Pubdate: Thu, 24 May 2012
Source: Chico News & Review, The (CA)
Copyright: 2012 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.newsreview.com/chico/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/559

TAKING THE MEASURE OF MEASURE A

The Highs and Lows of the Confusing Referendum on Butte County's
Marijuana-Cultivation Ordinance

For Chico voters, the upcoming election may seem like deja vu all over
again, as the saying goes. That's because residents in the city are
going to see Measure A on the ballot again, only this time around the
measure relates to marijuana, not City Council elections.

Confused?

Well, think back to last June. That's when city of Chico voters
soundly (about two-thirds) defeated a measure to move City Council
elections from the November general election to the June primary. That
Measure A was spearheaded by Stephanie Taber, a member of the Chico
Tea Party Patriots and political gadfly.

This Measure A is on the June 5 primary, and it's being voted on by
everyone in Butte County. And this time the measure is the result of a
referendum petition by members of the medical-marijuana advocacy
community, who want to overturn the marijuana-cultivation ordinance
approved by the Butte County Board of Supervisors.

A group calling itself Citizens for Compassionate Use qualified the
measure for the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign last
summer.

It sounds simple enough, but that's not where the confusion ends,
according to 1st District Supervisor Bill Connelly, whose district,
the largest in the county in terms of acreage, includes the greater
Oroville area.

Connelly said he's spoken with constituents who support the county's
proposed ordinance but on their absentee ballots mistakenly have voted
NO on A, thinking that a YES vote meant affirming medical-marijuana
use. Or perhaps they assumed a NO would overrule the marijuana
advocates' referendum.

In any event, a NO vote rejects the county's plan. A YES vote supports
it.

The supervisors approved the land-use ordinance a year ago. It
includes a number of restrictions for county residents (it does not
apply to residents of the city of Chico and other municipalities),
including limiting the number of plants based on property size. The
law would prohibit growing on parcels smaller than one-half acre;
properties between one-half and 1.5 acres would be allowed up to 12
plants; 24 plants for parcels between 1.5 and 20 acres; 48 plants for
properties between 20 and 80 acres; 72 plants for parcels of 80 to 160
acres. Any larger properties would be allowed the maximum 99 plants.

Connelly and the pro-A camp, which includes former Butte County
Sheriff Perry Reniff and Paradise Town Councilman Tim Titus, maintain
the ordinance is a way to protect residents from the negative impacts
associated with cultivation on neighboring properties. During a recent
phone interview Connelly listed the many detrimental effects of
cultivation: increased crime, offensive odors, decreased property
values, degradation of the environment due to unmitigated use of
chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) and the roadways due to
increased traffic, among other issues.

He said the people causing the problems are growing the plants for
money, not for personal use.

"We are just trying to stop that to the degree we're allowed to under
the law," he said.

The ordinance calls for setbacks on all properties, and requires that
plants be concealed and protected from public access. It prohibits
cultivation within 1,000 feet of certain public and private gathering
places, such as schools, bus stops, parks and churches, and also
requires that renters receive permission from their landlords to grow
marijuana.

Growers must register with the county annually, providing the names
and addresses of each patient (or their caregiver) participating in
the cultivation, along with copies of their doctor's recommendations,
as well as the number of plants.

Connelly said those using marijuana strictly for compassionate use
will find it easy to comply with the law.

Those from the NO on A camp beg to differ.

Notable backers of that group include two local attorneys: City
Councilman Andy Holcombe and Robert MacKenzie.

MacKenzie, a land-use attorney representing Citizens for Compassionate
Use, is especially troubled by the prohibition on half-acre-or-smaller
parcels. He said the ordinance criminalizes conduct that state
law-Proposition 215 (the Compassionate Use Act)-says should be legal
and that the county should facilitate.

A former deputy county counsel with Butte County, MacKenzie
acknowledged that there are growers who create nuisances, but the
county already has a nuisance-abatement ordinance, one he helped to
craft during his tenure with the county, he said.

Further, the ordinance imposes a red-tape program on the county
Department of Development Services, which would be responsible for
collecting all of the recommendations, MacKenzie said. That means its
staff would have to have training in HIPAA, the federal
medical-privacy rule.

If approved, the restrictions would only drive up the prices of
marijuana on the streets, encouraging the black market and dangerous
cartels, he said.

"We're not saying there should be no regulations, but this one is not
well thought out," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt