LAKE COUNTY >> With a low voter turnout, Measure P”s 32 percent and Measure O”s 36.5 percent of votes in their favor have left proponents of the initiatives staggering in disappointment as the county made its choice to stick with the narrowly-approved marijuana regulations provided under Measure N.
Though the measures were wildly different, with Measure O seeking a more fair compromise than Measure N allowed for in terms of marijuana cultivation and Measure P seeking to solidify and protect residents” rights to grow natural, non-genetically engineered plants, a disagreement between the measures” supporters as to why they both tanked has emerged.
Ron Green, a Lake County attorney and co-author of Measure O, and Daniel McLean, another co-author, believe P significantly impacted O”s chances for success on the ballot. But Ron Kiczenski, author of Measure P, just can”t agree with their mathematics. “Measure P hurt us a lot,” Green said. “We didn”t do that much better than Measure P, which is amazing to me and I think a lot of people who voted for P voted no on O, and we didn”t hit the middle ground. Either we didn”t reach the voters or we lost a lot to P; I don”t really know which one it was but I think we lost a lot to P.”
Kiczenski said he would caution people from buying into the split vote idea.
“If you look at the numbers, at the very, very most maybe 500 people that voted for Measure P would have voted no on O,” he said. “And at the very most, 1,000 people who voted for Measure O would have voted against P.”
McLean speculates that without P, the difference in votes could have meant O would have passed, though.
Green believes both casual supporters and proponents of Measure P had at one time or another pushed voters to vote against O. Kiczenski said the Measure P campaign never sought to discourage votes for O, although he does concede that he publicly expressed he would personally be choosing to vote against O.
At the start of campaigning, Kiczenski said he heard Measure O proponents spreading the word that voters could only chose to vote for one initiative, which pushed the Measure P campaign to inform constituents that, in fact, they could vote separately on each measure. Kiczenski also felt the Measure O campaign was responsible for spreading lies about how Measure P”s guarantees for environmental and public health would be managed by the county. In turn, Measure P supporters were pressured to form a rebuttal that compared the measures, Kiczenski said.
Both Green and Kiczenski do agree on one thing though; the Nov. 4 turnout was “pathetic.”
“In smaller turnouts, the more conservative people will come out whereas the more progressive voters will stay home,” Green said. “There was a lot of voter apathy and the turnout was lower than in June, which is very unusual.”
“I thought Measure P would get more than it did but that would have been dependent on a larger than usual voter turnout, and instead we got a pathetic voter turnout,” Kiczenski said.
In the June primaries, 15,548 ballots were cast but the general election only saw 12,593, according to preliminary figures.
On the other end of the spectrum, Monica Rosenthal of the No on O and P campaign said the committee is “delighted with the overwhelming outcome.”
Even that campaign was surprised by the lack of votes in Measure O”s favor. She said she was less surprised by Measure P”s results.
“Measure P was a little undeveloped in its proposal and had too many gaps to actually be considered a serious ordinance. It would have been devastating if it had passed,” Rosenthal said. “But Measure O proponents ran a very strong and well-funded campaign and we expected the numbers to be a little closer.”
A second stand for either campaign is still uncertain, though Kiczenski is a touch more defeatist than Green and McLean.
“I don”t see the point in trying again after that vote,” Kiczenski said. “The voters of this county have spoken and I don”t see how anybody could see it any differently; I think they”re going to hit some walls as this plays out.”
He added that he saw a big exodus of residents after Measure N passed and while he”s expecting an even bigger one with the county-backed ordinance”s survival, he may be joining the migration to more understanding counties.
Green isn”t sure what the Measure O supporters will try their hand at next, or even if they will, but is awaiting the potential vote to legalize recreational marijuana statewide in 2016 to prove the county wrong.
“I think this is a disaster for Lake County; it could have controlled and regulated marijuana growing in a realistic and meaningful manner,” he said. “It could have benefited from legalization, which is coming down the pipe. But otherwise, Humboldt and Mendocino are going to get rich while Lake County will be left in the dust with its antipathy toward marijuana cultivation.”
Though Green hasn”t seen an interim draft of the bill for legalization, he”s heard rumors it will allow for the mom and pop growers to continue cultivation. Washington”s model kept personal, unlicensed grows illegal.
McLean said he doesn”t personally see himself getting involved in another initiative for Lake County cultivation anytime soon, but will wait to see how the effort goes in 2016 and evaluate from there. In the meantime, he expects Measure N to have a noticeable impact on the economy.
“A lot of businesses will notice a significant effect on their bottom line,” he said. “In general, Lake County tends to be behind the times and this is just another example.”
While the Measure P campaign was picked on for its irrelevance to Lake County”s current agricultural needs, Kiczenski argues that”s far from the truth and residents” stubbornly remaining apathetic to the turmoil biotech companies can cause will only agitate those problems down the road.
Kiczenski will acknowledge biotech company”s record of infringing on corn and canola farmers rights don”t directly affect Lake County”s agriculture, but is quick to warn of the troubles the corporations” will cause when hemp becomes the next cash crop. Once the federal government gives its nod to hemp production, Kiczenski fears the biotech companies will take advantage of the useful plant, which can be used in plastic and composite materials, clothing, paper and fuel.
In hindsight, both proponents said they would tweak their initiatives if they had another run.
Kiczenski said his major changes would include more explicitly outlines of the Public Health Department”s responsibility and a definition of “naturally occurring” plants. He said wouldn”t have provided plant limits, a issue that the initiative”s criticizers mocked, because he believes limits on a person”s ability to grow natural plants comes from a discriminative and arbitrary approach to a basic human right.
Green is a little more uncertain as to what changes could have raised more approval.
“Measure O tried to take care of the little guy on one acre or less and at the same time take care of collectives; maybe it was just too much for one measure,” he said. “Perhaps we should have tried to loosen up the rules for collectives instead of worrying about the little guy so much. It”s still my opinion that every patient should be able to grow a few plants outdoors unless they”re creating problems with neighbors, but Measure N punishes everybody for the sins of the few.”
