S
sanvanalona
Where are you Mtn. Nectar? Is it feds or locals doing the raids?
-
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"!
Nevada County MMJ Grow Ordinance
- Thread starter MrBlue2
- Start date
S
sanvanalona
Well these dumb fucks passed this, albeit giving concessions even from the revised edition, but man these people are stupid. Granted being on the board of supervisors in Nevada County does not pay that much, but still I bet dollars to donuts these people will lose their jobs very soon and whatever salary comes with it. I would not even want to get a beer at the bar if I were these people, there will be some who will want to give their two cents to these people, that is for sure.
arnold layne
New member
i've been watching this one closely.
i was watching the bos meeting live, and had some hope for a minute....
i was pretty blown away that it passed.....esp the urgency ord.
from what i understand, we're not allowed to petition for a referendum because of the urgency part, it would have to be changed with an initiative.
the only part that gives me any hope at all is the last paragraph, where it states that there is no duty to enforce the law.
if that's not just a clever way for royal to inspire ppl to "donate" to his re-election campaign, then maybe they really won't screw with those of us who moved well away from residential areas to specifically avoid being a nuisance.
all i know for certain, is that there's no way my garden can fit within the allowable sq footage.
i was watching the bos meeting live, and had some hope for a minute....
i was pretty blown away that it passed.....esp the urgency ord.
from what i understand, we're not allowed to petition for a referendum because of the urgency part, it would have to be changed with an initiative.
the only part that gives me any hope at all is the last paragraph, where it states that there is no duty to enforce the law.
if that's not just a clever way for royal to inspire ppl to "donate" to his re-election campaign, then maybe they really won't screw with those of us who moved well away from residential areas to specifically avoid being a nuisance.
all i know for certain, is that there's no way my garden can fit within the allowable sq footage.
RidgeRebel
Member
both votes were put off until june. They're going to make some changes and come back to it.
they already passed a similar ordinance in Sutter county, which is why i moved outta the county haha. Yuba County on the other hand has a council of growers who pooled together and hired some good lawyers and are making sure the county goes about it right. I wasnt aware they were still trying to due that up here in butte good info on that prop
RidgeRebel
Member
Oh NO!!
http://www.theunion.com/article/20120508/BREAKINGNEWS/120509782/1066&ParentProfile=1053
"The Nevada County Board of Supervisors passed the revised medical marijuana ordinance as an urgency measure in 4-1 vote with Terry Lamphier dissenting.
The Union reporter Matthew Renda described the large crowd in attendance as "absolutely irate."
The regular ordinance also passed with Lamphier dissenting."
http://www.theunion.com/article/20120508/BREAKINGNEWS/120509782/1066&ParentProfile=1053
"The Nevada County Board of Supervisors passed the revised medical marijuana ordinance as an urgency measure in 4-1 vote with Terry Lamphier dissenting.
The Union reporter Matthew Renda described the large crowd in attendance as "absolutely irate."
The regular ordinance also passed with Lamphier dissenting."
RidgeRebel
Member
And now this:
http://www.theunion.com/article/20120508/NEWS/120509777/1066&ParentProfile=1053
"Order broke down and angry outbursts cascaded moments after the Nevada County Board of Supervisors approved a medical marijuana ordinance Tuesday that placed limitations on grow operations in the county.
The board approved both an urgency ordinance that took effect immediately and a regular ordinance, which necessitates additional public hearings.
On both issues the vote was 4 to 1, with Supervisor Terry Lamphier dissenting.
As soon as the first vote was announced, members of the crowd stood up from their chairs and began yelling at the board.
“This isn't fair,” one shouted. And “You didn't listen,” another followed.
One unidentified member of the crowd confronted Sheriff Keith Royal and accused him of taking jobs and money away from residents, before being escorted by officers from the chambers.
Order was restored for a moment, before a crowd of people rushed into the chamber chanting “Vote them out! ... Vote them out!”
“Obviously, not everybody is happy,” said District 2 Supervisor Ed Scofield, who made the motion to approve the urgency ordinance. The majority of ordinance supporter speaking Tuesday were from Scofield's south county district. “But we had to get something on the ground.”
Lamphier said he supported an marijuana ordinance, but not the one approved by his fellow supervisors, saying it was hastily put together and a few more details needed to be ironed out before it was passed.
“There was a lot of confusion, a lot of misunderstanding,” Lamphier said, adding he expected the county to be sued and to incur a lengthy and expensive legal battle.
When asked if a lawsuit was imminent, president of the Nevada County Chapter of Americans for Safe Access Patricia Smith said:
“Absolutely, I expect to file suit like tomorrow.”
“If I'd had my druthers, we would have gone back to the table to work out these last issues and concerns,” she continued. “The passing of the urgency ordinance really limits the voice of the voters as there can be no referendum (or other avenues of recourse).”
Don Bessee, a member of the Nevada County Residents Against the Cultivation of Cannabis, expressed satisfaction with the ordinance as passed and said there was always room for refinement going forward.
“I think the fact that there was dissatisfaction from both directions indicates the board achieved some middle ground,” Bessee said.
“I think it was important we had something in place for this (grow) season.”
Supervisor Nate Beason also said there is room for modification and said he believed the Nevada County Sheriff's Office would not be overly punitive at the beginning.
“I think the Sheriff's Office recognizes that this ordinance is new and there needs to be time for education and training,” Beason said.
Royal said the Sheriff's Office would only be concerned with extreme cases.
The principal contention of many in the grow community is that the ordinance regulated operations according to square footage instead of number of plants, which resulted in a de facto ban for some residents and especially for collective operations, where multiple people grow at one spot.
Other members of the grower community, along with Lamphier, pointed out that the setbacks relevant to bus stops could make compliance difficult.
Lamphier estimated there were about 1,500 bus stops in the community.
Smith also said she was opposed to the requirement that renters obtain and post written permission from landlords, saying it violated constitutional rights and was “pointless.”
Before passage, Supervisor Hank Weston did recommend an increase to the amount of square footage for parcels, but the anti-ordinance crowd was not appeased as evidenced by the tumult that followed the vote.
“I'm embarrassed to death,” Smith said of the reaction.
Smith personally apologized to the supervisors after the meeting concluded and chastised some members of the crowd during an informal congregation outside the administration center.
To contact Staff Writer Matthew Renda, email mrenda@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4239.
"
http://www.theunion.com/article/20120508/NEWS/120509777/1066&ParentProfile=1053
"Order broke down and angry outbursts cascaded moments after the Nevada County Board of Supervisors approved a medical marijuana ordinance Tuesday that placed limitations on grow operations in the county.
The board approved both an urgency ordinance that took effect immediately and a regular ordinance, which necessitates additional public hearings.
On both issues the vote was 4 to 1, with Supervisor Terry Lamphier dissenting.
As soon as the first vote was announced, members of the crowd stood up from their chairs and began yelling at the board.
“This isn't fair,” one shouted. And “You didn't listen,” another followed.
One unidentified member of the crowd confronted Sheriff Keith Royal and accused him of taking jobs and money away from residents, before being escorted by officers from the chambers.
Order was restored for a moment, before a crowd of people rushed into the chamber chanting “Vote them out! ... Vote them out!”
“Obviously, not everybody is happy,” said District 2 Supervisor Ed Scofield, who made the motion to approve the urgency ordinance. The majority of ordinance supporter speaking Tuesday were from Scofield's south county district. “But we had to get something on the ground.”
Lamphier said he supported an marijuana ordinance, but not the one approved by his fellow supervisors, saying it was hastily put together and a few more details needed to be ironed out before it was passed.
“There was a lot of confusion, a lot of misunderstanding,” Lamphier said, adding he expected the county to be sued and to incur a lengthy and expensive legal battle.
When asked if a lawsuit was imminent, president of the Nevada County Chapter of Americans for Safe Access Patricia Smith said:
“Absolutely, I expect to file suit like tomorrow.”
“If I'd had my druthers, we would have gone back to the table to work out these last issues and concerns,” she continued. “The passing of the urgency ordinance really limits the voice of the voters as there can be no referendum (or other avenues of recourse).”
Don Bessee, a member of the Nevada County Residents Against the Cultivation of Cannabis, expressed satisfaction with the ordinance as passed and said there was always room for refinement going forward.
“I think the fact that there was dissatisfaction from both directions indicates the board achieved some middle ground,” Bessee said.
“I think it was important we had something in place for this (grow) season.”
Supervisor Nate Beason also said there is room for modification and said he believed the Nevada County Sheriff's Office would not be overly punitive at the beginning.
“I think the Sheriff's Office recognizes that this ordinance is new and there needs to be time for education and training,” Beason said.
Royal said the Sheriff's Office would only be concerned with extreme cases.
The principal contention of many in the grow community is that the ordinance regulated operations according to square footage instead of number of plants, which resulted in a de facto ban for some residents and especially for collective operations, where multiple people grow at one spot.
Other members of the grower community, along with Lamphier, pointed out that the setbacks relevant to bus stops could make compliance difficult.
Lamphier estimated there were about 1,500 bus stops in the community.
Smith also said she was opposed to the requirement that renters obtain and post written permission from landlords, saying it violated constitutional rights and was “pointless.”
Before passage, Supervisor Hank Weston did recommend an increase to the amount of square footage for parcels, but the anti-ordinance crowd was not appeased as evidenced by the tumult that followed the vote.
“I'm embarrassed to death,” Smith said of the reaction.
Smith personally apologized to the supervisors after the meeting concluded and chastised some members of the crowd during an informal congregation outside the administration center.
To contact Staff Writer Matthew Renda, email mrenda@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4239.
"
arnold layne
New member
no, they didn't.
both ordinances (urgency and regular) passed by a vote of 4-1.
the new limits are in effect as of yesterday.
article here
no referendum, no time to get a new initiative put together for june cert for nov ballot.
we won't be able to put anything on a ballot for 2 yrs, unless it's a special election.
asa has retained jeff lake to file a tro, but that's about all we have right now.
pretty lame to have this happen right after amending 20k gal of soil for the collective.....but i guess it was a gamble to do so knowing that this might happen.
total bummer....the girls have just been brought down to 14.5hrs of light and are lovin life, just waiting for a spot to stretch their roots.
maybe we'll be among the lucky ones who don't receive an abatement notice until oct 31.......
Thats sucks!!! I found this article about it from the ASA.
Nevada County Has Cultivation Ordinance – Effective NOW
by ASA-NEVADACOUNTY on MAY 9, 2012 in ACTION ALERT, FUNDRAISERS, NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ORDINANCES, PUBLIC MEETINGS
Despite strong support from their constituents to continue receiving input from the Stakeholder’s group, The Board of Supervisors passed an Urgency Cultivation Ordinance that will make literally every medical marijuana garden in Nevada County out of compliance – effective immediately. Collectives that have operated for the past ten years without a complaint are now subject to abatement and fines.
Passing an Urgency Ordinance is an underhanded way to stifle the voice of the people. Because it is considered an emergency situation, the ordinance can not be amended or changed, nor can the people file a referendum to challenge the contents of the act. By playing “Beat the Clock” they have also effectively removed the option of filing our own initiative before the deadline in June to qualify for the November ballot.
The next opportunity to file an initiative would not happen for two years when the next regularly scheduled elections occur. Aa special election can be held anytime, but it requires twice as many signatures to qualify and it will cost the County a minimum of $50,000 and as much as $100,000 to hold an off schedule election.
Filing a TRO (temporary restraining order) is our best recourse at this time. Attorney Jeff Lake has been retained by ASA – NC to represent their members and we are prepared to take this to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Patricia Smith will be on KVMR from 12 – 1 tomorrow (Wednesday) and will announce the next ASA meeting date, time and location. Jeff Lake will be calling in by phone to talk about what the future season holds for cultivators.
Nevada County Has Cultivation Ordinance – Effective NOW
by ASA-NEVADACOUNTY on MAY 9, 2012 in ACTION ALERT, FUNDRAISERS, NEVADA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ORDINANCES, PUBLIC MEETINGS
Despite strong support from their constituents to continue receiving input from the Stakeholder’s group, The Board of Supervisors passed an Urgency Cultivation Ordinance that will make literally every medical marijuana garden in Nevada County out of compliance – effective immediately. Collectives that have operated for the past ten years without a complaint are now subject to abatement and fines.
Passing an Urgency Ordinance is an underhanded way to stifle the voice of the people. Because it is considered an emergency situation, the ordinance can not be amended or changed, nor can the people file a referendum to challenge the contents of the act. By playing “Beat the Clock” they have also effectively removed the option of filing our own initiative before the deadline in June to qualify for the November ballot.
The next opportunity to file an initiative would not happen for two years when the next regularly scheduled elections occur. Aa special election can be held anytime, but it requires twice as many signatures to qualify and it will cost the County a minimum of $50,000 and as much as $100,000 to hold an off schedule election.
Filing a TRO (temporary restraining order) is our best recourse at this time. Attorney Jeff Lake has been retained by ASA – NC to represent their members and we are prepared to take this to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Patricia Smith will be on KVMR from 12 – 1 tomorrow (Wednesday) and will announce the next ASA meeting date, time and location. Jeff Lake will be calling in by phone to talk about what the future season holds for cultivators.
arnold layne
New member
yup, the suck factor is off the charts.
S
sanvanalona
This is what I see as the police motives here. First and foremost we must remember that there are somewhere in the area of 5000+ people here who grow, seriously. It is literally impossible, without of course taking all the sheriffs department to form a committee to figure out who is and who isn't in compliance. Next, raids are expensive especially in med areas. Often times at the end of the raids they/cops find out that the person being raided was in fact following state law and therefore a major waste of time and money. Now they will be able to send a civil servant in, for a civil violation who will be able to go back and report to the sheriff exactly what is going on, therefore making the sheriffs raids more effective and less costly. So be careful when planting, make sure to be within state/county criminal limits as those have not changed. I am curious to see how this plays out, on the plus side of things it seems that maybe people get a warning now instead of just getting plants pulled.
S
SeaMaiden
Sanvanalona, that's not how it can work, especially if they're using a zoning ordinance to do this. To use police to enforce a non-health & safety violation is a misappropriation of personnel and funds. Even if they specify police to enforce a zoning ordinance (can't remember which county is doing this silliness), they still have state law to contend with.
State law is very clear as to what can and can't happen when zoning ordinances are violated, and there are limits, especially when we're talking about non-health & safety issues.
State law is also very clear in how zoning ordinances can be enforced. In other words, no civil servant can simply come onto the property and view the whole thing without owner's permission. They are limited to what they can view from the public right-of-way, otherwise, if they have to trespass to make the view, they've made the viewing illegally.
That's not to say that police involvement in small grows can't or won't happen. It is to say that they're going to be costing themselves (the county) dearly by trying to operate in this manner. It will quickly become too expensive to monitor cannabis growers over other 'criminals'.
State law is very clear as to what can and can't happen when zoning ordinances are violated, and there are limits, especially when we're talking about non-health & safety issues.
State law is also very clear in how zoning ordinances can be enforced. In other words, no civil servant can simply come onto the property and view the whole thing without owner's permission. They are limited to what they can view from the public right-of-way, otherwise, if they have to trespass to make the view, they've made the viewing illegally.
That's not to say that police involvement in small grows can't or won't happen. It is to say that they're going to be costing themselves (the county) dearly by trying to operate in this manner. It will quickly become too expensive to monitor cannabis growers over other 'criminals'.
arnold layne
New member
it's a nuisance ordinance, not a zoning ordinance.
one of the arguments that the opposition made was that it would allow ppl to come onto the property without a warrant.
this is part of the ordinance:
(K) Nothing herein shall limit the ability of Fire District or other appropriate County employees or agents from entering the property to conduct the inspections authorized by or necessary to ensure compliance with this Article or the ability of the Sheriff to make initial inspections or independent compliance checks. The Sheriff is authorized to determine the number and timing of inspections that maybe required.
the way it's supposed to work is this: they see you're out of compliance (sq ft limitations, required setbacks, required fences, or pots larger than 25gal if you go with the 6 plant option) they send you a notice to abate. if you don't abate within 5 days, they do it themselves and charge the property owner.
then there's the "no duty to enforce" paragraph at the end of the whole thing, saying that nobody has any obligation or duty to enforce the law.
i'm imagining that might be a sly way of saying that they won't mess with ya if you donate to the sheriff's re-election campaign.....but i'm hoping it means that they won't necessarily mess with someone who's out in the middle of nowhere, and not really being a "nuisance" to anyone.
in any event, the whole thing pretty much just sucks.
one of the arguments that the opposition made was that it would allow ppl to come onto the property without a warrant.
this is part of the ordinance:
(K) Nothing herein shall limit the ability of Fire District or other appropriate County employees or agents from entering the property to conduct the inspections authorized by or necessary to ensure compliance with this Article or the ability of the Sheriff to make initial inspections or independent compliance checks. The Sheriff is authorized to determine the number and timing of inspections that maybe required.
the way it's supposed to work is this: they see you're out of compliance (sq ft limitations, required setbacks, required fences, or pots larger than 25gal if you go with the 6 plant option) they send you a notice to abate. if you don't abate within 5 days, they do it themselves and charge the property owner.
then there's the "no duty to enforce" paragraph at the end of the whole thing, saying that nobody has any obligation or duty to enforce the law.
i'm imagining that might be a sly way of saying that they won't mess with ya if you donate to the sheriff's re-election campaign.....but i'm hoping it means that they won't necessarily mess with someone who's out in the middle of nowhere, and not really being a "nuisance" to anyone.
in any event, the whole thing pretty much just sucks.
Nonphixion
Active member
I'm interested to see how this whole thing plays out... do you think it would have any impact on the federal/nationwide level?
hydro-phonics
Member
they tryin to pull similar shit in lake county - i wouldn't be surprised if other counties try to follow as well
..........we might be goin back underground
..........we might be goin back underground
arnold layne
New member
i don't know. i'm assuming that it would have little effect at the fed level, because they don't recognize mj as having any medicinal qualities. the one effect i DO hope it has, is that the feds see nevada county as trying to do something about it, and they don;'t come in this season trying to bust caregivers.
not only have other counties been passing similar ordinances, but much of the text of various counties' ordinances are identical...almost as if they had a form ordinance, and they just fill in some blanks to make it their own.
i've gotten very used to working with 300gal boxes and reasonable plant counts. i don't like the idea of going back to blackberry patches and chicken wire.
hopefully they issue a tro, and at least leave us alone for this season.
S
SeaMaiden
Arnold, our county BoS directed staff to use ordinances already drafted and that county counsel could show have withstood legal challenge. They wanted to give off the odor of sympathy for patients by allowing *some* OD cultivation, but they actually wanted to go Kern Co's route and outlaw it entirely. They declared it a per se public nuisance in the ordinance, as well.
The final ordinance was cherry-picked from Mendocino Co's ordinance, with no allowance for collectives, cooperatives, or store-front dispensaries, and a top limit of 24 plants. For which we're supposed to feel grateful (they said so themselves!).
I am assuming it's a zoning ordinance in which they are declaring per se public nuisance because the only pertinent place to *put* the ordinance in the first place is in zoning, planning and use.
There is a LOT of code that would have to be pored over to make that determination, but I know factually that in instances of zoning ordinance enforcement, those officials are limited by state law to only what they can see from the public right of way.
