Humboldt County Growers Alliance and Seven Cannabis Farmers File Suit Alleging Deception in Measure A Ballot Initiative

Johnny Casali

Johnny Casali, one of the growers in the suit, in his greenhouse in 2018. [Photo provided by Johnny Casali in 2018]

Yesterday, the Humboldt County Growers Alliance, alongside seven cannabis farmers, filed a lawsuit in Humboldt County court. The legal action is based on claims that the signature-gathering efforts for the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative (now known as Measure A), scheduled to appear on the March 5, 2024 ballot, were tainted by misleading information. The lawsuit contends that the proponents of the initiative, Mark Thurmond and Elizabeth Watson, violated California Elections Code and applicable case law, potentially putting the integrity of Humboldt County elections at risk.

According to the suit, “MARK THURMOND and ELIZABETH WATSON…in their capacities as the Proponents of the “Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative”…have violated, and are continuing to violate, the California Elections Code and applicable case law… .” In addition, the suit claims, “By failing to adequately or accurately inform petition signers of crucial details about the Initiative’s extensive amendments to existing County law, and failing to include key documents that are expressly referred to in the Initiative, [they] unlawfully deprived the County’s voters of their rights to be sufficiently informed about what they were being asked to sign and ultimately vote on. A writ of mandate or other appropriate relief should be issued to invalidate the Initiative Petition and remove the Initiative from the March 2024 ballot.”

mark and betsy at separate election office windows with stack of signed petitions

Mark Thurmond and Betsy Watson at separate election office windows with stack of signed petitions in 2022. [Photo provided by Mark Thurmond at the time]

The heart of the lawsuit argues that the petition to qualify the Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative did not include the full text of the initiative, as required by law. (The initiative is approximately 38 pages.) Furthermore, it asserts that the petition contained materially false and misleading information. These alleged deceptions rendered the qualification of the initiative invalid, according to the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs are demanding the initiative’s removal from the ballot to safeguard the integrity of the election process.

The lawsuit highlights several examples to illustrate how the initiative, if passed, would adversely affect small cannabis farmers in the opinion of those backing it. For instance, the suit alleges that one plaintiff, Johnny Casali, holds a permit for 5,000 square feet of “outdoor” cultivation, part of which is housed in a greenhouse not utilizing artificial light. The initiative’s redefinition of greenhouse cultivation areas as “mixed-light” would impose higher tax rates on Casali, even though his current classification is outdoor-only cultivation.

According to the lawsuit, another plaintiff, Indicus McGrath Riggs, operates a small 2,900 square foot cultivation that is not located on a “Category 4” road. The suit states that if the initiative passes, “nearly any expansion to his small cultivation operation will qualify him for discretionary review and significant regulatory burden, and will require a significant outlay of money to pay for an engineering report and perhaps upgrades to the road on which his property resides.”

A third example is that of Hannah Whyte, a plaintiff with plans for business development, who, according to the lawsuit faces a potential 60 percent reduction in cultivation capacity under the initiative. Whyte has “plans including a microbusiness license, a processing barn, tourist accommodations for farm stays, and development of structures for county-required conditions of approval. Continuing these plans under the Initiative threatens to trigger a reduction of her cultivation capacity by 60 percent, and render the recent development of $500,000 in existing greenhouse, electrical, and water storage infrastructure as wasted expenditures.”

In a press release sent out yesterday, Natalyne DeLapp, the executive director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance, emphasized the alleged deceptive nature of the initiative: “If the signature-gathering efforts for Measure A were truthful, this initiative never would have made it to the ballot.” She accused the proponents of claiming to protect small cannabis farmers while actually targeting them with new restrictions that could have far-reaching consequences.

Throughout 2022, signature gatherers purportedly approached Humboldt voters with the initiative petition, stating that it aimed to ensure greater public participation and support small-scale, high-quality cannabis cultivation. The lawsuit argues that these claims were misleading and deceived voters into believing that the initiative was solely about restricting large-scale cultivation.

The lawsuit’s intent is to shed light on what it perceives as a misrepresentation of the initiative’s content. DeLapp contends that the initiative would have dire consequences for public safety and the environment, undermining the regulatory framework that was intended to address the negative impacts of prohibition and the Green Rush.

Ross Gordon, HCGA’s Policy Director, adds that Measure A would effectively replace numerous pages of county cannabis ordinances that were developed through eight years of public deliberation. According to the lawsuit, voters were allegedly unaware of the initiative’s substantial changes to existing regulations when they believed they were merely supporting small farmers.

