Pubdate: Thu, 23 Oct 2014
Source: Chico News & Review, The (CA)
Copyright: 2014 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.newsreview.com/chico/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/559
Author: Meredith J. Graham

DUELING MEASURES

Two Medi-Pot Cultivation Items Bring Confusion to the Ballot

When it comes to Measures A and B, confusion reigns supreme. That's 
because they're both related to the growing of medical marijuana, and 
proponents of each side are using similar slogans: Yes on A, No on B 
vs. No on A, Yes on B.

First, let's go back in time for context. Since 2011, the Butte 
County Board of Supervisors has been working on drafting an ordinance 
regulating the cultivation of medical marijuana. After years of 
discussion, including the creation of a task force of sorts with 
representatives from both sides of the issue, the board finally 
approved an ordinance in early 2013. It didn't take long, however, 
for amendments to be proposed. The first round was approved last 
December, and more came early this year (this final document is now Measure A).

Still, not everyone was happy. Medical marijuana proponents gathered 
sufficient signatures to stop that second round of amendments-which, 
most significantly, limited garden size-and crafted their own 
ordinance (Measure B).

"Because the county completely banned dispensaries, we need a 
provision for collectives," said Robert MacKenzie, a land-use 
attorney backing Measure B. "It's a patient-access issue. We need to 
have this much of it available."

Folks on the other side of the fence argue that the amount of 
growing-particularly in the foothills-far exceeds the local need and 
instead people are making profits and sending their yield out of the 
county and even out of the state.

"Where does a land-use issue go from a compassionate provision for 
medical needs into a business?" posed Supervisor Doug Teeter, a 
Measure A supporter whose district includes Paradise, Magalia and the 
foothills to the north.

Both sides have their merits. To MacKenzie's point about a lack of 
dispensaries in Butte County, Teeter agrees that that would solve a 
major problem when it comes to cultivation, eliminating the 
patient-access issue and making it easier to argue for regulating 
large collective gardens. To Teeter's contention that people are 
growing for profit in the foothills, MacKenzie also agrees, but said 
he blames those problems on federal policy, which maintains that 
marijuana is a dangerous illegal drug and fuels the for-profit business.

The current ordinance limits the size of gardens based on number of 
plants-not on the square footage of the gardens-maxing out at 99 (on 
lots 40 acres or larger). It requires complaints come from a nearby 
neighbor and that they not be anonymous (though it stipulates that 
the identity be kept secret from those complained about).

Measure A limits the size of marijuana gardens to a maximum of 150 
square feet-just 50 square feet on lots 5 acres or smaller. It 
increases the setbacks based on the size of the lot-lots 5-10 acres 
in size would have to set gardens back 75 feet rather than 50; and 
lots bigger than 10 feet would require a 150-foot setback, versus the 
current 75. It allows any person to complain about a garden, and to 
do so anonymously.

Measure B is essentially the ordinance currently in place, but with a 
provision that it not be amended except by a public vote.

Despite the campaign ads advocating one measure over the other, 
voters have no obligation to choose either, or not to choose both. A 
"no" vote on both would result in the county reverting to the current 
ordinance. A "yes" on both would end in whichever gets the most votes 
taking precedence.

What makes this issue slightly more confusing is that Paradise and 
Chico already have growing ordinances limiting gardens to 50 square feet.

"People in Chico and Paradise will be voting on something that 
doesn't affect them. It's going to affect the rural areas," Teeter explained.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom