City memos re water rate petition

These two memos were created by FCS Group and City of Grants Pass Staff.  Staff seem to to have chosen only one sentence in one petition to give to FCS to analyze, and then wrote their memo from FCS figures.  They gave us a lot to argue with as well as ammunition in FCS' rate charts to write the leaflet in the previous post.

  

City Hikes Water Rates 4.5 times inflation yearly

A leaflet being passed to the public on the street and elsewhere, created from FCS rate charts and our own, based on their figures.  Click on the page to get a larger photo.

Price Sewer Fairly: Petition to the Grants Pass City Council

(Petition Statement, Signature Side)

We, the undersigned residents and business owners of Grants Pass, want our sewer service to be priced fairly, as a subscription service, without unit rates.  Debt service would be a separate, fixed fee and end when the debt is paid.  Rates would rise only by actual inflation of the previous year’s expenses from the year before, not the Consumer Price Index.

This is an advisory petition to the Grants Pass City Council, to request that this matter be discussed and acted upon at a City Council Meeting.  It is not a petition for the ballot. 

Signers must be city residents, landlords, or business owners.

(Statement of Points, backside)

Price Sewer Fairly

Council, please eliminate unit charges on our sewer service, raise the rate only by actual expenses of the previous year over the year before, and assign the plant’s debt service to a fixed fee that ends when the debt is paid.

          We are currently charged unit charges for sanitary sewer service, also known as wastewater treatment, based on the average number of units of water per month used the previous winter.  We should be charged only a subscription base rate, without unit charges, and any inflation of the rates should be based on a rise in actual expenses of the plant of the previous year from the year before, not the Consumer Price Index.

Unit charges are unfair to large households, many of whom are poor and must share housing expenses, and/or are young families with children.  People who can afford to live alone or as couples generally do so. 

Charging unit prices only subsidizes the rich and punishes the poor and those with more children for the water we use for household uses.  It is more just and better for the workings and finances of the plant to have the well-off subsidize sewer for poor people and for larger families who raise children who will pay taxes to Social Security and Medicare.

This service benefits all people equally, so households should pay equally, as should businesses and governments, depending on their water service size class.  Cities provide sanitary sewer service and mandate the use thereof within city limits to control the diseases that can result from contact with sewage.  We treat our wastewater to drinking water standards set by the federal government before returning that water to the river for the same reason and to protect the life in our river. 

We cannot control the amount of bodily waste we produce, and there is no reason why we should.  We have some control over the amount of water we use, and that can be a problem for sewage treatment if people are charged high sewage bills for winter water use.  Our waste requires a lot of water to carry it down the pipe to the wastewater treatment plant.  If people are using the toilet several times before they flush it and otherwise being very careful about their water use, the pipes can clog, interrupting service, causing trouble, and creating extra expense.  Having more concentrated waste may also make it harder and cost more to clean it to drinking water level.

Likewise, if people become very careful about their water use because of high water unit charges and wastewater unit charges on top of that, the city will collect less money from unit charges and have to raise the sewer rates on everyone.  Everyone will have to pay more for the same service. 

To start paying for the debt service on the ongoing renovation of our sewage treatment plant, the City raised the rates 7% on both the base rate and unit charges, assigning half of a fixed cost to variable revenue, dependent on winter water use.  It is set to be raised 7% again next year and the year after.  That debt service should be paid with a fixed fee for a very fixed cost, which is not affected by inflation.

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener         541-955-9040            rycke@gardener.com

Price Water to Sell: Petition to the Grants Pass City Council

(Petition Statement, signature side)

We, the undersigned, want our city water to be priced to sell it, not to ration it, so we can use all that we need for all beneficial uses at a low price that stays low.  We would assign all fixed overhead costs into fixed base rates.  Debt service would be paid by a fixed fee and sunset when the debt is paid.  Only marginal unit costs would be assigned to a single unit rate.  Base and unit rates would rise only by actual inflation of costs of the previous year from the year before, not the Consumer Price Index.

This is an advisory petition to the Grants Pass City Council, to request that this matter be discussed and acted upon at a City Council Meeting.  It is not a petition for the ballot. 

Signers must be city residents, landlords, or business owners.

(Back side statement of points)

We Must Price Water to Sell

Council, please pay our water overhead costs with a fixed base rate and debt service fee, and pay only marginal unit costs, those that vary with the number of units produced, in unit rates.  This would provide the lowest, most stable rates, and allow us to use as much water as we need to maintain our properties and keep us all safe from wildfire.

Water is not precious, it is vital.  Precious things are rare and are considered luxuries.  Water is the most abundant resource on Earth.  It is a basic necessity, the basis of life and source of biological wealth.  With high-priced water, there is less life in our city and we have less wealth.

Cleaned fresh water is vital for public health and safety. We must stop rationing it by price.  Water must be priced for all to be able to use for the benefit of all, at the lowest rates that will pay for providing water to each customer for all good uses, particularly watering.

West of the Rockies, we need to water our cities to keep them and the country around them safe to live in.  We live in natural semi-desert, with a cold ocean that doesn’t readily evaporate.  Semi-desert is far more dangerous than real desert, as it grows more fuel to dry out and burn, creating firestorms.  Green grass doesn’t burn; nor do cities full of it.

Low-priced water made Grants Pass clean, green, and safe from wildfire for decades, by allowing everyone with property to grow food and maintain property for beauty and safety.  Into the ‘80s, water service was cheap and we used it freely, as did most cities around the developed world.

Grants Pass city water kept the surrounding countryside moister and safer in summer as well, as the whole city pumped millions of gallons out of our river, into the air and all over plants and the ground, with sprinklers.  Much of it evaporated, to spread outward through the countryside, blowing uphill and upstream with our prevailing west wind, sharing it with other places downwind, making rain to fill our creeks, rivers, and aquifers, making the whole area green and safe from wildfire. 

In the ‘80s, we started being told that fresh water is a scarce, precious resource which we must save--by all means, in all places.  We bought it at the time, never thinking about fire.  Activists talked to city councils, and cities started rationing water by price, lowering base rates, hiking unit prices and even creating tiered rates, higher unit prices for higher use, the opposite of normal unit pricing.

This system is designed to save water, not to sell it.  It doesn’t pay the whole overhead, the fixed costs of owning and running the plant, with a fixed base rate. It pays much of the overhead with high unit rates.  The easiest use to cut is watering.  Less watering doesn’t pay the overhead, so the city raises base and unit rates, further suppressing use, and raises both prices again, in a continual upward-ratcheting spiral of every household paying more to use less water. 

California cities led the way in price rationing, going brown first, sowing drought and reaping wildfire in the last decade, as dry forests, scrub and grassland burn right through dry cities.  We are only 10 years behind them in ratcheting our water prices ever upward, following them into the inferno.

We must stop this upward spiral of water rates and dangerous dry ugliness, and reform our water rate system closer to how we paid in the 1980s.  

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener         541-955-9040            rycke@gardener.com

"City Council acting against litter"

MADELINE SHANNON/The Daily Courier 

"City Council acting against litter" was the headline in the Daily Courier August 19th:  http://www.thedailycourier.com/articles/2016/08/19/community/news00001.txt.  The picture on the article showed a plastic cup in uncut dry grass, a perfect marriage of the twin problems of weeds and litter.

Despite the headline, no action was taken.  City Manager brought the issue to the Council for future consideration and presented a number of ways to fight litter.  Not one of them involved enforcing the present nuisance trash and weed codes against those in control of property.  Some of them involved the city paying for litter cleanup.

He did tell them that we have a $500 fine against people who drop litter.  At the September 7th meeting, I told the Council that a previous Council had reduced the fine for dogs running loose from $500 to $75 so the police would actually write tickets.  No cop wants to write a $500 ticket for a petty nuisance violation.

I also told them to drop the 20% admin fee on abatement of properties, because it is a disincentive to enforcement of the code before abatement becomes necessary.  Police should be warning residents and property owners about litter and weeds before the problem becomes overwhelming and a health or safety hazard; otherwise the city is just breeding health and safety hazards.  Every property that has to be abated is a failure of the City to enforce the code before it gets that bad, and it should not reward itself for such neglect.

Later, in matters from Council and Staff, Council President Dan DeYoung said that reducing the littering fine is a good idea.  City police Chief Bill Landis defended his Community Service Officers, saying that they had been doing numerous abatements, hauling out huge amounts of trash, and they'd asked the City for another $35,000 to do it.

At this week's meeting on the 21st, I will answer Chief Landis.  He doesn't get that the purpose of having a nuisance code and officers to enforce it is not to have city workers cleaning up and hauling out huge amounts of trash; it is to keep properties from getting to the point where the City has to do so.  

If the police have to ask for $35,000 more to abate properties, abatement is not profitable enough even to support itself, even with a 20% admin fee on top.  The people being targeted are too poor to pay for the cleanup or don't want to spend the money.  Big property owners with vacant land and big businesses get no enforcement or abatement, judging by the look of the city and where abatement notices are posted.

On the other hand, if police were trained to notice weeds and litter while answering calls, and warn property controllers of all sorts that they are violating  city code and how weeds and litter attract thieves and trespassers, passing such warnings on to Community Service code enforcement to follow up on, most people would clean up the nuisance without any further enforcement or need for abatement.  Most people will do what a uniformed officer tells them to do, if it is easily done.  It doesn't make the city any money, but it also doesn't cost anywhere near as much as abatement that never gets paid for.

Contact your City Councilor about having regular police actively enforcing our property maintenance nuisance codes anytime they see litter and/or seeding or flowering weeds.

We are all living “outdoors” in Grants Pass

We are all living “outdoors” in Grants Pass, according to the definition of “indoors” in the Homegrown and Medical Marijuana nuisance code Chapter 5.72.  It disallows windows, without even saying the word:

“Indoors/Indoor Structure” means within a fully enclosed and secure structure that complies with the Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) or Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) as adopted by the City of Grants Pass, which has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extending from the foundation/slab to the roof.  The structure must be secure against unauthorized entry, accessible only through one or more lockable doors, and constructed of solid materials that cannot easily be broken through, such as 2X4 or larger wood studs covered with 3/8” or thicker weather-resistant siding or equivalent materials.  Plastic sheeting, regardless of gauge, or similar products, do not satisfy this requirement.”

This definition makes the “meat” of the ordinance deceptive, as people rarely read definitions, which are usually fairly obvious and at least fairly close to common usage.  I know of no residences that have no windows.  And yet, when the Daily Courier told us about this ordinance, it said only that greenhouses are not allowed.  And one of our City Councilors said that we can grow a plant in the corner of our dining room.

But even if we build the special grow house contemplated in this definition, which requires permits, fees, and electricians like our mayor to safely set up all the lights, fans, and filters needed to grow indoors and keep all odor inside, we run afoul of the forbidden signs of cultivation:

5.72.030  Homegrown and Medical Marijuana Subject to Regulation:

A.   Marijuana cultivators shall be allowed to cultivate, produce, or process homegrown marijuana and medical marijuana subject to the following conditions:

1.   Cultivation, production, processing or storage of marijuana must be in full compliance with all applicable provisions of OMMA and Measure 91.

2.   All cultivation, curing, drying, storage, production, or processing of marijuana shall be conducted indoors….

3.  Cultivation, production, processing or storage of marijuana shall not be perceptible from the exterior of the household, housing unit, and/or indoor structure including but not limited to:

a. Common visual observation, which would prohibit any form of signage;”

One needs only to read or hear about the definition above to realize by “common visual observation” that a new, solidly built, windowless building in a residential yard is likely a grow house, and is thus a sign of cultivation for thieves, who often pay more attention to the law than people who would obey it.  Far from keeping your pot safe from thieves, it opens you to home-invasion robbery year-round to get the keys to the grow house where all the pot must be grown, processed and stored, rather than simply sneaking into your back yard to steal some buds just before harvest. 

It’s like building a giant, wooden safe in your yard and daring thieves to break in.  Faced with such a rich prize, some might choose the easy, quiet way of making you hand over the key.  If you report pot theft, the police will cite you for letting your cultivation show.

But this provision is just the beginning of the mischief in this ordinance.  It continues:

“b. Odors, smells, fragrances, or other olfactory stimulus;

c. Light pollution, glare or brightness that disturbs the repose of another;

d. Undue vehicular or foot traffic, including excess parking within a residential zone; and

e. Excessive noise that disturbs the repose of another in violation of GPMC 5.12.110.”

Police would come into your yard to verify odor or lack thereof coming from your house, requiring a search warrant anytime a neighbor complains about security lights, which can be disturbing to a neighbor’s repose; “undue” traffic and “excess” parking; or excessive noise, like loud music or laughter, or a barking dog. 

It appears that justifying search warrants is the main purpose of this ordinance.  Any of these ordinary annoyances can be used to check to see if you are growing in your house, after checking your backyard to see if pot is being grown in the light of the sun.  Even so, they have to check to see if it is being processed or stored in a place secure enough to be considered “indoors.”  While doing so, they must check to see if you are obeying the possession limits in the homegrown exception to Measure 91’s licensing rules or medical marijuana rules.  They’ll tear your house apart to find your pot and pot products and weigh them.

Fortunately, our legislature protected homegrowers from this ridiculous ordinance before we ever passed Measure 91, by reserving the regulation of seed crops and their products to the state, when they passed Senate Bill 863 in 2013, which forbids local government or their voters from enacting or enforcing local laws that inhibit or prevent the production of seed crops.  SB 863 was codified as ORS 633.733, its legislative intent, and ORS 633.738, the “meat” of the Seed Bill. 

Answering my lawsuit against the city’s ordinance, the city’s lawyers have said that the Seed Bill is only about GMOs, since it was inspired by Jackson County’s GMO ban, which was circulating for the ballot at the time.  They ignore its legislative intent, spelled out in ORS 633.733.  That’s because they are unable to show any permission in state law to regulate unlicensed homegrown marijuana.

Section 89 of House Bill 3400 (2015) amended the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act to allow local governments to “reasonably” regulate medical marijuana in particular ways.  But the above provisions are not reasonable, starting with their definition of “indoors,” and this code has no relation to the permissions given in HB 3400.

January 8, 2016 protest leaflet.  Published on GardenGrantsPass.blogspot.com.  Sign the petition at https://www.change.org/p/grants-pass-city-manager-aaron-cubic-leave-pot-growers-alone-target-litter-and-weeds.

Read the ordinance at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html

Support the lawsuit at www.GoFundMe.com/HomegrownDefense 

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener          541-955-9040        rycke@gardener.com

“No” is Not a Mandate

The legislature erred in allowing local governments in counties where the “no” vote on Measure 91 was more than 55% to ban licensed cannabusinesses and make those who disagree refer their ban to the ballot.  The writers of Measure 91 erred in requiring that cannabis and its products must be kept out of sight of public places.  The writers of Measure 91 and the legislature erred in allowing local governments to regulate cannabis.  In doing so, each led local governments astray and caused them to err in writing local ordinances that are causing otherwise unnecessary litigation and alienating their voters.

Only a “yes” vote is a mandate for a specific proposal or at least the general idea behind it.  To vote against a measure does not always mean that one opposes the general idea, but only that one does not like that particular proposal. 

After campaigning for previous pot measures, I campaigned and voted against Measure 91 because I saw a lot of mischief that could be caused by police who are against legalization, in the tight personal possession limits and draconian penalties for those who violate the licensing provisions one is subject to for having too much product in one’s home.  I thought the tax was too high, the possession limits were too low, and that the measure seemed like it was written by corporations who wanted to take over our cannabis business. 

There were many people who opposed any taxes and regulation on their herb, in this and previous measures that were a lot more permissive.  Others profit from the marijuana black market and could see an end coming to their happy, unregulated, illicit business.  I was accused of being a dealer just because I opposed Measure 91.

But because the legislature took 55% county “no” votes for a local mandate against licensed production and selling, local governments took that attitude and ran with it, proclaiming that they had a mandate to ban cannabusinesses even if they didn’t have the full 55% against the measure, and even to ban homegrown, which Measure 91 and the legislature protected against local regulation.

The provision in Measure 91 that cannabis plants and its products must be kept out of sight of public places gave some local governments the idea that there is something inherently scandalous or dangerous in other people being able to see or even smell it.  That was another reason that people like me voted against it.  What’s the point of making it legal if one has to hide it?

Likewise, the OLCC, whose liquor business competes with cannabis, decided that, although people are not allowed to drink alcohol in public but are allowed to drink it in bars, the same could not be allowed for cannabis, declaring that businesses devote to cannabis are public places that one cannot consume the product in.  We can drink in bars and even in parks where a bar is set up, and smoke cigars in cigar shops, but we can consume cannabis only in private homes.

Measure 91 was supposed to regulate marijuana like liquor, which is regulated only by the state.  So the writers and the legislature both erred when they allowed any local regulation of cannabis growers, producers and sellers, particularly because most local officials are steeped in anti-pot rhetoric which had not yet been an issue in local campaigns.  After Measure 91 passed, the House in particular took notice of the will of the people and worked to make it work for the people who passed it.  The Senate was less responsive to the will of the majority, and more responsive so to cities and counties who wanted to control and tax it themselves. 

Many cities and some counties started before the election to pass taxes and regulations on cannabis before Measure 91 passed, thinking that they could get their taxes and regulations grandfathered into the law.  But governments cannot tax or regulate an illegal substance, and Measure 91 forbids local taxes in one provision, while another revoked all conflicting local ordinances.  Enacting such ordinances was unlawful, ignorant behavior on their part, and they should not have been rewarded with permission to reasonably regulate it locally, having shown that they would do so unreasonably. 

