foreignerabroad
Member
under plastic... out of sight, out of mind
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Yuba County
- Thread starter furrywall11
- Start date
furrywall11
Member
furrywall11
Member
The Peaceful Rally was straight up awesome. There were at least 75 people there holding signs and the response from people driving by was overwhelming positive. Seriously, out of five cars driving by at least two honked. Cannabis supporters are everyman. The fact is the cannabis community has the potential to become one of the most powerful political parties out there. They are afraid of our power and that's why they're trying to shut us down.
One of the tactics the Yuba Patients Coalition is taking is a recall of the county supervisors that voted the bad ordinance in. It basically means we're going to get the signatures required to remove them from office and get our own people in. It takes between 1200 and 1500 signatures to recall a board member. The Ypac and it's affiliates gathered 3000 signatures in a matter of days so getting this done is within our reach. Also, if you hire "professional" signature gatherers it costs around $2.50 per signature...so, getting the require sigs is just a matter of time and money. You do the math on what it would cost to remove one of the POS that voted in this ordinance.
If you want to see something truly joyful and enjoy some sweet vindication check out the video of district 1's Andy Vasquez being served his recall papers. You might need to join Facebook and the "Yuba County Growers association" page to see it..but, that's where you can get all the updates anyways.
https://www.facebook.com/sam.mcconnell.127/videos/10153608179921509/
One of the tactics the Yuba Patients Coalition is taking is a recall of the county supervisors that voted the bad ordinance in. It basically means we're going to get the signatures required to remove them from office and get our own people in. It takes between 1200 and 1500 signatures to recall a board member. The Ypac and it's affiliates gathered 3000 signatures in a matter of days so getting this done is within our reach. Also, if you hire "professional" signature gatherers it costs around $2.50 per signature...so, getting the require sigs is just a matter of time and money. You do the math on what it would cost to remove one of the POS that voted in this ordinance.
If you want to see something truly joyful and enjoy some sweet vindication check out the video of district 1's Andy Vasquez being served his recall papers. You might need to join Facebook and the "Yuba County Growers association" page to see it..but, that's where you can get all the updates anyways.
https://www.facebook.com/sam.mcconnell.127/videos/10153608179921509/
furrywall11
Member
yea... it's one of those perfect moments 
I already looked on youtube to see if he posted it up there too but it seems like it's only on facebook for the moment...and for some weird reason facebook only works on my phone... Sunfire can you get in touch with Eric?
I already looked on youtube to see if he posted it up there too but it seems like it's only on facebook for the moment...and for some weird reason facebook only works on my phone... Sunfire can you get in touch with Eric?
furrywall11
Member
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015...tes-target-yuba-county-supervisor-for-recall/
--not the actual video of Andy being served--more of his response and CBS's spin on the issue.
--not the actual video of Andy being served--more of his response and CBS's spin on the issue.
Yeah that Facebook link isn't working but this article eric emailed out sums it up. Lmao I guess Brooke won the lottery to be the one to serve him the papers. I like brooke. There's good and bad news in this article. The appellette court denied us, again. So now it's back to the Supreme court. I'm seriously fed up, we need to get more people involved, more lawsuits, class action even. I say we just go ahead and grow and let's take this to criminal law because we will there for sure, it's black and white as far as sb420 and the people vs kelly are concerned.
Pot supporters target Yuba County supervisor for recall
By Eric Vodden/evodden@appealdemocrat.com*| Posted:*Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:10 am
A Yuba County supervisor was served with recall papers and other board members were threatened with the same after reapproving a new marijuana cultivation ordinance banning outdoor plants.
Supervisors voted 4-0, with Mary Jane Griego absent, to first repeal the new ordinance approved March 10 and then reapprove it with the same urgency designation. In between was a 11⁄2-hour heated public hearing followed by opponents shouting and pointing at individual board members after the vote.
Earlier, during the hearing, Brook Hilton, a Yuba Patients Coalition director, presented recall papers to Supervisor Andy Vasquez, who represents Linda. Hilton's action was met with loud applause.
"You sit there and ignore what people have to say," Hilton said. "Maybe you should take your paycheck and go serve your community. You are an embarrassment."
Vasquez, who last year received 61 percent of the vote in winning re-election in the 1st District race, did not comment while being served. But after the meeting he acknowledged the right of citizens to seek a recall.
"I'm not worried about it," he said. "It's their right as citizens. I spent seven years in the Marine Corps and five years as a road deputy in the sheriff's department defending their right."
To force a recall election, opponents would have 60 days to obtain signatures of 25 percent of registered voters within the 1st District. That would amount to 1,069 signatures of 4,274 district voters, an election official said after the meeting.
About 100 people attended the Tuesday afternoon session for the board to consider a "cure and correct" action as a safeguard against the urgency designation not being included on the March 10 agenda. A group called Citizens for Solvency maintained in a letter to the county that the omission was a violation of the Brown Act open meeting law.
Supervisor Roger Abe, acting as chairman in Griego's absence, admonished the crowd at the start, noting that earlier hearings had "been loud and kind of unruly."
"That's not going to happen*today," said Abe, noting the presence of two sheriff's deputies. "If you do that, you will be asked to leave."
Nobody was forced to leave, but emotions climbed as the meeting proceeded. As in previous hearings, opponents outnumbered ordinance supporters.
Zachary Cross told the board its actions constitute "an abuse of power."
"Not only are you taking away our property rights, you are taking away our rights for a referendum," he said.
Charles Boutt credited medical marijuana with curing a tumor in his neck.
"I still need to take cannabis on a daily basis to keep me healthy," he said. "It's not the medical patients you should be fingering. It's the drug cartels."
Other opponents questioned a finding that the ongoing drought was used to justify the urgency designation amid recent reports of Yuba County Water Agency water sales.
However, Gary Simpson, who identified himself as the brother of a Marysville man whose death is being investigated as a homicide, said his brother was killed because of marijuana use and sales.
"He was murdered for the marijuana," he said. "It's got to stop. I don't care what anybody says, it leads to other stuff. It leads to crime."
Colleen Weckman noted property values in the Butte County foothills have increased since a marijuana cultivation referendum in that county failed.
"The damage and devastation is going away," she said. "I thank you for trying to save Yuba County. I thank you for doing what you can to keep the trafficking out of Yuba County."
Court action continues
A Sacramento-based appellate court has for the second time rejected a legal move by opponents to Yuba County's marijuana cultivation ordinance to force a referendum election.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Monday denied the action seeking a court order forcing county election officials to accept petitions for a voter referendum. Also denied was an action seeking to halt enforcement of the law.
The ruling came after Yuba Patients Coalition and six individuals filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court on an earlier similar ruling by the appellate court. The Supreme Court last week referred the matter back to the appellate court without comment.
The initial appellate court filing challenged Yuba County Superior Court rulings by Judge Benjamin Wirtschafter denying a preliminary injunction to delay enforcement of the ordinance.
Wirtschafter also denied a temporary restraining order that left intact an urgency designation with the ordinance. That designation eliminated a 30-day waiting period for the new ordinance to take effect and the signature-gathering period to force a referendum.
Opponents said they gathered more than 3,000 signatures — they would have needed 1,242 of registered voters — in the event they were successful in their appeals.
Still pending in Yuba County Superior Court is the initial suit seeking a ruling that the new ordinance is unconstitutional, along with a permanent injunction. Yuba County has filed a response to that suit and a June 1 court date has been scheduled.
— Eric Vodden
So am I reading this right? We got a 30 day grace period right now until they re-adopt it at their next meeting?
Let's get Vasquez taken care of and serve the next set of recall papers before that meeting and maybe we can get em good and scared. Mary Jane is already shaken, we just need to shake one more and they can't adopt it as an emergency again because they need 4 votes for that!
Pot supporters target Yuba County supervisor for recall
By Eric Vodden/evodden@appealdemocrat.com*| Posted:*Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:10 am
A Yuba County supervisor was served with recall papers and other board members were threatened with the same after reapproving a new marijuana cultivation ordinance banning outdoor plants.
Supervisors voted 4-0, with Mary Jane Griego absent, to first repeal the new ordinance approved March 10 and then reapprove it with the same urgency designation. In between was a 11⁄2-hour heated public hearing followed by opponents shouting and pointing at individual board members after the vote.
Earlier, during the hearing, Brook Hilton, a Yuba Patients Coalition director, presented recall papers to Supervisor Andy Vasquez, who represents Linda. Hilton's action was met with loud applause.
"You sit there and ignore what people have to say," Hilton said. "Maybe you should take your paycheck and go serve your community. You are an embarrassment."
Vasquez, who last year received 61 percent of the vote in winning re-election in the 1st District race, did not comment while being served. But after the meeting he acknowledged the right of citizens to seek a recall.
"I'm not worried about it," he said. "It's their right as citizens. I spent seven years in the Marine Corps and five years as a road deputy in the sheriff's department defending their right."
To force a recall election, opponents would have 60 days to obtain signatures of 25 percent of registered voters within the 1st District. That would amount to 1,069 signatures of 4,274 district voters, an election official said after the meeting.
About 100 people attended the Tuesday afternoon session for the board to consider a "cure and correct" action as a safeguard against the urgency designation not being included on the March 10 agenda. A group called Citizens for Solvency maintained in a letter to the county that the omission was a violation of the Brown Act open meeting law.
Supervisor Roger Abe, acting as chairman in Griego's absence, admonished the crowd at the start, noting that earlier hearings had "been loud and kind of unruly."
"That's not going to happen*today," said Abe, noting the presence of two sheriff's deputies. "If you do that, you will be asked to leave."
Nobody was forced to leave, but emotions climbed as the meeting proceeded. As in previous hearings, opponents outnumbered ordinance supporters.
Zachary Cross told the board its actions constitute "an abuse of power."
"Not only are you taking away our property rights, you are taking away our rights for a referendum," he said.
Charles Boutt credited medical marijuana with curing a tumor in his neck.
"I still need to take cannabis on a daily basis to keep me healthy," he said. "It's not the medical patients you should be fingering. It's the drug cartels."
Other opponents questioned a finding that the ongoing drought was used to justify the urgency designation amid recent reports of Yuba County Water Agency water sales.
However, Gary Simpson, who identified himself as the brother of a Marysville man whose death is being investigated as a homicide, said his brother was killed because of marijuana use and sales.
"He was murdered for the marijuana," he said. "It's got to stop. I don't care what anybody says, it leads to other stuff. It leads to crime."
Colleen Weckman noted property values in the Butte County foothills have increased since a marijuana cultivation referendum in that county failed.
"The damage and devastation is going away," she said. "I thank you for trying to save Yuba County. I thank you for doing what you can to keep the trafficking out of Yuba County."
Court action continues
A Sacramento-based appellate court has for the second time rejected a legal move by opponents to Yuba County's marijuana cultivation ordinance to force a referendum election.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Monday denied the action seeking a court order forcing county election officials to accept petitions for a voter referendum. Also denied was an action seeking to halt enforcement of the law.
The ruling came after Yuba Patients Coalition and six individuals filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court on an earlier similar ruling by the appellate court. The Supreme Court last week referred the matter back to the appellate court without comment.
The initial appellate court filing challenged Yuba County Superior Court rulings by Judge Benjamin Wirtschafter denying a preliminary injunction to delay enforcement of the ordinance.
Wirtschafter also denied a temporary restraining order that left intact an urgency designation with the ordinance. That designation eliminated a 30-day waiting period for the new ordinance to take effect and the signature-gathering period to force a referendum.
Opponents said they gathered more than 3,000 signatures — they would have needed 1,242 of registered voters — in the event they were successful in their appeals.
Still pending in Yuba County Superior Court is the initial suit seeking a ruling that the new ordinance is unconstitutional, along with a permanent injunction. Yuba County has filed a response to that suit and a June 1 court date has been scheduled.
— Eric Vodden
So am I reading this right? We got a 30 day grace period right now until they re-adopt it at their next meeting?
Let's get Vasquez taken care of and serve the next set of recall papers before that meeting and maybe we can get em good and scared. Mary Jane is already shaken, we just need to shake one more and they can't adopt it as an emergency again because they need 4 votes for that!
furrywall11
Member
I think what might've happened is the ordinance is in effect right now but the 4-0 vote was on the decision to repeal and reapprove the ordinance at the next meeting...
It's a little unclear... there's plenty of time for these guys to consider wether they want to lose their jobs or not.
furrywall11
Member
Of course I hope you're right, bro!
Nope I was wrong. Apparently they reinstated that same meeting.
There's good news though. After talking with brooke and eric, they have some secret cards up their sleeves. Apparently the BOS fucked up again, but bigger. It's all hush hush at the moment but they think this next issue/lawsuit/filing will be a good one!
There's good news though. After talking with brooke and eric, they have some secret cards up their sleeves. Apparently the BOS fucked up again, but bigger. It's all hush hush at the moment but they think this next issue/lawsuit/filing will be a good one!
district 5 checking in, i dont know who our supervisor is but lets recall him!
I'm trying to recall most of the things said from david about 'low hanging fruit'….i remember people were talking about 5th wheel trailers. and that in yuba they are pretty strict about making sure people have permits for setting them up on properties?
i was close to buying one and just using that this year as my overnight camper. but would a 100sq ft shed converted to a bedroom be better?
we really wanted to get the permitted septic done, but the county is being a total pain in the ass about it. compared to butte where its like 500 bucks and permits cleared in a day, I'm hearing exhorbant prices for septic. i really wanted to get a permanent residence here because i know even if the ordinance goes back to last years, the permitted residence was one of the big flags of "low hanging fruit" grows.
david also mentioned not having any government workers on your property for permits during the grow season. even though the garden site is a good 150-200 yards up the hill and out of sight of the septic area. has anyone had them on their properties before? have they gone exploring beyond the simple job of permitting the septic.
i was close to buying one and just using that this year as my overnight camper. but would a 100sq ft shed converted to a bedroom be better?
we really wanted to get the permitted septic done, but the county is being a total pain in the ass about it. compared to butte where its like 500 bucks and permits cleared in a day, I'm hearing exhorbant prices for septic. i really wanted to get a permanent residence here because i know even if the ordinance goes back to last years, the permitted residence was one of the big flags of "low hanging fruit" grows.
david also mentioned not having any government workers on your property for permits during the grow season. even though the garden site is a good 150-200 yards up the hill and out of sight of the septic area. has anyone had them on their properties before? have they gone exploring beyond the simple job of permitting the septic.
When they come out for an inspection, you call them, not the other way around. They have no right or authority to "wonder" but considering the current state of things it might be risky.
If your in the county limits you can store a trailer without a permit but you can't live in it.
I have 8 - 10x12' buildings. Some of the stuff David was saying about codes was not what I was told by the old senior building inspector. He told me if a building was under 120 square feet it wasn't to be inspected, period. Therefore none of the water or electrical was to be inspected.
I've been in violation of the ordinances every year. I wouldn't worry about it too much. The main thing is good neighbor relations and keeping things out of sight.
If your in the county limits you can store a trailer without a permit but you can't live in it.
I have 8 - 10x12' buildings. Some of the stuff David was saying about codes was not what I was told by the old senior building inspector. He told me if a building was under 120 square feet it wasn't to be inspected, period. Therefore none of the water or electrical was to be inspected.
I've been in violation of the ordinances every year. I wouldn't worry about it too much. The main thing is good neighbor relations and keeping things out of sight.
thanks, are you building those 10x12s yourself or buying those shed kits from a place like old hickory sheds? concrete pads as well? thats a whole bunch of sheds!
thats weird about the whole "you can't live in it"….i wonder what constitutes living. if I'm just staying every other night in there to guard the property who's going to enforce "living"…at that point if they are interested in the trailer well I'm sure that would be nothing compared to the outdoor plants just a few yards away lol.
thats weird about the whole "you can't live in it"….i wonder what constitutes living. if I'm just staying every other night in there to guard the property who's going to enforce "living"…at that point if they are interested in the trailer well I'm sure that would be nothing compared to the outdoor plants just a few yards away lol.
whats the update yuba!! latest news article claims 30 compliance checks have been made, does anyone have any info on where??? i havent tried checking the yuba sheriff logs but maybe they have posted some things?
also, in Yuba are they chopping plants down themselves? or is it the same as in butte, where they stay hands off the plants but just issue citations and fines.
i heard a story out of dobbins last year where code enforcement hassled a guy over his terraces and issued him a citation for the plants and grading. he was able to ride out the situation for a month, harvest, and then bounced from the property.
also, in Yuba are they chopping plants down themselves? or is it the same as in butte, where they stay hands off the plants but just issue citations and fines.
i heard a story out of dobbins last year where code enforcement hassled a guy over his terraces and issued him a citation for the plants and grading. he was able to ride out the situation for a month, harvest, and then bounced from the property.
I built them myself. Once you do a few and learn all the tricks it's really easy. 2 people can build one in a few days.
When I looked up the laws they were as always, very vague. The definition of "living" or "dwelling" boiled down to a sentence stating that you can't be there "all the time."
It's legal to build an accessory building for a personal home office, play house, or for hobbies. Well it just so happens that one of my hobbies is cooking, another Is showering, and another is sleeping. Maybe Is was "playing house" and accidentally fell asleep? However if It's under 120 square feet It's not to be inspected and they need a proper search and seizure warrant to go in there.
I've only heard of 2 stories of notices being served, and another 1 being a friendly visit cause he left the gate open, and 1 other one of and card being left on the gate. I think they are sitting back and waiting to see how court pans out. If some one calls in a complaint thoigh, they legally have to respond.
When I looked up the laws they were as always, very vague. The definition of "living" or "dwelling" boiled down to a sentence stating that you can't be there "all the time."
It's legal to build an accessory building for a personal home office, play house, or for hobbies. Well it just so happens that one of my hobbies is cooking, another Is showering, and another is sleeping. Maybe Is was "playing house" and accidentally fell asleep? However if It's under 120 square feet It's not to be inspected and they need a proper search and seizure warrant to go in there.
I've only heard of 2 stories of notices being served, and another 1 being a friendly visit cause he left the gate open, and 1 other one of and card being left on the gate. I think they are sitting back and waiting to see how court pans out. If some one calls in a complaint thoigh, they legally have to respond.
