Lake County News | California

Thursday
Sep 18th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Home News Latest Supervisors form Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Advisory Committee; applicants sought

Supervisors form Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Advisory Committee; applicants sought

E-mail Print PDF

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday agreed to form a committee to consider a new marijuana cultivation ordinance for the county.

In a 5-0 vote, the board created the Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Advisory Committee.

It's the latest step in an effort to craft a measure that will address issues with medical marijuana cultivation in the county.

Last Oct. 11, the board unanimously passed Ordinance No. 2960, which regulated medical marijuana cultivation in the county's unincorporated areas.

However, in the face of a referendum launched by the Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulations and Lake County Green Farmers Association, the board rescinded Ordinance No. 2960 at its meeting Jan. 3.

The Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulations and Lake County Green Farmers Association also submitted enough signatures to qualify an initiative, the “Lake County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Act of 2012” – or Measure D – for the June 5 ballot.

But with concerns over Measure D's invoking of the Lake County Right to Farm Ordinance to protect large marijuana grows, as well as an allowance for up to 12 marijuana plants to be grown on residential plots of a half-acre or less – which was prohibited in the county's ordinance – the idea was put forward that the county should seek another solution.

At the board's Feb. 21 meeting – during which several county departments raised concerns with Measure D and its impact on public safety, as well as the possible creation of nuisance issues – Supervisor Denise Rushing suggested that the initiative could be used as the basis for a new county ordinance.

With the approval for the new Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Advisory Committee now in place, the board announced Tuesday that it's seeking applicants for membership.

The new advisory committee will have seven members in the following categories: two positions representing marijuana cultivation; two positions representing agriculture; and one position each for a medical marijuana patient, physician and a member-at-large.

Applications for the advisory board will be accepted through Friday, April 27.

At its meeting on Tuesday, May 1, the board will consider appointing applicants to the advisory committee.

Applications may be obtained on the county Web site, http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Assets/BOS/docs/Application+Advisory+Board+with+email.pdf?method=1 ; at the Lake County Courthouse, Clerk of the Board’s Office, Room 109, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.

For more information, please contact the Clerk of the Board’s Office at 707-263-2371 or at [email protected] .

Email Elizabeth Larson at [email protected] .

Subscribe to me on YouTube
Trackback(0)
Comments (17)Add Comment
Michigan J. Frog
Chrizzy
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 12, 2012
"The measure is just a free-for-all for pot dealers" Huh? The measure is about growing cannabis, not dealing in it.

"... we have gone so far away from what this is supposed to be all about... the medical marijuana users needs are rarely even mentioned anymore... " - well, here let me remind you, California law allows patients to grow marijuana for personal use.

"it's all about the growers and their need for huge gardens" - Huge gardens? Where is that in the ordinance? I thought it was 12 plants.

"And the measure takes away property owner/landlords who rent property.. landlors need to have the right to say no to a grow on their own property... that's a big stumbling block."
- The measure does NOTHING of the kind. Landlords can state "no pets" "no smoking" and "no drugs" all they want, so there is NO DIFFERENCE.

" And there are enough people who don't want grows in residential areas." - So you're all for taking away rights of other people because "enough" people want to? And if those people do not know what they are talking about, but have swallowed some scare tactic, you still respect their opinion?

Maybe "enough people" don't like the smell of or their neighbors growing tomatoes? All fine with you to ban them?

You know, I am sure there are enough people in your neighborhood who do not like what you do in your bedroom. Shall we draft an ordinance?

Hey, look up the word liberty sometime and see if you can figure out what it means.
chrizzy
Froggy
written by chrizzy, April 12, 2012
Nope... so superPAC's.. have you morphed into Donna with all the Rob Brown stuff??? LOL! The measure is just a free-for-all for pot dealers... we have gone so far away from what this is supposed to be all about... the medical marijuana users needs are rarely even mentioned anymore... it's all about the growers and their need for huge gardens. And the measure takes away property owner/landlords who rent property.. landlors need to have the right to say no to a grow on their own property... that's a big stumbling block. And there are enough people who don't want grows in residential areas.
Michigan J. Frog
Clarity would be good
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 12, 2012
"I think it's clear this measure will not pass" - Chrizzy

Let me guess, Supervisor Brown has a SuperPac coming and they are going to outspend Lake County regular folks by 50 to 1?

chrizzy
Jump start
written by chrizzy, April 12, 2012
I think it's clear this measure will not pass and the BOS can see that and they are getting a jump on having something in place after the election.
WatchDog
Michigan J Fox wrote
written by WatchDog, April 12, 2012
You wrote that since we do not have an ordinance then the state guidelines or 12/6 are in effect. This is correct with the exception verified by the Supreme Court that a doctor's recomendation can increase that number.
Gar
Why does "Brown and company" not want it?
written by Gar, April 11, 2012
Do they not recognize that the white elephant standing in the room is the growers money that is sloshing throughout the County economy?

What do they want?
Michigan J. Frog
Grow Cannabis in your own back yard? Isn't that scarier than growing Saint John's Wort?
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 11, 2012
I don't think it is another committee to ignore. In fact, I think most candidates will have second thoughts when they know there will be plenty of public scrutiny.

What can they recommend? Going against the 2003 State guidelines, when all the rest of California counties have gone along with the act. Or going with the guidelines, which is essentially the last thing Brown and company want. Will the committee be ignored, or outright fired?

Here is the Wiki entry. You can start there and explore, and you will find this battle has been fought over and over again and the 2003 recommendations stand.

If the BOS thinks they can monkey up a new ordinance that disregards the rest of the State of California, they will only be pouring your tax money down a hole in the ground.

California Senate Bill 420 (colloquially known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act[1]) was a bill introduced by John Vasconcellos of the California State Senate, and subsequently passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003 "pursuant to the powers reserved to the State of California and its people under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."[2] It clarified the scope and application of California Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and established the California medical marijuana program. The bill's title is notable because "420" is a common phrase used in cannabis culture.


from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...e_Bill_420

And here are the counties...

http://www.safeaccessnow.net/countyguidelines.htm

Note that Lake County is listed as a California State Guidelines county (6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants AND 8 ounces of bud) because Lake, at this moment, does NOT have an ordinance, and the state guidelines are de facto law.

My opinion is that Measure D ought to pass and Lake County can then join the other civilized counties in California.
solincobb
And Another
written by a guest, April 11, 2012
Committee to ignore, thank you for your waste of time
Gar
OK, thanks Guest
written by Gar, April 11, 2012
Looks like democracy in action. If I read it correctly another newspaper reported that there will be 9 positions on the new advisory committte, with 2 of the positions being taken by existing BOS members.

So I guess that means if Measure D passes the BOS intends to try to amend it and if Measure D doesn't pass then the BOS intends to float another ordinance. Right?
WatchDog
Gar, the article explains it
written by a guest, April 11, 2012
If Measure D passes, the BOS would have to submit any amendments to the voters because only the voters can change anything passed by them. This is the most desireable way for it to go so that the BOS cannot simply come up with another set of ridiculous rules again.
smurf
its called "being scared"...
written by smurf, April 11, 2012
the thought that measure D will pass has Rob worried enough that he had to do something to hurt its chances, as the BOS had COMPLETELY screwed this whole thing up with their top-down "this is what you get" deal that was crafted without any meaningful inputs from the actual growers. So the options were measure D or nothing-who's fault is that? Rob, Jim jeff and Tony's fault, that's who's.
The problem here is that the committee may be legit but that doesn't mean the BOS will accept its recommendations, which are likely to be a lot closer to measure D than what the county came up with before. We need some sort of plan B if measure D fails but we also need to know that the BOS will pull its self-serving, ignorant head from its behind and stop pandering to a bunch of clueless rednecks long enough to work out a doable, fair plan, its possible but they need to PROVE their willingness to do that to us BEFORE the election.
chrizzy
Not balanced
written by a guest, April 11, 2012
There are four positions for pot advocates, possibly five if the member at large position is filled by a pot advocate and only two positions to be filled by people who are in ag. In other words this is a committee of anf for pot advocates and forget the rest of the county residents. How is this fair and balalced? This committee needs to be filled with people pro and con with an equal amount of positions.
ca215
mj cultivation Michael J Fox zfitz
written by ca215, April 11, 2012
1. "Fix the concerns:" How in the world can detente result when all involved factions claim "WE are right, YOU are wrong?"

