Pubdate: Mon, 30 May 2016
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)
Copyright: 2016 Chico Enterprise-Record
Contact:  http://www.chicoer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861
Note: Letters from newspaper's circulation area receive publishing priority
Author: Ryan Olson

BUTTE COUNTY'S MARIJUANA MEASURES A PORTENT OF CHANGE

Oroville - There is some agreement among people on both sides of the 
two marijuana-related issues going before voters June 7.

Proponents and opponents of Measures G and H recognize that the two 
items are modifications to current ordinances that will remain in 
effect regardless of the outcome. However, both sides see a changing 
statewide attitude to marijuana and the upcoming vote may be a sign 
of things to come.

"This could be a measuring stick to determine the will of the 
people," retired Butte County Sheriff Jerry Smith said. Smith is 
backing the two measures.

Jessica MacKenzie, executive director of the Inland Cannabis Farmers 
Association, said the measures were a stalling tactic ahead of 
changes coming this fall. She endorsed a collaborative process 
instead of only listening to county code enforcement officials as the 
Board of Supervisors did when backing the changes that became known 
as Measures G and H.

"The answer is to go back to a collaborative approach," MacKenzie said.

Supervisors initially approved the changes on Jan. 12, but the 
cannabis farmers association submitted two petitions of about 13,000 
each to have the board either repeal the changes or submit them to 
voters On March 8, the board agreed to put them on the June 7 ballot.

Farm rule changes

Measure G would amend the county's right-to-farm ordinance to 
expressly state that marijuana cultivation isn't an agricultural 
operation under county rules. Both sides agree that the change is 
relatively minor for now, especially because the right-to-farm 
already respects federal laws that prohibit marijuana.

MacKenzie said the only reason to include the change was to poke an 
stick at the cannabis community.

"They're setting up a second class of farmer," she said.

At the time, county officials said they sought the change out of an 
abundance of caution. A state law approved last year recognizes 
cannabis as an agricultural commodity, and the local change was 
intended to clarify county rules.

There is also a concern that allowing cannabis under the ordinance 
could undermine the marijuana cultivation ordinance as the 
right-to-farm rules limit when proper farming operations may be 
deemed a nuisance under county regulations.

Smith said including cannabis in the right to farm could eliminate 
the ability of residents to file nuisance complaints.

Smith said the restriction was appropriate, especially because the 
county supervisors have heard from constituents in the traditional 
agricultural industry who were opposed to including cannabis in the 
right to farm. Advertisement

One argument against Measure G is that the county would have to 
either amend the right-to-farm ordinance a second time or face a 
lawsuit if the federal government changes its stance on marijuana. 
MacKenzie said the effort was an unnecessary expense.

"It's not a lot, but why do it at all?" she asked.

Smith said the law ebbs and flows over time and it's part of the 
process to amend laws over time. If the county wants to change the 
law in the future, it could.

Amending A

The biggest disagreement is over Measure H, which would amend the 
cultivation ordinance approved by voters in 2014 as Measure A. 
Measure A set growing dimensions based on lot size, ranging from 50 
square-feet for lots between a half-acre and 5 acres to 150 
square-feet for properties larger than 10 acres.

While Measure H clarifies allowable garden sizes in specific 
conditions, much of the focus has been on the proposal to combine the 
citation and nuisance abatement process into one. The proposal 
changes the ordinance so that fines of $500 per day begin when a code 
enforcement officer gives a grower or landowner a 72-hour notice to 
abate. Those daily fines increase to $1,000 when a nuisance abatement 
hearing notice is posted.

Measure H also affects what needs to be proved at the nuisance 
abatement hearing. If approved, code enforcement would only need to 
prove the violation existed when the hearing date was set instead of 
proving the violation still existed.

MacKenzie said Measure H only addresses code enforcement's concerns 
and not others' issues over Measure A enforcement. The burden of 
proof shouldn't be on the cited individual, she said.

"Voting for H, voting against H, only has to do with what we think 
are attempts by code enforcement to rewrite the enforcement 
mechanisms to match what they did last year, which is what they 
weren't supposed to do," MacKenzie said.

Smith said Measure A has made a big difference in limiting large 
commercial grows and Measure H will streamline the process and make 
it more effective. He said the measure would shorten up loopholes and 
make it easier to collect fees and fines.

During the first year of enforcement, county staff issued 894 
citations and saw to the eradication of 34,556 plants. Specific 
enforcement costs were identified at $375,996. At the same time, the 
county collected only 6 percent of the $2.93 million in issued fines, 
or $171,175.

Smith said some people facing fees and fines may seek to delay 
hearings until after they harvest plants.

"Oftentimes, they don't leave forwarding addresses," he said.

MacKenzie said many people facing citations sought hearings early in 
the growing season but never got them. At least 62 people facing 
citations sought hearings, but only 19 were heard, she said.

The county reported in January that it was prepared to hold hearings 
for 44 cases, but 25 were resolved when the grower came into 
compliance. The county lost only one hearing, when a code-enforcement 
officer was unavailable to testify.

While the issue isn't as momentous as the underlying cultivation 
rules, Smith believe county voters will respond as they did in 2014 
when they approved Measure A by a 20-percent margin.

"I would hope that the voting public of Butte County recognizes that 
this is not an attempt to overly regulate or resist people's 
opportunity to grow medical marijuana," Smith said.

The future

While voters will decide these two issues in June, they will likely 
have more expansive choices in November. In addition to a statewide 
proposition that would legalize recreational use of cannabis, the 
Inland Cannabis Farmers Association has circulated petitions to put a 
measure on the ballot that would enact full cannabis regulation from 
seed to dispensing. The proposed ordinance draws on the state's 
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act and includes a detailed 
zoning chart showing what activity is allowable in any given area. 
Personal and caregiver grows of up to 500 square feet would also be allowed.

MacKenzie said Measure A fails to meet patient access needs and has 
led to arbitrary enforcement. People should still be able to grow 
their own medicine, but different regulations would allow people to 
access medicinal cannabis cultivated and developed by a professional.

"A box saying everyone should grow their own isn't the solution to 
patient access," she said.

MacKenzie said it would save the county money to have the good actors 
in the cannabis field participating in a regulatory structure. That 
system, including program and permit fees, would take the burden of 
finding large rogue grows off the taxpayer and on to cannabis 
farmers. The county could see $2.8 million in reduced enforcement 
costs and new permit fees.

"The majority of the cannabis community is absolutely antithetical to 
rogue grows," MacKenzie said. She noted the proposal is a shallow 
framework that is set up for the county to provide greater detail. 
The cannabis farmers association has met with county officials about 
the proposal and seeks to work collectively.

"The answer is to go back to a collaborative approach," MacKenzie said.

Smith noted the world has been changing about cannabis regulation and 
use. While Measure A has seen successful, he said it's good 
government to go back to the drawing board.

"It will be up to us to find a solution and change with it," Smith said.

While changes are imminent, Smith said the public needs to have a 
discussion about some of the risks of cannabis, including the process 
to concentrate marijuana into butane honey oil which has led to fires 
and injuries. He said the county administration has sought to get 
along with growers, but also respond to the concerns of non-growing residents.

"Do we need to regulate it?" Smith asked. "Absolutely, because it can 
be a nuisance."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom