Robert Celt
New Member
A proposed urgency ordinance that would significantly tighten restrictions on growing medical marijuana in Sutter County failed to pass a Board of Supervisors vote amid concerns that it lacked any methods of enforcement.
Before a standing-room-only audience Tuesday night, the board heard 31 comments from a public that was split almost exactly down the middle in support or opposition to the ordinance, which would have banned all outdoor cultivation of the plant and restrict indoor gardens to 14 plants.
In the end, a motion by Supervisor Barbara LeVake and seconded by Supervisor Larry Munger, both of whom were responsible for bringing the ordinance before the board, failed to garner the required four-fifths vote. Supervisors Jim Whiteaker, Ron Sullenger and Dan Flores voted against the ordinance.
The board was in agreement that the issue of large outdoor marijuana grows, which the proposed ord nance was intended to eliminate, is a major problem in the county. The board agreed to form an ad hoc committee, with Supervisors Jim Whiteaker and Dan Flores as members, to bring a new version of the ordinance before the board by March 22 that will outline enforcement measures, fines for violating the ordinance and fees for marijuana cultivation.
The purpose of the new ordinance was to rein in large, outdoor grows allowable because the previous medical marijuana ordinance, passed in 2013, did not put a plant limit on areas in the county where marijuana cultivation was allowed, LeVake said.
"That is the concern – these large, out-of-control grows of 600 plants or more that are being allowed as a result of loopholes in the existing ordinance," LeVake said.
While the board agreed that a new ordinance was needed to restrict large outdoor grows, Whiteaker and Flores both said they weren't comfortable voting for the proposed ordinance because it did not include how the ordinance would be enforced or lay out fines and penalties for violating the ordinance.
"Right now in Sutter County we have zero code enforcement officers," Whiteaker said. "You're asking me to approve an ordinance I know we're not going to be able to enforce."
Whiteaker's concerns were echoed by Flores and Sullenger, as well as District Attorney Amanda Hopper.
"Sutter County does not have the ability to enforce this ordinance at this point," Hopper said. "While I completely agree with and echo the needs (of the ordinance), I would like to see it be an ordinance that accomplishes something. Right now, I would be shocked if a case ever makes it to my office."
Part of the concern with the existing ordinance is that it requires large amounts of time for deputies from the Sheriff's Department to do compliance checks on outdoor marijuana grows, said Sheriff J. Paul Parker.
"We did 549 compliance checks over the past two years," Parker said. "It eats a horrible amount of time from front line sheriff law enforcement, that's my problem with it."
Hopper agreed, saying that enforcement of the ordinance was the real issue.
"All of these checks these deputies have to do – they're ridiculously short-staffed," Hopper said. "I'd rather have them out there responding to violent crimes."
The task of revising the ordinance now falls to Whiteaker and Flores, who will present the Board with a rough draft of an updated ordinance by March 8 and a final version for board action on March 22, Whiteaker said.
The new ordinance will include enforcement penalties and fines, as well as registration fees for indoor gardens. All told, the fines and fees the county collects should be enough to hire a code enforcement officer, Whiteaker said.
"I guarantee that when this ordinance is completed, it will be a standard all rural counties will adopt," Whiteaker said.
LeVake maintained that she wanted to see the ordinance pass on Tuesday.
"I agree with my colleagues that we need to have clear penalties for non-compliance and we need resources for enforcement," LeVake wrote in an email to her constituents Wednesday. "However, I think that passing the strict ordinance last night would have sent a message that Sutter County does not welcome commercial outdoor growing and the nuisances associated with it."
A look at the public comment period
Public comment on a proposed medical marijuana ordinance in Sutter County was split along the same lines as similar meetings the board had in 2015.
In all, 31 citizens addressed the Board and 16 spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Many of the speakers against the ordinance said that marijuana helped them deal with a variety of ailments, from cancer to arthritis to pain management, that would otherwise be handled by expensive and addictive prescription drugs.
Others said they had no issue with medical marijuana, but were opposed to the large, outdoor grows they said are intended not for producing medicine, but for profit, while bringing the nuisance of overwhelming smells during harvest and attracting crime.
Still others spoke against marijuana itself, calling it a danger to society and local youth.
The varied opinions expressed by the speakers underscored the challenge of regulating medical marijuana - how does local government eliminate the nuisance and the crime seemingly inherent in larger marijuana gardens without depriving legitimate patients of the medicine they need and benefit from?
"I haven't heard one person argue people shouldn't have medicinal marijuana. What we're looking at now are zoning areas and use permits," said Sutter County Sheriff J. Paul Parker. "It's an industry that will bring a certain amount of criminal activity to it. That doesn't mean that everyone that smokes marijuana are criminals."
News Moderator: Robert Celt 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Enforcement Issues Slow Sutter County Medical Marijuana Ordinance
Author: Andrew Creasey
Contact: Appeal-Democrat
Photo Credit: Chris Van Hook
Website: Appeal-Democrat
Before a standing-room-only audience Tuesday night, the board heard 31 comments from a public that was split almost exactly down the middle in support or opposition to the ordinance, which would have banned all outdoor cultivation of the plant and restrict indoor gardens to 14 plants.
In the end, a motion by Supervisor Barbara LeVake and seconded by Supervisor Larry Munger, both of whom were responsible for bringing the ordinance before the board, failed to garner the required four-fifths vote. Supervisors Jim Whiteaker, Ron Sullenger and Dan Flores voted against the ordinance.
The board was in agreement that the issue of large outdoor marijuana grows, which the proposed ord nance was intended to eliminate, is a major problem in the county. The board agreed to form an ad hoc committee, with Supervisors Jim Whiteaker and Dan Flores as members, to bring a new version of the ordinance before the board by March 22 that will outline enforcement measures, fines for violating the ordinance and fees for marijuana cultivation.
The purpose of the new ordinance was to rein in large, outdoor grows allowable because the previous medical marijuana ordinance, passed in 2013, did not put a plant limit on areas in the county where marijuana cultivation was allowed, LeVake said.
"That is the concern – these large, out-of-control grows of 600 plants or more that are being allowed as a result of loopholes in the existing ordinance," LeVake said.
While the board agreed that a new ordinance was needed to restrict large outdoor grows, Whiteaker and Flores both said they weren't comfortable voting for the proposed ordinance because it did not include how the ordinance would be enforced or lay out fines and penalties for violating the ordinance.
"Right now in Sutter County we have zero code enforcement officers," Whiteaker said. "You're asking me to approve an ordinance I know we're not going to be able to enforce."
Whiteaker's concerns were echoed by Flores and Sullenger, as well as District Attorney Amanda Hopper.
"Sutter County does not have the ability to enforce this ordinance at this point," Hopper said. "While I completely agree with and echo the needs (of the ordinance), I would like to see it be an ordinance that accomplishes something. Right now, I would be shocked if a case ever makes it to my office."
Part of the concern with the existing ordinance is that it requires large amounts of time for deputies from the Sheriff's Department to do compliance checks on outdoor marijuana grows, said Sheriff J. Paul Parker.
"We did 549 compliance checks over the past two years," Parker said. "It eats a horrible amount of time from front line sheriff law enforcement, that's my problem with it."
Hopper agreed, saying that enforcement of the ordinance was the real issue.
"All of these checks these deputies have to do – they're ridiculously short-staffed," Hopper said. "I'd rather have them out there responding to violent crimes."
The task of revising the ordinance now falls to Whiteaker and Flores, who will present the Board with a rough draft of an updated ordinance by March 8 and a final version for board action on March 22, Whiteaker said.
The new ordinance will include enforcement penalties and fines, as well as registration fees for indoor gardens. All told, the fines and fees the county collects should be enough to hire a code enforcement officer, Whiteaker said.
"I guarantee that when this ordinance is completed, it will be a standard all rural counties will adopt," Whiteaker said.
LeVake maintained that she wanted to see the ordinance pass on Tuesday.
"I agree with my colleagues that we need to have clear penalties for non-compliance and we need resources for enforcement," LeVake wrote in an email to her constituents Wednesday. "However, I think that passing the strict ordinance last night would have sent a message that Sutter County does not welcome commercial outdoor growing and the nuisances associated with it."
A look at the public comment period
Public comment on a proposed medical marijuana ordinance in Sutter County was split along the same lines as similar meetings the board had in 2015.
In all, 31 citizens addressed the Board and 16 spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Many of the speakers against the ordinance said that marijuana helped them deal with a variety of ailments, from cancer to arthritis to pain management, that would otherwise be handled by expensive and addictive prescription drugs.
Others said they had no issue with medical marijuana, but were opposed to the large, outdoor grows they said are intended not for producing medicine, but for profit, while bringing the nuisance of overwhelming smells during harvest and attracting crime.
Still others spoke against marijuana itself, calling it a danger to society and local youth.
The varied opinions expressed by the speakers underscored the challenge of regulating medical marijuana - how does local government eliminate the nuisance and the crime seemingly inherent in larger marijuana gardens without depriving legitimate patients of the medicine they need and benefit from?
"I haven't heard one person argue people shouldn't have medicinal marijuana. What we're looking at now are zoning areas and use permits," said Sutter County Sheriff J. Paul Parker. "It's an industry that will bring a certain amount of criminal activity to it. That doesn't mean that everyone that smokes marijuana are criminals."
News Moderator: Robert Celt 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Enforcement Issues Slow Sutter County Medical Marijuana Ordinance
Author: Andrew Creasey
Contact: Appeal-Democrat
Photo Credit: Chris Van Hook
Website: Appeal-Democrat
