It seems the word “compromise” is being thrown about concerning the urgency marijuana cultivation ordinance. Supervisor Brown voted against the measure because he thought allowing three plants on a residential parcel was a “compromise” with growing zero.
Now Supervisors Farrington and Rushing are disbanding the advisory committee that was to come up with a permanent ordinance, because one of the committee members is a plaintiff in the preliminary injunction to stop implementation of the urgency ordinance. As such, there cannot be a “compromise” when members are so recalcitrant.
Unfortunately that is not how compromise works. It is no compromise if one of the positions is in violation of state law.
The hearing concerning the preliminary injunction is about just that. If the urgency ordinance is in violation of state law, then it has no validity to the claim of compromise. In fact, if true, it the Board of Supervisors who are unwilling to compromise, not the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
State law allows patients to grow six marijuana plants per patient, and more if a doctor or care-giver recommends it. That is the bottom line, and compromise can only go up from that safe harbor, not down.
If the Board of Supervisors is serious about the issue, it will study the law and look to what other counties have done to reconcile the perceived problems.
I recommend looking at the county of Santa Cruz, which has had a marijuana cultivation ordinance on the books since 1992, and revised after California Supreme Court decisions (Santa Cruz County Code 7.122). It allows cultivation, not based on parcels, but on patients, uses square footage of canopy coverage instead of number of plants and allows for greater area when a physician or care-giver recommends it.
It is really that simple. And the good people of Santa Cruz County have left the issue behind them years ago.
So my question is when will the Lake County Board of Supervisors compromise and create an ordinance that meets state law?
Dwain Goforth
Kelseyville