2. Petitions swirled throughout the County; a "solution" was supposedly sought through gathering signatures on those petitions because if each or either gathered enough signatures of properly registered voters the matter would eventually be put before the voters, same as back in 1996 when the Proposition 215, Yes on MMJ swept to victory and caused the Feds to slap hands of people who DID and DO use mj as medicine, not as something to use in order to "get high."

3. Each person set up outside Lake Counties' Big Box and slightly smaller boxes learned to be as fast-talking and glib --- "The intent of our petition is to allow mmj-using-patients to have safe, conveniently-located, non-sleazy outlets for the patients' medicine."
Some people who were asked to sign both petitions, varying occasions of course, actually thought that Petitions 1 and 2 were identical...because of the way the signature gatherers described each one.
I overheard a signature-seeker get LOUD with a lady who didn't see there were diffferences somewhere in each petition effort there existed differing aims. She didn't understand, the signature-seeker had no patience, and seemed to think that if he again and again raised his volume of speech the lady would catch on. He finally exclaimed "I don't believe you do not understand the differences between this petition and any others; seems to me you are just standing here playing stupid in order to keep other people from signing on."

Prospective signer of petition: "But isn't what you say about your petition the same language used by the backers of the other hopefully balloted petition?"
Petition holder: "Uh no, see right here where it says" [whatever tenets employed by the backers] "that blah blah blah, THIS one is different because..." garble-babble, which leaves the questioner with no answer to his/her question about the seemingly mirror-imaged petitions.

Go the the Other Petition SignUp person. Ask the same question. The second response will be, well I'll be darned, an echo of the first one. Amazing. Sure.

MJF I believe the BOS will do all the things mentioned last in your post when hell freezes over. It's too bad but doesn't it appear that BOS does its' best to foot-drag as long as possible in hopes that whatever issue/problem/group of county residents will just give up and go away if those things are ignored long enough

And, zfitz, as to who picks the people I presume you are asking what person (or entity which has been granted person-hood even though it is NOT a person): It seems the BOS will be choosing the applicants from the few or many petition signers, since BOS is the thing asking for applicants to serve on a committee regarding marijuana cultivation.

I cannot help but wonder this time around whether BOS' asking for committee members will have the same result as when two separated-by-months articles appeared here in LCN about how volunteer applicants were sought to serve as liason between the disabled community and the overseers of that committee.
Several people phoned or wrote, asking for an application for one of four or five positions. The last I heard from any of the people, not ONE of them had received the application/info they asked for.

This is the way BOS treats volunteer committees? At least there is no mention in the accompanying article here stating that the applicant slot-fillers will be compensated...maybe if the people were applying for a Pay Me job, BOS would give its' attention?

No I don't really believe that.
Gar
How does this work?
written by Gar, April 11, 2012
If Measure D passes, how does a new County Ordinance affect it? Which prevails?
Baxter
the BOS already blew it
written by a guest, April 11, 2012
"Forming a committee" is code for "cause delay and confuse people"

I don't use pot or grow it, but I look forward to Measure D passing and Rob Brown eating crow.
zfitz
???
written by zfitz, April 11, 2012
Who picks these people ?
Michigan J. Frog
Good luck
written by Michigan J. Frog, April 11, 2012
Good luck.

Looks like the BOS will mandate the committee to "fix" the "concerns" and find another "solution."

Either that, or they will find that Measure D is pretty much like the ordinances in all the other California counties and all the hype about nuisances and home invasions and such is all BS.

But of course, some members of the BOS, especially Mr. Brown, don't mind Lake County being the most repressive in the state, as well as the laughing stock.

Next up, the BOS will form a committee to address the concerns about pollution, habitat destruction, public drunkenness, car crashes and domestic violence associated with wine grape growing. Yea, sure.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 11 April 2012 00:15 )