LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council voted Tuesday night to oppose Measure D, the marijuana cultivation initiative headed for the June 5 ballot.
The vote was 4-1, with Councilmember Suzanne Lyons – who said she hadn’t read the measure – voting no.
Kelseyville resident Rob Brown made a presentation to the council on behalf of the group Citizens to Protect Lake County-No on Measure D.
Brown, who represents District 5 on the Lake County Board of Supervisors, said he wasn’t there in his capacity as an elected official.
“I am a citizen that is concerned about a measure that could change much of what Lake County is, and what we enjoy right now,” he said.
If Measure D were to pass in the unincorporated county, Brown warned it could happen next in Lakeport.
“This isn’t about medical marijuana as much as it is about zoning by referendum,” he said.
He said the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance to govern medical marijuana cultivation last Oct. 11. He said that ordinance would have prevented cultivation on residential lots of a half acre or less.
The initiative backers – Lake County Green Farmers and Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulation – gathered the 2,100 signatures needed for a referendum on the county ordinance, which the board later rescinded, Brown said.
He said only 255 signatures would be necessary to put an initiative like Measure D on the ballot in Lakeport.
Brown said Measure D claims it provides regulations where none were before, but he said that’s not true, pointing to the county ordinance that had been in place.
While ordinances can be amended by the governing body that passes them, ballot initiatives can only be changed by other ballot initiatives, said Brown.
Brown argued that 12 plants – the number that Measure D would allow to be grown on small residential lots – “is way more than any person would need.”
He estimated that 12 plants could produce an annual crop worth $72,000 at California prices. The top number of plants allowed on larger lots, 84, would have potential revenue of $504,000. If such a crop were taken to the East Coast, the price would be doubled, he said.
Brown asked the council to join a number of other groups that have joined in opposing Measure D, including the Lake County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Lake County Farm Bureau, Sierra Club, Kelseyville Business Association, Lake County Chamber of Commerce, and the Buckingham and Clear Lake Riviera homeowners associations.
He asked the council if they had any questions.
“Nope, you've got my vote,” said Councilman Roy Parmentier.
Marijuana is illegal under federal law, and Brown told the council that the federal government has shown great interest in Lake County recently due to the marijuana-related activities taking place here.
Within the last month, he said the Drug Enforcement Administration cross-deputized two Lake County Sheriff’s deputies.
“I suspect someday it will be legal federally,” he said, but for now, “I don't think Lake County should be the poster child for legalizing marijuana.”
He also reported that in the last few weeks it “has just gone nuts” relating to preparations for marijuana gardens, with fences going up and illegal grading taking place. He said people are coming from the Bay Area and Southern California to purchase land for cultivation in order to make a profit.
“It's not local residents looking out for their glaucoma,” he said.
Measure D also would use right-to-farm protections for commercial farming to protect marijuana grows. Brown said marijuana is not an agricultural product.
Don Merrill, representing the initiative’s proponents, said Measure D doesn’t allow anything that isn’t already legal, and it clearly defines when and where there is too much marijuana being grown.
He suggested that a marijuana cultivation advisory committee the Board of Supervisors had appointed on Tuesday – to which he was appointed – would be attempting to rewrite Measure D, and he raised concerns about fair political practices with regarding to the committee.
Brown got up “to interject a couple facts,” denying that the advisory committee was going to rewrite Measure D. He also said the board has to rescind its ordinance in response to the referendum, which Merrill denied.
Community member Brad Bastian said he’s frustrated about the lure of easy money connected to medical marijuana growing.
He said one of his neighbors had more than 100 plants. Thieves came through Bastian’s property to steal the plants.
“That’s the lure of easy money. It risks my family and that is wrong,” Bastian said.
Rumfelt moved that the council formally oppose Measure D, with Parmentier seconding, and the 4-1 vote following.
Brown said the Board of Supervisors will discuss opposing Measure D at its meeting next week.
Email Elizabeth Larson at elarson@lakeconews.com .
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Michigan J. Frog, May 02, 2012
On the form the FPPC number is 1347134
Maybe my bad, but that number does not exist on the FPPC website, as far as I can tell.
Maybe some journalists ought to take a look.
-
- -3
-
-
written by Michigan J. Frog, May 02, 2012
If you want to make your own No on D signs and put them on your property you are free to do so as that privilege is afforded you by the First Amendment. You do not have to put any sponsorship information on them as a private citizen exercising freedom of expression.
Unless that sign was given to you and paid for by somebody else.
-
- -4
-
-
written by Vocal Local, May 02, 2012
With more than just my word to back them up, unlike some posters here.
Dwain says,
“Twelve plants and eight ounces of processed is the MINIMUM amount under the State guidelines, and local governments may NOT regulate less than those. Too bad Mr. Brown doesn't know the law.”
The truth is it’s Dwain who does not know the law. Those “Minimums” that Dwain refers to were ruled unconstitutional by The California Supreme Court over two years ago in People v. Kelly.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/22/local/la-me-medical-marijuana22-2010jan22
California law currently stands where it once was, the amount possessed must be reasonable.
At this point I could say something like, how ironic then is Dwain’s comment that it’s, “Too bad Mr. Brown doesn’t know the law.”
Then of course we have the two or three other posters, unfortunately once again Dwain is included in this group, who claim the price estimates are faulty. They make this claim without any supporting documents, something I will not do.
http://www.priceofweed.com/prices/United-States/California.html
This website uses self-reporting to create an average price per ounce of marijuana. In California that average price ranges from $185 per ounce for “low grade” marijuana all the way up to $282 per ounce. Given that there are 16 ounces in a pound that means the average price per pound is $2,960 per pound for “low grade” marijuana all the way up to $4,512 for “high grade”. Of course everyone will point out that as it stands this is not a true representation of per pound prices, because everyone knows you get a volume discount, like when you buy at Costco.
How about half off?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Even with a 50% volume discount we’re still looking at $1,480-$2,256 per pound of marijuana. Now I can assure you, the right strain of marijuana will go for more than $3,000 per pound and you can call one of the dispensaries in Clearlake to ask them, like I did if you don’t believe me.
But wait, that’s only half the equation, we still need to talk about plant yields. Since we’re in the context of outdoor cultivation, that’s the plant yield figure we’ll use. Since there are literally thousands of websites that discuss plant yield, I’ll just link you to the quick Google search I did.
http://tinyurl.com/7ff8ns6.
Even the most conservative growers claim it’s not at all difficult to get outdoor plant yields into the multiple pound range. You’ll see multiple comments about how common 2+ pound yields are. I’ve seen plants that produce 3-5 pounds of bud on a regular basis because of selective breeding, but let’s not get all crazy, we’ll just use 2.5 pounds per outdoor plant, even though is many cases it will be more and even sometimes less.
2.5 pounds as an average, multiplied by the median price of marijuana (With the half off volume discount) of $1,868 equals $4,670 per plant, and that’s adjusting everything in favor of the lower price.
If we use the upper level prices, it’s very easy to see that $6,000 per plant in not an unreasonable estimate. Especially when you consider that all these figures come from California prices and anyone who knows anything about the industry will tell you that California grown marijuana is sold all over the USA and often fetches top prices.
Those of you that don’t know my qualifications can easily look them up.
-Patrick McMahon
-
- +1
-
-
written by jmadison, May 02, 2012
-
- -4
-
-
written by jjensen, May 02, 2012
Measure D form filings are available for review at the registrar of voters, that's where we got em. On the form the FPPC number is 1347134
If you want to make your own No on D signs and put them on your property you are free to do so as that privilege is afforded you by the First Amendment. You do not have to put any sponsorship information on them as a private citizen exercising freedom of expression.
-
- +6
-
-
written by Hal, May 02, 2012
-
- -2
-
-
written by k9obsessed, May 02, 2012
Maybe for a government that pays $900,000. for a party in Vegas. But not for a typical person growing for their own pharmaceutical use.
-
- +0
-
-
written by smurf, May 02, 2012
-
- -5
-
-
written by Michigan J. Frog, May 02, 2012
Brown argued that 12 plants – the number that Measure D would allow to be grown on small residential lots – “is way more than any person would need.”
Twelve plants and eight ounces of processed is the MINIMUM amount under the State guidelines, and local governments may NOT regulate less than those.
Too bad Mr. Brown doesn't know the law.
He estimated that 12 plants could produce an annual crop worth $72,000 at California prices.
$6,000 per plant? 100% total BS.
Lake County "poster child for marijuana?" Hasn't Supervisor Brown ever been to Mendocino or Humboldt Counties?
--------------------------------------------
And why hasn't "Citizens to Protect Lake County-No on Measure D" filed any forms with the Fair Political Practices Commission? Just who is funding this committee and who are its primary officers?
No such committee is listed on the FPPC website and thus there is no ID number.
Committees formed to pass or defeat a ballot measure MUST file within ten days of forming the committee.
There are lawn signs out with a "No on Measure D...No Pot Farming in Lake County." These signs are REQUIRED by state law to name the committee that sponsors them, yet there is no such name listed.
Am I missing something or does "Citizens to Protect Lake County-No on Measure D" not care about state law?
-
- -6
-
-
The court ruled
In other words, jurisdictions may not put ANY cap on the number of plants. And I believe no jurisciction can prohibit a patient from growing Cannabis AT HOME, no matter the zoning of the parcel.
Tell you what, when Measure D passes, file a lawsuit so you can grow MORE than Measure D allows. You can do us all a favor.
As for the price, the ones quoted are perfectly within the range I stated, $200-$300
Yield is about how a plant is grown. The fact that professional tomato growers can get a bushel of tomatoes off one plant does NOT mean the average home grower will also get the same yield. Most home growers get LESS than one pound, sometimes a lot less.
In case you haven't figured this out yet, Proposition 215 is about patients growing their OWN Cannabis. It will still be ILLEGAL TO SELL no matter if Measure D passes OR NOT.
Obviously, Patrick, your qualifications and arguments have NO bearing on Measure D. Thanks for your support, though. Looks like Supervisor Brown does not have a leg to stand on.
And thanks for the info that a patient can grow as much pot as they and their doctor deem necessary. I am sure if Measure D fails Supervisor Brown's advisory committee will recommend just that.