From Robert Sutherland of Hummap:
Colleagues: We request you cancel and not attend a meeting proposed for this Thursday, called by Luke Bruner of California Cannabis Voice Humboldt. We set forth our reasons below and are sending this request to media as we feel there are serious process problems here.
Background: The Humboldt-Mendocino Marijuana Advocacy Project (Hummap) has for numerous years attempted to establish a healthy future for our marijuana industry. This has included advising government in public forums as to the views of our members. Regarding the County marijuana ordinance now under consideration, we have proposed a new permit for the small organic sun-growing marijuana farmer, and we did this because that element of our County’s history is the very source of our County’s world-wide premier reputation for marijuana of quality and importance. For example, in the 1970s a Hummap member brought into this country from Afghanistan seeds whose genetics likely underlie much of the product grown in North America, and recently Hummap members were the first to stabilize the high cbd strains that are wildly sought after for medically treating pediatric seizures. The small organic farmer is the bedrock of our industry, and it is essential to our County’s world-wide reputation that we preserve this niche. The full text of our proposed heritage ordinance language is pasted below.
Luke Bruner has in our experience long been an advocate for marijuana growing without reasonable limits, and we have repeatedly pointed out that major funders of his group California Cannabis Voice Humboldt (CCVH) were prominently involved in this summer’s police raid that confiscated over 86,500 marijuana plants at Island Mountain. There were also major environmental damages there. Bruner is now working to block our heritage proposal. At Tuesday’s meeting of the Humboldt Planning Commission Bruner, speaking on behalf of Wonderland Nursery, stated that the Agricultural Commissioner has authority over this matter and we should wait upon that person’s opinion. He also stated that I agree with his interpretation. Bruner is incorrect in all details. The relevant issue is clearly spelled out in law (Health and Safety Code 19332.5 (b)) as being under the authority of the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation which is part of the Department of Consumer Affairs and has nothing at all to do with the Department of Food and Agriculture or the Agricultural Commissioner.
When I confronted Bruner about this he stated that this was a mistake in the law that needs to be corrected! Further, although much authority over marijuana cultivation devolves under law to the Agricultural Commissioner, no details of just what his authority is have been worked out yet, and it likely will be years before this is fully developed. Requesting the involvement of the Agriculture Commissioner now is deeply inappropriate. That person has no authority here, and I never agreed with this misinformed idea. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors have full authority to adopt our proposal, and it is not, as also was alleged, a trade proposal to establish product qualities.
Issue: Bruner has called a meeting for this Thursday that would involve himself, the Agricultural Commissioner, Planning staff, and most importantly the Board of Supervisors’ Marijuana Subcommittee. That subcommittee consists of Ryan Sundberg and Estelle Fennell. The purpose of the meeting as explained to us is to present Bruner’s views for the need to stop our proposal. This is a back room corruption of the public process. We were not invited nor even informed of the meeting even though it prominently involves an issue originated and developed solely by us. The Planning Commission already has voted six-to-one to adopt in concept our proposal which has been enthusiastically received by the community. We ask that this meeting be subject to investigation and exposure. We believe no Supervisor or other government employee should participate in or condone this effort to sabotage the public process. It is an issue of truth and fairness.
Proposed Text: Add to Section 313.55.4 and Section 314.55.4 the following:
188.8.131.52 There is herewith created a limited permit type that shall be known as the Humboldt Heritage Permit. Marijuana and its derivatives produced exclusively under this permit may be so identified. No other permit, labeling, advertising, or other representation may express, imply, or otherwise use the word “heritage” to imitate, imply, or otherwise suggest this type. A Humboldt Heritage Permit strictly complies with all of the following special conditions:
- a) Cultivation area is no greater than 3000 square feet.
- b) All cultivation is sun-grown only and conducted pursuant to certified organic practices.
- c) The owner/s of the plants must permanently reside on the cultivation parcel.
- d) This permit otherwise requires compliance with relevant provisions of this Section.
- e) Any bona fide holder of this permit alleging harm, or the county, may bring a civil action against any person violating this subsection.
Hummap member Robert Weiner appends the following comment:
I suggest that everyone who supports the Humboldt Heritage designation take the time to write:
Estelle Fennell , firstname.lastname@example.org
Ryan Sundburg email@example.com
Steve Lazar firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeff M Dolf (Humboldt County Agricultural Commissioner) email@example.com
Please tell them that the Humboldt County Planning Commissioners voted 6 to 1 in favor of adopting the Humboldt Heritage designation and they need to support the Commission’s decision.
Secondly due to the fact that Luke has set up a special meeting with county officials and has threatened opposition to the Humboldt Heritage designation, that HUMMAP needs to be at the table Thursday.
Contact: Robert Sutherland, Hummap, 707-986-1112; firstname.lastname@example.org.