What some cities and counties have passed since shows how unreasonable and unlawful they can be, such as Grants Pass and Central Point passing “Homegrown and Recreational Marijuana,” which presumes to regulate homegrown, which is not subject to regulation beyond the exemptions written into Measure 91, and allows growing cannabis only “indoors,” which they define as a building without windows.

But local governments who took a majority “no” vote as a mandate against cannabis erred most of all, forgetting that there are other measures that they need its “yes” voters to pass.  Many of the anti-pot “no” voters on Measure 91 have also been dependable “no” votes on any new taxes but pot taxes and other taxes they would not pay. 

Almost nobody votes for more money for law enforcement if they think that they might be targeted by it.  Cannabis consumers have mostly voted against general law enforcement levies every time, a quiet but large minority, maybe even a majority, of “no” voters, of which anti-government fanatics are only the noisy, visible minority.  But they voted “yes” on funding Animal Control in Josephine County, which does not threaten them or cost much.  Continuing the war on marijuana locally won’t get them to vote “yes” on new taxes for local law enforcement.  Only a government that doesn’t make war on them will get their trust and their votes.

November 18, 2015 protest leaflet.  Published on GardenGrantsPass.blogspot.com.  Sign the petition at https://www.change.org/p/grants-pass-city-manager-aaron-cubic-leave-pot-growers-alone-target-litter-and-weeds.

Read the ordinance at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html 

Support the lawsuit at http://www.gofundme.com/HomegrownDefense 

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener          541-955-9040        rycke@gardener.com

Come to the City Goal-Setting Forum

Walgreens' front entrance

November is when our City sets its goals for the coming year.  This was started by our present Manager, Aaron Cubic, soon after he started working for Grants Pass.  To begin a process that stretches over several days, he starts with a citizen’s forum, which Councilors may but generally do not attend. 

The first year, many people showed up, full of hope for change.  Opinions were all over the map.  Change didn’t happen.

Discouraged, I didn’t go to the second year’s goal-setting forum, and even skipped the citizens’ forum for the police and fire performance auditors in 2013. 

No one attended the auditors’ forum, but they saw the litter and weeds in this town and said that the city must enforce its landscape maintenance codes, saying, “enforcement by complaint isn’t enforcement, doesn’t work, and isn’t fair to the citizens, who expect police to enforce the law.”

So I went to the Citizens Goal-Setting Forum last year, determined to push home that message. I was the only one there for 10 minutes, and then was joined by Arden McConnell.  Mr. Cubic and staff picked our brains for an hour, and Arden agreed with me that the litter and weeds need to be cleaned up.  But again, change didn’t happen.  We were only two.

This year, Manager Cubic has been making a point at the end of every City Council meeting to mention the City’s Citizen’s Goal-Setting Forum on November 12^th at 6:00 PM in City Council Chambers (behind City Hall at 5^th and A Streets).  He apparently wants more people to show up. 

Please come to the forum and give him more people, speaking with one voice on at least one topic, litter and weeds.  Please also tell him to lay off Homegrown and Medical Marijuana growers and follow state law, and whatever else you think he needs to change.

I may present my paper petition signatures to leave pot growers alone and target litter and weeds, leaving the online petition at Change.org for another time.  If you sign the online petition, you will get email updates on both issues, usually not more than once a week.

Please come to the Citizens’ Goal Setting Forum and tell our Manager what you think the city should do this year.

October 24, 2015 protest leaflet.  Published on GardenGrantsPass.blogspot.com.  Sign the petition at https://www.change.org/p/grants-pass-city-manager-aaron-cubic-leave-pot-growers-alone-target-litter-and-weeds

Read Chapter 5.72 at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html

Support the lawsuit at www.GoFundMe.com/HomegrownDefense 

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener          541-955-9040        rycke@gardener.com

The City wants your “Hot Spots”

At the October 7^th City Council meeting, a gentleman read a letter from his wife about the trashiness of our city parks.  She had been avoiding taking her young children to them because of the litter, but someone told her that the little park downtown at 3^rd and G was pretty clean.  She walked down there with her 3-year-old boy and 18-month girl, and immediately saw transients hanging out right next to the play area, smoking and drinking, with their dogs, and butts everywhere.  The boy wouldn’t let her turn around, so she had to keep them away from the cigarette butts and the dogs for a while before they could leave.

At the end of the meeting, during matters from Council, Dan DeYoung said, “I know that people like Rycke don’t think I listen to her, but...” and proceeded to tell us that he had been talking to the City Manager about getting work crews to clean up particular “hot spots” for litter, to which I muttered, “How about enforcing the law?”  He said, “I’m sure that someone here could help us with that,” and the Council waved at me.

