Source: http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/
Timestamp: 2017-06-23 13:41:47
Document Index: 799462463

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§3', '§4', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1']

Garden Grants Pass: 2015
About Garden Grants Pass The Litter Cleaner Blog
months ago, before filing my lawsuit, an attorney gave me what I thought was
the whole of Senate Bill 863, the Seed Bill, in ORS 633.738. The City’s attorney, in answer to my
complaint, is saying that the Seed Bill is only about GMOs, and doesn’t apply
to marijuana. But I found that there is
another statute just before it, ORS 633.733, which is part of the same bill, and
states their real intent: to stop local governments from interfering in the production
and use of seed crops:
633.733 Legislative findings regarding seed regulation. (1)
As used in this section, “nursery seed” means any propagant of nursery stock as
defined in ORS 571.005.
(2) The Legislative Assembly finds
(a) The production and use of
agricultural seed, flower seed, nursery seed and vegetable seed and products of
agricultural seed, flower seed, nursery seed and vegetable seed are of
substantial economic benefit to this state;
(b) The economic benefits resulting
from agricultural seed, flower seed, nursery seed and vegetable seed and seed
product industries in this state make the protection, preservation and
promotion of those industries a matter of statewide interest that warrants
reserving exclusive regulatory power over agricultural seed, flower seed,
nursery seed and vegetable seed and products of agricultural seed, flower seed,
nursery seed and vegetable seed to the state; and
(c) The agricultural seed, flower
seed, nursery seed and vegetable seed and seed product industries in this state
will be adversely affected if those industries are subject to a patchwork of
local regulations. [2013 s.s.1 c.4 §2]
633.738 Prohibition of local laws to inhibit or prevent
production or use of seeds or products of seeds. (1)
(a) “Local government” has the
meaning given that term in ORS 174.116.
(b) “Nursery seed” means any
propagant of nursery stock as defined in ORS 571.005.
subsection (3) of this section, a local government may not enact or enforce a
local law or measure, including but not limited to an ordinance, regulation,
control area or quarantine, to inhibit or prevent the production or use of
agricultural seed, flower seed, nursery seed or vegetable seed or products of
agricultural seed, flower seed, nursery seed or vegetable seed. The prohibition
imposed by this subsection includes, but is not limited to, any local laws or
measures for regulating the display, distribution, growing, harvesting,
labeling, marketing, mixing, notification of use, planting, possession,
processing, registration, storage, transportation or use of agricultural seed,
flower seed, nursery seed or vegetable seed or products of agricultural seed,
flower seed, nursery seed or vegetable seed.
(3) Subsection (2) of this section
does not prohibit a local government from enacting or enforcing a local law or
measure to inhibit or prevent the production or use of agricultural seed,
flower seed, nursery seed or vegetable seed on property owned by the local
government. [2013 s.s.1 c.4 §3]
Note: Section 4,
chapter 4, Oregon Laws 2013 (first special session), provides:
Sec. 4. Section
3 of this 2013 special session Act [633.738] does not apply to any local
measure that was:
(1) Proposed by initiative petition
and, on or before January 31, 2013, qualified for placement on the ballot in a
(2) Approved by the electors of the
county at an election held on May 20, 2014. [2013 s.s.1 c.4 §4]
December 5, 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.
at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html
at www.GoFundMe.com/HomegrownDefense Rycke
Brown, Natural Gardener 541-955-9040 rycke@gardener.com
This is a tale of three attorneys: one who wrote a poorly written complaint; one who failed to appreciate
the crisis and opportunity this presented; and one who saw what needed to be done and took
Just before Thanksgiving, I reread the complaint filed on my
behalf, in the harsh light of the City’s response to it in their Answer and
Counterclaim and their Motion for Summary Judgment and Oral Argument. I now could see that it was lacking in
research and statements of law, and was so broadly and loosely written as to be partly
When I know I’ve made a mistake, I stop making it. I didn’t want this man to file another piece
of paper on my behalf, not even a motion to withdraw, much less the answers to
the City’s filings, both of which were due within days, by my calculations.
So I fired off an email with the three filings attached, to the
attorney whom I figured I should have hired in the first place, asking if he
could save my case. He was probably
already gone for Thanksgiving and would likely be out of contact until Monday. So I spent much of Thanksgiving weekend
reading rules of court and trying to figure out how to withdraw my attorney and
go pro se (represent myself) in time to write and file those answers by Thursday
and Friday. On a site called OregonCivPro.com, where they have searchable and easily
readable rules, I saw an ad for the Oregon Cannabis Law Group and Andrew
Deweese, the owner/builder of the site. I sent him an email, asking for assistance in finding such rules, and
saying I was interested in retaining him.
My first choice for new attorney replied late Monday morning that
he’d have to read the filings I sent and would get back to me. I sent him copies of the filings I’d done
that day, withdrawing counsel and asking for a continuance. Mr. Deweese sent an email late Monday
afternoon and a text a few hours later, asking me to call him. I arranged by text to call 11:00 AM Tuesday.
We had a good 25-minute interview, going over the case and his
experience. He said that he would contact
the City’s attorney, say I was thinking about retaining him, and ask for an
extension on the Answer to the 28-page Motion for Summary Judgment. He would also send me his contract by email.
When I got home that night, I found: an exchange between him and
the City’s Attorney, negotiating an extension until January 21st;
his “Engagement Letter,” which was both thorough and readable; and a reminder
to file the answer to the Counterclaim by Friday, so as not to default. I signed the contract 24 hours later,
Wednesday night, and asked him to write the answer for me.
While my first choice for replacement attorney was reading my
paperwork, Andrew Deweese saved my sanity and my case, before he was hired, for
free. He also trusts his clients to pay
him, and so doesn’t ask for a retainer deposit. He has earned my trust and the money he will make off my case.
“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
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
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.
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.
at http://gardengrantspass.blogspot.com/2015/09/chapter-572-homegrown-and-medical.html Support the lawsuit
at http://www.gofundme.com/HomegrownDefense Rycke
Chapter 5.72,
Oops! Goofed again!
Mark Seligman is a good
friend to me. He proved it by telling me that I had gotten a name wrong
in my last piece, “David Frasher fired again.” (Now corrected) It was Mayor Murphy
who appointed 5 councilors, not Mayor Fowler.
him for a minute, while looking up a leaflet I’d written about it in
2009, “Clean the Slate.” There was "Mayor Murphy." I had forgotten a mayor who served 4 years, and
ascribed all of his acts to Darin Fowler. I voted for Mike Murphy, and I
forgot him!
fact-check everything, especially my own memory for names. Mayors Fowler
and Murphy, I am sorry that I didn't before spreading 300 hard copies.
A real friend will tell
you when you are wrong, or if you literally stink. You can catch a rancid
bacterial infection of the sweat glands that you can’t smell until it is
driving other people out of the room, but most people will never tell you about
it. I’ve had it twice, literally driving people from the room the first
time, before I found a remedy. I find it helps to have a remedy to mention,
which is triple antibiotic cream in the armpits. People have thanked me
for telling them. I learned it on the radio from Dr. Dean Edell, about curing
stinky feet, a remedy I wish I’d known when my husband was still alive.
Mark is that kind of a friend. He told me I was wrong; argued until I found that he was right; didn’t rub it
in; and I thanked him. We don’t agree on many things; we argue
passionately in a friendly way; and sometimes we agree.
Some people think I hate
the City of Grants Pass, its employees, and especially its Manager, Mayor, and
Council because I am suing the City over an illegal ordinance. I don’t
hate anyone. I am telling the Mayor and Councilor that they are wrong and
their ordinance stinks, violating state laws, as Carl Wilson told them before the
ordinance was passed. I am pursuing the only remedy available to protect
myself and other citizens from enforcement of that ordinance against us.
that my lawsuit is costing the citizens money. Elections have
consequences, and so does not paying your elected officials. Not paying your Mayor
and Councilors means that you have few choices at election, and the ones you
elect readily give up their seats. In order to have real
accountability from your elected officials, you have to give them something to
lose, like a salary.
The Council showed how little they have to lose by trying to circumvent the laws and the will of the people of
Oregon. We changed the law, and they are unwilling to follow it, so the Council has to be changed.
November 7, 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
David Frasher Fired Again
The fruits of code enforcement by complaint David Frasher was fired from
being City Manager again, this time in Oregon City, soon after signing a 5-year
contract, after working for them for three years. They denied him severance payments, saying
that he was fired for misconduct, making racially insensitive remarks to
policemen. Of course, he has filed suit,
being a lawyer. When he worked for Grants
Pass, he was known for temper tantrums and bad policies. He was hired by a Council of developers and
bankers, who let the previous, slow-growth Manager Petersen go. The only way to get rid of an appointed
manager is to replace the Council that hired him and likes his policies. It takes two elections, since only half the Council
is replaced every two years. Frasher particularly
offended merchants, who ran as a block in the second election, and proceeded to
fire him. He instigated a city staff
revolt, and after he was fired, the staff, opposing councilors and our new Mayor
Murphy recalled the 5 councilors who fired him, leaving the city council
without a quorum. Mayor Murphy illegally
appointed 5 new councilors to replace them for 6 months until a special
election could be held, was challenged by the ex-mayor Holzinger, and was
upheld by two judges who ignored state law in the name of “exigent
circumstances.” Mayor Murphy and his appointed
council continued Frasher’s policies and passed a new ordinance to reduce the
size and height of signage, to the point where any new business has to appeal
to the Council for variances. The
councilors elected since have been no better. Frasher was fired, but his policies are still plaguing us. He started
tiered water rates with higher charges for higher marginal use to save water, which
oppresses the poor and makes it expensive to water our yards and business
landscapes, while reducing water plant revenue because people stop watering. He started Code Enforcement, soon called
“Community Service Officers” or CSOs, and forbade police and firemen to enforce
our codes, while discouraging CSOs from enforcing property maintenance codes
until a property gets so bad that the City can abate it at 10% profit, now 20%. He resurrected dormant codes against signsand merchandise on sidewalks, and then instituted a permit process for the
same, as well as for tables on sidewalks. We need to replace our
Council again, to end Frasher’s policies and theirs. Our new Manager Aaron Cubic is a true servant of the
Council, and will likely work with new councilors. It’s a no-pay part-time job, but it’s the
only way to fix what’s gone wrong with this city. Please consider running, and ask others to do
the same. I will be running for Southwest District.
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
at www.GoFundMe.com/HomegrownDefense Rycke Brown, Natural Gardener 541-955-9040 rycke@gardener.com
Keeping Properties to Code,
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 12th at 6:00 PM in City Council Chambers (behind City Hall
at 5th 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
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
The City wants your “Hot Spots”
At the October 7th
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 3rd 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.
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.
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
541-955-9040 rycke@gardener.com
I should have read Chapter 5.72 sooner
I called out Dan DeYoung in
the October 7th 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
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 16th.
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.
Garden Keeping Properties to Code,
Central Point's Chapter 8.45 HOMEGROWN AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA
8.45.030 Homegrown and medical marijuana subject to regulation.
8.45.040 Public nuisance remedy.
8.45.050 Violation.
8.45.060 Conflict of laws.
8.45.070 Severability.
The city council of the city of Central Point recognizes that citizens of the state of Oregon may engage in both recreational and medicinal use of marijuana in accordance with state law. However, the city council also recognizes that cultivating, drying, production, processing, keeping or storage of marijuana, without appropriate safeguards in place, can have a detrimental effect upon public safety and neighboring citizens. The city council finds and declares that the health, safety and welfare of its citizens are promoted by requiring marijuana cultivators engaged in recreational or medicinal cultivation, drying, production, processing, keeping or storage of marijuana to ensure that said marijuana is not accessible, visible or odor causing to other persons or property, or otherwise illegal under Oregon State law. (Ord. 2007 §1(part), 2015).
Words and phrases used in Sections 8.45.010 to 8.45.070 shall have the following meanings ascribed to them:
“Homegrown marijuana” means any marijuana cultivated, dried, produced, processed, kept or stored for personal recreational use by a person twenty-one years of age or older in accordance with state law.
“Homegrown marijuana grow site” means a location in which a person twenty-one years of age and older cultivates, dries, produces, processes, keeps or stores homegrown recreational marijuana in accordance with state law.
“Household” means a housing unit, and includes any indoor structure or accessory dwelling unit in or around the housing unit at which the occupants of the housing unit are cultivating, drying, producing, processing, keeping, or storing homegrown marijuana.
“Housing unit” means a house; a mobile home; a manufactured home; and/or a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied as separate living quarters, in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall including an individual residential unit in an apartment, duplex, townhome, condominium, or senior living facility.
“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 Central Point, 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 two-inch-by-four-inch or larger wood studs covered with three-eighth-inch or thicker weather-resistant siding or equivalent materials. Plastic sheeting, regardless of gauge, or similar products do not satisfy this requirement.
“Marijuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis family Moraceae, including, but not limited to, its dried leaves and flowers, and any marijuana products derived therefrom. The term includes any and all homegrown marijuana, medical marijuana and marijuana products as defined in this section.
“Marijuana cultivator” means a medical marijuana grower, recreational marijuana homegrower, patient, and any landlord or property owner allowing marijuana to be cultivated, dried, produced, processed, kept or stored at a premises.
“Marijuana products” means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and are intended for human consumption.
“Medical marijuana” means the marijuana cultivated, dried, produced, processed, kept or stored for medicinal use in accordance with the OMMA.
“Medical marijuana grow site” means a location registered pursuant to ORS 475.304 where medical marijuana is produced for use by a patient.
“Medical marijuana grower” means any person engaged in the cultivation, drying, production, processing, keeping or storage of medical marijuana in accordance with state law, and includes, but is not limited to, the meaning set out at OAR 333-008-0010(11) and (21).
“Patient” means a person who has been diagnosed by an attending physician with a debilitating medical condition and for whom the use of medical marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person’s debilitating medical condition, and who has been issued a registry identification card by the Oregon Health Authority.
“Property” means any home, business or public right-of-way.
“Recreational marijuana homegrower” means a person twenty-one years of age and older engaged in the cultivation, drying, production, processing, keeping or storage of homegrown marijuana in accordance with state law. (Ord. 2007 §1(part), 2015).
A. Marijuana cultivators shall be allowed to cultivate, produce, process and/or possess homegrown marijuana and medical marijuana subject to the following conditions:
1. Such cultivation, production, processing, or possession of marijuana must be in full compliance with all applicable provisions of OMMA and M. 91;
2. Such cultivation, production, processing or possession of marijuana must be conducted indoors;
3. The cultivation, production, processing, or possession of such marijuana must not be perceptible from the exterior of the household, housing unit, and/or indoor structure including but not limited to:
b. Unusual 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 the residential zone; and
e. Excessive noise that disturbs the repose of another in violation of Chapter 8.04;
4. Such cultivation, production, processing, or possession of marijuana plants shall be within a secure, defined area;
5. Such cultivation, production, processing or possession of marijuana shall meet the requirements of all adopted city building and life/safety codes;
6. Such cultivation, production, processing or possession of marijuana shall meet the requirements of all adopted water and sewer regulations promulgated by the city or any special district having jurisdiction;
7. Disposal of any excess or unused marijuana, marijuana products, or other byproducts thereof shall meet any and all local and state requirements for disposal, and shall be disposed of in a secure fashion so as to avoid access by children, visitors, casual passersby, vandals or anyone not licensed or authorized to possess medical or homegrown marijuana;
8. Such cultivation, production, processing or possession of marijuana in a commercial or industrial structure located in a commercial or industrial zone shall meet the following requirements:
b. The premises must not be vacant and there shall be an actual daily presence, use and occupancy of the premises by an owner, tenant, employee or agent thereof;
9. Such cultivation, production, processing or possession of marijuana in residential zones or in a housing unit shall meet the following requirements:
a. Such cultivation, production, processing, or possession of marijuana shall only be conducted within the primary residence of the marijuana cultivator;
b. Such marijuana plants shall not be cultivated, processed, produced or possessed in the common areas of a multi-family or attached residential development such as townhomes and condominiums;
c. For purposes of this chapter, “primary residence” means the place that a person, by custom and practice, makes his or her principle domicile and address and to which the person intends to return, following any temporary absence, such as vacation. Residence is evidenced by actual daily physical presence, use, and occupancy of the primary residence and the use of the residential address for domestic purposes, such as, but not limited to, slumber, preparation of and partaking of meals, regular mail delivery, vehicle and voter registration, or credit, water, and utility billing. A person shall have only one primary residence, which may include an indoor structure or accessory dwelling unit; provided, that the indoor structure or accessory dwelling unit is located on the same tax lot as the primary residence;
10. For purposes of this chapter, “a secure area” means an area within the primary residence or indoor structure accessible only to the patient or primary caregiver, or marijuana cultivator. Secure premises shall be locked or partitioned off to prevent access by children, visitors, casual passersby, vandals, or anyone not licensed and authorized to possess medical or homegrown marijuana.
