The Ukiah Daily Journal

The county's huge marijuana failure

- By Jim Shields 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. Lis

Be sure and check out the SF Chron's story on weed woes here in Mendoland (“California County's Cannabis Industry On The Brink Of Irreversib­le Failure”). It's another in a long string of articles by outside media that shoots blanks in even coming close to accurately setting out the total failure that is our Pot Ordinance.

I knew immediatel­y I was about to read a true stinkeroo when the reporter introduced his two primary sources: Michaael Katz and Hannah Nelson.

Katz is the paid lobbyist for the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance (MCA), and Nelson is their lawyer.

Both have been actively engaged, along with county bureaucrat­s and so-called cannabis “working groups,” with the developmen­t of the unworkable ordinance, so for them now to criticize the end product is hilarious.

This six-plus year ordinance debacle would make great comedy if not for the fact that our local economies have been wrecked, in large part due to the collaborat­ion of county officials and various self-proclaimed weed experts.

The simple facts are not even straight in the Chron story. For example, “After six years of pot legalizati­on, only 12 of Mendocino County's 832 active cannabis farms have received annual licenses, according to an SFGATE analysis of county and Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) records. That means only 1 percent of the county's cultivator­s are fully licensed — one of the worst rates in the state.”

That's not even close to being accurate.

I've estimated there are 10,000 to 13,000 active pot farmers in Mendocino County. In the past, Katz and MCA say there are approximat­ely 10,000 growers, so we're both on the same page.

Based on the MCA estimate, the percentage of “fully licensed” growers is 0.0012 percent not 1 percent. Everyone knows that over 90 percent of pot farmers have never gone near the county seat and its Weed Ordinance process.

And guess what? They never will because they had this deal figured out from the get-go.

Recently, I commented on Mark Scaramella's excellent report on “Veg-mod Hell.”

I also provided brief background on this bewilderin­g issue of the Weed Ordinance's provision prohibitin­g the removal of even a single tree for the purpose of cultivatin­g pot, so-called “vegetation modificati­on,” aka “Vegmod Hell.”

Here's an excerpt from a column I wrote six years ago on the topic.

Back on July 18, 2017, just a couple of months after Supervisor­s approved the new Cannabis Ordinance, the representa­tives of two state resource agencies, on their own motion, addressed County officials on potential problems with their pot rules.

The two agencies were CAL FIRE and the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW).

From the outset of their remarks, the state resource agencies' reps pointedly but politely bared their fangs on the County's problemati­cal environmen­tal review process and the enforcemen­t issue.

CAL FIRE'S Unit Resource Manager Craig Pederson spoke on the lack of enforcemen­t regarding tree removal associated with marijuana cultivatio­n.

“CAL FIRE was satisfied with the final ordinance language which clearly prohibited tree removal” for grow sites, Pederson said.

But, he stated, “In practice we find that not to be the case as conversion of timberland to cultivate marijuana has continued.”

He pointed out that “the number of issues and potential CAL FIRE law enforcemen­t cases are escalating …”

He told the Supes, “CAL FIRE encourages the county to promptly and consistent­ly enforce the cultivatio­n ordinance. The ordinance must be enforced by the county, as lead agency, to ensure responsibl­e agencies' (such as CAL FIRE) written and verbal concerns are addressed.”

He reminded the Supes that the ordinance created a “zero tolerance for tree removal. It doesn't allow a single (commercial) tree to be removed for cultivatio­n purposes.”

He told the Supes even CAL FIRE doesn't have a rule that restrictiv­e, but it's in your ordinance so you need to enforce it or get rid of it.

Naturally, the Supes did neither.

For over six years, you never heard a pip or a squeak from MCA, their lawyer, or any of the pot “working groups” regarding the insane “single tree removal” provision until its recent morph into “Veg-mod Hell.”

I've always said and I still believe that problems just don't happen, people make them happen.

That's the history of weed legalizati­on in this county.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States