While we reached out to Mark Thurmond and Elizabeth Watson, the proponents of the Humboldt County Cannabis Reform Initiative, they did not respond by the time of publication. (Similarly, Johnny Casali, one of the cannabis growers involved in the lawsuit, did not respond to our late-hour inquiry.)

However, in a 2022 letter to the editor in this publication, Thurmond and Watson defended their initiative. For instance, they clarified that their definition of expansion is crucial to prevent growers from continually expanding their operations, emphasizing that changes reducing water or energy use are not considered expansions and they argued that an engineer verifying road standards is appropriate to address environmental and water quality issues.

Additionally, they argued that the initiative focuses solely on commercial cannabis cultivation permits, not ecotourism or distribution permits. It limits the total cultivation area for new and expanded commercial cannabis cultivation to 10,000 square feet, without limiting the square footage of non-cultivation structures.

As the legal battle unfolds, Humboldt County residents and the broader cannabis industry will be watching closely to see how it may impact the future of cannabis farming in the region and as well as how the concerns related to the social, economic, and environmental challenges arising from cannabis cultivation within the county will be addressed.

Earlier:

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules

Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Permanently on Monitoring
Guest
Permanently on Monitoring
4 months ago

I love the fact that the biggest of the former criminals who call themselves “legacy” farmers, now want to manipulate the legal system to their own advantage…

The mere fact that Rex Bohn and Mrs Bushnell are occupying $100,000/year seats on the BOS indicates that Humboldt is extremely bent and mostly, operated by incompetents…

My opinions may not be worth the powder to blow them to hell, but you folks need some leaders that have an interest in the economic future of your county. At the same time, 150 years of exploiting the resources and polluting the ecosystems, killing the natives and running amok in relatively absolute anonymity has to end…

Mr Casali does not look like much an actual businessman, but I salute anyone who stands up and challenges the crooked and incompetent government of Humboldt County…

Ernie Branscomb
Guest
Ernie Branscomb
4 months ago

This is an issue that I don’t understand at all, yet I am eligible to vote on it. A major problem that I have is all of the regulatory agencies that keep springing up, that tax payers have to fund. But of course the new regulations will require inspectors and enforcers, and someone will have themselves a new empire to control. And new studies will have to be funded,
We all voted for CA. prop 47 that we thought had all kinds of benefits, only to find that we were semi-legalizing shoplifting, and releasing criminals back out on the streets so the Government had more taxpayer money to piss away on some of their favorite projects. Wouldn’t it be nice if issues on the ballot were explained in simple understandable terms for simple voters like myself.
There should be a college course in how to be an informed voter.

humboldturtle
Guest
humboldturtle
4 months ago

Ernie, we could have the course in high school and call it Civics. What a concept.

One smart fellow, he felt smart...
Guest
One smart fellow, he felt smart...
4 months ago
Reply to  humboldturtle

Cute. But Ernie’s right. People vote in general terms, and the law gets applied after the fact. The actual regulations were not set out for voters. For instance, CA didn’t know who was running track and trace, let alone the keystrokes for recording every gram of Duff. Prop 64 didn’t describe how overzealous individuals in say, code enforcement or Planning departments, might auger in on punishing rural property owners in the name of following regulations. Did Mendo voters plan on their county simply spending all the weed money without issuing permits?! Did prop 64 describe that the State would issue a permit to an outfit that enables them to nearly supply the entire regulated market in California?

One smart fellow, he felt smart...
Guest
One smart fellow, he felt smart...
4 months ago
Reply to  humboldturtle

…and go ahead and explain the specific proposition that we voted on for this:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/truck-and-bus-regulation

..And the language provided to us that describes these specific rules that would be predictably rolled out. I mean I guess these people delivering your goods are just ignorant goofballs who’ve never run a business. It’s their loss if they have to abandon a perfectly good truck and buy new. Won’t affect the rest of us! Give em a fine. (Tell me, does this CA website describe to you the methods employed to “enforce” said regs?! Like 0-outreach,0-coordination w/ DMV, or CHP, 0-notice, 5-Weeks to source, and swap new motors, or multi thousands in fines? State agencies acting as shady collections bandits with rooms full of first year lawyers? Fantastic press releases about “Task Forces” dressed in tacti gear setting up checkpoints to bust all these trucks running around with old engines, when somehow CHP won’t notice their registrations were all yanked!?)Sell em a truck. Save the World.

Last edited 4 months ago
Ernie Branscomb
Guest
Ernie Branscomb
4 months ago
Reply to  humboldturtle

Turtle,
I got A’s in high school civics, but that didn’t prepare me for todays national politicians where they can be elected flat broke and retire multimillionaire, mansion dwelling, plutocrats.

Can you tell me what page in the civics books that tells how that can happen?

humboldturtle
Guest
humboldturtle
4 months ago

Ernie, I do not remember what page, no. But I can answer in two words: Citizens United. If anyone stumbles on this comment and wonders WTF, here: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

Tim
Guest
Tim
4 months ago

Holding people to the standards of the law is not manipulating the law.
Manipulating the law is lying to people to get signatures.
Last time I checked the government has a duty to support the local economy.

dogglife
Guest
dogglife
4 months ago

Could you please inform us what “an actual businessman” looks like?

Permanently on Monitoring
Guest
Permanently on Monitoring
4 months ago
Reply to  dogglife

A guy who pays his employment taxes, income taxes, property taxes and follows state and federal employment law.

Humboldt growers are a bunch of pirates, with a long history of black market dealing, and backdoor policies…

Cowboys going 100 MPH in “Flying High” pickups on the 101, rangy assholes smoking spleef outside the Shopsmart, and Hospital Employees hired without drug screens because the resin under their fingernails would set off the test…

This is what a “businessman” used to look like:

Mr Casali with a bandanna over his face and sunglasses.

Garberville is not a nice place. It deserves to evolve to the next phase of its existence.

Dump Rex Bohn and Michelle Bushnell in 2024.

The last “initiative” I actually voted for, was Prop 19 in 1972.

Almost all “initiatives” represent economic benefits of special interests, BTW…

Corrupt, Incompetent, Nepotistic and Narcissistic are all useful terms to describe the “Special Kids”, up there in Humboldtland…

The smart folks would never go legal, and I’m with Legallettuce, all the way…

Grow as much as you can, sell it yourself on the “Traditional Market”, and invest your profit in Krugerrands.

Don’t take shit from the Government.

ED Denson
Guest
ED Denson
4 months ago

The case does not challenge any action taken by the Humboldt County government. It does ask the county not to put the initiative on the ballot, but this is an administrative task, not an action of the Board.

Permanently on Monitoring
Guest
Permanently on Monitoring
4 months ago
Reply to  ED Denson

Thanks for the legal perspective.

Do I owe you $125 now?

Giant Squirrel
Guest
Giant Squirrel
4 months ago

People will only give 15-30 seconds to decide if they’re signing your petition so the sales pitch needs to be brief. Commercial farming should be limited to ag zones flat land

Last edited 4 months ago
The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
4 months ago
Reply to  Giant Squirrel

The pushiest proponent’s “Sales Pitch” to me, at the Humboldt County Fair, was, “It helps the small farmer”…, …when I told him that was nonsense, and that it would actually help cement the few biggest growers in place, and work completely against the small farmer, especially any new small farmer, his “Sales Pitch” abruptly changed aggressively to…, “JUST SIGN IT!!!”, which he then just started repeating to me, over and over, at least three times…

Needless to say, of course, is that I definitely didn’t sign it.

Last edited 4 months ago
Farce
Guest
Farce
4 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

Good for you! It’s surprising- or maybe not- how many people will sign whatever is put in front of them. Then complain later! Hey- Don’t sign anything you don’t understand. Don’t vote on issues you don’t understand. I fully applaud your hesitation and refusal to comply with the signing…I know many who understood the petition and did sign it. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to sign something they don’t agree with,,,

Mr. Clark
Member
Mr. Clark
4 months ago
Reply to  Giant Squirrel

same in the voters both. For the last forty years if a measure was too complex it got a NO vote form me.
We should have a LAW to only pass laws with one topic. No more back door hidden agenda items added in.

Last edited 4 months ago
One smart fellow, he felt smart...
Guest
One smart fellow, he felt smart...
4 months ago
Reply to  Giant Squirrel

Tell me how that went for Sun Valley in the Arcahta bahttoms!…Redwood Valley? Can’t have mind altering party crops in Wine Country, Sport!

Giant Squirrel
Guest
Giant Squirrel
4 months ago

If Humboldt roadblocks commercial cannabis on ag flatland then producers will naturally develop facilities elsewhere. Surely the county can streamline ag flatland development permitting.

Last edited 4 months ago
Steve Koch
Guest
Steve Koch
4 months ago
Reply to  Giant Squirrel

“Commercial farming should be limited to ag zones flat land”

Great elevator pitch, seems intuitively obvious.

Maybe add “with adequate roads” since farmers tend to use lots of trucks and heavy machinery.

One smart fellow, he felt smart...
Guest
One smart fellow, he felt smart...
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve Koch

Timber operations? That’s not considered agriculture?
Did your Granny use trucks and heavy machinery to grow her 1/4 acre veggie garden?

Steve Koch
Guest
Steve Koch
4 months ago

Timber operations are not generally considered agriculture unless they are on tree farms (of which you see a lot in the gulf coast states) or where trees are being cut to create farm land.

I live part of the year in a bigtime agricultural area. Big trucks and equipment on quite small roads are a definite problem there.
My point is that areas that are zoned agricultural need to have roads that adequately support the equipment used by those farms.

Maybe we need a special zone classification for boutique growers (rather than agricultural).

Thatguyinarcata
Guest
Thatguyinarcata
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve Koch

https://www.usda.gov/topics/forestry

Timber harvest is absolutely considered agriculture

B Honest
Guest
B Honest
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve Koch

A 10,000 SQ ft grow is capable of being handled by one person.

Food and things grow wherever land is.

Basically you are saying stop all cottage industry business from home based on roads and need for heavy equipment.

I don’t use heavy equipment to grow a small farm. I don’t need employees to help produce a crop.

So if I am understanding correctly.
You would rather that I don’t grow veggies, cannabis or make hand crafted products because I am not in an industrial zone or AG exclusive.

Please explain how my small cottage industry business effects you or your environment.

Steve Koch
Guest
Steve Koch
4 months ago
Reply to  B Honest

Maybe we need a special zone classification for boutique growers (rather than agricultural).

B Honest
Guest
B Honest
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve Koch

We do have cottage industry permits for lots of small farms but cannabis is regulated way different at the local level.

Steve Koch
Guest
Steve Koch
4 months ago
Reply to  B Honest

Quarter acre or less is basically a garden as long as it is not industrial. By that I mean: no lights, no generator noise, no heavy truck use, no environmental abuse, etc.
Just a quiet garden that does not disturb the neighbors.

That is fine and should not need to be zoned agriculture. Cottage permit sounds fine.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
4 months ago
Reply to  Giant Squirrel

Cannabis should definitely not be competing with food on ag zoned flatland.

Food is expensive enough as it is.

Behind the scenes:
Guest
Behind the scenes:
4 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

No it isn’t. Who’s out trying to support food growers here? 20,000 ft SQ. Of beans will gross you maybe $600. The Mattole Grange, ostensibly an organization dedicated to local agriculture, argued over purchasing local, withheld payment for two months, and ultimately paid $2.34 a pound for local beans, 70¢/lb. Less than the agreed upon price.
So there is your magical support for alternative food crops.

Steve Koch
Guest
Steve Koch
4 months ago
Reply to  The Real Guest

The total acres of legal marijuana farms in humboldt county is tiny compared to the total acres of farms in humboldt county.
Not enough to affect the price of farmland in any significant way.

B Honest
Guest
B Honest
4 months ago
Reply to  Giant Squirrel

So you are against cottage industry businesses.

A small homestead is capable of producing wonderful crafts and cottage industry food on a small organic scale

Your comment means a majority of people wouldn’t be allowed to make jams, soaps or sell vegetables grown at home for the local farmers market.

Not every farm needs to be commercialized and produce goods for the masses.

Small scale organic home grown farms are the best.

Volunteer fire fighter
Guest
Volunteer fire fighter
4 months ago

What a joke!
Vote No.

The Real Guest
Guest
The Real Guest
4 months ago

Kym,

This is a bit confusing…

I will throw an edit in it, to address the confusion… …to make it an apples to apples comparison… …it’s seems like apples to oranges as written.

“It limits the total cultivation area for new and expanded commercial cannabis cultivation, [structures], to 10,000 square feet, without limiting the square footage of non-cultivation structures.”

If the proponents are suggesting that, “limiting the square footage of cultivation area won’t effectively limit the square footage of non-cultivation structures”, is somehow a “plus”…, …that is ridiculous, and definitely misleading.

It makes it sound like “cultivation structures” are what would be limited to 10,000 sq ft, when it is “cultivation area” that would be limited to that.

If the growing area is limited, any additional appurtenant structures would not even be necessary, so the additional structure allowance is definitely a moot point.

Rex Bohn said it best, when he made it very clear that “Not one of his small cannabis farmer constituents have come to him, (elated or otherwise), and told him that this initiative was going to save them”.

(Loosely quoted…🤷‍♂️)

Last edited 4 months ago
Mr. Clark
Member
Mr. Clark
4 months ago

So….CA. prop 47……can now be challenged and removed. Lets get on this and remove it and some other horrible laws.

Bozo
Guest
Bozo
4 months ago
Reply to  Mr. Clark

Was tried a few years ago. Voted down in urban areas.
25 million LA & SF inhabitants really can’t be wrong… (?)

Alf34
Guest
Alf34
4 months ago

We want canibus to be legal. No we do not want canibus legal. We do not know what we want. We want the gubment to legalize canibus. Wait gubment are bad. We do not know what we want. What ever the gubment decides we want the opposite. We want oh I do not know. Just pass me the bowl.

thetallone
Guest
thetallone
4 months ago
Reply to  Alf34

Actually, we do know what we want. We want government to serve the people, not the wealthy ruling class.

Farmer
Guest
Farmer
4 months ago
Reply to  thetallone

100%

Farce
Guest
Farce
4 months ago

They sound scared! And I think it’s funny. Permit pansies got their panties in a bunch…perhaps now they can imagine slightly what it was like for all the mom n pops who got abated?

One smart fellow, he felt smart...
Guest
One smart fellow, he felt smart...
4 months ago
Reply to  Farce

Hey I agree with you except for dumbing down into name calling. Few can claim ” I have a permit”!
it’s a treadmill, without a resolution; really 12-14 permits you have keep watering and feeding. The first people kicked off the train were the ones who were a little too old to run a computer. I am one of the few farms that really won’t be affected by this proposed ordinance. That also means I’ve already been completely shot to the curb in this business. I’m voting NO if it makes it to the ballot, because it just misses the mark as Sherlock Thurman, and Dear Watson seem to have no insight or experience in weed growing or permitting.
You can’t really compete in small scale, ecologically appropriate ways against mega permits for pyramid scheme funded grows down South. But, I will be here still after their principals hidden behind complex LLCs disappear with the money!…and get locked in their own Teslas. I’ll be here eatn beans and venison, holding the door shut on my carbureted ‘Yota around the turns!

Last edited 4 months ago
Farmer
Guest
Farmer
4 months ago

You’ll have my support, good man. I will hopefully be enjoying your joints down by the river eating homegrown watermelon.

Farmer
Guest
Farmer
4 months ago
Reply to  Farce

No at this point no one is scared of this initiative. There are too many witnesses to the misrepresentation of the initiative by the reformers. At best they will have to pay the legal fees of the plaintiffs and have to pull the initiative at worst they will be charged with a misdemeanor or several depending on how many people come forward as witnesses to their offenses….they will be bled dry of finances and health and it will be hard to watch….and farce as much as you might want it to be a robin hood initiative that was made to save the mom and pops pushed out by the punitive regulatory process it’s not. I agree the people got screwed but this is not your saving grace

Last edited 4 months ago
Anon
Guest
Anon
4 months ago
Reply to  Farce

Seriously!!!! All self awareness and empathy has been usurped by self-absorbed entitlement. The gross blow it ups that destroyed the traditional market can piss off.

B Honest
Guest
B Honest
4 months ago
Reply to  Farce

Farce

All those that got abated where just either scared or actually not smart enough to know that legalization was the only path forward.

I hate it 100% but I know if I want in on the game it’s the only course you can take.

You stayed traditional and that’s your right but this hatred towards us fellow rebels for going legit is insane.

I did it because I know one day Humboldt weed will be shipped legally across the nation. When that day comes Humboldt will be the sought after on every city outside California.

Until then I struggle every day to stay afloat. The planning department seems to like to bill us monthly for their stupid mistakes and we have to pay to stay on the game.

Nothing is perfect but being a hater on the side is just lame.

Farce
Guest
Farce
4 months ago
Reply to  B Honest

You sold out. You are not a “fellow rebel”! You sold out. When John ford explicitly stated that he would draw concentric circles around each new application and then begin abating all grows within those circles he meant your neighbors. You threw them under the bus because YOU were scared, or greedy, or ….what’s that word you used? Oh yeah- Lame! You want to discount me as a hater but I am always trying to correct the historical record that folks like you want to cover up and distort. It was a shitty deal. But permit pansies jumped on it and threw their neighbors under the bus. I hope you all suffer and get crunched under the corporate tank…as you will be. Nobody cares about Humboldt weed anymore. That is a lame dream of salvation being sold by HCGA so you keep paying their salaries. You have a system of predators puffing up their victims with false hopes and you got played, are getting played daily but “ya just gotta believe” because your future is bleak. Congratulations! The reason the backlash against this proposition is so strong is because HCGA knows that most people in this county will vote for it. It will win because most people are sick of the bullshit being spouted by the permitted growers. You put the anti-weed people in alignment with your former friends who got abated and that equals many who do not like you, do not care about you and will not stand behind you. You made your bed and we will put you in it. Call it karma but I just call it justice…

Farmer
Guest
Farmer
4 months ago
Reply to  Farce

I applied in the first weeks thinking it was a way to protect my children from the trauma I endured working in the industry. We were sold A fantasy. Where it would cost us $2000 for an acre of cannabis. Everything was ag structures and $150 each for the permit. We lost everything we owned getting permitted and our child ended up having food insecurity because we were taxed before even putting a plant in the ground. I has no idea how badly the county government would use legalization to punish the cannabis community. We worked two additional jobs to endure the costs of becoming compliant and still could barely afford the ridiculous changing hoops.
My mental health was destroyed and I had to work so hard I permanently injured my spine. We were never told that they would use our taxes to go after other farmers and only found out after the fact. The bait and switched us to throw you in jail. All while giving their friends and family streamlined permits and letting them pay taxes late or not at all. I am so sorry that the government did that to you. Not all of us are greedy assholes..

Last edited 4 months ago
Farmer
Guest
Farmer
4 months ago
Reply to  Farmer

They are still attempting to divide and conquer. We need a better plan. No more raids, no more abatement, I want a real path forward for all the farmers..

B Honest
Guest
B Honest
4 months ago
Reply to  Farmer

I agree with you. I would have thought that an abatement letter should have come with another letter on how to join the game.

Not one single old school wants to ever see anyone busted for a plant. That’s a crime in itself.

New permits have been playing the monopoly game. Look up all of Humboldt county cannabis applications. New permits were at hearings within 24 months or less. Some took 12 months.

Myself and many many others took over six years. That was six years of fighting the planning department and getting charged for every mistake they made.

Applications should be open to all small farms for 10,000 SQ ft or less. Just prove you have water for the summer and stay 200ft from all water ways.

Farmer
Guest
Farmer
4 months ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

I think its exactly what ford wanted. Us to fight among ourselves and not have a unified voice. This is why I firmly oppose a moratorium on permits give people a real chance now that tax reform has occurred. During last weeks meeting he intentionally made it seem like farmers were playing the system and not fulfilling permit requirements. In reality the permit process is the planners consistently changing the goal post so they can charge applicants more. Give them the permits a normal veg farm is charged $30 annually no crazy industry specific department. Just the AG guys making sure you have weights and measure s and an oin and the water board

Last edited 4 months ago
Ed Voice
Guest
Ed Voice
4 months ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Kym, you are defending Ford?

He’s trying to get the communities to put pressure on the biggest illegal growers to scale back at least.

Maybe look at Ford’s track record with some of the “biggest illegal growers”, take for example Jesse Jeffries, was caught red handed by CDFW illegally diverting water from the SFER, filling his “rain catchment water bladders”, Ford looked the other way when Jeffries got his big indoor grow approved on Sprowel Creek Road.

Shawn Studebaker clearcuts/stump removal and graded 2 acres of land on Sprowel Creek Road before he submitted an application for a 44,000 sq ft outdoor grow in greenhouses, with water coming from Jeffries, using Clearwater Ag Services. Nothing happens, not even a slap on the hand.

As far as what “Kelley Lincoln wrote”, she was not known for her fact checking or who said what and when. I found in too many of her articles, she gave an opinion of what someone said and did not quote them. Your link and example of what Ford said is a great example how Lincoln “quotes” people, using her words first, out of context to what is quoted.

notheone
Guest
notheone
4 months ago
Reply to  B Honest

Sounds like you’ve been paying attention to what’s been going on. I’m really sorry for this stupid struggle. I know a lot of these small farmers have cottage industries besides cannabis. I hope it weed will be legit to ship anywhere across the country. Then Humboldt weed will be sold along side the weed that is for sale in pharmacies in the Great State of Georgia! Btw. It just amazes me the State of Georgia is selling weed in pharmacies! I thought California would be first? Georgia, who would have thought? SMH.

Littlefoot
Guest
Littlefoot
1 month ago
Reply to  B Honest

As much as i love Humboldt County and its small farmers, unfortunately Farce is right, nobody else in America cares. They just want their zaza at a cheap price. Being from Cali might be worth something, but most Americans don’t know or care about the difference between Humboldt and Santa Barbara.

Linda
Guest
Linda
4 months ago

Maybe some lawyers could challenge all the deceptive ballot measures in the County. The anti-housing measure in Eureka comes to mind.

Zipline
Guest
Zipline
4 months ago

These people are morons. Every ballot initiative mistates the effect of it’s intended actions. Their actions make me want to vote for the initiative. Lawyers are whores who will take anyone’s money for anything.

Farmer
Guest
Farmer
4 months ago
Reply to  Zipline

When you willfully do something illegal there are consequences no matter how well-intentioned you may be. Something the Cannabis community has experienced for decades. Sometimes it is just best to cut your losses. I speak from experience being stubborn isn’t always the best course of action.

tru matters
Guest
tru matters
4 months ago

Sorta related. Did SoHum catch a frost last night?
NWS had issued a warning. Could have affected “sensitive” plants.

Forest Moon Endor
Guest
Forest Moon Endor
4 months ago

So I am going to be in Costa Rica in March and cant’ vote this stupid measure down! HCGA should be working on making this more convenient for working farmers. If they just pushed it back a couple weeks I could probably make it work and get to the school or whatever place you put a ballot in. BTW it is bogus that the County is going to charge taxes on my business! They are not paving the roads in Shelter Cove and my last VRBO customer blew a tire had to cancel and then asked for a refund. Now they want me to pay taxes?

Evidence
Guest
Evidence
4 months ago

Ballots are mailed to all voters at the beginning of February for the March 5, 2024 election.

One smart fellow, he felt smart...
Guest
One smart fellow, he felt smart...
4 months ago
Reply to  Evidence

Probably takes an extra parsec or two for mail to get to Endor.

I like stars
Guest
I like stars
4 months ago

Made me chuckle.

Jeffersonian
Guest
4 months ago

“Whatever happens will be for the worst, so it is in our best interests that as little should happen as possible.” Lord Salisbury, last of Englands prime ministers.

Just Cause
Guest
Just Cause
4 months ago

This measure used lies to gather signatures. It’s disgusting and they are shameful folks. They’ll reap what they sow

Farce
Guest
Farce
4 months ago
Reply to  Just Cause

People who sign papers that they do not read are pretty disgusting. Then when they want to later whine and claim they aren’t responsible enough to know what they are signing?! That’s shameful….

Jerry Latsko
Guest
4 months ago

It is easy to sympathize with Cassandra Taliaferro in her plea for Humboldt County residents to vote “no” on Measure A (independent, September 5). The state of the economy here in southern Humboldt County is indeed troubling. Retail sales everywhere have plummeted by all accounts. It’s not just confined to cannabis related storefronts. Growers striving to work within the law exist and suffer accordingly.The source of the downturn in Emerald Triangle livelihoods is not, however, the supporters of the Humboldt County Reform Initiative, now known as the ballot proposition Measure A, which will be voted on March5,2024. That’s a swing and a miss. There is absolutely no doubt that over the past four or five decades marijuana growers, legal or not,have been crucially responsible for the successful creation of numerous, important institutions, such as Redwoods Rural Health Center, Community Credit Union,radio station KMUD, and so much more. Community minded people are still among us. Things, however, have become more difficult. We must not mistake community minded people for enemies.
Under Measure A, no current permit will be altered or waived. The initiative is a response to, not a cause of,the current bad situation. The planning commission, appointed by supervisors of each district,has basically established an “anything goes” attitude toward cannabis permit requests. That is making few if any citizens happy. The lawsuit is laughable on its face. The entire text of the initiative was made available to all who were asked to sign the petition. If there has been any deceit involved, it has been not been on the part of those of us who gathered signatures. The Humboldt County Growers Alliance is a small but apparently well funded group that is actively defaming the people involved in trying to show environmental responsibility but we have been treated as though we want to bring back prohibition and add to the problem. Once again I ask people to please read the document; it’s not difficult. Ross Gordon is hoping that you won’t.