B. Licensed commercial grows, as defined in M. 91, are strictly prohibited in all residential zones. (Ord. 2007 §1(part), 2015).
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 thirty-day period may be deemed a chronic nuisance property subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.02.
C. In addition to any remedies provided in Chapters 8.02 and 8.04, 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 in such an action. (Ord. 2007 §1(part), 2015).
In addition to treatment as a nuisance, all violations of this chapter are subject to punishment under the general penalty provisions in Chapter 1.16. Each day in which a violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. (Ord. 2007 §1(part), 2015).
In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of any other applicable state or local law, the more restrictive provision shall control. (Ord. 2007 §1(part), 2015).
The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this chapter are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. (Ord. 2007 §1(part), 2015).
Medford's marijuana code
5.650 Control
of Recreational and Medical Marijuana - Intent and Purpose of Sections 5.650 to
The City Council of the City of Medford recognizes that citizens of the state
of Oregon may both use and grow recreational and medicinal marijuana in
accordance with state law. However, the City Council also recognizes that
the production of marijuana, without appropriate safeguards in place, can have
a detrimental effect upon public safety and neighboring citizens. The
City Council finds and declares that the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens are promoted by limiting the production of recreational and medical
marijuana grows in residential areas and ensuring that the offensive odor of
marijuana does not travel to other properties.
[Added, Sec. 1, Ord. No. 2015-70, July 16, 2015.]
5.651 Definitions
Words and phrases used in Sections 5.650 to 5.654 shall have the following
meanings ascribed to them:
(1) “Dwelling” means any building or portion thereof containing living
facilities, such as a house, apartment or manufactured home. The term
includes any accompanying accessory building and outdoor areas of a dwelling,
(2) “Homegrown Marijuana” means the marijuana produced for recreational
use by a person in accordance with state law.
(3) “Marijuana” means the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae, any
part of the plant Cannabis family Cannabaceae and the seeds of the plant
Cannabis family Cannabaceae. The term includes any and all homegrown and
medical marijuana as defined in this section.
(4) “Marijuana cultivator” means a medical marijuana grower or
recreational marijuana homegrower. The term includes any landlord or
property owner that permits or allows marijuana to be produced at a dwelling.
(5) “Medical Marijuana” means the marijuana produced for medicinal use in
accordance with the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.
(6) “Medical Marijuana Grower" means any person engaged in the
production of medical marijuana in accordance with state law. The term
includes persons authorized to produce marijuana pursuant to the Oregon Medical
Marijuana Act; including, but not limited to, a registry identification
cardholder, designated primary caregiver, or person responsible for a marijuana
(7) “Production of Marijuana” means the planting, cultivation, growing or
harvesting of marijuana, and includes the trimming or drying of marijuana
(8) “Property” means any home, business or publicly-owned property and
(9) “Recreational Marijuana Homegrower” means a person engaged in the
production of homegrown marijuana in accordance with state law.
[Added, Sec. 2, Ord. No. 2015-70, July 16, 2015.]
5.652 Offensive
Marijuana Odor; Limitation on Outdoor Marijuana Grows
(1) No marijuana cultivator shall cause or allow an offensive odor of
marijuana to emanate from a dwelling to any other property.
(2) No dwelling shall contain more than four (4) marijuana plants at any
time, effective November 1, 2015.
(3) Violation of this section constitutes a violation. Every day in
which the violation exists constitutes a separate violation.
[Added, Sec. 3, Ord. No. 2015-70, July 16, 2015.]
5.653 Public
Nuisance - Remedy
Violation of section 5.652 is declared to be a public nuisance, and may be
abated in the manner provided for in section 5.520.
[Added, Sec. 4, Ord. No. 2015-70, July 16, 2015.]
5.654 Severability
The sections, subsections, paragraphs and
clauses of this Ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section,
subsection, paragraph or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining
sections, subsections, paragraphs or clauses.
[Added, Sec. 5, Ord. No. 2015-70, July 16,
Compared to Grants
Pass Chapter 5.72, this is far simpler and is confined to controlling the
number of plants and the odor from them. It is still illegal for them to regulate homegrown, and medical growers
have a case that it is unreasonable applied to them, with only 4 plants allowed per household . Posted by
City Speeches
Garden Keeping Properties to Code
Judge Wolke
tack vine
Central Point's Chapter 8.45 HOMEGROWN AND MEDICAL...