Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2015 • City bans medical marijuana grows; growers threaten referendum

Publisher’s note: This story originally appeared in the Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2015 edition of the Lassen County Times.

No medical marijuana grows will be allowed within the city of Susanville.

After more than a year of deliberations by the Susanville City Council, the Susanville Planning Commission and several meetings between the medical marijuana growers and the chief of police, the council unanimously waived the second reading and approved a resolution that would amend the city’s zoning regulations and ban the cultivation of medical marijuana within the city limits at its Wednesday, Dec. 2 meeting.

The ordinance will take effect Jan. 2, 2016.

Several growers continued to question the wisdom and compassion of the council’s decision.

An unidentified woman called for an investigation into the city council’s motives in approving the ban, questioning a comment made last month by Councilmember Lino Callegari that some residents do not attend city council meetings to let their opinions be known — sometimes they call the councilmembers.

“So I ask you,” the woman said, “are there some kind of back-door deals going on here that the people don’t know about?”

She said the ban would “discriminate against the elderly and the disabled by taking away the alternative medicine, that being medical marijuana, by their refusal to comply … ” with the state’s medical marijuana laws.

“Your law is not consistent with SB 420, Article 2.5 of the Medical Marijuana Program,” she said. “Your law is to totally and completely ban medical grows altogether … By (adopting an ordinance that does) not complying (with the state laws), you are forcing these patients to turn to criminals and become criminals themselves … ”

Anne Westerbeke said the council’s ban would harm medical marijuana users and the city may be liable should someone file a legal action — “maybe through NORMAL, maybe through Citizens for Safe Access,” and she asked the city’s attorney to comment.

Jared Hancock, the city administrator, answered Westerbeke’s question. He said the city could be sued by anyone for anything, but a similar zoning ordinance banning medical marijuana cultivation in the city of Live Oak has been upheld by both the superior and appellate courts. He said he believes the ordinance is on solid legal footing and would survive a court challenge.

She said the city of Susanville has not seen the problems that would warrant such a ban and residents have not appeared at the public meetings asking for the ban.

“So you’re doing this out of your own bias is the only thing we can figure out,” Westerbeke said.

She said the growers may seek a local referendum to put the matter on the ballot to be decided by city residents.

Michael Mankins again complained the city has not provided any crime statistics to justify the need for the ordinance. He said the city’s website lists only six marijuana crimes in the past six years and none are related to medical marijuana grows. But he pointed out there are many more instances of illegal drug use such as methamphetamine (41) and prescription drugs (in the 70s).

“Those are real issues,” he said, “not whether we’re growing a few plants in our backyards. I realize there’s nothing I’m going to say that’s going to change your mind. It is what it is. A referendum and a special vote is going to cost you about $30,000 to $40,000.”

Mankins said he hoped the city had ensured it was on solid legal footing before moving forward with the ordinance.

“What are you going to go after next?” Mankins asked. “When we started this thing, we were told about 99 plant grows that didn’t exist. We were told about the crime. It doesn’t exist … You’re going to ban it, and you’re going to hurt people in this community, but you’re going to do it legally. Good job.”