Pubdate: Thu, 02 Jun 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

BUTTE VOTERS SHOULD APPROVE MEASURES G, H

Marijuana is on the Butte County ballot again this month, and there 
are indications that most voters are growing weary of the issue. We 
certainly are.

A voter referendum is a powerful tool in California politics, but it 
can also be overused. We think we're there with the marijuana issue 
in Butte County, where well-heeled marijuana supporters have 
challenged almost every decision they don't like.

There's enough money in the marijuana industry to get these issues on 
the ballot. But there's not enough to convince a majority of voters 
to side with them. We urge voters to continue on their common-sense 
path with marijuana cultivation and affirm the preferences of county 
supervisors and law enforcement by supporting Measures G and H in the 
June 7 primary.

If it seems like we've been voting on marijuana often in Butte County 
lately, it's no illusion.

It started in the June 2012 election with Measure A. County 
supervisors adopted restrictions on marijuana growing after 
complaints from neighbors became too frequent. They passed a law the 
previous year, but growing advocates gathered enough signatures to 
place a referendum on the ballot. The supervisors' decision was 
affirmed by 55 percent of voters in the 2012 election.

Two years later, in June 2014, two well-known marijuana advocates ran 
for office. Andrew Merkel received 31.7 percent of the vote in a 
challenge to Chico area Supervisor Larry Wahl, and Dan Levine got 7.7 
percent of the vote in a run at Doug LaMalfa's congressional seat.

In November 2014, there were two more local marijuana measures after 
growers gathered enough signatures to put the issues on the ballot 
again, continuing the "Groundhog Day" cycle. Voters reaffirmed the 
previous Measure A vote with 60.2 percent approval. They rejected a 
companion initiative sought by growers with 65.8 percent voting no.

Marijuana growers have little trouble marshaling the forces enough to 
get 10 percent of the voters to sign on to a referendum, but have a 
much tougher time getting 50 percent of the people to agree with them.

That's where we are again on June 7, with two more challenges after 
the marijuana advocates didn't like two more votes by the county supervisors.

The first, Measure G, decided that marijuana growers weren't 
protected by the "Right to Farm" ordinance that protects almond 
farmers, rice farmers and others from neighbors who complain about 
dust, noise and other such nuisances. Marijuana growers would like to 
be considered farmers, exempt from neighbor concerns. The difference, 
of course, is that almonds and rice aren't considered illegal by the 
federal government and nobody needs barking pit bulls and guns to 
guard their kiwis and walnuts.

The second, Measure H, was a revision to the previously approved 
Measure A. Supervisors, at the request of code enforcement and law 
enforcement officials, amended the cultivation ordinance to combine 
the citation and nuisance abatement process into one. Officials hope 
it would result in more immediate compliance. There are enough 
loopholes in the current ordinance that growers can stall, sometimes 
until after the harvest, if their grows are larger than allowed.

Both appear to be relatively minor changes that will help enforce the 
original will of the voters as expressed in Measure A four years ago.

We don't see a need to have an election every time the marijuana 
growers feel victimized. We recommend a "yes" vote on Measures G and H.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom