time to concentrate on the large grows that 
have not been permitted. Fewer complaints have come in since the new 
regulations went into effect.

"My intent is, sooner or later, law enforcement will have as much 
time to spend on methamphetamine and domestic violence as we do on 
marijuana," he said.

Butte County is drafting its ordinance with similar goals in mind, 
though in the minds of growers like Johnson, "the ordinance presented 
. created unnecessary and costly regulation and failed to accommodate 
the needs and legal rights of patients and landowners."

"I don't know what form the final ordinance will take," Alpert said. 
A special meeting will be held in May at Chico's Manzanita 
Place-which will offer space for more public attendance-to discuss 
the amended ordinance. "Obviously it's a very passionate subject for 
some people, and we're trying to find a way to accommodate the most people."

[sidebar]

MORE POT TALK:

The Butte County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss a 
revised version of the cultivation ordinance at a special May 4 
meeting at 5:30 p.m. at the Chico Elks Lodge (Manzanita Place). Also 
coming up in May will be further discussion in Paradise about an 
ordinance regulating medical-marijuana dispensaries and cooperative 
grows, both of which are currently banned.  
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake