Connect with us

Business

July 2015 | Political Push: A Tale of Two Counties

As
previously discussed in this column, last November’s election results weren’t
great for cannabis farmers in Butte, Lake, Nevada and Shasta counties, with
cultivation ballot measures going th

Published

on

As
previously discussed in this column, last November’s election results weren’t
great for cannabis farmers in Butte, Lake, Nevada and Shasta counties, with
cultivation ballot measures going the wrong way. Boards of Supervisors in
several counties have passed severely restrictive ordinances this spring, with
some of the most interesting political developments happening in Santa Cruz and
Yuba counties. These vastly different counties show the diversity of geography,
governance and activism found in Northern California, and others around the
state could learn a few lessons.

After
an extended conversation about the role of cannabis cultivation in the
residential, and yet rural, Santa Cruz mountain communities, the Santa Cruz
County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 on March 24 to restrict all cannabis
cultivation to no more than a 10 foot by 10 foot total area. The supervisors
had listened to residents’ complaints of rowdy neighbors, water diversion, unpermitted
tree clearing, but little reefer madness. Patients, activists, dispensaries,
manufacturers, ancillary industry stakeholders and cannabis farmers had been
imploring the board since November to craft a reasonable ordinance to no avail.

What
happened next was a great thing, as a new group Responsible Cultivation Santa
Cruz was quickly stood up. Meetings were held, monies were raised, lawyers were
hired, signatures were gathered, and a community was organized. While
signatures are still being verified at the time of this writing, it looks like
this will be the first qualified referendum in the last 13 years in Santa Cruz.
Some of the signatures were gathered at ReformCA roundtable meeting, and we
have high hopes that this reenergized cannabis community is primed to both push
back on their local cultivation ban as well as integrate with statewide
organizations like the Emerald Growers Association and the coming 2016
legalization effort.

The
situation in Yuba County has been more drastic and more confusing. The
opposition here was far more organized, sporting Tea Party shirts at meetings,
a frequently updated website, and strong local political allies. Reefer madness
was in full effect here in this largely rural, deeply conservative county in
which much of the local economy thrives off of cannabis farmers, the ancillary
industry, and the economic impact that they bring to other local businesses.
Frustrated locals patients, farmers and activists here took a decidedly more
militant stance after the board unanimously passed an outdoor cultivation ban
in March.

The
board in Yuma County passed the ordinance as a matter of (supposed) urgency,
putting the law immediately into effect, and eliminating the democratic
possibility for citizens to gather signatures and pursue a referendum. Their
vote was as sloppy as it was cynical and, after a stern letter from a
high-priced Sacramento law firm retained by a newly formed Citizens for
Solvency, the board was forced to fix their errors and re-voted to ban outdoor
cultivation on April 28, again with an urgency finding to block a referendum
effort. Lawsuits are still pending but it appears as if will be a long, hot,
divisive and expensive fight in Yuba County this summer as farmers enter this
growing season without a reasonable ordinance to regulate their activities,
which bring so much value to the local economy. What happens next in Yuba is
both up to the leaders of the County and the leaders of the cannabis community.

Perhaps
it would be an exaggeration to say that it’s both the best of times and the
worst of times in these two counties, as the outlook in Yuba county is
currently grim—but here’s to hoping that good political strategy and
collaborative activism may yet prevail here and in other California communities
where reefer madness and dinosaur politicians are still enacting bans.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *