Opinion
Recently, I’ve seen several letters that misrepresent the facts on Measure N. I’d like to set the record straight, with just the facts. Well, just the facts with a bit of commentary. I strongly urge a no on N vote.
1. Measure N prohibits any outdoor cultivation of cannabis for patients that can’t afford more than an acre of land. That’s the vast majority of the medical marijuana patients in the county.
It doesn’t matter whether your neighbors object or not, or whether all your neighbors are growing cannabis, you are simply not allowed to grow one plant outdoors if you’re not rich enough to own acreage. Thus, it discriminates against the poorest patients.
It also bans outdoor cultivation in the community growth boundaries, even if one lives on 5 or 10 acres. The community growth boundaries include the towns and a large area surrounding the towns.
2. Measure N is bad for the environment, forcing patients to grow indoors. As noted by environmental leaders Ed Robey and Victoria Brandon in a letter to the Board of Supervisors: “Our primary [environmental] concern . . . is the effect of the blanket ban on outdoor cultivation of even very small numbers of plants on almost all residential parcels . . . . the great majority of these grows will be driven indoors, with a dramatic increase in power consumption and likely damage to structures and human health caused by increased humidity [and mold].”
3. Measure N not only forces patients to grow indoors, it also requires those growing indoors to post their confidential doctor’s recommendation and confidential state-issued cannabis card on the front of their homes for all to see, violating HIPPA regulations, invading privacy and inviting home invasions.
And, the sheriff is “authorized to determine the number and timing of inspections.” Is the sheriff going to knock on front doors and demand to search our homes for marijuana plants? As a civil libertarian, this is very scary to me!
4. Measure N makes criminals of patients who grow even one plant outdoors, and could result in the frail, sick and elderly being sentenced to six months in jail! It unlawfully and unconstitutionally attempts to amend Proposition 215 and criminalize what is legal under state law.
It also allows landlords to be charged with a crime and sentenced to 6 months in jail if a tenant cultivates cannabis. The word “draconian” comes to mind.
5. It is essentially unenforceable since it provides no funding for its enforcement by the understaffed agency primarily charged with its enforcement, the Community Development Department.
There is an initiative headed for the November ballot which mirrors the few good provisions in Measure N but also is much more fair and reasonable and provides a funding source by charging a fee of $50 per plant for collectives and cooperatives.
This is the Medical Marijuana Control Act; it funds and creates a new enforcement position within the Community Development Department, and it is anticipated that enough money will be collected from fees to fund several other enforcement employees to assure compliance and enforcement of zoning and environmental laws.
6. Measure N bans more than six outdoor plants on properties outside the community growth boundaries, even if someone owns 10 or 40 or 200 acres of rural residential land, which is where most of the county’s collectives grow. Agriculture is a permitted use on parcels zoned rural residential.
There are thousands of collectives growing cannabis on five-, 10-, 50- and 100-acre and larger parcels in the county. The vast majority grow responsibly with no detriment to the environment and without disturbing or causing a nuisance to their neighbors.
These collective growers often supply dispensaries within the county and in the cities, where people are not able to grow for themselves. They employ many people and drive the economy of Lake County.
The best estimate (including from a State Department of Justice official) is that cannabis constitutes between one-third and one-half of our county’s economy.
By banning legal collectives from large acreage rural residential parcels, Measure N will devastate our economy, resulting in a huge drop in property values, boarded up businesses (including some of the county’s largest) and ghost towns. Also, it will drive the illegal criminal growers to the public lands, not a good result.
7. Measure N allows collectives to only grow on land zoned “ag” that is at least 20 acres in size. The fact is that there is very little “ag” land available, so this is a joke, and most of the “ag” land is around the Kelseyville/Big Valley area, which will lead to a concentration of cannabis grows in that area.
8. Of course, there are some bad players that are growing cannabis, but they are a small minority. There is no need to try to punish everybody for the sins of the few. The true criminals are growing marijuana by trespassing on public and private lands, stealing water, polluting the lakes and creeks, and poisoning wildlife.
We need aggressive action to stop this activity. Measure N provides no funding to accomplish this. As a candidate for sheriff recently admitted on my KPFZ radio show, there are “thousands” of people growing cannabis in Lake County, and we need to fund a sound regulatory ordinance to go after the true criminals, as well as those abusing the law in the neighborhoods and causing neighborhood strife. Measure N is not the answer.
9. Measure N is an Orwellian, poorly written ordinance that deserves to be voted down by the people. Don’t be fooled by claims that then there won’t be any regulations. The board can pass the Medical Marijuana Control Act instead of placing it on the November ballot, or they can pass the interim ordinance, which runs out during July, as a permanent ordinance.
Ron Green is an attorney and has been involved with the drafting of the Medical Marijuana Control Act. He lives in Lower Lake, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Ron Green
Again Lake County has a proposed half-cent sales tax to raise money that could only be spent on the lake. This one has more process oversight with the sunset, but can it work?
Bringing the lake back from decades of ecologically wrong decisions is not a small or inexpensive chore and the question may be, does this approach measure up as the best way?
The lake responds to the treatment dealt. So it’s not surprising that removing wetlands and emergent vegetation with significant upland sediment runoff over the last 60-plus years led to runaway summertime cyanobacteria blooms.
The ecology of the lake is dependent on the rimland, wetland and upland, and much of our vibrant economy is dependent on a vibrant lake ecosystem.
A case could be made that reordering the county general fund spending priority would take us where we want to go for a fix, as many have said.
I agree, but this would probably take the same 60 years of incremental decisions over many successions of county supervisors. Not likely, unless a degree in ecology is required for the job.
A better, more efficient way that maintains the required focus on the prize is needed and over the years there has emerged a preferred governance method for problems such as ours, the dedicated special fund program or project.
I remember discussions for years, without results, over restoring coastal salmonid streams from past timber harvest practices.
Changing the timber cutting practices, even though the battleground was hard fought, was the easy part compared to the cost and effort of restoring the streams.
Piecemeal restoration would take eons. It just wasn’t going to happen using the same old general fund methods.
Establishing a separate, dedicated source of funds with focused goals cut through the noise allowing the restoration to begin and meaningful progress made.
There have been many recommendations from concerned individuals and committees about the impending doom of the quagga/zebra mussels and the lost tourism from weeds and algae.
Frustration appears to rule both sides of the Board of Supervisors’ dias. What program would you cut to keep a balanced budget and what personnel are skilled in science and management to deliver the solution?
Nothing happened until a mostly volunteer mussel inspection program was instituted, weeds were cut as money was available and algae mats were herded with booms.
Did any of this make a difference? There’s no monitoring of course to know and counter claims remain.
What’s special about a Measure L dedicated fund approach?
It takes away the competition from other general fund needs such as road repair or social programs. These are hard competitors for the attention of elected officials.
When the voters say they want the lake protected from mussel invasion and the cyanobacteria blooms to be controlled, that of course will be the dedicated focus.
So, the elected know that results rather than a favorite public project are the coin of the realm. Their immediate task will be making sure the program can produce measurable results.
Putting a program in place with the right structure is a good first step but these are not programs that will run without good science, oversight and monitoring.
Feedback to the supervisors and public is required in determining priority spending direction. The second key ingredient will be skilled staff practitioners freed from other distractions, honed from immersion in the details and goals and who can maintain a course while explaining the maneuvers.
All of this focus and momentum comes from a dedicated fund program structure as in Measure L. The issues with the old approach will fade into background noise.
Jim Steele is a retired state wildlife biologist. He lives in Clearlake Oaks, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Jim Steele
How to resolve AdBlock issue?