My Photo

December 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

BlogStats


« Convention Capers 2016 – Republican (updated) | Main | What a fine kettle of fish »

19 July 2016

Comments

Bill Tozer

"The growers also point out that their recommendations mitigate environmental dangers by mandating all sites must get inspected by regulatory agencies before they get a permit. There is no oversight in the County's guidelines."

Kinda on topic regarding just the above quote above. shortly after CA passed a slew of laws banning/restricting properties in chemicals, solvents, paints, rat poison, ad infinitum, I helped a buddy build a log cabin. Then came time to buy the stuff to seal the exterior surfaces. The best stuff on the market at the time was made in Sweden and banned in CA, so off to Reno we went. Told a local and he asked why do that, you can buy it locally. Sure enough, the banned stuff was sold in Nevada County.
Another elderly retired engineer had a problem with gophers. He had a Chronicle article about this wax based gopher poison and asked if I could find him some on my travels.. Frisco was spending over 100k/year just on trying to get rid pof gophers in some parks, to no avail....until they used the miracle stuff and it was cheap! This stuff also got banned. Sure enough, I found a place locally that had it and then another place....for a few years after.

Moral of the story. The State passed the law. The law said enforcement was thrown on the counties' environmental health and regulatory ingredient inspection departments (or whatever those county departments were called). Nevada County had no department to do the enforcement, aka "There is no oversight in the County's guidelines".

That is cool beans for some who have a stake in the topic of the post. :)


Arther Williams

The voters of Nevada County have spoken, loudly, at the ballot box. By a 60-40 margin. And still, the bos (I refuse to capitalize these three letters) believes that they still do not have to abide by their constituents dictations. Who runs this county? The citizens? Or a group of gray haired, feeble of mind, reprehensible obstructionists? Who pays these relics of "The War On Drugs"? The citizens? Or the sheriff?
Everyone on this site (RR) seems to love to denigrate RS for her comments regarding the Dallas incident, yet I hear of not a single word of complaint against the elected tyrants that are Hell bent on enforcing their rejected ideology on the good citizens of Nevada County. The proposed stipulations of the interim ordinance by the bos regarding MEDICINAL cannabis is an affront equal to, or above, the remarks made by RS, regarding LE, to every single citizen, and more so, to every property owner in Nevada County.
Hippocrits. All. Demand the same amount of respect for yourselves as you demand for your Tax Payer paid LE public servants. And demand that your elected servants know that they are just that... Public Servants. Demand recalls and file class action lawsuits against every elected public servant that supports further obfuscation of the defeat of measure w.

George Rebane

Administrivia - Have no idea who this 'Arther Williams' is, but he will be history with next off topic ad hominem he posts. I spent too much time purging his comments and the comments of the regular RR commenters whom he suckered into trading his kind of shit comments. I'm a bit ashamed of you regular readers for falling for this kind of crap. Can you not see that all he's doing is denigrating these comment streams, and you guys are helping him with your oh so clever responses. Grow up!

Patricia Smith

George, thank you for posting my summary of the Town Hall. As I surmised, it has largely been met with crickets. Oh well, we try to inform...

BTW, I feel the post from Arthur Williams is overstated, but not more so than some other opinions I see on RR.

Gregory

"Making decisions for the County is exactly what the Supervisors were elected to do, however, they forfeited that right when, through their own arrogance, they insisted on putting Measure W on the ballot to cement the ban into law."

Sorry Pat, but they're still the Supervisors... there was no provision of W that stated they'd recuse themselves on future MMJ issues, and there isn't much arrogance involved with putting decisions to a vote of the people. Arrogance is doing it without consent of the governed.

A great deal of the lopsided W vote was the finding of a cute kid with a tragic illness to be the poster child for pot growers and the insanity of no outdoor grows, the latter being (Imo) a lazy way to make aerial spotting missions easier.

George... the "Arther" sock smells to me like a certain hard left former Frisco schoolteacher upset by his small pension, now living in a North San Juan compound, who is known to make and discard socks at will.

Bonnie McGuire

Several years ago a county ordinance-law enforcer told me that just about everything is against the law. They didn't really didn't care unless someone complained. I couldn't help but laugh at how far we've come with "there outa be a law."

George Rebane

Administrivia - I draw your kind attention to the draft of the new MMJ ordinance and a Republican response to it in the 21jul16 update to this post.

Gregory

A permit fee of $5k is absolutely ludicrous, obviously intended as a barrier. If they had $5k laying around they'd likely buy at a dispensary.

$100 is more like it.

Jon Dozer

ie, the Republican Women suggestions are DOA.

BradC

I went to the KVMR archive to listen to the podcast but it was pretty messed up. BTW- the date in Dr. R's post should read July 18th in case it is not obvious to everyone. There seem to be major chunks of the townhall podcast segments missing from the podcast archive based on the times and durations of the podcast segments.

I still have not figured out who, beside the ASA, the "stakeholders" are and what businesses or organizations they represent. Where are their bios posted with resumes indicating their qualifications as stakeholders?

The Republican Women are still doing their darndest to make it as difficult as possible for MMJ patients and growers with their inane recommendations such as the 1000 ft. bus stop exclusion zones and $5,000 per caregiver/grower fees.
The (Item 2) 12-plant maximum doesn't square with (Item 3) 20-plant maximum.

George Rebane

BradC 757am - the date is correct and should be obvious to all since the townhall was on 18 July and my post was on 19 July, hence my use of the words "Last night ..."

Please call Paul Emery at KVMR to handle the podcast problem.

Jon Dozer

Brad, that's the result of the Republican Women demographics- their denial about the reality of cannabis in 2016 vs. what they were taught in 1958. They are of the rapidly disappearing Reefer Madness mindset.

Gail Kraus

It is not true that "Measure W (to keep the outdoor ban) passed in Districts 2, 3 and 4 and defeated in Districts 1 and 5." as stated above by Nevada County Republican Women Federated.

It only passed in District 2 by 3.5%: From http://yubanet.com/regional/Post-W---facts-and-figures.php

District 1, which includes Nevada City, rejects Measure W by 6,959 to 4,299 votes or 62% to 38%.

District 2, which includes Lake of the Pines, votes in favor of Measure W by 4,751 to 4,422 votes or 51.79% to 48.21%.

District 3, centered around Grass Valley, rejects Measure W by 4,515 to 2,872 votes or 61.12% to 38.88%.

District 4, which includes Penn Valley and North San Juan, rejects Measure W by 5,893 to 3,994 votes or 59.60% to 40.40%.

District 5, the eastern portion of the county and Truckee, rejects Measure W by 4,507 to 2,150 votes or 68% to 32%.

Jon Dozer

Mssrs. Miller and Weston will have interesting re-elections, depending on the outcome here and on several other issues in the coming months.
If one of them loses to a more progressive voice, and that's a very real possibility now, we have a totally different governing body.

Gail Kraus

So, Nevada County Republican Women Federated, when you say to "keep in mind that Measure W (to keep the outdoor ban) passed in Districts 2, 3 and 4 and defeated in Districts 1 and 5. ",are you saying that since "you" won in these areas that you should be heard and your "changes or additions to the Supervisor’s draft" should have more weight in being considered by the Supervisors?
So,being defenders of democracy, now seeing the real numbers will you support the growers?

Jon Dozer

LOL. Gail, no need to worry about the Repubby Women. Its a hobby for them.

Jon Dozer

that being said, there remains this old myth that Districts 3 and 4 are conservative bastions.
Seems only Mr. Scofield down there in sleepy District 2 can safely count on being re-elected for life, should he so choose. Those folks in LOP and Alta Sierra don't want to upset the apple cart. None of those bad elements like in the other districts...

Patricia Smith

No matter your feelings about MMJ, everyone should be upset that the BoS are NOT honoring the vote of the people. They lost yet they are proceeding as if the County voted to uphold Measure W. I saw some comments thinking a $5,000 permit was excessive, but did you check out the fines!

Code violations for electrical or plumbing can rise to $1,000 a day. Fines for growing start at $100/per plant, per day and go up to $500/per plant per day. This wouldn't be so bad if they put out an ordinance that can be followed. Their intent is to fine everyone out of existence regardless of the vote. (The setbacks from property lines overlap, so you really can't grow ANYWHERE.)

I guess it comes down to what kind of government we want. One that placs THEIR desires before the peiople (we know what is best for you) or one that listens to their constituents.

Gregory, July 21 1:24 This isn't a "future" MMJ issue. This is directly tied to Measure W that was defeated by 20 points. They have a moral obligation to rescind the ban. Instead more people are banned now than before we voted. People who were upset at their sneaky process before should be furious now,

Patricia Smith

Jeeze Louise! I just reread the Women's Repblican Federated suggestions on MMJ. I thought they were usually more factual, but they got so much wrong in their email. First, Measure W only passed in Dist 2, it failed in all 4 other districts by wide margins so I guess that means our suggestions should carry more weight? If W had passed, would we even be having a conversation?

Also, they said the failed Measure S had a 12 plant limit. I think they need to do some homework. I have offered to come address their organization to discuss possible solutions we could work on together, but they have not responded.

Gregory

No Patricia, Measure W failing does not mean an Anti-W has effectively passed. The BoS remains in control of the county, not you.

Jon Dozer

Of course, they make the decisions. So best wishes with that anti-democratic Drumpfian style "control", as it will lead to Districts 3 and 4 changing hands at the next election cycle! That's fine.

Jon Dozer

Patricia 9:16pm, no worries. As I said, there is no discussion possible. They still follow the teachings of Reefer Madness and mom and dad's lectures. Its the Devil Weed.

Gregory

"We take drugs seriously at our house."-Firesign Theater

One does not need to have a Reefer Madness mentality to think an expansion of growing activity may well have serious ramifications for the greater community.

BradC

The Reefer Madness believers are going go be pissed at the "No duty to enforce" clause,

"Enforcing the ordinance is a choice, not a duty

The ordinance’s last section, rarely mentioned, gives prosecutorial discretion to the county. In plain English, an enforcing officer has the choice to enforce any or all provisions of the ordinance. Section G-IV 5.19 reads:

No Duty to Enforce
Nothing in this Article shall be construed as imposing on the Enforcing Officer or the County of Nevada any duty to issue a Notice to Abate Unlawful Marijuana Cultivation, nor to abate any unlawful Marijuana Cultivation, nor to take any other action with regard to any unlawful Marijuana Cultivation, and neither the Enforcing Officer nor the County shall be held liable for failure to issue an order to abate any unlawful Marijuana Cultivation, nor for failure to abate any unlawful Marijuana Cultivation, nor for failure to take any other action with regard to any unlawful Marijuana Cultivation."

http://yubanet.com/m/proposed-after-w-ordinance-text-released/

This clause make the most sense to me. Most people are low-key and respectful and are not a problem, but having a restrictively written ordinance allows LE to crack down on low-life, greed-head carpetbaggers who come up here to, hopefully, make a killing. Of course, depending upon who we have enforcing the law, it could either work out well, or become a nightmare for everyone.

This draft ordinance seems to be designed to account for commercial growing (when legalized) although, currently, the plant counts are way too low, especially for acreages over 20 acres.

Bill Tozer

Brad C,
As you mentioned, Law Enforcement does not pass the laws, but they can exercise discretion in enforcing the laws on the books. Just look at the FBI findings into Hillary's violations of Federal Law for a recent good example.

This momenteum to cuddle up to Commercial grows is what concerns me. However this turns out, seems to me Commerical grows and Commerical growers are applying undue pressure on something yet to be "legalized". It's our county, and laws should be crafted to regulate and enforce any operation, be it a nudie bar or a Commerical grow. If we are going to stifle local businesses with excess regulations, codes, and enforcement, I feel Commerical grows should be under the same scrutiny as any other for profit business, if for not other reason than to be fair to all. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. You gotta pay to play. Just my two cents, so take it for what it is worth.
All in all, it is still a work in progress and I am in the peanut gallery watching it unfold. Starting a business is not cheap and just because one wants to start a business, does not mean they can afford to. This is not growing cabbages we are talking about. Nobody rips off cabbage gardens nor does growing cabbages or radishes evoke images of wads of greenies and Bling. I am more concerned about the corruption angle, which is why I have this uneasy feeling when it all starts pointing more and more to Commerical grows, rather than Grannie growing her Mother's Little Helper or the local patient.

Gail Kraus

Gregory, are you saying the 70,000 election meant nothing?

Bill Tozer

Gail, I cannot speak for Gregory or you or anyone else, but what the No of W meant to me was "do not set the current ordinance in stone. You may include any and all guidelines in that. That was what the Measure said, if I read the black on the Measure, not the white between the lettering. No on W meant do not set the current in stone...Nothing more nothing less. But, I could be wrong. I just read what it said. I did not read about any timetables or mechanisms to address the current ordinance, but I have been wrong before.... More than I care to mention..
Please correct me on the wording of Measure W. I an open to learn something new everyday. Just like I did not read anything in the current state law addressing recreational use of marijuana, but, again, I could be sadly mistaken. Thankyou.

George Rebane

re BillT 1026am - I believe Mr Tozer is correct. I and others who voted 'no on W' simply did not want the MMJ ordinance to be set in stone. We did not express any other preference save that the BoS should be free to pass and modify MJ ordinances as the legal environment changes and as we learn best practices from across the country.

Todd Juvinall

GeorgeR at 10:32. That was my gig too.

Gail Kraus

Too bad we cant tell who voted to lift the ban, and who voted to keep the ban flexible.
Question: If one has a 6 acre rectangular property (2x3 acres)
and there is a 200 ft setback,
and "A square enclosing one acre is approximately 69.57 yards, or 208 feet 9 inches (63.63 metres) on a side." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre)
then that leaves a strip 17 feet 6 inches wide, 208 feet 9 inches long, smack dab in the center of the parcel available?
Is this correct?
What if your house is there?
What if the parcel is circular and 5.1 acres?
Any takers?

Gregory

Measure W being rejected meant Measure W was rejected. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let me put it this way... If Gavin Newsom's "Safety for All" fails this fall, it does not forbid him from trying something similar next year nor does it forbid the legislature from doing the same.

The only thing that can stop that in its tracks are three or four new Scalias on the SCOTUS.

Gregory

I personally voted to make life harder for the violent psychopathic grower in my neighborhood... everyday life is better during their incarcerations.

Bill Tozer

I live on AG and if I chose to grow, I still can't touch the adjoining little 11 acre piece I bought solely to have control over who lives on one side...... like nobody, thank you very much. I have one neighbor on the other side, but he is terrified I might shoot him or something so he lays real low and causes me no grief. We have an understanding since that talk and we left as good friends.
Still, no growing on vacant (raw) parcels. We must be good law abiding citizen neighbors and follow the rules. You gotta pay to play. With those worthless words aside.....what really pricked my curiosity is Gail's question posed.

"What if the parcel is circular and 5.1 acres?

Geeze Gail, I never have seen a circular parcel. I have seen ones kinda oblong, ones that kinda look like Monopoly houses, old mining claims that were spilt into parcels 60' wide and a zillion miles long, parcels longer on one side than the other, wider at the bottom than top, parallelograms, huge ranches split into parcels on paper with diagonal lines all over the place, landlocked parcels with no easements for ingress, egress.....but, Shoot Howdy Gail, a circular parcel? I am having difficulty wrapping my mind around that one. Need more infor concerning a hula hoop looking 5.1 acre parcel.
If it is any help, I have seen a round house on a square parcel more than once. I need more details before taking a stab at it.
Thank you.

Arther Williams

You also voted to make life harder for every legitimate patient, Gregory. And every Granny that wants her tinctures and poultices. There are many...
And concerning Gail`s last statement, does anyone wish to respond to her assertion that due to the setbacks, property line versus dwelling, that this interim "agreement" in nothing more than a de-facto ban?

Gregory

"Arther", how many stoners and defacto commercial growers are there for every "legitimate" patient?

George Rebane

GailK 1222pm - I agree that the BoS new draft is not very forthcoming and I don't know why they are doing that. But if someone has a 6+ acre parcel appropriately remote from other residences, there is nothing preventing the BoS from granting a variance given that the other conditions of the ordinance are met.

BTW, I'm not too familiar with 200ft long houses of the kind that would prevent MMJ grows that you cited.

Gregory

Why not have background checks for growers? No domestic violence, negligent or drunk driving, etc etc. No opioid abuse or trafficking.

Gail Kraus

GeorgeR 3:02pm- Touche, silly me, I could just as easily have said driveway, and avoided all long house questions.

Todd Juvinall

Gregory, how about receipts for the sale or trade of medicinal pot?

Arther Williams

Way too many stoners vs legitimate patients, Gregory. Way too many. I am not in favor of commercial grows in any form, way, shape or size. I just honestly believe that any person who owns property outside of city limits should be able to do what he wants to do with it. I own land on RA zoned land... with not a single neighbor in opposition to what I grow, no matter which plant I plant.
There are thousands in Nevada County that wish to grow only for themselves. All we want is our six plants per person, nothing more. Six plants gives me just enough condensed medicine to make it through the year, and I have acquired my medicine in an economically feasible fashion, with no co-pay, no deductibles, and no side effects.

Arther Williams

I am surrounded by wineries, which produce grapes, which are fermented, becoming alcohol, which is consumed by thousands of visitors, each and every month. How many of these thousands commit that silly little nuisance of driving away from said wineries while inebriated?
Why not label all visitors to wineries as "Drunks", "Winos". "Wife Beaters", "Criminals" etc..? This is what is perpetuated against all legitimate patients, when we are referred to as "Stoners", Hippies", "Drug Dealers" and the like. We are not your "Boogie Man", we are your neighbors, your cousins, your nephews and nieces. We have grand children and great grand children. We hold jobs, we pay taxes and WE VOTE!
This is who we are, not who Harry Anslinger and our elected officials told you who we are. We are NOT criminals. We are Americans. Allow us the pursuit of peace and happiness.

Gregory

I am actually for a complete relegalization of cannabis and cannabis products, back to the days where it was nobody's business but their own, but not just for Nevada County, which I see as debilitating to our community with far too many sleazoid slackers mostly trying to make an easy buck with the annual influx of Trimmigrants who wipe out the local food pantries despite having a wad of cash in their pockets.

I've talked to parents who moved here expecting great schools and healthy communities, only to find mostly mediocre schools whose attractive test scores are mostly due to the lack or English Language Learners, and pot flowing easily amongst the kiddies.

Bill Tozer

Ah, timing is everything. Went to town and ran into a small time grower I haven't seen in years. He asked me exactly the same thing we are discussing here. He said he heard 18 plants for his 10.1 acres. I told him this:

It's still a work in progress. Told him I heard its 18 max, and that includes indoor, starters, and outdoors combined, but it looks like more and more like zoning is King. Told him it looks like no more cul-de-sac grows, 1.5 acre grows, etc. I repeated to him it is still a work in progress and just wait and see how it all pans out. He was good with that. A lot of folks are not following the issue closely, and count me among them. Everything I know in life I read on Dr. Rebane's 5 Star provocative site. :)

I do admit that the setbacks are confusing. So many hundred feet from the property line, so many feet from the humble abode, so many feet from a neighbor's humble abode, and so forth. Now, if one lives on top of a river gorge, for example, it does not matter if you have 6 or 8 or 12 or 15 acres. That is all just buffer land and all the neighbor's houses along with your miner's shack are all situated close together on that one flat spot on top of the gorge. It does get confusing or challenging for those in that situation.

best comment I have read concerning this whole sheebang last year or the year before. "Those that have been growing here for 40 years illegally will keep on growing, legal or not."

Now, I gotta figure out something just out of curiosity. My parcel is zoned A. That's it, just the single letter A. Seems old school to me. Like its missing the G or E or timber or mining or something, but I will research that one of these years, but not this year.

The situation is still fluid so my guess is as good as yours concerning the details. Wait and see, but it's fun to peek.

Arther Williams

First I'll explain how no grows on a 2 acre parcel would ever be in compliance with the ordinance, even though the ordinance seems to permit grows on these parcels:

The Impossible Scenario

The setback for a 2 acre parcel is 150 feet. In order for one to legally grow, the distance from the outer boundary of their grow space must be at least 150 feet from all property lines. We will examine this with a hypothetical parcel. We will start off with a square. A square is the shape that allows the property lines to be the maximum distance apart. If you try to lengthen the distance between two property lines and keep the area (the acreage) unchanged at 2 acres, you must shorten the distance between the other two property lines. A square parcel is thus the ideal condition; the best case scenario for compliance with the county's ordinance.

We can find the length of each line of a square using the formula: Length (L) = Square root of the Area (A), or L = rootA. For our 2 acre parcel, we will convert the acres to square feet, so A= 87120 square feet. Take the square root of that, and L = 295.16. That is the length of 1 side of the square, and thus is also the distance between two parallel property lines on our parcel.

The setback distance is 150 feet, so if we want to grow, our grow space must be 150 feet from all property lines. The midway point between the two parallel property lines is L / 2, or 295.16 / 2, which comes out to 147.58 feet. Now, we have to be 150 feet away from both property lines (all 4 actually), but we cannot be, because the setback limit is 150 feet. If we are 150 feet from one line, it will put us within 145.11 feet of the other line. Also, since this is a square, midpoints from both sets of parallel lines put us directly in the center.

Ok, you're thinking, this is a square parcel you're talking about, but in reality there are no square parcels, they're mostly rectangular or rhombus shaped. Well, in a rectangle, two of the lines will be even closer together than our 147.58 feet in the ideal condition, even though two of the lines will be farther apart, so at no point between those two lines will compliance be possible. Same with a rhombus-shaped parcel. A parallelogram has two of the lines necessarily closer together than the ideal condition as well. As you can see, there is no possible configuration of a 2-acre parcel where compliance with this ordinance is possible. Grows are banned on 2-acre parcels, even though the ordinance might at first glance lead you to believe they are permitted.

