SUPERVISORS NEED TO HELP NEIGHBORS

Our view: Large marijuana growing operations intimidate neighbors,
who get no protection from the lack of limits on cultivation.

Round two of Butte County's struggle to establish legal guidelines on
growing medical marijuana is tonight. Judging from the way things
went in round one, it could be a heated discussion.

The county supervisors have called a special meeting for 5:30 p.m. at
the Chico Elks Lodge. They opted for a larger venue because the
county building in Oroville was too small to handle the last crowd at
a Feb. 22 daytime hearing.

At that meeting, some marijuana growers tried to threaten and
intimidate the five supervisors. The ordinance has since been watered
down with more permissive growing guidelines.

This time, we hope the supervisors take into consideration the many
neighbors who feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods but are afraid
to speak out because they fear reprisal. Those homeowners - the kind
who never dreamed they'd have to beg supervisors to protect them from
the pot growers next door - aren't likely to show up to a meeting
asking the supervisors to do the right thing. They shouldn't have to.

The supervisors will be pulled in another direction, though. They'll
hear the spin from growers that it's all about medicine for sick
people. That's what it should be. That's not the reality.

Let's face it: Proposition 215 has been hijacked by pot growers.
Nothing short of a referendum to overturn Proposition 215 would fix things.

Unfortunately, the medical marijuana initiative passed by voters
didn't specify guidelines on growing something the federal government
says is illegal. It just said patients could use it. In the absence
of statewide policy on growing it, cities and counties have come up
with a hodgepodge of regulations. If a county or city is lenient, it
attracts growers from out of the area.

That's what the county supervisors need to guard against. Pot growers
from all over could be attracted by permissive guidelines to go with
our excellent growing conditions, plentiful water and secluded, cheap land.

Though we prefer the original ordinance to the more lenient proposal
supervisors will debate tonight, just about anything would be an
improvement over the anything-goes guidelines that prevail now.

Under the proposal, growers would be limited depending on the size of
their land. They would be allowed six mature plants on lots less than
1.5 acres, 12 mature plants on land between 1.5 and 20 acres, 24
mature plants on parcels between 20 and 80 acres, 36 plants for 80 to
160 acres, and 99 total plants on lots larger than 160 acres. Each
parcel also would have setback requirements. For example, on 10-acre
parcels, the garden would have to be 100 feet back from the adjoining
property line.

Some of the limitations are helpful. The ordinance says marijuana
cannot be grown within 100 feet of a school, park or church, and
cannot be grown in an area that's visible from the public right of
way or even a publicly traveled private road. There's a $285 annual
registration fee on all properties larger than 1.5 acres.

There's also an attempt to limit people from out of the area from
setting up shop here. The ordinance says the growers must be county
residents, and renters must have written permission of the property
owner to grow.

That's all wise, but there's not enough to address this reality
stated in the ordinance: "The limited right of qualified patients ...
to cultivate marijuana plants ... does not confer the right to create
or maintain a public nuisance."

In that regard, it seems residents have little recourse for the
skunky smell at harvest time, and can't do much about the vicious
dogs or armed guards keeping an eye on the crop.

The ordinance, while an improvement over the current free-for-all,
doesn't do enough to protect neighborhoods. We hope people who are
concerned about such things show up in force at tonight's meeting to
balance the testimony of those who are sure to advocate for
protection of their cash crop.