Siskiyou County, California, Medical Marijuana Cultivation Enforcement Reform Referendum, Measure T (June 2016)
| Measure T: Siskiyou County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Enforcement Reform 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 Siskiyou County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Siskiyou County, California |
A medical marijuana cultivation regulation measure was on the ballot for Siskiyou County voters in Siskiyou County, California, on June 7, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of changing the methods of enforcing the county's ordinance governing medical marijuana cultivation in order to make medical marijuana cultivation laws easier to enforce. |
| A no vote was a vote against changing the methods of enforcing the county's ordinance governing medical marijuana cultivation, leaving the existing procedures for enforcement in place. |
Election results
| Siskiyou County, Measure T | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 9,741 | 60.08% | ||
| No | 6,473 | 39.92% | ||
- Election results from Siskiyou County Elections Office
Overview
What were measures T and U?
Measures T and U were both referendums designed to prevent the enactment of further restrictions on marijuana cultivation. The measures targeted county ordinances designed to further restrict marijuana cultivation and allow easier enforcement of county laws governing and regulating marijuana cultivation. They were both put on the ballot through signature petition campaigns sponsored by the same group of marijuana cultivation advocates and were designed to give voters a chance to overturn the county ordinances by rejecting them at the ballot. Thus, the sponsors of the referendum petition campaigns that put Measures T and U on the ballot are advocating for a "no" vote. Measures T and U generally have the same supporters and opponents and have the same issue at stake. "Yes" votes on Measures T and U were votes in favor of harsher restrictions on marijuana cultivation designed to cut down on the number of growing operations. "No" votes on Measures T and U were votes against harsher restrictions and in favor of allowing the same amount or increased marijuana growing activity.
The November 2016 initiative
The pro-marijuana cultivation petitioners behind Measures T and U also launched an initiative petition campaign to put their own set of less restrictive marijuana cultivation regulations on the ballot before county voters in November 2016. These sponsors, who advocate for "no" votes on Measures T and U, called this initiative a "plan B" in case Measures T and U don't work.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[2]
| “ |
Shall Ordinance 15-19 which establishes new limits, conditions, and restrictions related to the cultivation of medical marijuana be adopted? [3] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Siskiyou County Counsel:
| “ |
This measure is a referendum on Siskiyou County Ordinance 15-18, an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 2015 that changed the code enforcement procedures related to the Siskiyou County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance (MMCO). If approved by a majority of the voters, this ordinance will become a different means by which the County may enforce the provisions of the MMCO. Existing law provides that violations of the MMCO are heard by the Siskiyou County Planning Commission, sitting as the Administrative Order Hearing Board. This measure would allow the Board of Supervisors or its designee to conduct hearings addressing violations of the MMCO, Existing law does not provide administrative civil penalties for violations of the MMCO. This measure would allow for administrative civil penalties of up to $500 per day for the first violation and up to $1,000 per day for subsequent violations of the MMCO. Existing law does not address licensing of marijuana growers. This measure would require all persons cultivating marijuana to obtain a license, and the requirements for such a license may be no less strict that the licensing requirement of State law. Existing law does not address the mobile delivery of marijuana. This measure would prohibit the mobile delivery of marijuana in unincorporated Siskiyou County. This measure establishes accelerated timelines for hearings and abatement actions compared to the County’s normal code enforcement process to address the short timeframes for cultivation and harvest or marijuana. Existing law exempts from the definition of “marijuana plant” any plant that is less than twelve inches tall. This measure eliminates this exemption and any marijuana plant is counted as a marijuana plan regardless of height. Existing law allows a person to live in a recreational vehicle for up to two years while cultivating marijuana, as otherwise permitted by County law. This measure eliminates this allowance and requires a person cultivating marijuana to reside in an occupied, legally established residence that is connected to an approved wastewater disposal system.[3] |
” |
| —Siskiyou County Counsel[4] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
- Note: Those who supported the county ordinances in question and endorse a "yes" vote on Measures U and T are referred to as "supporters" in this article.
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[5]
- Siskiyou County Supervisor Grace Bennett
- Siskiyou County Supervisor Brandon A. Criss
- Siskiyou County Supervisor Ray A. Haupt
- Siskiyou County Supervisor Michael N. Kobseff
- Siskiyou County Supervisor Ed Valenzuela
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[6]
| “ |
Vote “Yes” to affirm Ordinance 15-18 and the enforcement process for cultivation of medical marijuana. This ordinance provides a fair and effective way to enforce the laws of Siskiyou County related to growing medical marijuana. As we saw last year, while law-abiding citizens have respected the marijuana laws and the rights of neighboring property owners, the laws we have enacted to provide structure and standards for growing medical marijuana have been frequently abused or ignored by marijuana profiteers. The consequence has been infringement upon property rights of neighbors as grows well in excess of the County’s plant limits have been cultivated, harvested, and sold for untold profit before the County’s cumbersome enforcement process could do anything about it. This new ordinance applies only to the enforcement of the Siskiyou County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance. All other code enforcement procedures are unaffected by this process that is designed to deal with the unique circumstances and short timelines of addressing illegal marijuana grows. While the previous code enforcement process may be cumbersome and time consuming, it exists to guarantee due process and err on the side of protecting peoples’ property rights and liberties. Unfortunately, illegal marijuana grows present a new and unique challenge, and those who seek to thwart marijuana limits and exploit the laws that otherwise protect neighboring property owners have taken advantage of the system to produce marijuana without limit. Vote “yes” on Measure T to make sure locally-tailored limitations can be enforced.[3] |
” |
Opposition
- Note: Those who collected signatures to put Measures U and T on the ballot targeting the county ordinances in question and advocated for "no" votes on Measures U and T are referred to as "opponents" in this article.
Opponents
A Vote No on Measures T and U campaign was formed to collect signatures for the veto referendum petitions that landed Measure T and U on the ballot and to urge voters to vote "no."[7]
Arguments against
The Vote No on Measures T and U campaign facebook page featured the following arguments against the measures:[8]
| “ |
VOTING NO, HELPS PLATFORM STRUCTURE TO CREATE FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS THAT OUR LOCAL AREA IS IN MUCH NEED. VOTING NO, PROTECTS YOUR RIGHTS AS A MEDICAL PATIENT, voted in by California 1996 VOTING NO, PROTECTS YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, VOTING NO, TAKES BACK YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VOTING NO, PROTECTS THE LEGAL COMPLIANT GROWER VOTING NO, WILL HELP ENFORCEMENT RID ILLEGAL GROWS ON PUBLIC LANDS, FOCUS ON ILLEGAL, NON-COMPLIANT GROWS, PROTECT TRUE MEDICAL PATIENTS[3] |
” |
Campaign ad
| VOTE NO ON MEASURES T AND U IN SISKIYOU COUNTY video |
Official arguments
No official arguments in opposition to Measures T and U were submitted for inclusion on the ballot.
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 Siskiyou County marijuana cultivation Measure U and T. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ Facebook, "Vote No on Measure T and U," accessed May 26, 2016
- ↑ Siskiyou County, California, "Measure T Resolution," accessed May 24, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Siskiyou County, California, "Impartial Analysis: Measure T," accessed May 24, 2016
- ↑ Siskiyou County Elections Office, "Argument in favor of Measure T," accessed May 27, 2016
- ↑ Siskiyou County Elections Office, "Argument in favor of Measure T," accessed May 27, 2016
- ↑ Vote No on Measures T and U, "Home," accessed May 26, 2016
- ↑ Facebook, "Vote No on Measures T and U," accessed May 26, 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 |