Evidence
Guest
Evidence
4 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Latsko

Jerry, it is not your fault that your attorney did not uphold the legal requirement of the “full text” of the petition he wrote for you. I am sure you thought all your legal obligations were fulfilled and believe you did nothing wrong; however, your attorney should have known better.

Jerry Latsko
Guest
4 months ago
Reply to  Evidence

I am satisfied that he did his job. He also answered questions on KMUD but the news director never aired them.

Evidence
Guest
Evidence
4 months ago
Reply to  Jerry Latsko

So you’re saying that the lawyer you paid $55k doesn’t see that there is anything wrong with his work product…

Jerry Latsko
Guest
4 months ago
Reply to  Evidence

Where did you obtain your law degree, Mr. Madeupname?

Jorge Cervantes
Guest
Jorge Cervantes
4 months ago

Johnny Casali – Drug war veteran ~ South county legend.

Hannah Whyte- Greenrusher / powdery mildew expert / warden of Alcatraz

Ultra Violet
Guest
Ultra Violet
4 months ago

Haters gonna hate. Jealousy has a funny way of exposing itself.

Farce
Guest
Farce
4 months ago
Reply to  Ultra Violet

That’s a simpleton response. Call somebody a “hater” if they disagree. The pre-intellectual child thinks that this word negates anything the “hater” has to say. It’s like calling somebody a “troll”. .It kinda goes with mob mentality. “WE all think this way and so if anybody says something different they are a HATER. Nothing else needs to be said” I’m sorry that John Casali thinks he is caught up in this. I remember him organizing the river cleanups. He’s always had my respect from that. And if he’s growing full sun then he should be commended and have his taxes reduced- We should all be growing full sun….Idk Hannah Whyte but I imagine she overestimated her $500,0000 expenses since rarely has a SoHum grower been honest. And why did she throw away that much money when the rules are still shifting, future uncertain? I’m guessing she has a big investor not mentioned. Or she’s just plain terrible at business decisions. Or just has so many barrels of cash left over from her parents’ grows that she spends like crazy? Anyways you are all being crushed by SoCal production and the evolution of the corporate “legalization” not this initiative. You are all walking dead- just fighting a battle that’s already over. In the future you have nothing – not even your sold-out souls or your fever dreams…But it was fun!

Ultra Violet
Guest
Ultra Violet
4 months ago
Reply to  Kym Kemp

Hannah doesn’t deserve to be slandered

Frederick
Guest
Frederick
4 months ago

Imagine limiting new grows to 10,000sq ft. HA! Good luck competing with that. This initiative is about killing the industry, make no mistake about it.

Average Humboldt Citizen
Guest
Average Humboldt Citizen
4 months ago

I was approached several times (Wildberries, Coop, Hum Co Fair) for a signature for their ballot initiative. Every single time the pitch was, “Hey, do you want to sign to help small cannabis farmers in Humboldt County?”. Nothing more than that. I knew better and did not sign. I’m more than happy to testify to this.

carmentater
Guest
carmentater
4 months ago

Well, unless you have a recording of the interaction your testimony might not be admissible in court. My question is: As this initiative affects way less than one percent of the Humboldt population why would the other 99+% care?

Farmer
Guest
Farmer
4 months ago
Reply to  carmentater

18 U.S. Code § 3502 – Admissibility in evidence of eye witness testimony- testimony of a witness that he saw the accused commit or participate in the commission of the crime for which the accused is being tried shall be admissible in evidence in a criminal prosecution in any trial court ordained and established under article III of the Constitution of the United States.
I don’t see why it would be inadmissible not with so many witnesses, plus you have signatures and voters complaining about being misled.
Criminally the county has a case they probably are going to let the civil case do the heavy lifting. Election integrity is increasingly being prosecuted because people are being shady its a bummer. People do care if they are being misled as voters

Last edited 4 months ago
carmentater
Guest
carmentater
4 months ago
Reply to  Farmer

I don’t know if anyone mislead anyone in this case but I doubt that would be a “crime.” It’s electoral politics and last time I checked candidates lie and mislead all the time, and none that I know of get charged. I don’t think this lawsuit has much chance but those who feel fervently need to try anything they can, I suppose. (Why don’t they just trust the voters to see it as they do?)

notheone
Guest
notheone
4 months ago

Ah, California, the initiative state. I sign none of them. They always wind up costing taxpayers money and a waste of money. It seems to me none of them makes sense. It is that simple. I am not the one!

Last edited 4 months ago