Taking the measure of Measure A

For Chico voters, the upcoming election may seem like déjà vu all over again, as the saying goes. That’s because residents in the city are going to see Measure A on the ballot again, only this time around the measure relates to marijuana, not City Council elections.

Confused?

Well, think back to last June. That’s when city of Chico voters soundly (about two-thirds) defeated a measure to move City Council elections from the November general election to the June primary. That Measure A was spearheaded by Stephanie Taber, a member of the Chico Tea Party Patriots and political gadfly.

This Measure A is on the June 5 primary, and it’s being voted on by everyone in Butte County. And this time the measure is the result of a referendum petition by members of the medical-marijuana advocacy community, who want to overturn the marijuana-cultivation ordinance approved by the Butte County Board of Supervisors.

A group calling itself Citizens for Compassionate Use qualified the measure for the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign last summer.

It sounds simple enough, but that’s not where the confusion ends, according to 1st District Supervisor Bill Connelly, whose district, the largest in the county in terms of acreage, includes the greater Oroville area.

Connelly said he’s spoken with constituents who support the county’s proposed ordinance but on their absentee ballots mistakenly have voted NO on A, thinking that a YES vote meant affirming medical-marijuana use. Or perhaps they assumed a NO would overrule the marijuana advocates’ referendum.

In any event, a NO vote rejects the county’s plan. A YES vote supports it.

The supervisors approved the land-use ordinance a year ago. It includes a number of restrictions for county residents (it does not apply to residents of the city of Chico and other municipalities), including limiting the number of plants based on property size. The law would prohibit growing on parcels smaller than one-half acre; properties between one-half and 1.5 acres would be allowed up to 12 plants; 24 plants for parcels between 1.5 and 20 acres; 48 plants for properties between 20 and 80 acres; 72 plants for parcels of 80 to 160 acres. Any larger properties would be allowed the maximum 99 plants.

Connelly and the pro-A camp, which includes former Butte County Sheriff Perry Reniff and Paradise Town Councilman Tim Titus, maintain the ordinance is a way to protect residents from the negative impacts associated with cultivation on neighboring properties. During a recent phone interview Connelly listed the many detrimental effects of cultivation: increased crime, offensive odors, decreased property values, degradation of the environment due to unmitigated use of chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) and the roadways due to increased traffic, among other issues.

He said the people causing the problems are growing the plants for money, not for personal use.

“We are just trying to stop that to the degree we’re allowed to under the law,” he said.

The ordinance calls for setbacks on all properties, and requires that plants be concealed and protected from public access. It prohibits cultivation within 1,000 feet of certain public and private gathering places, such as schools, bus stops, parks and churches, and also requires that renters receive permission from their landlords to grow marijuana.

Growers must register with the county annually, providing the names and addresses of each patient (or their caregiver) participating in the cultivation, along with copies of their doctor’s recommendations, as well as the number of plants.

Connelly said those using marijuana strictly for compassionate use will find it easy to comply with the law.

Those from the NO on A camp beg to differ.

Notable backers of that group include two local attorneys: City Councilman Andy Holcombe and Robert MacKenzie.

MacKenzie, a land-use attorney representing Citizens for Compassionate Use, is especially troubled by the prohibition on half-acre-or-smaller parcels. He said the ordinance criminalizes conduct that state law—Proposition 215 (the Compassionate Use Act)—says should be legal and that the county should facilitate.

A former deputy county counsel with Butte County, MacKenzie acknowledged that there are growers who create nuisances, but the county already has a nuisance-abatement ordinance, one he helped to craft during his tenure with the county, he said.

Further, the ordinance imposes a red-tape program on the county Department of Development Services, which would be responsible for collecting all of the recommendations, MacKenzie said. That means its staff would have to have training in HIPAA, the federal medical-privacy rule.

If approved, the restrictions would only drive up the prices of marijuana on the streets, encouraging the black market and dangerous cartels, he said.

“We’re not saying there should be no regulations, but this one is not well thought out,” he said.