HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-Type: text/html
Pubdate: Wed, 04 May 2011 Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA) Copyright: 2011 Chico Enterprise-Record Contact: http://www.chicoer.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861 Note: Letters from newspaper's circulation area receive publishing priority SUPERVISORS NEED TO HELP NEIGHBORS Our view: Large marijuana growing operations intimidate neighbors, who get no protection from the lack of limits on cultivation. Round two of Butte County's struggle to establish legal guidelines on growing medical marijuana is tonight. Judging from the way things went in round one, it could be a heated discussion. The county supervisors have called a special meeting for 5:30 p.m. at the Chico Elks Lodge. They opted for a larger venue because the county building in Oroville was too small to handle the last crowd at a Feb. 22 daytime hearing. At that meeting, some marijuana growers tried to threaten and intimidate the five supervisors. The ordinance has since been watered down with more permissive growing guidelines. This time, we hope the supervisors take into consideration the many neighbors who feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods but are afraid to speak out because they fear reprisal. Those homeowners - the kind who never dreamed they'd have to beg supervisors to protect them from the pot growers next door - aren't likely to show up to a meeting asking the supervisors to do the right thing. They shouldn't have to. The supervisors will be pulled in another direction, though. They'll hear the spin from growers that it's all about medicine for sick people. That's what it should be. That's not the reality. Let's face it: Proposition 215 has been hijacked by pot growers. Nothing short of a referendum to overturn Proposition 215 would fix things. Unfortunately, the medical marijuana initiative passed by voters didn't specify guidelines on growing something the federal government says is illegal. It just said patients could use it. In the absence of statewide policy on growing it, cities and counties have come up with a hodgepodge of regulations. If a county or city is lenient, it attracts growers from out of the area. That's what the county supervisors need to guard against. Pot growers from all over could be attracted by permissive guidelines to go with our excellent growing conditions, plentiful water and secluded, cheap land. Though we prefer the original ordinance to the more lenient proposal supervisors will debate tonight, just about anything would be an improvement over the anything-goes guidelines that prevail now. Under the proposal, growers would be limited depending on the size of their land. They would be allowed six mature plants on lots less than 1.5 acres, 12 mature plants on land between 1.5 and 20 acres, 24 mature plants on parcels between 20 and 80 acres, 36 plants for 80 to 160 acres, and 99 total plants on lots larger than 160 acres. Each parcel also would have setback requirements. For example, on 10-acre parcels, the garden would have to be 100 feet back from the adjoining property line. Some of the limitations are helpful. The ordinance says marijuana cannot be grown within 100 feet of a school, park or church, and cannot be grown in an area that's visible from the public right of way or even a publicly traveled private road. There's a $285 annual registration fee on all properties larger than 1.5 acres. There's also an attempt to limit people from out of the area from setting up shop here. The ordinance says the growers must be county residents, and renters must have written permission of the property owner to grow. That's all wise, but there's not enough to address this reality stated in the ordinance: "The limited right of qualified patients ... to cultivate marijuana plants ... does not confer the right to create or maintain a public nuisance." In that regard, it seems residents have little recourse for the skunky smell at harvest time, and can't do much about the vicious dogs or armed guards keeping an eye on the crop. The ordinance, while an improvement over the current free-for-all, doesn't do enough to protect neighborhoods. We hope people who are concerned about such things show up in force at tonight's meeting to balance the testimony of those who are sure to advocate for protection of their cash crop. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart