Butte County, California, Restrictions on Cultivation of Medical Marijuana Referendum, Measure H (June 2016)
| Measure H: Butte County "Restrictions on Cultivation of Medical Marijuana" Referendum |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| June 7, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local marijuana |
| Related articles |
| Local marijuana on the ballot June 7, 2016 ballot measures in California Butte County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Butte County, California |
A veto referendum concerning an ordinance to restrict the cultivation of medical marijuana was on the ballot for Butte County voters in Butte County, California, on June 7, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of amending the county's restrictions on medical marijuana. |
| A no vote was a vote against amending the county's restrictions on medical marijuana. |
Marijuana was also a key issue on the ballot in 2014 in Butte County, when voters decided between two competing measures designed to govern marijuana cultivation: a citizen initiative and Measure A, a veto referendum against an ordinance passed by the county board of supervisors.
Measure G, another marijuana-related referendum concerning a county board of supervisors ordinance designed to explicitly remove marijuana cultivation from the county's "Right to Farm Ordinance," preventing marijuana growers from using the right to farm law as protection against nuisance complaints and other disputes was also on the ballot in June 2016.
Election results
| Butte County, Measure H | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 36,290 | 57.25% | ||
| No | 27,101 | 42.75% | ||
- Election results from Butte county Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall Ordinance No. 4107, an Ordinance of the County of Butte amending Sections 34A-2, 34A-3, 34A-4, 34A-13, 34A-16 AND 34A-19 of Chapter 34A of the Butte County Code, entitled "Restrictions on Cultivation of Medical Marijuana" be adopted?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Butte County Counsel:
| “ |
Measure H is a referendum on Ordinance 4107 adopted by the Butte County Board of Supervisors. A referendum submits a Board-adopted ordinance to a vote of the County's registered voters. On January 26, 2016, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 4107, amending Chapter 34A of the Butte County Code. A referendum petition to either repeal Ordinance 4107 or submit it to the voters received the required number of signatures. On March 8, 2016, the Board of Supervisors chose to submit the ordinance to the voters. If approved by the voters, Ordinance 4107 would: 1. Confirm that any parcel where marijuana is cultivated must contain a legal residence. 2. Confirm that any parcel .5 of an acre or less is limited to a cultivation area of 50 square feet, which must be contained in a detached structure no larger than 120 square feet. 3. Confirm that an individual living alone on a parcel that is greater than 5 acres may cultivate marijuana, but there must be at least one doctor's recommendation for every 50 square feet of plants. 4. Combine civil penalties for the cultivation of marijuana in violation of Chapter 34A with the nuisance abatement process. 5. Confirm that a penalty of $500 per day would accrue on the day a 72-Hour Notice to Abate is posted, and would increase to $1,000 per day if the violation is not timely corrected and the County is forced to set the matter for a Nuisance Abatement Hearing; but if the owner/tenant timely corrects the violation after receiving a 72-Hour Notice to Abate, no hearing would be scheduled and no penalties would be awarded. 6. Require the County to prove that a violation existed at the time a Notice of Hearing is posted, and not at the time the hearing is held, so that the County could recover its costs and penalties in cases where the owner/tenant failed to timely correct the violation after receiving the 72-Hour Notice to Abate. 7. Allow the County to recover costs and penalties awarded by a hearing officer by placing a lien on the property. 8. Reduce the time for an owner/tenant to abate a violation to ten days from the date the hearing officer's decision is placed in the mail. A "yes" vote means you support implementing these provisions. A "no" vote means you do not support implementing these provisions. If a majority of the votes cast on the measure are "yes", then the measure will be approved and Ordinance 4107 will become effective ten days after the vote is declared by the Board of Supervisors. If a majority of the votes cast on the measure are "no", then the measure will not be approved and Ordinance 4107 will not become effective. This vote on Measure H will not impact ordinances relating to Chapter 34A that were previously passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors or approved by the voters. [2] |
” |
| —Butte County Counsel[1] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
- Note: Those who supported Ordinance 4106 and opposed the veto referendum effort against it endorsed a "yes" vote on Measure H and are referred to as "supporters" in this article.
Supporters
Butte County Families Against Cannabis Trafficking (FACT) was formed to campaign in favor of Measure H and Measure G.[3]
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:
- Michael L. Ramsey, Butte County District Attorney
- Jerry W. Smith, retired county sheriff
- David Daley, vice president of the California Cattlemens Association
- Sean P. Earley, president of the California Cattlemens Association
- Kory L. Honea, Butte County Sheriff and Coroner
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]
| “ |
SMELLS - TRAFFIC - NUISANCE - CRIME - ALL THESE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MARIJUANA CULTIVATION. VOTE YES ON H TO ENSURE MARIJUANA CULTIVATION LIMITS ARE RESPECTED AND ENFORCED. Measure H streamlines the enforcement process, stopping violations sooner. MEASURE H CLOSES LOOPHOLES GROWERS USE TO SKIRT THE LAW. Clarified language eliminates "wiggle room." MEASURE H ENDS STALLING TACTICS USED BY GROWERS TO COMPLETE THEIR POT HARVEST AND EVADE FINES. Many growers only came into "compliance" after being cited, because they harvested before their hearings occurred. With Measure H, violations only have to be proven to exist at the time of citation, not at the time of the hearing. MEASURE H ENSURES MORE FINES ARE COLLECTED. Fines are the best tool to stop non-compliant growers. In 2015, $2.9M in citations were issued, but only 6% (about $171,000) were collected due to loopholes, stalling tactics and other dodges. MEASURE H STOPS THE "FREE PASS." MEASURE H DOESN'T CHANGE THE GROWING LIMITS. People can still grow from 50 to 150 square feet of plants for medical use. In 2014, voters approved Measure A by wide margins. This created reasonable rules limiting the cultivation of Medical Marijuana, adequate for patients but not for commercial profiteers. Measure A was very successful in 2015 by reducing the for-profit grows. However, many growers still flaunt the law and violate the rules. MEASURE H STOPS THE SCOFFLAWS. In 2015, Code Enforcement eradicated over 34,000 plants and wrote over 894 citations. Illegal activities discovered by Code Enforcement resulted in 11 arrests by law enforcement, helping rid our area of criminals. Three Honey Oil labs were eradicated. Many neighborhoods were restored to their former tranquility. MEASURE A CLEANED UP NEIGHBORHOODS. MEASURE H MEANS BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF MEASURE A. VOTE YES ON H TO ENSURE MARIJUANA CULTIVATION LIMITS ARE OBEYED. [2] |
” |
Opposition
- Note: Those who opposed Ordinance 4107 and supported the veto referendum effort against it endorsed a "no" vote on Measure H and are referred to as "opponents" in this article.
Opponents
The Inland Cannabis Farmers Association opposed both this ordinance and Measure G and was behind the signature-gathering effort that put both referendums before voters, giving them a chance to reject the ordinances approved by the county board of supervisors.[4]
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:
- Jessica MacKenzie
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| “ |
Whether you are an advocate, an ally, an adversary or a neutral bystander as it relates to cannabis and its evolving place in our communities and our economy, what we can and should all agree on is that each and every one of us is entitled to fair and equitable treatment by our government and its agencies. Measure A is a flawed ordinance. It remains flawed, even with the proposed amendments. These amendments were submitted and requested by one of the constituencies affected by Measure A — but only one. Enforcement. And while enforcement, and the agencies that are tasked with it, are entitled to their say in how well something is working and how it might be improved, they are only one voice. One perspective. And no regulation, rule, ordinance, law, or statute should be developed, amended or revoked based only on one perspective. Enforcement of Measure A has been documented as inconsistent, ineffective, expensive, unevenly applied, and in some cases may even have violated the personal and property rights of your neighbors. It is our firm belief that unless and until the County solicits and considers input from all the stakeholders affected by this Ordinance — farmers, law enforcement, patients, business owners, landlords — and addresses the unequal and inconsistent application and claims of abuse, we should all have to live with the voter-backed version currently in place. We recommend a NO vote and encourage a broader re-evaluation of Measure A. [2] |
” |
Background
June 2016 referendums
In 2014, the voters decided to approve—by a margin of about 60–40—an ordinance passed by the county board of supervisors restricting and governing marijuana cultivation. The ordinance was put on the ballot through a successful veto referendum petition campaign. Voters rejected a competing, more lenient citizen-initiated ordinance by a margin of about 65-35. For details about the two measures on the ballot in 2014, click here.
The issue resurfaced in 2016 when the county board of supervisors passed two ordinances:[5]
- Ordinance 4106, which was designed to explicitly remove marijuana cultivation from the coverage under the county's "Right to Farm Ordinance." The "Right to Farm Ordinance" protects farmers and gardeners from complaints, rules, and laws that conflict with certain agricultural endeavors. Removing marijuana cultivation from this ordinance was designed to prevent pot growers from using the "Right to Farm Ordinance" to combat nuisance complaints and intervention by county officials or law enforcement.
- Ordinance No. 4107, which was designed to amend 2014's Measure A and increase the ease with which provisions and penalties within Measure A could be enforced.
The Inland Cannabis Farmers Association opposed both of these ordinances and backed efforts to collect signatures for veto referendums against each of them. The group was successful, forcing the ordinances onto the ballot for voters to either approve or reject.[6]
2016 initiative petition
The Inland Cannabis Farmers Association is also supporting a separate initiative petition to repeal the county's marijuana restrictions and impose a separate set of regulations.
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful referendum petition campaign.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Butte County Marijuana cultivation restructions referendum Measure H. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Support
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Butte County Elections Office, "June 7, 2016 Primary Election: Local Ballot Measures," accessed April 12, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Butte County Families Against Cannabis Trafficking (FACT), "Home," accessed April 15, 2016
- ↑ Inland Cannabis Farmers Association, "Home," accessed April 15, 2016
- ↑ Butte County Elections Office, "Impartial Analysis for Measure G," accessed April 15, 2016
- ↑ Inland Cannabis Farmers Association, "Overview," accessed April 15, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
