Clearlake >> After much debate, the Clearlake City Council approved the second reading and adoption of a no grow marijuana ordinance at a city council meeting Thursday night with a three to one vote. The ordinance will ban the cultivation of all medical marijuana within the city limits.
“At this point we’re going to take our city back,” said Vice Mayor Gina Fortino-Dickson, “try to restore ourselves to the community we used to be, the community we used to live in.”
Council members in favor of the ordinance see a zero tolerance policy as the only way to effectively create a safe community and eliminate the large grows. “The bottom line for me is how to make our city safe for every citizen that is living within it,” said Mayor Denise Lousalot.
The ordinance has been met with strong opposition, but council members worry about the citizens in favor of zero tolerance who have been unwilling to speak up. Councilman Russell Perdock said he’s spoken with many citizens who are afraid to come to meetings and voice their support for the no grow ordinance. “We do want what’s best for everyone in Clearlake and that includes the people that aren’t growing,” said Perdock. “We do need a regulation and unfortunately I don’t know that we can make everyone happy in this as much as I wish we could.”
However, dissenting Councilman Bruno Sabatier felt that allowing for three marijuana plants would have been an ideal compromise. “If it’s zero, we’re asking them to break the law,” said Sabatier. “If we ask them to compromise with us and to work with us … then they can help us so that we can aim at the large grows and not have to deal with the other parts.”
The other council members found issues with a three plant policy. “The ordinance was proposed because the growing was out of control,” said Perdock. “[Three plants] allows for other plants to be concealed. Zero is zero. There’s no debate over what a zero grow means.”
Sabatier was especially worried about the possible legal implications of the no grow ordinance. since a group was planning action against city even before the ordinance was approved. “If there’s a lawsuit and we go to court we have to put this on hold until the court case is over,” Sabatier said. “If there’s a referendum we have to put it on hold. If we go to referendum we cant go back for another year on a similar topic.” Putting the no grow ordinance on hold means the city would “be stuck for another year with the same ordinance that isn’t working.”
This threat felt too great for Sabatier.
With the approval of the second reading, Terri Larsen, the local representative for the Emerald Growing Association and the Patients Rights Committee, is ready to take legal action, with the help of California NORML, an organization concerned with California cannabis legislation. “They have been poised to come forward with a lawsuit waiting for this type of situation with zero grow,” Larsen said.
Steps to create a referendum have also been taken. “There are already attorneys poised to write the petition with the referendum on the ballot,” said Larsen, who doesn’t anticipate any problems acquiring the signatures needed. Only 286 signatures are required, according to Larsen’s lawyers. “We’re planning on getting 1,000 signatures, because we know it’s easy in Clearlake, everybody supports this … As soon as the signatures are gathered and it’s approved by the county, by the elections office, that effectively stops this ordinance. Also litigation will stop the ordinance immediately.”
Sabatier was further concerned about the ordinance’s vague wording. The document includes “storage” and “any part thereof” in it’s definition of cultivation. Sabatier worries that this wording makes even the possession of medical marijuana illegal, which exposes the city to liability. “I’m not willing to approve something that I believe has legal issues in it and not what I think is going to benefit us,” he said.
Larson too found fault with this section of the ordinance. “The way they’ve written the law with the definition of cultivation is absurd,” she said. “Saying that any dried product is considered a cultivation, that basically means that every person that has medicine in their house is illegal.”
But the other council members did not interpret the definition this way and they argued that it is the intent of the law that matters. “If it’s proven that it was cultivated there, only then will it be abated,” said Fortino-Dickson.
The three assenting council members emphasized that the city was only taking away the ability to grow marijuana, but said people would still have access to their medicine. “While I recognize and I have empathy and compassion for those who need it medically, this is not prohibition,” said Perdock,
Fortino-Dickson expanded upon this. “This is not a criminal ordinance,” she said. “Prop 215 decriminalized the use of medical marijuana. We are not turning people into criminals here. This is not taking away anyone’s right to use medical marijuana.”
Despite Fortino-Dickson’s statements, those against zero grow feel the ordinance does criminalize growers. Larson referenced a man she knows who organically grows very effective medical marijuana. She said that he could help people grow enough with three plants to last them the year. “Instead of embracing someone like that, they’re [the city] making him a pariah and saying he’s a bad guy,” she said.
Larsen also said that she and others were fairly happy with the previous ordinance and its flaws could have easily been fixed. “I think the only problem they had with that ordinance was they didn’t build in enforcement and that’s all they should be doing, just building in the enforcement clause,” she said.
Proponents of zero tolerance don’t agree with this sentiment. “I’m extremely happy with the outcome of the meeting,” said Marie Weathers, a volunteer with the police department and the manager of a mobile home park. “It gives us a chance to start over so that people can do medical grows.”
In spite of heavy opposition, the assenting council members felt the no grow ordinance was their best option. “We’re just trying to live in a safe town, to have a safe place to live, to have a place that’s enjoyable, to coexist with each other,” said Perdock. “This is difficult, this is not something that I’ve enjoyed doing, but action is necessary.”
Jennifer Gruenke can be reached at 900-2019.