Also, in the example above, the 147.58-foot midpoint between the two parallel property lines is a single infinitesimal point, meaning we haven'e accounted for the amount of space the grow area will occupy. That is important, because the setback is measured from the outside of the grow area to the property line. That brings us to the next condition:

Arther Williams

Impossible in Practice Scenario

Let's do the above with a 3 acre perfectly square parcel. square root of 130680ft^2 = 361.50 feet. Divide that by 2 to get the midpoint and you have 180.75 feet between 2 property lines. Well that seems ok, right? Because if the setback is 150 feet, that means you have 30.75 feet of "play" in the center of the property. A grow is possible on this parcel, it seems. And it is, if there doesn't happen to be a pond there, or a creek, or a driveway, or a swimming pool, or that spot on the property simply gets no direct sunlight, or some other surface feature that precludes use of the land at that 30.75-foot square. However, no parcels in the county resemble the ideal condition, they are rectangles and rhombuses and other polygons almost entirely. The property lines of parcels in the county can thus vary from the ideal condition by only 30.75 feet before compliance becomes mathematically impossible because of the setbacks. But worse, we can't consume that entire 30.75 by varying the shape of the parcel, because we need space to grow. Thus, a deviation of the property lines from the ideal condition of 15 feet leaves you with an awkwardly shaped 15 x 15 foot space in the dead center of the property at which compliance is possible. Any more than that, and growing even 6 plants probably isn't possible. I question whether or not 12 is possible even in a 30.75 x 30.75 foot square in the ideal condition. That is an aside though, the real point is that I am quite certain parcel shapes in the county deviate from the ideal condition much more than 15 feet, or even 30 feet, which makes compliance at this acreage actually impossible in all but the ideal condition and slight deviation therefrom.

Arther Williams

Large Parcels

The situation with small parcels applies to large parcels because at > 5.0 acres, the setbacks increase to 200 feet, meaning you have to have over 400 feet of space between at least two property lines. At greater than 10.0 acres, the setbacks increase to 300 feet, meaning you have to have over 600 feet of space between property lines. Of course you need more, because in all those instances you have to also have enough space to grow.

I have 18.48 acres. Due to the shape of my parcel, there is no place on my property where compliance with the ordinance is possible.

The increasing condition also creates just odd situations. A person with 4.99 acres will actually have more grow space available (in the ideal condition, of course) than someone with 5.01 acres, because the person with 5.01 acres has a 200 foot setback, and thus at least 400 feet of total required space between property lines, while the person with 4.99 acres, a parcel of nearly identical size, requires only 300 feet of total avoidance. That makes no sense. The same situation arises between 9.99 acre parcels and 10.01 acre parcels.

Bill Tozer

Arthur @ 4:11 on.
So, is pothead a preferable title? :). Come on, don't let the ego get in the way. I happened to have a doper living down the way. Nice quiet retired man. I even once stopped and helped him get some loose goats out of his houchie houchie marihuana garden once. :). He is a vegetarian so I call him a veg head or banana brains..to his face, lol. Lighten up and keep your eye on the important stuff.
Those labels are important to you, but that is not the big picture. The big picture is you want to legally grow 6 plants. No one is slamming you for that, toker. I have been called a lot worse than those benign soft ball terms....a lot worse and probably more often.

Let's get down on it, shall we. I have felt from day 1 that good folks like you want to be called legit, legal, and all that stuff. Where I live, we have two kinds in these parts. The legits and the growers. That's how we indenttify ourselves to one another. I did not start it, that's just the way it is when I moved here. Had a lady stop by to talk about the road and she said "so nice to have another legit in the neighborhood". So, they refer to me as legit. Not bad. She loves riding horses and don't like growers. That is her right to feel that way whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, right or wrong.
You complaints are important to you, not me. Been there done that. You just want whatever you are doing to be legitament in the law's eyes. Society's eye. Your grandkids' eyes. Your eyes. No more paranoia when the twirly bird is crossing the sky. I get it. A lot of folks want to come out of the shadows. They want to be called legit.

Focus on the guidelines. You are not the first nor the last to go off on legal alcohol, deaths caused by drunk driving, blah, blah, blah. Comparisons between grass and booze is a dead end street. Getting religious and suddenly quoting Genesis saying God says all plants are good for man is a dead end street. You being a great guy is a dead end street, as well as being a good law abiding tax paying flag waving American...not the issue here.

Once had a old timer say something to me I never forgot concerning a different topic. Old John said he may have to tolerate so and so's behavior, but he doesn't have to condone it. Focus on the guidelines you would like to see, but to suggest that folks quit calling you old hippies "dopers, smokers, and freeway tokers" is not in your power, or mine, Thank God! We cannot control another's thoughts or feelings. That is a saving grace. Settle for tolerance. You are asking the impossible for everybody to condone what you or I do at work, at home, or at play. No law will change hearts, only behavior.
Focus on the guidelines. Suggest, not demand that I not call you a pothead, ok. BTW, suggest nicely cause Websters says "suggestion is a subtle command" and you ain't the boss of me. :)

Arther Williams

Compassionate? I think not. Compliable? I don`t see how.
These is an extremely devious attempt to provide the bos the opportunity to say, "We tried our best, but they wanted too much" excuse.
Is this how you would like your elected officials to conspire against you? Devious, indeed.

Don Bessee

'AW' at 531, why all the effort for a 2 acre example when there is clearly no 2 acre growing in the BOS's new ord.?

Arther Williams

Bill, I thought I was focusing on the guide lines. The set backs, in particular.

Arther Williams

DB... to show that these regulations are in fact a de-facto ban.

Arther Williams

"Our properties within our own territories [should not] be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own.”
― Thomas Jefferson "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”
― John Adams

Bill Tozer

Totally off topic.
When was 12 or 13 with hair hanging over the top of my ears and wearing a wide belt, some dude in a passing car called me me a hippy. Turn the clock 50 years and I got short hair again and some punks in GV outside a convience store called mean old hippy. Whatz up with that? I must look like a stoner I reckon.
Most of my hippy friends are dead. Some went straight, some disappeared, and some moved to some place called Nevada County, California...wherever that is.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpj9mCl0qg

Don Bessee

Just wondering because I got sent a screen shot where a nearly identical post was put up elsewhere by another name. You say it says there is 2 acre growing- 'even though the ordinance seems to permit grows on these parcels'. Not so.

Patricia Smith

Gregory, July 22 9:45 Yes, the vote does mean that Measure W failed. Of course, people voted for different reasons, but you don't get to dissect what parts you were for or against. You didn't hear us trying to spin the loss of Measure S and we surely wouldn't be having this conversation had W won. In fact, the loss of S is what triggered the Board to promote the ban.

I think the sweet spot is between Measure S and W which is exactly what ASA has recommended. Measure S had an upper limit of 99 plants, we are recommending an upper limit of 50 plants on 20 acres.

This is what Measure W said:
“Shall an ordinance be adopted which (a) bans outdoor cultivation, commercial cultivation and other commercial cannabis activities, (b) limits indoor cultivation to 12 plants per parcel in residential and rural areas, (c) prohibits indoor marijuana cultivation in un-permitted structures and areas used or intended for human occupancy, and (d) allows marijuana cultivation only by qualified patients and primary caregivers and only for medicinal purposes?”

This is the BoS Resolution:
"If the Ballot Measure is not approved by a majority of the registered voters voting on the measure, it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to reject the Ballot Measure, to repeal the ban on outdoor cultivation of marijuana and to consider and adopt other outdoor regulations at the next available meeting after the results of the election have been certified by the County Elections Official."

Arther Williams

According to what Patty has posted, commercial cultivation and commercial cannabis activities should now be legal, correct?
Why is it not?

Arther Williams

And wouldn`t these requirements possibly exacerbate clear cutting of land, to legally abide by these set backs? Are our elected officials trying to make this poorly governed community even less attractive to everyone involved?
And get ready for the law suits. This is going to make the "Ridge Line Debacle" expenses look like chicken feed.
The average citizen is gonna take it in the shorts on this one...

George Rebane

For the record, the NC Republican Women Federated admitted their error in reporting Measure W voted counts and sent a correction to their members. I did not post it here because is was already corrected by a vigilant RR reader.

BradC

ArtherW - The county official know that their regulations are intended to make it illegal to grow just about anywhere in rural Nevada County but want to give a (false) impression of working with MMJ patients and stakeholders. This is just another attempted snow job by the Supes and Sheriff (unless no one in the county understands elementary math or geometry).
I may have missed it but I only saw regulations addressing 20 acres and up. Does the county not see a difference between a 20 acre ranch and a 200, or 2,000 acre ranch?
What a hoot!

Bill Tozer

Patty, No on W did not even guarantee you could have a small seat near the table, so be grateful you even got their ear. :). Like, No on W did not mean your wish list is to enacted tomorrow. Take it slow, even piecemeal over 2 years, not just weeks. Easy does it, but do it......and do it easy. But nooo. Just like my daughters. Everything is so important and gotta hurry and they drive off in causing a dirt cloud
and forget their handhelds or purses...steady pressure...your patients will make it to next year...we have a giving community...

Keep hashing it out and we will get it right. Maybe Paul Emery was right all along, gasp! Double gasp!! The more I think about it, let's have our little grows with our boutique flavor from our boutique local hills. The Commerical Boys will crush any uniqueness that might give out local patients here the edge in a competitive market. Niche market stuff looking down the road. Screw the Commerical grows, Patty. I am counting on you to build the wall and keep Commericals growers the fuck out of here. Yes, I said keep them the hell out of here. Hey, we have kept 7-11s out of here, so it can be done.te Thank you.

Art: sorry, but only scanned your comments. Hey, you said wineries? WTF are you thinking, man? What's next, you going to say oak woodlands or pasture land???
18 acres ain't enough if you are dumb enough to buy land that has been opened up like that. You need a privacy screen from the road. Plant a hedge...I dunno, something native like poison oak or go exotic and plant friggin bamboo or pampas (yuck) grass. Look, "no can see from road" is your setback, wherever that may be. You already said your neighbors will see nothing, say nothing, right? No sweat. Problem fixed.
No complaint from your hood, no cops roll. They roll on every complaint/call, so just randomly drop of a fine bottom of wine or two at your neighbor's doorstep with a little note saying "Thinking of you, Art." Unless you are a perv. If so, then the note on your neighbor's' doorstep may not be the best of advice.

Bill Tozer

Art, you said all you wanted was 6 plants and that is all you ever wanted, right? Just double checking. Now, it six, not six maybe 12 or 14, right?
And I am sure you have a gorgeous piece of property...did it come with a hacienda or just a ranch house? Better end it with this: :). Later. Your fellow pilgrim, Bill

Arther Williams

Yeah, Bill. No calls from my neighbors equals no cops at my place? This is the same sheriff that has made 80% of the "complaints" after his joy rides in his brother`s helicopters, isn`t it?
Great way to enrich the family and keep those hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from the Anslinger`s rolling in. Gotta keep those deputies working, right?
Gotta keep those jails full, keeping all those needed deputies employed, guarding those vicious, dangerous MMJ growers, right? Employed draining the counties coffers, that is.
What do you think would happen to the sheriff`s budget if MMJ was decriminalized??? Do you think he wants a reduction in his budget? I don`t think so...

Don Bessee

Small possession of weed was decriminalized years ago 'arther' but thanks for showing your true level of disinformation.

Gail Kraus

Don, If it is decriminalized, and this is solely a land use issue, why is the Sheriff's office doing inspections for the planning Dept.? My point is it feels criminalized when you get a Sheriff's letter on your gate saying call us, let us in right away or we will get a warrant.(warrant=land use violation???)If you don't do as we say we could take your house.
I ask that any responses please limit your comments to Medical MJ.

George Rebane

GailK 1028am - I believe that under the current ordinance the sheriff is the enforcing officer. In the past Planning Dept has refused to inspect because of security concerns, and has therefore deferred such enforcement to the armed Sheriff's Dept.

Bill Tozer

Bill Tozer
Art, look who the cops are busting so far. Think the smallest one I have read about in the Union was 600 plants, and maybe a small 120 garden related to a bigger bust. If you are a good guy but have toothless wonders around that are crankster gangsters, have warrants, under search and seizure conditions of probation, and are just all around dirt bags, then sure, they will shut down 58 plants......but LE did not simply drive around looking for it and the helicopters are looking for the big grows around 850 plants in size. An occasion 200 plant garden will get spotted, but may be put on next year's list cause they are too busy this year. And, with these busts I mentioned, they usually leave six plants alone if there is a posted script...

A). If LE or passerbys can see your crop just be tottling down the road, then you are the stupid one. I have seen small gardens from some side streets closer to town and they never get popped....and that is just me heading to the dump or visiting a former co-worker. And I am not even rubber necking looking for it, same as driving around and not looking for deer bedding down back in brush, but on occasion spy some deer back in there as I am passing by an area, but generally keeping my eyes on the road. Some things just catch your eye and it is a fair assumption to say those little 12 plant gardens are "kinda almost" in compliance or small timers cause the small gardens I see remain, year after year.......everywhere, scores and scores of them out there.

B). LE needs a reasonable cause to enter your little piece of paradise. If a LE is on patrol checking things out on his/her beat in his patrol vehicle, they are not going to be driving down your driveway, getting out, and walking around the house and see what you got in the back 40. Ain't going to happen, unless they are searching for a naked escapee from the Nut House running amok in your neck of the woods...and even in that scenario, they aren't coming back to bust your 6 plants...ever. And even if they do, they will tell ya to move that one over there closer to the other 5...have a good day, sir.

C). None of by beeswax, but I am seriously seriously doubting we are taking about 6 plants here. I am beginning to develop a trust issue with you. If it is any consolation, I have a big ole Don't Tread On Me flag in the front at the road, and am a strong believer in private property rights and all that Patriot stuff...coupled with a moral compass that tells me to be a good neighbor....love my brother and all that stuff. Only drawback is I do not fully appreciate snakes, but what would a good Don't Tread on ME flag be without a snake on it?? Just have to live with it. 6 plants????? Don't even sweat it. Not even worth LE's time or even the gas.
6 plants? You ain't pulling my leg are you?
Heck, I have never heard of someone riding in the back seat of the Pole-Lease car for 8 plants....ever, ever. Ok, maybe 20 years ago.

Yo Patty, have you ever heard of handcuffs going on someone for 11 plants...barring warrants, child endangerment, narcotics, stolen property involved. Yo Gail, be a dear and talk to Art, will ya. He is a concerned patient and the state law was written with him in mind.

Gail Kraus

"A judge issues a search warrant to authorize law enforcement officers to search a particular location and seize specific items. To obtain a search warrant, police must show probable cause that a crime was committed and that items connected to the crime are likely to be found in the place specified by the warrant." https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=search%20warrant%20exceptions
Crime!
"The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. The plain view doctrine. A police officer does not need to obtain a warrant to search and seize contraband that is "in plain view."
Contraband!
Armed police for land use issue is equal protection under the law?
Arther could be telling the truth,why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
Culture War!
Really, nothing will ever get done with this Divide and Conquer working out so well.

Gail Kraus

Sorry,I don't mean to rile everyone up.

Don Bessee

As cal growers said, you guys will get no real traction until you separate yourself from the criminals. The lack of a system to prevent duplicate recommendations gives everyone doubt about caregiver grows. Not every pot grower is some altruistic caregiver or patient.
Nothing has changed the fact that we are surrounded by outdoor ban areas and few areas in the State are interested in commercial pot.

Paul Emery

Don

what does losing 60-40 on Measure W mean to you about the direction the voters of Nevada County want to go on this matter?

Gail Kraus

"We" will get no traction until "you" separate patients from criminals in "your" minds. As I said divide and conquer.
Not every pot grower is a lying, script duplicating,criminal.
I don't have any interaction with criminals, I am not together with them, so how do I separate from them?
It is a very blunt instrument that groups criminals and patients all together.
All of us should be concerned about this issue,
Seems very similar to the firearms issue. Do "you" firearms using law aiding citizens want to be punished for the acts of irresponsible criminals?
Nothing has changed the fact that we are a county that 60 to 40 rejected the ban (outdoor and commercial)and will be the leaders regionally.
If we don't respect each other, how are we going to do this correctly?

Gail Kraus

that shoud have read:law abiding

Paul Emery

Very True Gail

It needs to be emphasized that the resounding No on W included a No vote on a ban of Commercial growing. That was completely ignored by the BOS in their urgency replacement measure to be presented tomorrow,

The Demographics in Nevada County are shifting rapidly and for sure in the next election cycle that will be reflected in the election of Supervisors that will recognize the economic value of commercial cultivation in accordance with State Laws and regulations.

Bill Tozer

Paul, fuck the big boy Commerical grows. They will dilute and trash you mom and pop boutique niche market scenario. Keep it small and keep it cool. The big boys are here already. Planes flying in from Littly Italy in NY and Jersey with Guido as the bag man. Clean, great operations with big ole concrete loading docks for Rare Earth and the water trucks to drive in and drive out. You can eat off the floor. Reminds me of when I did Commerical tile work for Max Fosters dairy plants back in the day.
Ok, to be fair, if the Big Boys are here, just close the doors behind them. Maybe your idea of a Commerical grow and mind are different. Probably so.

And no frigging Hmong Mafia like that got busted in my area. No setbacks, growing on both sides of the road up to the road!! In broad daylight of all things. And all those buck tooth yahoos setting up security cameras and running electrical and water cables right across the road. I thought I left those buck tooth gangsters back in SE Asia...yep, I am a bigot when it comes to what comes out of the Central Valley... on occasion. I did not turn them in...I don't want them coming after me at night....they outnumber me 20 to one.....but I am glad somebody did.

Ok, Paul, rant is over. I am actually warming up to the idea of smaller grows (24-40 plants) on 10 acres if the zoning is right. That would help the local economy. But, to repeat from way up on the start on this thread: No on W meant to me Do Not Set the current ordinance in stone. Nothing less, nothing more. 60/40 or 90/10 means nothing. Absolutely nothing. Do not set the ordaniance is stone and let the BOS work it out on their timetable, not YOURS. To repeat yet again, Paul: read the black on the letters, not the white between the letters on the page. Fuck them big boys are we are cool. Capice?

Marvin Postlewait

"joy rides in his brother`s helicopters" -- Does any one know who owns the helicopter service that the sheriff has the contract with? Is it really his brother?

Bill Tozer

Marvin, I haven't a clue. But, no matter where I have lived on this planet, I have already heard that same "His brother's twirly bird" or the sheriff's son is the biggest pusher around and the cops protect him" or the growers paid them off, or the mayor's wife got a special consideration on some bid......heard than one 147 times at least, covering many locales, many states, and many states of mind....talking about grows or nudie bars or...fill in the blanks. Oh, don't forget the corruption/favoritism/relative of LE angle when a tow truck contract is granted or building a storage shed in the county yard.

Proof? Well, I am sure it has happened. Heck, my Dad found corruption in the contact when the first one or two helicopters were being purchased in my hometown area back in the day....and he stood his ground and brought down the Chief of Police, the mayor, and two council members. So, ya, it might be true....just like my dad the detective was given orders to go out and wack poor black kids eating Skittles on the street corner.
Proof? If you believe its true without documentation, then no use arguing with stupid.

Bill Tozer

Here is another one every LE has heard thousands of times: "Why are you stopping me? Why are you hassassing me for a taillight out? Why don't do go catch robbers and rapists and murderers and leave me alone and quit harassing me. I am calling my lawyer on you and suiting the shit out of the Department!"
. Cops don't write the stupid laws, dear lady who is screaming at the top of her lungs for being pulled over like she is being singled out. Yeah, she will report you and she has friends in high places and you just lost your job, copper! Cops just enforce laws, even stupid motor vehicle violations...even if your family are the ones who brought dirt into this area generations ago.
Off topic. I would say "Off topic, sorry" but that would be a lie.

Arther Williams

Bill, I`d like to respond. No one can see my garden. It is far from prying eyes, unless viewed from above. No one has ever complained about my garden. I have grown only 12 plants (6 for me, 6 for my wife) for decades. We use our own homemade tinctures and we don`t smoke cannabis nor tobacco.
I suppose I have to take your word concerning the exclusion of people like myself and other peaceful folk from the wrath of the sheriff`s office, but with this fine structure he has advocated... and with the lure of asset forfeiture... I hear Yuba County has already levied fines beyond 3 million with this same fine structure.

Gail Kraus

"Excessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel, and unusual punishments inflicted." Bill of Rights

Arther: They have google earth.

Arther Williams

And they`are all drunks, wife beating moon shiners hooked on Hill Billy heroin attempting to deprive every land owner of their property rights... does the "Ridge Line" fiasco ensure your trust in the haphazard disbursement of your hard earned tax dollars?
Please look at the amount of time and money your elected officials have expended to bamboozle the populace. Shameful. It could have gone much better. Ask anyone from the press...

George Rebane

FYI - a comparative analysis of the three MMJ ordinances is now available at -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2016/07/medical-marijuana-ordinance-bos-meeting.html

Paul Emery

Where does the money go from the fines? Does the Sheriffs Dept get a cut? anyone have any ideas?

Bill Tozer

Maybe I have come off as too harsh and brash on you all. I forgot to whom I was addressing. Sorry. I need to be more gentle. I apologize. In a loosely related story from San Bernardino:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lil-wayne-storms-offstage-cannabis-191225636.html

Gail Kraus

Could that work with Trump?

Don Bessee

Ask anyone from the press... Thanks for the giggles. LOL ;-)

A Patriot

FYI A comparative analysis of the proposals of the five groups tasked with compromising on an interim ordinance are linked here. Shortly thereafter, a unified recommendation from 4 of the five groups represented was presented to the Supervisors for consideration and integration into the final ordinance being discussed today. http://yubanet.com/m/draftinterimordinanceproposal/

George Rebane

APatriot 1149am - Mr Patriot, your comment really belongs under 'Medical Marijuana Ordinance - BoS Meeting'. I have reposted it there.

A Patriot

My thanks. I posted it as an update after perusing the comparison with old and previously rejected past ordinances and ballot measures earlier in these posts.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad