Jul 31, 2018
I met a man last night who was packing up his stuff and moving out of his home here and moving to Ukiah where he just bought his wife the home she really wanted. Here (corner of Morgan and 6th streets) his front yard is littered with bottles and human feces not to mention the drinkers who sit for 12 hours each day not 16 feet from his home...and his mortgage was $2,400- a month but in Ukiah his new home is only $900- per...and it’s bigger...and it’s newer in much better shape and there are no bums shitting on his lawn.
Now it appears City Hall has heard some stuff from several of their employees. It seems this guy who walks with a cane goes out each morning to pick up the all the litter in the sizeable parking lot in front of his morning haunt, Holy Roast Coffee. One very nice guy from the city crew is on limited duty due to an injury and it was his job to once a week come and clean this once a dump up...now he gets himself a cup of coffee, strolls about the place picking up the few cigarette butts the other guy missed...he loves this part of his job...although he can no longer justify the time he once was required to spend here.
(Chain Pharmacy Pricing is a Tough Pill to Swallow - JUNE 2018 Gazette)
I cannot thank Robert Pellegrini at Tuttles on Sonoma Avenue and his staff enough. They watch out for me and check and double check. They call me on Sunday to let me know clarify if needed... Huge fan of Tuttles and Pharmacist Robert and his team!!!
Shawna Westly Nielsen
Every month I again want to thank you for printing Christopher Kerosky’s inspiring Immigrant Stories. They are a crucial counter-narrative to the hateful and dangerous mood circulating in the world today. As with other forms of prejudice, it seems like this type of bigotry springs from the typically human fear of “the other,” receiving a constant stream of misinformation from social media and certain news outlets, and a lack of interacting with - and getting to know - individuals.
Throughout history, there have been too many recurrences of categorizing and dehumanizing groups of people that lead to catastrophic results. It’s especially important at such moments, to highlight stories such as these.
Irene Barnard, Santa Rosa
Vesta forwarded me your very nice email on the subject of my column. I want to thank you for your kind words. It really means a lot to me.
I agree with you about the need to constantly counter the misinformation about immigrants and immigration. The false narratives on this subject are so widespread, including now emanating from our federal government.
I plan to continue playing my little role writing for theGazette on this subject, inspired by readers like you who appreciate this.
One last thing: perhaps you’d be interested in seeing some of the videos produced by a local non-profit calledMy American Dreams that I’m involved in. The videos tell inspiring stories of immigrant youth from our own County, making a difference in their community.
These videos have been on PBS stations across the country. You can find them all atwww.MyAmericanDreams.org. If you have a chance to watch them, let me know what you think.
Thanks again for your support,
We’re all well aware of the accepted political protocol that says, former presidents don’t comment on or criticize sitting presidents. I suppose that’s ordinarily a sound idea and a civil way to go about our democracy, but we are not in ordinary times, and we have a president that has taken us to extraordinary limits in both his character and policies. This comes as news to no one who has watched the man’s actions and is alarmed by the directions he wants to take this country.
If there was ever a time for the ex-presidents to speak up and address what’s happening in our nation it’s now. In his drive to be held unaccountable and above the law this president has broken the rules and precedents established over 250 years of government, and in so doing presents a clear and present danger to the political system that governs us.
There is no other political body, save the judicial, that can counter this president’s ambitions and goals, and the highest court is soon to be drastically weighted to partisan interests, perhaps for generations to come. Therefore the only small group of political leaders that can influence the public’s consciousness, and whose voice can be heard above the clamor and chaos and vitriol generated by the current president must be sounded. And the time is now, for tomorrow may well be too late.
Will Shonbrun, Boyes Springs
I live in Corte Madera and have a Redwood in the front yard which an arborist estimates at 100 years.
The tree has a companion which has a substantial trunk and id growing right next to the larger tree.
Both trees are adjacent to a Monterrey Pine in a neighbors yard which is seriously compromised. It leans toward the house next door . has sap running down the trunk and has many brown needles.
We are thinking of cutting the companion tree to the mother redwood to help balance the larger redwood, provide it with more light and perhaps encourage the Monterrey pine.
Do you think this is a good idea and if it will be of benefit to the pine. The companion is much closer to the mother than the pine and the pine is actually in very poor shape. Both redwoods are healthy and beautiful, but it seems that the mother tree might be better off with her daughter gone.
Thanks for considering my question.
Without seeing the trees and their orientation to each other and the surrounding buildings I can only speak in generalities. Before making any decisions have all of the trees looked at by a qualified arborist for structure and health.
I’ve been seeing many mature Monterey pines succumbing to drought stress, beetles and old age at 45 years old. If the pine is showing signs of stress and is looking in poor health I’d definitely favor taking out the pine over a healthy redwood tree. My wife is getting tired of me pointing out pines in our neighborhood. First with, “Look at the dead tips on those green branches” and a month or two later pointing out the browned over dead tree. Meanwhile that 100 year old redwood is just a baby and will most likely outlive us all, if allowed to.
Redwoods, unlike many other species, can thrive with multiple trunks in close proximity to each other, reproducing from basal sprouts. The secondary spar likely isn’t taking away from the mother tree but is collecting more solar energy and fog drip for their shared root system. Even still, trees growing too close to each other can sometimes break out if they haven’t grafted to each other. Talk to a local professional.
Matt Banchero cl#913093
Matt Banchero’s Tree Service
In response to the front-page article in the July edition of the Gazette titled,“Housing; Who Gets What, When & How?” I agree, only building more rental housing is not a solution. Nor is building it in our protected green zones. They are two reactionary ideas that only benefit developers and landlords. If we need to build lots of housing fast, apartment rentals are fine, but at least do it in central urban locations where people building their careers who want to live in them can be closer to the resources they need, like transportation and jobs to cover their hirer rental housing costs until they can buy into homes of their own.
And when building these apartments in downtown centers they need to go up vertically putting more units in smaller spaces. More bang for the buck, more housing for those who need it, but this is not the only type of housing we need.
It’s Not Just About Building Fast and Furious
Besides rentals for cash-strapped citizens, we also need lots of housing for people who can afford the down payment to get into a mortgage that builds long-term housing stability and financial equity, i.e. homeownership! Single-family homes may need more space than apartments, but this doesn’t mean we have to destroy our green space for them. We just need to stop letting high-end developers put McMansions on multi-acre properties and require lots of development provided green infill such as fruit trees, gardens, walking paths and pocket parks around the new homes. And how about creating policies giving development priority to high rise builders who include vertical and rooftop gardens in their designs. It’s not just about building fast and furious, it’s about building smart, sustainably, and adding to the quality of life of the people in our communities.
Taking it Even Further
Right now, I’m working with a group of people who want to take it further. We are designing a community of a dozen homes on three acres where we reduce the costs of construction by using sweat equity and prefabricated and reused building materials. Our construction costs will be 1/3 the current market rate. We will also reduce our cost of living by sharing transportation, producing our own food, sharing meals, reducing waste, and reusing greywater. Best of all we will build stronger relationships with each other. Thirty percent of our homes will be HUD Section 8 Home Ownership subsidized allowing anyone to move in. This plan includes Republican fiscal and Democratic social economic virtues. Now is not the time to just do things quickly like chickens with our heads cut off. It’s a time to be smart and create affordable housing that builds better communities.For more information on our community go to: socovillage.wordpress.com
You may find these articles informative on how municipalities are working with people inShared Equity Programsinto order to increase homeownership for economically-challenged individuals.
Shared Equity Models Offer Sustainable Homeownership
Paths to Homeownership for Low-Income and Minority Households
Shared Equity Programs Gain Popularity for Municipalities, Private Investors
There is no one solution for all people, but homeownership creates a stable monthly expense with fixed-rate mortgages - whereas rents go up at random and put people at risk of not being able to house themselves.
All you have to do is drive around Sonoma County and you will see plenty of older homes in need of loving care (fixer-uppers which are affordable) and homes that are large, brand new, and not affordable under construction.
I see homes in older neighborhoods as a solution for many people - which is why I bring this topic up whenever I can. It’s a win/win for all concerned. ~ Vesta
I am writing this email in response to Vesta Copestakes July 2018 front-page article on:“Housing: Who gets what, When & How?”
Unfortunately, I think Vesta may have infused her usual reasonable premise for presenting a viable solution for a complex issue with her own personal bias regarding what she termed, “The Projects,” as a term for Low-Income-Housing, because as she wrote: “Where I come from these were called: The Projects, and it didn’t work out very well over time.” . .
Vesta further writes: “These developments are filled with low-income families who have none of the comforts and security of HOME. Buildings become old and fall into disrepair.” This opinion coming on the heels of
the county of Sonoma considering building low-income-housing or affordable housing. Buildings falling into disrepair can be maintained rather than having a scenario as painted by Vesta. There is no reason that maintenance isn’t and can’t be mandated as part of the units safety and esthetics by a proper board and agency.
Her argument for having home ownership as designed by Burbank Housing and Habitat for Humanity via “sweat equity’ in exchange for not having a down payment as an example of a way around the housing dilemma with a compromise being made by those on a tight budget. Which from my viewpoint has many flaws. While sounding all well and good on paper, and, yes, some individuals and families do qualify for the mortgage and subsequent homeownership, while most who are currently experiencing lack of housing or marginal housing, will not be able to do so.
Vesta states further: “If a person can rent, chances are they can pay a mortgage.” This line of reasoning doesn’t take into account or the equation that not only is there a housing CRISIS in Sonoma County as else where, there are significant numbers of people currently patch-working- housing and/or without housing who are jobless, under-employed, aging and aged, while many are homeless. These people do not have “Sweat Equity” as an option except in rare instances.
Most likely displaced persons have not kept up their credit and have zero savings; if they have managed to maintain a bank account at all.
I respectfully disagree with her opinion and what appear to be a bias toward rentals and low-income housing or affordable housing for those who are in need of this social program reality. “The Projects” may have been a disparaging term in her former community but for many, In the past and currently, this has been a life-saver and people have been grateful to have a place to call: HOME. We can always change the paradigm to meet the needs of the times and find language that has more positive connotations, however, realistically, we cannot change the circumstances or outcome of people’s life situation which brings them into a culture and cycle of poverty - one often created by our capitalistic policies favoring the well-off over the poor.
I admire Vesta having found a personal solution in her own life for having participated in a Equity Share Partnership, however, I feel this is a limited solution, and what is needed is genuine economic support toward building and making affordable housing available to the many citizens in our county in need and across the country. Poverty has long been stigmatized and this includes people who are low income or living on fixed incomes who must rent, who do not wish or need to purchase a house in order to have a place to call HOME, I feel poverty, on-the-edge, and aging people need to be viewed in the light of benevolent regard by others and policy makers and our city planners and the government.
WE THE PEOPLE -
I’ve been reading your articles in the recent Sonoma County Gazette and thought maybe you could help me. I have a super fixer-upper available on Mays Canyon Road. Corner of 116. Forestville side. The mail box has been removed but the address is 11162.
I lived there for 23 years. Now that I’m 70 and alone, it was not safe for me to continue to live there due to health issues and lack of public transportation. So I bought a mobile home in Santa Rosa.
Now I’m trying to sell the house. It needs a lot of work. Although I lived there myself in its current condition.
Problem is people cannot get a loan for it because of the condition it’s in. And I need to get at least 190,000 cash upfront to pay back my lender for the mobile home and back taxes. The balance I would be willing to owner finance. I’m asking 265 but would settle for a little less than that.
I have a realtor but she doesn’t seem to be doing much to make this happen. We’ve been on the market now for a few months. Have had some potential buyers but they were only wanted to pay 100,000 cash and finance the rest with me.
I have a loan from some local friends and I have to pay that by the end of October. So I need to have at least the amount to cover that loan and several years of back taxes. I used to be a letter carrier at the Forestville post office and we have met on several occasions. I also I’m interested in knowing who that woman is that you referred to who buys houses fix them up and sells them.
Judith Dide, Santa Rosa
If someone asks me, I will pass your phone number on. I asked the woman who fixes houses to sell and she has enough on her plate at the moment. Let’s see if any readers will take a ride down Mays Canyon Road to see your house and find it worthy of home.
My home was a major fixer when I bought it nearly 30 years ago -as is. The roof leaked the first year I lived here and it took me 20 years to turn it into a real house, but it’s MINE.
At this point it would rent for almost twice my monthly mortgage. It was worth the risk I took. There’s no place like HOME!
Hans Bruhner took me up on this topic ofHow to Finance a Fixer in his column. SEEAsk the Loan Man in this issue. I hope someone finds the home that sheltered you for 23 years as their place to make your house their home ~ Vesta
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Not many of us in this life have the power and opportunity to safeguard the well-being of thousands of our neighbors.
But, at this moment, you do.
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on June 28th during which changes were recommended to the Cannabis Ordinances Setback Regulations to improve Neighborhood Compatibility.
You now have a complex job on your hands. With respect, let me try to simplify it for you by asking you to keep one thing very clearly in mind:
The vast MAJORITY of residents in Sonoma County DO NOT WANT to live near a commercial cannabis operation.
Many of these residents have lived in the County their whole lives, some families for generations. Suddenly, their quality of life is being compromised by the hazards of commercial cannabis cultivation: significant loss of property value, crime, noise, glare, traffic, noxious odors, massive water use.
Many of these residents have resigned themselves to having a cannabis operation near their homes because of fear of confrontation and reprisal or because they feel powerless in the face of the massive amount of money and influence the cannabis industry brings to its lobbying efforts.
You can protect these residents - and honor the wishes of the majority of your constituents - by making two changes to the Cannabis Ordinances:
10 Acre Minimum Lot Size
1000 feet Setbacks
This would be simple. This would be fair. This would be Neighborhood Compatibility.
Many thanks for your attention,
Patrick Ball, Sebastopol
Prior to the last election for First District Supervisor, I was on a committee of five from the Sonoma County Democratic Club. We interviewed all candidates running for the position. We directly asked Susan Gorin what she thought of marijuana and where she thought it should be cultivated in Sonoma County for commercial businesses. Her reply: she thought it should be grown in industrial, self-contained areas and not in rural residential neighborhoods.
Do your research. Read the paper. Susan Gorin has not kept her campaign promise to our committee as to where commercial marijuana should be cultivated.
Carol Smith, Santa Rosa
The interview occurred over two years ago when Sonoma County was in very different time and place in our discussions and planning for medical cannabis cultivation and dispensaries - before our County overwhelmingly supported the legalization of adult usage. I did not vote to approve Proposition 64 because I felt our County and the state were not ready for the intense planning to implement this. What we are experiencing now in the County confirms my original opinion.
As the letter writer communicated, at the time “I thought” that cultivation would be most appropriate for industrial areas. And in fact, I voted, along with the Board to exclude commercial cultivation from RR and AR zoning (Rural Residential and Agricultural Residential) where our small lots and close-in neighborhoods exist). And I have vigorously advocated for code enforcement to move a cultivator out of the neighborhood of the letter writer.
Industrial areas for cultivation are the point of agreement for most people in the County. But our industrial areas are limited, and in Sonoma Valley, industrial areas have become the location for wineries and food and beverage processors, and groundwater levels are continuing to decrease through overdrafting of the basin.
Although there are people who live in areas zoned for Agriculture and Resource Districts, for the most part those areas include much-larger acreages; those areas may be appropriate for cultivation with the stringent standards and regulations we approved on a case by case basis. Bringing unpermitted cultivation activities all over the County (and in every zoning) into compliance with permitting and taxation through code enforcement and the penalty relief program is complex and time intensive for Permit Sonoma, but this is moving forward.
The Supervisors will be meeting on August 7 and will once again have an opportunity to review where we are with permitting, relationship of medicinal and adult usage and alignment with state standards in Phase 1. At this time Phase 2 will focus on neighborhood compatibility, over concentration and inclusion/exclusion zones, which is a top priority for me.
I am writing to express my concern about the creation of exclusion zones where cannabis uses are currently allowed. As a compliant cannabis operator in Sonoma County, I have invested tens of thousands of dollars and countless hours to ensure that I fully comply with the guidelines that have been set forth by the County.
The creation of these exclusion zones is a step in the wrong direction and would only push the industry back underground.
As a cannabis operator in one of these proposed zones, I have worked diligently to be in compliance with every request from the County.
Creating these zones would punish my compliant business that contributes to the financial vibrancy of Sonoma County as much as the other businesses do.
It is already extremely difficult for cannabis operators to find compliant properties. This is especially made worse by not allowing cannabis cultivations next to open space areas and regional parks.
This can be alleviated by having this setback recommendation apply only to parks with playgrounds with full flexibility to change the setback during a CUP hearing or removing this requirement altogether which would align with state law.
As cannabis cultivators, we have been part of Sonoma County for many generations. We take pride in positively contributing to our community by creating new jobs, increasing the county’s general fund through tax revenue, and dedicating our lives to creating medicine.
It is unfair to punish us after we have worked tirelessly to comply with the County’s guidelines at the mercy of an outspoken minority that has personal objections to our crop of choice. A lot of their concerns are already addressed by our compliance with local and state legislation. This includes our execution of a strict security program, practices that do not harm our environment, and ensuring fire safety.
It does not make sense to use potential fire hazards as a primary reason for the creation of exclusion zones. As cannabis cultivators, we are mandated to have on-site water storage, clear areas for planting, and maintain access roads. During last year’s devastating fires we assisted our neighbors, helped firefighters, and protected our neighbors’ properties.
We need to move forward with sensible cannabis policies and permit properties that are currently allowed to apply for cannabis uses to stay that way, especially those under Penalty Relief. An applicant will have to work hard to build neighbor support, and such support or lack thereof will be seen in a CUP hearing.
Exclusion zones create more questions than answers. Creating public arguments for or against areas being excluded or included will slow down what should be a very clear ordinance and if someone is allowed to cultivate or not. Neighbors change over time, so opinions on what should be allowed or not, will change as well. This is not fair to applicants, or residents in neighborhoods.
The vacation rental ordinance has similar difficulties which would be good to avoid. A convoluted ordinance would slow down local government.
A majority of the Cannabis Advisory Committee does not support Exclusion Zones. Besides job creation, cannabis farmers supply important tax revenue to the county general fund.
If the county implements Exclusion and Inclusion zones they should be applied only to areas that are not currently considered for cannabis uses. Farmers that follow the guidelines set forth by the County should not be disadvantaged by neighbors who have ethical objections to their crop of choice, an infringement on their rights as land owners.
As cannabis operators, we stand for positively contributing to our community. At our core, this industry and its operators are dedicated to helping people live healthier, more fulfilling lives.
Shivawn Brady, Santa Rosa
People living in unincorporated Sonoma County are the only one that are going to be impacted by the proliferation of outdoor commercial cannabis grows. The majority of the people living in the incorporated cities in Sonoma County won’t be impacted by the odor, noise, and crime associated with growing marijuana.
All the cities in Sonoma County, with the exception of Cloverdale have banned outdoor commercial cannabis cultivation. Santa Rosa does permit commercial cannabis cultivation, but only in industrial zones.
Currently, the County allows commercial growers to obtain ministerial permits without any notification to the surrounding neighbors and without environmental review.
Turning Sonoma County into the marijuana capital of California with change the entire look and fabric of our county. There’s a reason Marin and Napa Counties have banned the outdoor cultivation of marijuana.
In County documents and staff reports, one finds somewhat reasonable sentences like:
Setbacks are often used to ensure neighborhood compatibility and mitigate impacts of a particular land use such as odor, noise, or light. Setbacks are effective ways to mitigate these impacts as they focus on site design elements rather than regulating ongoing behaviors.
Yet, parts of the County’s Final Cannabis Ordinance are so far out of sync with the above that it beggars belief:
1. The County considers the fumes from a 43,560 sq ft marijuana grow to be no more noxious to downwind homes 300 feet away than the fumes from a 100 sq ft grow. Where are the requirements for longer setbacks for larger grows?
Three hundred feet from an acre marijuana grow, or from anything within smelling distance, to a family room is not a mitigating setback: it’s a freebie to growers. County fail!
2. Then the County fails to protect those RR residents who live on DA borders and in the many clusters of RR neighborhoods the County embedded in DA zones. These residents have NO property setback protection from the nearly as noxious indoor DA grows. No setback is mitigation? Seriously? County fail, again.
3. And where are the protective graduated buffers in the form of limits on the numbers and sizes of outdoor DA grows on RR borders and on grows surrounding the County-embedded RR areas in DA zones? Again, County fail.
4. Now we learn that the Planning Commission wants to allow commercial marijuana grows in RR and AR Zones. Total County fail!
It’s as if the County is determined to pound square pegs into round holes to accommodate growers while unwilling residents are the pegs being pounded on.
The County needs to recognize two realities: Sonoma County is no longer a county of wide-open spaces, and it is ongoing behaviors from nearby properties and not some “site design elements” that can make neighborhood life miserable. That’s one of the reasons I’m not returning to the county after living in it off and on since 1943.
Is the County really that willing to invite lawsuits over a grower-friendly/resident-hostile marijuana ordinance?
R. T. Guthrie, Lakeport
I am the owner of a Cannabis business here in Sonoma County. My husband and I run our cottage-size cannabis farm. I have been observing this debate within our community over whether or not to, and where to allow cannabis cultivation. We have all heard both sides of the debate. We do need to refine the ordinance that will happen over time.
I would like to propose stepping back from all of that and taking a bird’s eye view of the current situation…
The modern world is in pain. Modern medical technology and modern society have offered us great benefits, but also left us with a robotic, mechanical approach to health care that does not take the sum of the parts into account very well. Our current standard medical model is not serving us well enough.
The current opioid crisis and the vast number of prescriptions written for anti-depressants validate that statement. People are in pain, spiritually, mentally and physically. We need radical, worldwide solutions to our modern plagues - CANCER, DEPRESSION, ANTI- BIOTIC RESISTANT PATHOGENS, and PHYSICAL DEGENERATION due to our modern sedentary lifestyles.
Cannabis is one of those radical solutions! Cannabis can help ease the side effects of cancer, and quite possibly cure cancer altogether if used at the right dosage for the right amount of time. The research is astounding! We have just scratched the surface of re-discovering what this wonderful plant can do for the world!
We are all being roped into this modern social experiment - ready or not. This is not easy for anyone who is passionate about either side. We don’t seem to have a choice; cannabis legalization is spreading across the globe.
The world is at a crisis point on many levels. We need radically creative solutions. We need to blend ancient wisdom with modern technology.
I am suggesting that we transition from debating over things like unrealistic 1,000 ft. setbacks from cultivation sites to houses to having real, progressive dialog about how we can achieve a balance around cannabis cultivation. Cannabis is here; it has been here for a very long time. The world is demanding cannabis for its woes. I suggest we wade through our fears together and spend our collective energy on creative collaboration.
How can we co exist in this new era of clean as organic, ecologically mindful, fully regulated, taxed and monitored cannabis?
The SF bay area is world renowned for the steady stream of innovative, creative, progressive collaborations that start here and spread across the globe. Lets follow that tradition now. Let’s show how a community can come together and work out its differences in a collaborative, compassionate, progressive way. I know WE can do this!
I see the spread of cannabis legalization as one of the heart -lights on a web of evolving consciousness across the globe. Cannabis is a heart-opening plant. It is an adaptogen. It can encourage compassion, introspection, and thinking outside the box, or thinking progressively inside the box. The world needs to expand these very characteristics in order to deal with our challenges as we strive to learn to live in greater harmony within our ecosystem. Along with assisting in expanding world wide collective consciousness and helping our bodies heal many of our modern physical woes, cannabis can help us create a more resilient community. If we are striving to be more self-supporting, and feed our needs ourselves, shouldn’t we be growing more of our own medicines? Especially a medicine that has a myriad of discovered beneficial uses?
I have been an alternative health care practitioner and a community health care activist for my entire adult life. I see the cannabis that my farm grows as being a continuation/evolution of that work. I live in Sonoma County; I want to provide my medicine to Sonoma County. We feel this is one of the greatest contributions we can offer at this time.
We will continue to tell our children that we work so hard because we are striving to do something very important that could help evolve medical care toward a more compassionate and holistic standard. We are grateful to have this opportunity.
Sica Roman, Spring Creek Farm
Testing standards for cannabis is currently more stringent than any other agricultural commodity. As of July 1st, 2018, there are over 90 analytes that are required for testing labs to quantitatively screen for. These analytes include chemicals produced by the plant (cannabinoids and terpenes) to agricultural and manufacturing chemicals that might have been used (pesticides and residual solvents) in the processing of any cannabis product. The instrumentation and training required to screen for these analytes are cost heavy and labor intensive. Labs were given a 6 month “phase-in” period to implement all these analytes, during which time lab pricing and turnaround times increased. All cannabis labs in California are held to a high level of standard. It is important to recognize that for a cannabis lab to remain compliant, the turnaround times will remain at the times they are now, until the labs have had a chance to scale properly to handle the workload of all cannabis products in the state of California. At Sonoma Lab Works we have already signed off on extra equipment to help maintain an efficient workflow.
David Chen, Senior Chemist, Sonoma Labworks
We are shocked by proposed changes to the Cannabis Ordinance that would reduce buffer zones around parks to allow commercial marijuana cultivation on park borders. We think the current 1,000-foot setback from parks to neighboring parcel boundaries should be increased to 2,000 feet. Instead, on August 7 the supervisors may decide to measure setbacks from the site of the grow instead of the parcel boundary, acquiescing to heavy lobbying by big growers. This would undermine the protection of our parks.
Why is the county rushing to authorize marijuana cultivation next to our parks and homes? It should employ the precautionary principle as for any new business model. If transition from illegal to legal grows proceeds smoothly, the county can then reconsider modifications on where grows are permitted, based on real life experience of what works and doesn’t for the community. Instead, the prevailing mood seems to be speed and greed.
Sonoma County is blessed with parks.
Hood Mountain Regional Park, Sugarloaf Ridge State Park, Jack London State Park, Trione-Annadel State Park, North Sonoma Mountain Regional Park, and Taylor Mountain Regional Park are treasures. Why endanger them?
Robust buffer zones improve fire protection, facilitate finding illegal grows, and maintain the parks’ undeveloped nature with a transition zone. Allowing commercial grows to operate close by undermines enforcement and the safety of park visitors who might encounter violence, both from illegal grows masquerading as legal ones, or legal grows near park boundaries. In rugged areas it is common for hikers to wander beyond park boundaries.
On Cougar Lane, which abuts Hood Mountain, growers often patrol their land with firearms and attack dogs. This intimidates neighbors and potentially hikers in the park.
Hood Mountain is a prime example of the need for strong buffer zones in remote areas for fire protection, where access is often only through adjacent private property, i.e. the parcels where marijuana growing is currently banned. During the October fires, a grower on such a parcel was harvesting his (illegal) marijuana crop when fire was barreling down Hood Mountain towards Cougar Lane. His priority was to save his crop, not save the park or the homes (he did not live there), and they moved boulders to block the top of Cougar Lane. Fire trucks were unable to pass until bulldozers arrived to clear the road.
The Press Democrat recently wrote “Hood Mountain stands like a battle-scarred sentinel, one of several well-known peaks that serve as silent memorials to blazes that burned hottest on steep, rugged terrain.” Were it not for the access via the private properties on Cougar Lane, the fire would have burned unchecked with much greater destruction both to Hood Mountain as well as residential homes.
Our parks nurture our riparian corridors. The headwaters of Matanzas Creek, which flows through Bennett Valley to join Santa Rosa Creek, is in North Sonoma Mountain Regional Park. Santa Rosa Creek begins on Hood Mountain, and eventually enters the Laguna de Santa Rosa and the Russian River. Buffer zones around these parks are essential to protecting and preserving Sonoma County’s sensitive watersheds.
Marijuana cultivators often use anticoagulant rodenticides, herbicides, petroleum fuels, nitrates, phosphates, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. The marijuana industry has historically flouted most laws. The county would be foolish to believe that all permitted operators will comply with environmental rules. The ordinance gives growers a 24-hour “heads up” before conducting an inspection. Illegal chemicals such as deadly carbofuran can be hidden until it is too late for the watershed. Assault weapons will also magically disappear before scheduled inspections.
Who wants to sacrifice protections for our parks and watersheds? Not local residents, neighbors, or park visitors. The culprits are Big Marijuana. CannaCraft Corporation wants marijuana grown near Hood Mountain Park. The Chicago-based multistate corporation Justice Grown purchased land in Bennett Valley in 2017 adjacent to North Sonoma Mountain Regional Park where it has a large grow.
These grows next to parks began illegally, largely because of their remoteness. Park advocates and residents were denied an opportunity to oppose them. The marijuana corporations made imprudent business decisions by choosing locations driven by the clandestine nature of their illegal operations, and now want to change rules to grandfather their operations that would never have been approved in a normal permitting process.
Big Marijuana is doing what the wealthy and powerful always do. Public officials should not allow them to compromise our precious parks.
Ironically, the supervisors have decided to place a sales tax increase on the November ballot to fund regional parks. Why should anyone support this tax increase if the supervisors don’t care enough about our parks to protect them from commercial marijuana?
Deborah A. Eppstein and Craig S. Harrison
Cannabis is controversial…and…it’s an amazing plant. Cannabis is a mystery and it is the Devil’s weed. Cannabis is an economic boom. Cannabis is a lot of things to a lot of people.
What it is NOT: easy to regulate for government institutions not prepared or equipped to regulate it with speed, adequate due diligence and an aim to building an economic future.
State and local governments in California have failed to carve a legal channel for cannabis that doesn’t eviscerate the incumbent players. It’s not their fault. It’s like we asked them to slice a loaf of bread with a rock. That means it’s still their responsibility and it requires a stronger brand of leadership to make the process work.
