At our Town Council (Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council: Valerie Edwards, Traci Pellar, MacKenzie O'Donnell, David Jeffreys, Ran Bush, and Jim Shields) meeting on Jan. 22nd, we voted unanimously to support the following proposed actions:
D.3. Discussion And Possible Action To Approve Request To The Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors To Place On The Agenda, As Soon As Possible, The Following Item: “Discussion And Possible Action To Approve That Pursuant To The County’s Cannabis Ordinance, The Maximum Area Of Cultivation Has Always Been And Remains To Be 10,000 Square Feet Per Legal Parcel, Without Any Exceptions.”
D.4. Discussion And Possible Action To Approve The Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council’s Support For The January 2, 2025 Cease and Desist Letter Sent To The BOS By Attorneys Representing The Willits Environmental Center.
Our Council was asked to support efforts by folks who are concerned about Cannabis Department staffers action to “re-interpret” a provision in the failed Weed Ordinance.
I can tell you this, there is absolutely no authority under existing law or the Mendocino County Cannabis Ordinance for anyone, including County staff, administrators, or the Supervisors to “reinterpret” where the goal is to re-write or amend, in whole or in part, provisions of the Cannabis Ordinance.
This has all the appearance and trappings of Cannabis Ordinance administration being an insider’s game played by staff and a self-selected few in the local cannabis industry.
Back in September of 2024, at another Supes meeting in a long line of non-productive manifestations of what is the County’s utterly failed Weed Ordinance, a number of the always in-attendance “Don’t-Fence-Me-In” Pot Crowd, complained about the County’s – get ready for this – “prohibition” pot policies.
One of those pushing for expansion was Joshua Keats, chief executive officer of Henry's Original, one of the county’s largest outsider, industrial growers.
Most of those addressing the Supes, spoke of how EZ-PZ and widespread weed cultivation is throughout the rest of California. Several speakers also argued that since others nations, such as Thailand, have no restrictions of any kind on weed cultivation acreage, Mendocino County’s Ganja Ordinance was out of step not only with the rest of the California but that of the rest of the world. They contended that unless the County’s pot rules are ameliorated to recognize the competitive threat from “outside sources”, it’s game over forever in Mendoland.
I said to myself, “I’m losing it. Really, our country allows pot produced in other parts of the globe to be imported into the good ol’ USA?”
When did that start happening?
Answer: Never.
After I collected and re-gathered my senses, I re-said to myself, “These dudes (and dudettes) are trying to hornswoggle us.”
Everyone knows that cannabis use is legal in California. However, cities and counties can prohibit cannabis cultivation, as well as businesses, like retail, manufacturing, and distribution. As a result, the state’s landscape is a patchwork where cannabis-related activities are either legal or prohibited.
According to the state Department of Cannabis Control, two-thirds of cities and counties ban all things pot.
Here’s the breakdown:
- 69% cities and counties prohibit cultivation.
- 61% of cities and counties do not allow any retail cannabis business.
- 66% of cities and counties prohibit manufacturing.
- 66% of cities and counties prohibit distribution.
For those of you who have been around this County for a while are familiar with my views on the weed industry.
- This county has spent more time, taxpayer money and resources on this marijuana issue than any other issue in county history — and there is nothing to show for it.
- This county still persists in unloading responsibility and accountability and pointing fingers to others when it was the Board of Supervisors who developed and implemented local rules and regulations that have never worked, resulting in their Cannabis Ordinance laying like a rotting, beached whale for all to see.
- After nearly 8 years of the Cannabis Ordinance being on the books, less than 10 percent of pot farmers have made application to the program. By any process of evaluation or measure of a program’s effectiveness, the Mendocino County pot ordinance is an abysmal failure. The people it was supposed to shepherd into legal status have voted with their feet. They will never be coming into compliance with the ordinance.
- There is no one who lives in this county who has not benefitted, directly or indirectly, from weed cultivation over the past 50 years.
I’m a poster boy for feeding at the pot manger.
While I don’t grow or smoke the stuff (as a physical fitness freak, I do use CDB ointment for workout strains and pains), but I sure have banked lots of pot dollars over the years.
I own a private sector business, the Mendocino County Observer, and I’ve never refused pot dollars for subscriptions, newsstand sales, or advertising.
I’m the long-time district manager for a local government water utility, the Laytonville County Water District, and conservatively speaking, at least 50 percent of our revenues are derived from customers who grow weed.
