NEWS

Siskiyou County bans outdoor cannabis cultivation

Sarah Kirby skirby@siskiyoudaily.com
The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted to change the county's cannabis cultivation ordinance on Tuesday to prohibit outdoor cultivation in its jurisdiction.

Tuesday afternoon, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors revisited the county’s medical cannabis ordinance and decided to ban outdoor cultivation.

Draft ordinances were created as options to amend Chapter 14 of Title 10 and the Siskiyou County codes regarding the cultivation of medical cannabis.

One of the draft options allowed for outdoor cultivation on plots less than three acres; however, the board of supervisors decided to approve the other draft option, which completely banned outdoor cultivation. The board based the outdoor ban on Shasta County’s outdoor ban model.

The new cannabis cultivation regulations allow for indoor growing only, and the tenets defining indoor cannabis cultivation are outlined in the ordinance’s definition of “indoor.”  

 Siskiyou County community members packed the board room on Tuesday to express their concerns about the amendments to the ordinance. Concerned community members even overflowed into the hallway.

The original ordinance took a year to create. Several medicinal cannabis supporters and patients worked with the county to find common ground to establish medical cannabis cultivation laws for Siskiyou County; however, after five months, some members on the board of supervisors felt that the ordinance should be changed.

District 3 Supervisor Michael Kobseff said, “Banning outdoor grows provides safer grows. From stories I was told, grows are a safety risk to other residents because people want to steal pot. So far, in my estimation, the current ordinance has not worked.”

During the afternoon session, the floor opened up for public comment. Some individuals asked the board for a zero tolerance cannabis cultivation policy, while others considered the banning of outdoor cultivation to be an illegal infringement on state declared rights.

Many homeowners from the Klamath River Country Estates showed up to express concern for their roads and declining property values. Many members were frustrated about exceptionally large grows by their homes.

One community member said, “I’ve got three grows adjacent from me and one is a stone’s throw away. We are thinking about selling our home because of these grows, but we talked to a realtor and we are upside down in value by about $50,000 from where we were a year ago.”

Many of the individuals who were in support of the ban mentioned how large grows are popping up all around their homes.

The original medical cannabis ordinance never approved large grows; these large grows are considered illegal under the county’s original medical cannabis ordinance.

In opposition to the ban, many collective owners, medical cannabis patients, and long time county residents expressed their belief that the large grows are ruining it for everyone.

Nevertheless, those in support of outdoor medical cultivation felt that just because some growers are choosing to not follow the original ordinance’s laws and regulations, does not mean that those growers who are following the original rules should be penalized.

One community member declared, “non-medical, commercial growers have given a bad name to medical growers, so I think a license is a good idea. The grounds have been tested. Workshop with medical growers. They need to be looked at as legitimate caregivers who provide clean medicine.”

 Not only did long time residents show up for the meeting, but a large contingent of the Hmong community was also there. Many members in the Hmong community explained that they have permits in for wells to be drilled and they are taking steps to become members of the community.

Many members of the Hmong community use medical cannabis for legitimate health issues, commenters stated.

One Hmong community member said that she is a medical cannabis patient. She explained,”I have had ulcers for twenty years. I’ve been to doctors but their help did not work. Due to my ulcer I could not bend over and do any work. My friend gave me a cannabis tea, and my ulcers have healed. Now I can work.”

The issue of taxation was also brought up, with many commenters citing other states’ revenues, stating their belief that the county could find millions of dollars in its pockets if it chose to continue to allow outdoor cultivation with additional taxation.

Not all members of the board were in support of the ban. Chair of the board, Ed Valenzuela, was the only member who voted against the ban. Valenzuela mentioned that recreational cannabis use is likely to be approved by voters in 2016, and that he did not think that the ban would help.

Some commenters stated their belief that racism was playing a role, especially in relation to the Hmong community, and in references to the Mexican cartel and drug trafficking.

At one point, Valenzuela said, “All I heard was Mexican cartel, and I am Mexican”

While the board did vote four to one in support of the ban, the vote was only to approve the first reading of the ordinances making the changes. As of now, the second reading, at which the board can approve the changes, is scheduled for Dec. 8.