We could supply them with a long list of places that desperately need cleaning, but why should we?  They come in two varieties: those owned by the city and those owned by others.  The City should be cleaning its parks and other properties as a matter of course; it should be enforcing its code on others through its police.  As the public safety performance auditor told them last year, “Enforcement by complaint is not enforcement; it does not work; and it is not fair to the citizens who expect police to enforce the law.” 

As the lady pointed out in her letter, all of our parks are a mess, particularly around playgrounds and shelters.  Police should be told to open their eyes to litter and warn private offenders to clean it up well before it becomes an abatable safety hazard, a “hot spot” too hard to easily clean up, such that the city can do it for 20% over cost, plus fines.

We should complain, but not about particular “hot spots.”  We should complain about the city requiring that we complain to get enforcement against ongoing, obvious violations of our property maintenance codes.  We should complain about the city allowing neighborhood nuisances to ripen into safety hazards for the city to harvest, about the city profiting off hazards in our neighborhoods and targeting only the worst offenders.  Everyone should be told to clean up their properties by police who notice their trash.  It doesn’t matter who left it there; if it is on your property, it is your trash.

October 17, 2015 protest leaflet.  Published on GardenGrantsPass.blogspot.com.  Sign the petition at https://www.change.org/p/grants-pass-city-manager-aaron-cubic-leave-pot-growers-alone-target-litter-and-weeds

Read Chapter 5.72 at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html

Support the lawsuit at www.GoFundMe.com/HomegrownDefense 

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener          541-955-9040        rycke@gardener.com

541-955-9040        rycke@gardener.com

I should have read Chapter 5.72 sooner

I called out Dan DeYoung in the October 7^th Council meeting for not reading or understanding the ordinance that he passed and that I am suing the City about.  I did so because he made remarks in the previous meeting that showed that he had not read the definition of “indoors” in the “Homegrown and Medical Marijuana” ordinance, which does not include any building with windows, like our houses.

But I should have apologized for not reading the ordinance myself before it was passed.  We had a good month to read it before the first reading of the ordinance, having been warned by the Courier.  I went by what was written in the Courier and what was said in Council meetings.  Apparently, so did everyone else who came to object.  We would have commented so much more knowledgeably and effectively if we had read the ordinance.

We weren’t even listening when the City Recorder read the ordinance at the July 15th meeting, when it was passed unanimously by the Council.  Neither was the Council, apparently.  Dale Matthews was, and played a section of tape on KMED, 1440 AM, that included “possession” in the activities allowed only “indoors.”  I verified this from the City website video, and told the Council at the next meeting.  They had the City Attorney amend it to remove “possession” from the ordinance and passed their final product on September 16^th.

The articles in the Courier and the discussion in the Council were focused on the odor of growing pot around harvest time.  The ordinance treats it only as a sign of cultivation, which might attract thieves, the other reason that was given in the Courier and by city staff for the ordinance, but which was hardly touched upon by the Council. 

It seems as though nobody actually read this ordinance, including our City Attorney, who appears to have copied and pasted it from Central Point’s Chapter 8.45, changing only the name of the city.  Why else would he have had to remove numerous mentions of possession well after our Council passed it? 

But I knew better, from long experience, than to neglect to read a law that I have a problem with.  I did it 10 years ago with probation law, and beat probation.  I did it with Measure 91 and was able to tell Carl Wilson exactly what was wrong with it when he asked.  I am sorry that I didn’t do it with this ordinance until long after it was passed.

October 17, 2015 protest leaflet.  Published on GardenGrantsPass.blogspot.com.  Sign the petition at https://www.change.org/p/grants-pass-city-manager-aaron-cubic-leave-pot-growers-alone-target-litter-and-weeds

Read Chapter 5.72 at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html

Support the lawsuit at www.GoFundMe.com/HomegrownDefense 

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener          541-955-9040        rycke@gardener.com

We Changed the Law!

I started smoking marijuana rather than drinking when I was 18, having started when I was drunk.  It saved me from depression and alcoholism.

Ever since, I have heard, “If you don’t like the law, change it!”   After several attempts, we changed it in Oregon, first to allow medical use, and finally to allow all adults to grow and use it.  Measure 91 was so restrictive that I actually campaigned and voted against it, seeing the mischief that could be done by cops that hate pot users with the low possession limits for households to store a year’s worth of homegrown.  Hold onto too much, enough for a household of several smokers, and you could lose your house.  It failed by only 2 votes in Josephine County.  If I had voted for it, it would have been a tie.

But the people of Oregon passed it overwhelmingly, and I was glad.  Our newly elected state representative, Carl Wilson, who had campaigned against it offensively, got himself appointed to the committee to amend Measure 91 and the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act and called me and proponents into his office to learn about marijuana and discuss what needed to be changed in Measure 91.  The legislature changed the commercial tax from a grower tax to a sales tax and allowed local governments to make money for their general funds with their own 3% sales tax in House Bill 3400.  They even allowed for reasonable local regulation of licensed marijuana businesses. 

They didn’t change anything regarding the homegrown possession limits in Measure 91.  But without a cause to search, police couldn’t look for excess pot to cause any mischief.   Knowing that OMMP possession limits had been raised from 3 ounces to 24 ounces over several years, I figure that homegrown limits will eventually be raised, and relaxed.

But just before Measure 91 went into effect, the Grants Pass City Council started the process to pass a new nuisance code, allowing only indoor growing of marijuana within the city, and defining a greenhouse as not “indoors.”  Indeed, their definition of “indoors” doesn’t even cover normal houses.  On July 1, the very day I legally planted my crop in my backyard, they passed it on the first reading, but didn’t have the votes for a second reading and finally passed unanimously it on July 15^th. 

The people of Oregon passed a law to end the war on pot users and the Grants Pass City Council and their attorney figure that they can continue it with a city code.  Carl Wilson warned them in writing before their first vote that they were violating SB 863 (2013) and the city could be sued, but they did it anyways.  Their ordinance is so unreasonable that it violates Measure 91 and the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, as amended by House Bill 3400, which was signed before the ordinance passed, but they passed it anyways, breaking four state laws with one city code.  I told them on July 23^rd that they had even banned possession out of “indoors” in the city, and they simply amended it to remove possession on September 16^th.

Their attorney seems to think that they can nullify state laws with this clause:

5.72.060 Conflict of laws

In the event of any conflict between this ordinance and the provisions of any applicable state or local law, the more restrictive provision shall control.

As though a city can overcome state laws with a local code!  This must have been copied from a state law; the state can get away with saying it.  The entire Chapter 5.72, Homegrown and Medical Marijuana, was copied from Central Point’s code of the same name.

SB 863 (2013) forbids local governments and voters from enacting or enforcing any law that inhibits or prevents the production, sale, or advertising of any product of agriculture, which marijuana has been since OMMA passed.   Where the state allows reasonable regulation, as they do in Measure 91 for licensed recreational production, processing and sales, and in HB 3400 for medical, they can pass and enforce reasonable regulations.  Chapter 5.72 definitely inhibits or prevents home production of marijuana, which the state has not allowed local governments to regulate at all, so SB 863 applies to void it regarding homegrown, which the state has not given cities permission to regulate.

The City Council has put a general 2% retail sales tax on the ballot to pay for public safety, but they spurn the 3% sales tax that the state has allowed them for retail marijuana sales, as well as their share of the 17% sales tax that the state will be charging retail “recreational” pot buyers, by banning both medical processing and dispensaries and all licensed “recreational” marijuana businesses. 

This will not help them pass the first general sales tax in Oregon, not least because they have shown us with Chapter 5.72 that they intend to continue making war on pot growers and users.  There are enough in this city to be a large minority, maybe even a majority, of the voters who vote against both city and county levies, because most people don’t vote more money for law enforcement when they might go to jail.  Measure 91 might have changed that, but for this ordinance showing how unreasonably the city would enforce it.

Chapter 5.72’s “indications” of cultivation, which are vague, ordinary annoyances not necessarily tied to pot cultivation, give police plenty of opportunity to search our homes, not only to see if we are violating the ordinance, but to see if we possess too much marijuana or its products to be within the homegrown exception to the licensing rules.  This would then allow them to seize our home for violating the license we don’t have.  Fines are just the tip of the iceberg of penalties that we can be hit with.

We voted to change the law; the Council voted to continue their war on us.  They can’t legally do it.  That’s why I’m suing the City.

                   

September 28, 2015 protest leaflet.  Published on GardenGrantsPass.blogspot.com.  Sign the petition at https://www.change.org/p/grants-pass-city-manager-aaron-cubic-leave-pot-growers-alone-target-litter-and-weeds

Read Chapter 5.72 at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html

Support the lawsuit at www.GoFundMe.com/HomegrownDefense 

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener          541-955-9040        rycke@gardener.com

Signs of Cultivation

The heart of Chapter 5.72 of the Grants Pass Municipal Code is:

“2.   All cultivation, curing, drying, storage, production, or processing of marijuana shall be conducted indoors…”

“3.  Cultivation, production, processing or storage of marijuana shall not be perceptible from the exterior of the household, housing unit, and/or indoor structure including but not limited to:

“a. Common visual observation, which would prohibit any form of signage;

“b. Odors, smells, fragrances, or other olfactory stimulus;

“c. Light pollution, glare or brightness that disturbs the repose of another;

“d. Undue vehicular or foot traffic, including excess parking within a residential zone; and

“e. Excessive noise that disturbs the repose of another in violation of GPMC 5.12.110.”

          Keep in mind that the definition of “Indoors” in this ordinance does not mean “in your house.”  It means in a highly secure structure with lockable doors and no windows, as glass can easily be broken into, and plastic or similar materials, no matter how thick, make it not “indoors.”  See “Intent and Purpose of Nuisance Code 5.72”.

          Any of the above signs of cultivation and more are grounds for a search warrant to see if you are actually cultivating.  If you are, then you are in violation of the ordinance, because they were able to tell by the signs.  If not, you have had your privacy invaded for no reason except nosiness.   Don’t expect them to apologize.

Loud party?  Send the cops to search the place!  Any kind of gathering?  Excessive traffic and excessive parking!  Security lights?  An obvious sign that you are trying to deter pot thieves!  A skunk sprays near your yard?  The stink of pot; call the cops!

          But the most interesting one is “Common visual observation.”  Thieves pay attention, read newspapers, and sometimes even read the law.  Board up windows on a room in an attempt to make it “indoors” and it will show anyone who pays attention that you may be growing pot in that room.  Build a special "indoor" structure complying with this code in your backyard, complete with permits and fees, and some thief could target it, maybe even invade your house to make you unlock it.  Call the cops about it, and you will be cited because thieves could tell that you were growing pot!

          What happens if you are cited? 

“5.72.040 Public Nuisance Remedy

     “A.  Any household, housing unit, premises, property, building, structure, or place of any kind where medical or homegrown marijuana is grown, processed, manufactured, bartered, distributed, or given away in violation of state law or this chapter, or any place where medical or homegrown marijuana is kept or possessed for sale, barter, distribution, or gift in violation of state law or this chapter, is a public nuisance per Chapter 8.04.

B.     “In addition to the foregoing, two or more violations in a 30-day period may be deemed a Chronic Nuisance Property subject to provisions of Chapter 5.12.

    “ C.  In addition to any remedies provided in Chapters (sic) 5.12, the City may institute an action in municipal or circuit court in the name of the City to abate, and to temporarily and permanently enjoin such nuisance.  The court has the right to make temporary and final orders as in other injunction proceedings.  The City shall not be required to give bond for such action.

“5.72.050 Violation

“In addition to treatment as a nuisance, all violations of this title are subject to punishment under the general penalty provisions in Chapter 1.16. (sic—actually 1.36)  Each day in which a violation continues shall constitute a separate violation.”

            They will declare your property a public nuisance.  Notice will be posted on your property.  If they cite you again within a month, it will be declared a Chronic Nuisance.  Talk about signs of cultivation! 

To have it removed, you must show that the nuisance has been abated (pull your plants and invite the cops into your growing space to show they are gone).   The code says that you have ten days to do this, but every day it exists is a separate violation.  Or you can say that no nuisance exists, and take it to the City Council.  This will take weeks, and every day is a separate violation.  The fine for those daily violations can be up to $720 per day.

It’s like the Grants Pass City Council watched what has been happening in Ferguson, Missouri, with poor blacks being persecuted with fines, and they want some of that kind of revenue action from their favorite whipping boy, pot smokers who grow their own.  But they got this idea from Ashland and Medford, and our city attorney probably copied at least parts of their ordinances, if not the whole thing.  This town is not original about new laws.

It doesn’t pay to take the word of cops and city staff about the provisions of any new ordinance.  You have to read it, not once but several times, to understand what they are trying to do.  This one is about continuing the war on pot by city code, in the name of protecting pot thieves from their own worst impulses, by punishing their victims.

                   

September 24, 2015 protest leaflet.  Sign the petition at https://www.change.org/p/grants-pass-city-manager-aaron-cubic-leave-pot-growers-alone-target-litter-and-weeds

Read Chapter 5.72 at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html

Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener          541-955-9040        rycke@gardener.com