So for all these reasons and many more, I have always been active and involved as a participant and leader in county and state activities surrounding all aspects of cannabis laws, regulations, and policies.
Due to the total failure of a majority of the Board of Supervisors to implement a workable Cannabis Ordinance, the local economies of the unincorporated areas where two-thirds of the population reside, have been wrecked and de-stabilized.
The only hope for a compliance-friendly Cannabis Ordinance is for the Supervisors to implement a program based on the sole economic model that was successful for five decades: the small farmer “Mom and Pop” model.
That’s the model that a vast majority of county citizens support also.
You would think that county seat officials would know that also.
With the exception of District 3 Supervisor John Haschak, a majority of our supervisors aren’t aware of that fact.
Believe it or not, the Supes are actually still wasting time fussing and fretting over expanding by double cultivation areas.
This issue came about back in April when Cannabis Department Cannabis Department staffers “re-interpreted” a provision in the failed Weed Ordinance that they argued would allow in some instances doubling the size of cannabis cultivation areas. For example, instead of limiting a large outdoor grow to 10,000 sq./ft per parcel, by applying this re-interpretation, a person could increase, even double, the size of the area of cultivation on a single parcel. This is pure nonsense and is made out of whole cloth.
Here’s excerpts from the Cease and Desist letter from the Willits Environmental Center’s letter to the BOS regarding this illegal, backdoor attempt by the Cannabis Department to double cultivation areas:
“Despite the clear history and the desired policy as recently stated on September 10, 2024 by the Board of Supervisors’ 5-0 vote directing staff to draft language to maintain the original intent of the ordinance to cap cultivation area per parcel at 10,000 square feet, the County’s new Counsel and the Interim Cannabis Director doubled down and stated in a memo in the agenda packet for Item 4E to the Board of Supervisors that the plain meaning of the Ordinance allowed a doubling of the cultivation area under section 10A.17.070(D). (Oct. 22, 2024, memo to the Board of Supervisors from the Office of County Counsel.) The same memo stated that “the licenses have not been issued,” but it is clear from the remainder of the memo, that absent adoption of the draft ordinance amendment provided to the Board on October 22, 2024, staff would process the non- conforming applications. The Board took no action on Item 4E, so the last action of the Board was direction to ensure caps stayed at 10,000 square feet per legal parcel as the ordinance has always been interpreted.
“Given the continued push of the MCD, it is not surprising that it has come to the attention of WEC that notwithstanding County Attorney’s prior and contemporaneous-with-adoption reading of the Ordinance, the express understanding of the intent and consistent reading of the Ordinance by the Board of Supervisors, and the scope of the prior CEQA analysis of the Ordinance, MCD continues to accept applications for additional CCBLs on parcels that would cause the cultivation caps for those parcels to be exceeded—flying in the face of the interpretation of the Ordinance the County has always held.
“WEC demands that County staff stop accepting and processing such applications and decline to issue any CCBL that would not be consistent with the Ordinance as interpreted by the Board of Supervisors (and the County’s Agricultural Commissioner, Chief Planner, and Deputy County Counsel) at all times since adoption of the Ordinance. It is WEC’s position that it would be unlawful to issue such permits as they would be inconsistent with the Ordinance, and issuance without further environmental analysis, including cumulative impact analysis, would violate CEQA.”
I’ll keep you updated on any developments.
Addressing the Animal Crisis in Community
Also at the meeting, Rhiannon Filley addressed the council about the growing animal crisis in the community, particularly the issue of roaming dogs attacking people, pets, and livestock. She cited examples of recent incidents, including a newborn calf and its mother being killed, and a teenage girl being viciously attacked and hospitalized. Rhiannon emphasized the lack of shelter space, veterinary services, and resources for spaying/neutering as contributing factors. She is forming a group to take action, educate the public, and advocate for more county and state support to address this crisis. The council acknowledged the issue and mentioned some ongoing efforts, such as the SNAP program's upcoming visit and the local pet food bank, but more resources and creative solutions are needed.
Council Chairman Jim Shields stated the Council will support Rhiannon’s efforts by forming a committee under her direction, and District 4 Supervisor Bernie Norvell also offered his assistance given his experience as Fort Bragg Mayor when that city stepped in and obtained funding for continuing pet shelter services when the County closed its Coast shelter several years ago. (See Rhiannon Filley’s letter-to-the editor on page 2.)
(Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, observer@pacific.net, the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District, and is also chairman of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at 12 noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www.kpfn.org)
Be First to Comment