Aside from the tension between cannabis operators and cannabis opponents, there is one voice with an interest in the subject who has been marginalized in the process and that is the cannabis consumer.
Why do people consume Cannabis?
There are an estimated 65,000 plus cannabis consumers in Sonoma County. I surveyed a sample population of them last year and asked, what are you expecting cannabis to do for you?
Here’s what they said:
97%: I want to sleep better at night.
96%: I want to relax and prevent anxiety.
95%: I want to relieve pain.
89%: I want to enjoy the taste of cannabis products.
52%: I want to break down cancer cells.
67%: I want to improve my appetite.
One respondent shared, “It helps greatly with my multiple sclerosis”.
Others stated ailments like PTSD that cannabis provides curative benefits.
Some folks enjoy consuming for pleasure, like drinking wine or beer.
There is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The fear-mongering tactics by the Sheriff’s department nudging an all too eager media to promote scintillating crime stories, has created the perception that every rural home in Sonoma County is the target of the dumbest, meanest criminals on the planet thanks to cannabis. It’s not true by a long shot, but perception rules the day and irrational fear triumphs.
There has been an average of four violent crimes reported per year for the past three years related to cannabis targets. That is among thousands of the same kind of violent crimes committed; robberies of banks, jewelry stores, convenience stores and others.
The false fear factor has created a hysteria that rachets up the urgency and severity of opposition against cannabis cultivation.
Based on what some opponents have stated in public hearings, I suspect that greater than the fear of crime, there is a fear among property owners that their property values will decline where cannabis resides nearby. Just ask any cannabis operator who has purchased property in the past two years if they paid below market. They have paid premium prices, as have non-cannabis buyers. Cannabis is a significant economic driver simply because it makes land productive to such a higher degree (500 times greater) than any other crop in Sonoma County. That can only drive property value up, not down.
The two main complaints proffered by opponents, crime and property value threats, are factually false. What’s left?
Odor aversion, excessive traffic and natural resource degradation. The latter can be subject to factual testing like crime and property value. In short, the natural resource degradation claim isn’t true for legal cannabis cultivation sites. Period. The regulations forbid it. It is true for some illegal grow sites and they should be shut down hard. Everyone except the culprits agrees with that.
Odor and traffic go with commercial agriculture.
Some people like the fragrance of cannabis and some don’t. The same goes for the Sonoma aroma. I and many others suffer from pollen allergies due to prolific plant life in Sonoma County. It’s my responsibility to treat it or move to an area that doesn’t have the proliferation. It is not the responsibility of everyone else to quit growing stuff to fix my or anyone’s allergy problem.
As for traffic, there is no more or less traffic for cannabis than other agricultural operations. It just goes with commercial farming activity like wine grapes or swiss chard. Since the opposition can’t legally oppose other commercial crops due to right to farm, they can and do protest the only crop they can that is not protected by right to farm; cannabis.
Impact on Economics
Two years ago, Sonoma County was producing a couple billion dollars in cannabis each year. Through regulation we’ve reduced that to a small fraction. The negative economic impact is like extremely high blood pressure; it’s a slow, silent killer.
First signs of financial death and injury are the direct suppliers to cultivators. Check. Then we’ll see 10-20% declines in income for small restaurants and retailers, then professional services and so on. We are all affected adversely when a major industry severely contracts.
One opponent stated at a Cannabis Advisory Group meeting that she didn’t care about the economics of cannabis. She only cared about her peace and happiness, and that was true for the public in general. She’s wrong. Economics is a significant social system that unites us. And the “public” of cannabis opponents is so small a percent (less than one percent) of the general population that we shouldn’t conflate the two.
We need a long-term vision for cannabis in Sonoma County. So far county leadership has not stepped up with one. What we have in its stead is a protracted bar fight. The bouncers need to break it up and restore order. Let’s build the economy instead.
Please support our sponsors:
Call 855-483-3732 to find out about Folding, Cargo & Electric Bikes. Perfect for a SMART Train Ride!
Sonoma County Bike Shops and Groups. Find LOCALLY-OWNED Bicycle Shops for NEW, Used and Rental Bicycles as well as REPAIR. Look for a bike-riding group that suits your needs and style.
Please use the Gazette's Guide to find LOCALLY-OWNED Garden Businesses to support Sonoma County's environmental and economic health and vitality.