Pubdate: Fri, 16 Nov 2007
Source: Willits News (CA)
Copyright: 2007 Willits News
Contact:  http://www.willitsnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4085
Author: Mike A'Dair
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Marijuana - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

POT ORDINANCE STIRS PASSIONS

Supervisors will consider a new, more restrictive  medical marijuana
ordinance at their December 5  meeting. The measure was returned to
County Counsel  Jeanine Nadel for review following the board's
November  6 meeting after Supervisor John Pinches, father of the  main
concept behind the ordinance, said he would not  support it, and Nadel
said she needed to take a second  look before the proposed ordinance
came to a vote.

The ordinance is the work of the board's Criminal  Justice Committee,
supervisors Jim Wattenburger and  Michael Delbar. The two have been
meeting monthly since  January.

In August, supervisors rejected proposals by Delbar to  impose a
six-plant limit and by Wattenburger's to  impose an 18-plant limit,
making 25 plants the upper  limit in deference to Measure G, approved
by county  voters in 2000. But that limitation was for each card  held
by a qualified caregiver; no limitation was  imposed on how many
patients a medical marijuana  provider could grow for.

At the board's August 7 meeting, Pinches proposed  allowing growers to
cultivate more than 25 plants if  they secured a county use permit.
Pinches' proposal  contained no upper limit to the number of plants a
grower could cultivate.

That part of his idea was not included in the new proposed
ordinance.

The ordinance under consideration at the December 5  meeting has five
major provisions:

1.) "the cultivation  of more than 25 marijuana plants on any legal
parcel,  either inside or outside, within the unincorporated  area of
the county, is a public nuisance."

2.) "All plants must have zip-ties on them or they will  be deemed
illegal plants and confiscated or destroyed."

3.) "Wherever medical marijuana is grown, a current and  valid,
original, state-issued medical marijuana card  must be displayed in
such a manner as to allow law  enforcement officers to easily see the
card without  having to enter any building of any type."

4.) "People who are cultivating medical marijuana who  are not the
legal owner of the parcel where the  marijuana is being grown "must
give written notice to  the legal owner of the parcel prior to
commencement of  cultivation" and also "shall obtain written consent
from said owner to cultivate marijuana on the parcel"  and

5.) The cultivation of marijuana, in any amount or  quantity, willl
not be allowed within 500 feet of a  youth-oriented facility, a
school, park, school bus  stop or church.

At the November meeting, Pinches argued that putting in  the first
part of his idea without the second part was  unfair.

"If you just leave it at 25 plants per parcel, without  that other
part I recommended, then that means that  only the person who owns the
piece of land can grow  medical marijuana," he said later. "That's
discriminatory.

"Now the other way with that second provision in there  that would
mean that if somebody owned some land, and  say he had three friends
who were caregivers but who  weren't lucky enough to own any land
those three  friends could grow on the first guy's land...with his
permission. And they would have to get a minor use  permit from the
county to show how they were going to  take care of various problems
that occur with growing  marijuana."

Deputy County Counsel Doug Losak, however, said the  county's legal
team had advised supervisors against  including that section in the
proposed ordinance.

"In our view that provision violates the Fifth  Amendment (to the
Constitution) which prohibits  self-incrimination," he said.

Seven Robinson Creek-area residents appeared before the  board of
supervisors on Tuesday to complain that  conditions surrounding
widespread marijuana cultivation  were getting out of control.

"I came up here from the big city, came up to country  to live my
dream, I had my baby, and then I thought,  'Oh my God, I can no longer
go outside because of the  gun fire,'" said grape-grower Andrea
Silverstein.

"People are getting fed up with the situation," said  Matt Davis,
another Robinson Creek-area resident. "A  lot of animals are getting
gut-shot and being left out  to die. I'm worried about all the water
use. I worry  about the animals not having enough water."

Silverstein, Davis and the other five Robinson  Creek-area residents
said they favored the proposed  ordinance, while Colleen Schenk of the
Anderson Valley  Action Committee requested the distance limitations
be  increased to 1,000 feet to agree with those encoded in  the school
drug-free zone policy.

Willits resident Laura McBride, who suffers seasonally  from
debilitating sinus problems due to marijuana  cultivation near her
home, offered her advice to those  who were listening. "My advice is
[to]sue your  neighbors," McBride said. "We have rights, too. We have
a right to fresh air."

Former Willits City Councilman Ron Orenstein told  supervisors, "I
think it's pretty damned embarrassing  to be living in this county
now. We're saying, you  don't have to have any kind of ambition, you
don't have  to leave any kind of legacy all you have to do is grow
pot and make money."

Ukiah attorney Keith Faulder, who said he was  representing the
Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory  Board, attacked the proposed
ordinance on a number of  legal points, arguing the findings were "not
supported  by objective, empirical data," that the ordinance  itself
is "unconstitutionally unreasonable because it  attempts to set
arbitrary limits on the number of  plants a person can own" and
violates the state  constitution because it "attempts to amend two
initiative statues without the approval of the  electors."

And pro-pot New Settler magazine publisher Beth Bosk  demanded the
board study what the impact of approving  the ordinance would be on
the county's economy. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake