Jacob Redmond
Well-Known Member
Yuba County's new medical marijuana cultivation ordinance is cost-prohibitive for most patients to abide by and unconstitutionally deprives them of growing their own plants, a lawsuit filed against the county states.
The suit filed late Thursday by four county growers also challenges the Board of Supervisors' approval of the more restrictive pot growing regulations as an urgency ordinance. It says the county didn't identify any circumstances to make the ordinance an urgency matter, which meant it went into effect immediately instead of after a 30-day waiting period.
Woodrow George Powers, Patty Mowery, Theresa Morris and Eric Salerno, a spokesman for Yuba Patients Coalition, are listed as plaintiffs in the suit. It was filed by San Francisco attorney Joe Elford, the chief counsel for Americans With Safe Access, who said additional plaintiffs will be added later.
The suit seeks a court order ruling the ordinance unconstitutional and an injunction preventing its enforcement. It also seeks unspecified court costs and other "just and proper" relief.
Yuba County supervisors earlier this month approved the new ordinance after a series of workshops and hearings attracted vocal opponents and supporters. It came after a group of foothills residents complained of alleged criminal activity and odors centering around some grows.
Russ Brown, Yuba County spokesman, said Friday morning the county counsel's office had not yet reviewed the suit but added officials could not comment on litigation.
"Of course, this particular lawsuit was not unexpected," he said. "If county counsel felt there was the risk of an adverse outcome, the Board of Supervisors would already have been advised of such a possibility."
The previous ordinance, developed in 2012 following a lawsuit by the Yuba County Growers Association, allowed 18 plants on an acre or less and as many as 99 on 20 acres or more. The new one allows no outdoor plants, 12 inside an accessory structure and none in residences.
The lawsuit refers to the Compassionate Use Act approved by voters in 1996 that "envisioned personal cultivation of marijuana by qualified patients for their own medical needs as the method for them to obtain their medicine."
But, the suit notes, Yuba County's ordinance requires patients to build an accessory structure equipped with electricity, and odor control filtration and ventilation systems. It says the ordinance "deprives poor qualified medical marijuana patients of the ability to cultivate the medicine they need, in accordance with state law, because they are unable to afford to pay for the accessory structure."
"Wealthy medical marijuana patients, by sharp contrast, will be able to afford to build this accessory structure in order to obtain their medicine," the suit states.
It claims it is unconstitutional to distinguish "between these similarly qualified medical marijuana patients on the basis of wealth."
The suit also says the county's "peculiar definition of 'cultivation' as including the storage of 'any part' of a marijuana plant, the ordinance may be construed to prohibit even the simplest possession of marijuana by qualified patients."
Regarding the urgency ordinance, the lawsuit states, "The board had previously identified the same or similar risks of outdoor cultivation of marijuana and cultivation of marijuana inside residences in the introduced regular ordinance as were expressed in the urgency findings."
The urgency action effectively blocked opponents from seeking a voter referendum, petitions for which had already been prepared for circulation. Opponents still have the option of collecting signatures for a voter initiative, which involves a different set of requirements.
Yuba County, along with other jurisdictions in the state, is using as legal precedent a failed challenge by medical marijuana users against a Live Oak law that prohibits marijuana cultivation in that city.
News Moderator: Jacob Redmond 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Lawsuit takes on Yuba County pot ordinance - Appeal-Democrat: News
Author: Eric Vodden
Contact: evodden@appealdemocrat.com
Photo Credit: None Found
Website: Appeal-Democrat
The suit filed late Thursday by four county growers also challenges the Board of Supervisors' approval of the more restrictive pot growing regulations as an urgency ordinance. It says the county didn't identify any circumstances to make the ordinance an urgency matter, which meant it went into effect immediately instead of after a 30-day waiting period.
Woodrow George Powers, Patty Mowery, Theresa Morris and Eric Salerno, a spokesman for Yuba Patients Coalition, are listed as plaintiffs in the suit. It was filed by San Francisco attorney Joe Elford, the chief counsel for Americans With Safe Access, who said additional plaintiffs will be added later.
The suit seeks a court order ruling the ordinance unconstitutional and an injunction preventing its enforcement. It also seeks unspecified court costs and other "just and proper" relief.
Yuba County supervisors earlier this month approved the new ordinance after a series of workshops and hearings attracted vocal opponents and supporters. It came after a group of foothills residents complained of alleged criminal activity and odors centering around some grows.
Russ Brown, Yuba County spokesman, said Friday morning the county counsel's office had not yet reviewed the suit but added officials could not comment on litigation.
"Of course, this particular lawsuit was not unexpected," he said. "If county counsel felt there was the risk of an adverse outcome, the Board of Supervisors would already have been advised of such a possibility."
The previous ordinance, developed in 2012 following a lawsuit by the Yuba County Growers Association, allowed 18 plants on an acre or less and as many as 99 on 20 acres or more. The new one allows no outdoor plants, 12 inside an accessory structure and none in residences.
The lawsuit refers to the Compassionate Use Act approved by voters in 1996 that "envisioned personal cultivation of marijuana by qualified patients for their own medical needs as the method for them to obtain their medicine."
But, the suit notes, Yuba County's ordinance requires patients to build an accessory structure equipped with electricity, and odor control filtration and ventilation systems. It says the ordinance "deprives poor qualified medical marijuana patients of the ability to cultivate the medicine they need, in accordance with state law, because they are unable to afford to pay for the accessory structure."
"Wealthy medical marijuana patients, by sharp contrast, will be able to afford to build this accessory structure in order to obtain their medicine," the suit states.
It claims it is unconstitutional to distinguish "between these similarly qualified medical marijuana patients on the basis of wealth."
The suit also says the county's "peculiar definition of 'cultivation' as including the storage of 'any part' of a marijuana plant, the ordinance may be construed to prohibit even the simplest possession of marijuana by qualified patients."
Regarding the urgency ordinance, the lawsuit states, "The board had previously identified the same or similar risks of outdoor cultivation of marijuana and cultivation of marijuana inside residences in the introduced regular ordinance as were expressed in the urgency findings."
The urgency action effectively blocked opponents from seeking a voter referendum, petitions for which had already been prepared for circulation. Opponents still have the option of collecting signatures for a voter initiative, which involves a different set of requirements.
Yuba County, along with other jurisdictions in the state, is using as legal precedent a failed challenge by medical marijuana users against a Live Oak law that prohibits marijuana cultivation in that city.
News Moderator: Jacob Redmond 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Lawsuit takes on Yuba County pot ordinance - Appeal-Democrat: News
Author: Eric Vodden
Contact: evodden@appealdemocrat.com
Photo Credit: None Found
Website: Appeal-Democrat
