BUTTE COUNTY'S POT RULES

Some Worry Pending Law Will Push Gardens into Denser
Areas

It was a sunny day in Forest Ranch, perfect for some outdoor
gardening, and a crew of eight men was tending to a fenced-in piece of
land about a third of an acre in size. A guy in his early 20s named
Jack fired up a weed whacker and carefully set to manicuring the grass
between several rows of raised-bed planters.

"If I didn't have the co-op to get my medicine, I don't know how I'd
get it. It's really unsafe trying to get it on the street. You can get
busted doing that," he said.

There were 96 planters, each one constructed for a small female
marijuana plant. If everything goes as planned, come fall the plants
will have grown to four to six feet in height and yielded an average
of three to four pounds of processed cannabis each.

"Some days you go up and there's nothing [to do], everything is
running on its own. Of course, you come back a couple of days later
and there's hours' worth of work to do. I suppose it's real similar to
people's vegetable gardens in town," said a 50-something man named
Cal.

Cal and the others working at the garden are part of a 16-person
collective that over the last two years has pooled time and resources
to grow medical cannabis cooperatively. Some of them are fresh-faced
20-year-olds; others are middle-aged working parents or are disabled
and physically unable to grow on their own.

But the Butte County Board of Supervisors is currently considering an
ordinance that would make this garden, and many others like it,
illegal. If the board passes the law during its next meeting on
Tuesday (May 24), the collective will have to tear out most of the
crop a month into the growing season or be in violation of Butte
County law. The grow site sits on 10 acres, and according to the
proposed ordinance a parcel this size would be limited to 12 mature
marijuana plants. That, members of the collective say, will not
provide a sufficient amount of cannabis for their needs.

"With the limits that they're trying to impose now, 12 of the people
will be out of luck. They live in apartments or they just have nowhere
else at all to grow, period," Cal said. "There are only four people
out of our 16 that have a back yard."

The members of Cal's collective who do have the option to grow on
their personal property live in the heart of Chico with small back
yards surrounded by many neighbors. Critics argue that if the larger
grows are dismantled, smaller individual operations will take their
place and actually lead to an increase in public-nuisance complaints.

"It's like whack-a-mole: If you forbid it someplace, then it's going
to go someplace else," said District 3 Supervisor Maureen Kirk, who
represents part of Chico. "And I am concerned that we're going to have
more neighborhood grows. As it's written right now it's a little bit
problematic."

As gardens have become more prevalent in the county, so have the list
of complaints from disgruntled neighbors. Concerns over illegal sales,
smell, environmental degradation, and crime top the list.

Bill Connelly, supervisor for District 1, which includes the Oroville
area, said he has received a "flood of complaints" from parents and
neighbors who fear getting caught in the crossfire of violence from
armed robbery.

"I think that's a realistic concern when people [who are growing
marijuana] are sleeping in their back yards in urban and rural areas,
and have their guard dogs and their guns. In some cases, in rural
areas, they build guard towers," he said.

While no one seems to contest that these concerns are real, some
question whether the ordinance as currently written will effectively
address the problem.

Kirk said she'd like to see the ordinance be less strict, allowing
more plants per parcel, so that people involved in legitimate co-ops
don't feel compelled to start up new backyard grows.

At the board's last meeting (May 4), the supervisors adopted language
that would forbid growing outdoors on a half-acre or less in the
unincorporated parts of the county. Properties greater than a
half-acre would be allowed six mature marijuana plants; those bigger
than an acre and a half would be allowed 12 plants; larger than 20
acres, 24 plants; larger than 80 acres, 36 plants; and larger than 160
acres, 99 mature plants. There is also a required fee and registration
with the Department of Development Services for anyone growing more
than six plants.

While critics fear this attempt at curbing disreputable operations
might at the same time outlaw responsible cultivation, both Connelly
and District Attorney Mike Ramsey pointed out that the ordinance will
be complaint-driven.

"There's no code enforcement that's going to go out and be searching
the county to regulate," Ramsey said. "It's only going to be based
upon neighbors that do complain. The folks that are out in the middle
of nowhere who are not affecting any neighbors should not be affected."

That's fairly good news for Cal and Jack's co-op. They've made regular
contributions to the association fund that maintains the gravel road
in the neighborhood where the garden is located. The tidy site is
fenced off and the group doesn't use guns or dogs.

However, some of the members have expressed concern that, if they
don't register with the county-which would require they disclose the
number of plants in their garden-they could get busted at any time
with a single complaint. In order to continue their operation as it
currently exists they would have to explicitly misrepresent themselves
to county officials.

The supervisors are "going about this backwards," Cal said. "You
should be encouraging people to get together and do these grows within
the 99-plant limit. That way there's fewer grows, and they're all off
not bothering anybody."