For example, how are they going to get inside someone's home without a warrant? Look into the stuff the City of Oakland's building services department has pulled and the civil grand jury report that came out last year about their practices. It's a great example; they went to my sister and told her that they wanted to go inside her home and property in order to basically create a shopping list of violations. Obviously, if she's in violation, she must abate. And from there the charges began to rack up at an unbelievable scale.
In many cases they succeeded, but with my sister they encountered a fucking pit bull. It's taken her just over 3yrs to see it through, but a lot of changes have taken place due to her work in uncovering what they were doing, and I feel, many feel, that it is specifically that which led to Jerry Brown abolishing redevelopment agencies throughout the state.
The final ordinance was cherry-picked from Mendocino Co's ordinance, with no allowance for collectives, cooperatives, or store-front dispensaries, and a top limit of 24 plants. For which we're supposed to feel grateful (they said so themselves!).
Placed in what section of county code? In our county it's in the planning and use (i.e. zoning) section of code. They have an enforcement section as well that is referred to. I have not yet read in full Nevada Co's codes.
I am assuming it's a zoning ordinance in which they are declaring per se public nuisance because the only pertinent place to *put* the ordinance in the first place is in zoning, planning and use.
I'm curious how the local sheriff, et alia, feel about this additional workload being placed upon them. Also, how can they legally state that any employee may simply enter a property without cause? Simply to take a look-see is how I'm interpreting it, and there is not only no legal basis for that, it may in fact conflict directly with state (and federal?) law.
There is a LOT of code that would have to be pored over to make that determination, but I know factually that in instances of zoning ordinance enforcement, those officials are limited by state law to only what they can see from the public right of way.
Same here, except that the time limits were already established in the planning & use/zoning code, so they're sticking with that. There's a fine system, etcetera, all well spelled out.
I see it more as a concession to LE and others who likely already have a shit-ton of work on their plates as it is. That was a huge issue in this county and our undersheriff stated as much--that state law that they're interested in is already in place, that they are not the body to enforce zoning code or anything other than criminal/vehicle code, and most salient, that the proposed restrictions would do nothing to abate the criminal grows they actually intend to impact, but will affect those already doing their best to grow legally.
For example, how are they going to get inside someone's home without a warrant? Look into the stuff the City of Oakland's building services department has pulled and the civil grand jury report that came out last year about their practices. It's a great example; they went to my sister and told her that they wanted to go inside her home and property in order to basically create a shopping list of violations. Obviously, if she's in violation, she must abate. And from there the charges began to rack up at an unbelievable scale.
In many cases they succeeded, but with my sister they encountered a fucking pit bull. It's taken her just over 3yrs to see it through, but a lot of changes have taken place due to her work in uncovering what they were doing, and I feel, many feel, that it is specifically that which led to Jerry Brown abolishing redevelopment agencies throughout the state.
the senate is supposed to be having a vote for an ammendment allowing states to setup and govern laws without interference from federal. which would take the whole worrying about the federal aspect out of the equation then we would just have to appeal our county restrictions up to the state because a lot of these public nuissance bans and plant limits have already been ruled against in other cases that were takin to state and ruled in favor of the patients
http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/1aCJSAppropriations.pdf
http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/1aCJSAppropriations.pdf
S
SeaMaiden
The California state legislature is also considering a bill sponsored by Bill Ammiano that will control the business side of MMJ.
I personally feel that, given the history of many of the people in question (my county BoS and just the general flavor here), this is more about people who just don't like marijuana than anything else. In that, I must agree with the director of Collective Patient Resources, with whom I'm working since I got involved in what's gone down in my county.
Mendocino is really the one of the very few counties that's actually caving to pressure from Uncle Sam. They tried to keep as much as they could as intact as they could, from my point of view.
I personally feel that, given the history of many of the people in question (my county BoS and just the general flavor here), this is more about people who just don't like marijuana than anything else. In that, I must agree with the director of Collective Patient Resources, with whom I'm working since I got involved in what's gone down in my county.
Mendocino is really the one of the very few counties that's actually caving to pressure from Uncle Sam. They tried to keep as much as they could as intact as they could, from my point of view.
