Ninth Circuit Hears Appeals in Landmark Case Against Humboldt County’s Cannabis Abatement Program
In a landmark hearing last Tuesday at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, plaintiffs embroiled in a federal class-action lawsuit against Humboldt County’s controversial cannabis abatement program voiced their grievances before a court for the first time. The case, which challenges the constitutionality of the county’s enforcement approach, highlights significant due process concerns under U.S. law. Led by attorney Jared McClain, and supported by the Institute for Justice, he argued that the county’s practices unfairly penalize property owners for past cannabis cultivation they were not involved in, demanding millions in fines without proper hearings.
Full video of opening statements.
Plaintiff Rhonda Olson said, “I have been waiting for four years to get my day in court with seven million in fines hanging over my head, and I couldn’t be more thrilled with the line of questioning by the Judges on the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of appeals. If it weren’t for our brilliant lawyers, Jared McClain, Robert Johnson from the Institute for Justice, we would’ve just had to accept what Humboldt County is doing to us.”
The Federal class action lawsuit, initially filed in October of 2022, alleges the county’s satellite abatement program violates the constitution in five specific ways.
Breakdown of constitutional claims chart, by Nichole Norris
Jared McClain, the lead attorney who filed the complaint reflected with RHBB after his oral arguments about the setback to impacted property owners last May, when the local trial court Judge Robert M. Illman dismissed their case, without leave to amend, meaning the plaintiffs have no opportunity to change or add anything to their complaint. “The magistrate…dismissed our complaint without letting us come into court and argue our position. So it was refreshing to finally have judges ask us questions and listen to what we had to say.”
Photo of Jared McClain by Nichole Norris, full interview outside the appeals court after opening statements here
Jared McClain commented to the RHBB regarding that decision after he gave oral arguments to the appeals court, saying, “I think the argument today showed that the Judges were concerned with the way that the trial Judge just rejected all of the allegations in our complaint. The way this is supposed to work is that we allege …our clients…got these cannabis violations when they hadn’t grown cannabis, and that then they never get hearings. The trial judge is supposed to accept that is true and decide whether or not it violates the law. And he just refused to accept that the county would ever behave this way. It was wrong for the trial judge to do that, and I think it came across in today’s argument that the panel at least seemed concerned…with the way that the trial Judge handled our complaint.”
The Institute for Justice appealed the local federal court dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in June, and last Tuesday the honorable Senior Judge Richard A. Paez, Judge Jennifer Sung, and Senior District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater, heard opening statements from Jared McClain on behalf of the plaintiffs, and from Pamela Graham, who is representing Humboldt County. Each lawyer reiterated their case for about five to ten minutes, took questions from the Judges, and gave final remarks.
Because the Institute for Justice filed this appeal on the motion to dismiss from the local district court, there has been no evidence presented at a hearing yet. So this appeal is solely based on what is stated in the amended complaint, the county’s motion to dismiss, and the attached documents.
In his opening statement McClain began by detailing the constitutional issues with the cannabis abatement program using Corrine and Doug Thomas’s case (previously reported here and here) as an example. He described a system that punishes innocent people, starting from flawed notification practices to unachievable compliance due to preset fines and restricted permit access. McClain argued,
“The Thomases bought their property with free and clear title, and just six days later, they were subject to $12,000 in daily penalties because someone else had cannabis in their garage two years before they even bought the place. Now, the county knew that the cannabis was gone, but that didn’t stop the fines. The Thomases would soon learn that they were part of an extremely convoluted system that punishes innocent people by design.
The due process problems here start as soon as the county sends these notices of violation. They don’t describe what condition on the property is supposedly in violation of the code, and they don’t tell you when the ten day clock starts to run. The county predates the notices. It puts them in the mail, it posts them at the edge of the property. By the time someone gets it, they don’t know how much time they have left to correct the violations, and they don’t know what they have to do to correct the violations.
And the problems, I think, start even before that, because this dragnet enforcement scheme starts with the county looking down from satellite images to find supposed grading violations or unpermitted buildings, and then just assuming that they must contain cannabis. And this allegation of cannabis brings immediate and unavoidable consequences for the people who receive them. The fines begin to run automatically as a matter of law after ten days, and the only way to stop them is by appealing.
And while you wait for your appeal, you’re not allowed to develop your property, you’re not entitled to the permits you need to correct the supposed violations, and you’re also not entitled to any other permits you might need to fully use and enjoy your property…The only people that are actually getting administrative hearings are the people who are guilty and everyone else is stuck in limbo indefinitely until they eventually give in and pay a settlement.”
The Appeals Court Senior Judge Paez questioned both sides, emphasizing the standard of review should favor the plaintiffs at the complaint stage, contrary to the trial judge’s approach. He asked McClain during his opening statements,
“The Magistrate Judge that had this case, wrote an extensive order…where do you think is the most serious error…in dismissing your claims without leave to amend?”
McClain responded,
“The error that pervaded everything was his refusal to accept our allegations as true…he looked at 600 pages of documents without identifying a single fact…that actually contradicted anything in our complaint. And then he just ruled as a matter of law that everything the county had done was even handed and proportionate and non arbitrary…He assumed all of the facts against us, and then he reached legal conclusions and basically said, we’re never going to be able to prove these claims. There’s nothing that we can put forward that’s going to change his mind that what the county did here was disproportionate or arbitrary…The facts… also need to clearly contradict the allegations in our complaint. And he didn’t specify anything. And to this day, we’re still not sure what is in those documents [that he disputes].
McClain said the county’s motion to dismiss raised many new issues, and after a review the Institute for Justice discovered,
“This [abatement] system is working in a way that’s even crazier than we imagined. We added 130 allegations to our complaint based on these documents, and the trial court looked at those same documents and said that we were highly disingenuous to suggest that the system is working the way that it does— that was an error….He didn’t look at whether our legal claims were plausible. He looked at whether our facts were plausible. And he said, it’s just implausible to me that the government would act this way, and that’s not the trial court’s job at a motion to dismiss stage.”
Screenshot of the court of appeals opening statements by Humboldt County’s Attorney Pamela Graham.
Pamela Graham, the county’s lawyer, argued the dismissal was justified given the nature and complexity of the case.
In her opening statements Graham said,
“I think what your honors just heard is precisely why this case should be affirmed. There are rare circumstances where when a case comes up on a complaint, it is appropriate for a judge, when reviewing the complaint, to go beyond the complaint, as this judge did here, and to dismiss it without leave to amend. This is that circumstance. It was a lengthy complaint. It raised numerous parties, numerous allegations that the county then had to defend. But it was mischaracterizing the nature of those code enforcement proceedings. And a court is entitled, when reviewing a complaint, before it requires here a public entity to put in taxpayers dollars to defend the case, to look beyond the complaint.”
Judge Paez interjected and stated to attorney Graham,
“I’m not aware of any law or anything that suggests that the County should get some special consideration…the standard is you take the facts and the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here it would be the plaintiffs, and where there’s discrepancies, you look at everything in a light that is most favorable to the plaintiffs— It doesn’t look to me that that’s what he did.”
Judge Paez continued with his questioning to Graham, adding,
“My understanding is a complaint allegation is that the county doesn’t record any of the violations, or at least in these cases, did not record any of the violations that pre-existed their ownership of the property…Even though you did seem to concede earlier that these are violations based on things that pre-existed their ownership.”
Graham responded,
“That’s true that the investigations began before the time that these particular named plaintiffs purchased these properties…I think there is an argument, certainly in the briefs that …the plaintiffs are somehow innocent purchasers. But as your honors know, from reviewing the documents …it was very clear that there was prior cannabis cultivation, unlicensed, on all of these properties, which would have been apparent to somebody that was buying the property, not necessarily something that needed to be investigated and uncovered through a title search, but was, in fact, apparent.”
Judge Paez asked McClain about his perspective on this innocent purchaser issue, saying, “A buyer who just walked through the property would be curious whether or not that structure was permitted… You think you want to check.”
McClain responded,
“If this case were only about permits, our clients would have been able to get the permits… But because of the cannabis allegation, they’re ineligible… By alleging that there was cannabis involved, it takes them out of the normal permitting process, and they can’t actually correct the nuisances on their property.”
After his opening statements before the court, Jared McClain elaborated on this claim from the county’s counsel in an interview with RHBB.
McClain said,
“I was a little surprised by the county’s response when the judge asked,” Do you record these violations against the title?” And [attorney Graham] tried to say first that these were just new violations, even though they had existed for two years prior, and they were just never served. They never recorded those violations against the title. And then she said, it was our client’s fault, that Rhonda [Olson] and Doug and Corinne Thomas, should have looked at that garage and knew that that garage was used for cannabis, and they should have known that by buying a property that used to have cannabis on it, that they would just face a million dollars in penalties and a $200,000 demolition order.
That’s just not the way the law works. It’s not the way the world works. And I’m optimistic that the 9th Circuit will recognize that.”
One matter requested by the Institute for Justice is Reassignment on remand, which means the Ninth Circuit orders the case to go to a new judge. On remand means the court of appeals sends the case back to the local district court.
McClain argued for reassignment on remand, citing what he said was the trial judge’s apparent bias and definitive conclusions at the dismissal stage. He argued,
“The trial court already drew factual conclusions like this was an evidentiary stage. He held that our facts were implausible, highly disingenuous, not entitled to the presumption of truth. He accused us of being disagreeable, of obfuscating, of painting a distorted picture, of making gross mischaracterizations on the merits. He said, we won’t ever be able to state a claim that the county imposed an unconstitutional condition. And he ruled as a matter of law that everything [the county] did was even handed, proportionate and non arbitrary, which makes it impossible for us to state a claim under the due process clause or under the 8th amendment.
So I think …this court has said when a trial judge is adamant in its decision, and it makes it seem like the judge is not going to change his mind, that reassignment is appropriate. This court has also said in Reyes v. Rivera that even if you believe that he might be able to put aside his past belief, you should also look to the appearance of injustice. I think [Judge Illman] said something that suggests that his views are firmly held… I think the long list of adjectives and ridicule make that clear in this case…it’s not going to look like justice.”
Speaking to that point, Humboldt County’s Attorney Graham argued,
“This judge took a lengthy pass through the documents that we requested notice of. I think that he showed through the opinion that he can base his opinions on the evidence. I don’t see anything here that suggests that he would somehow be prejudiced to review evidence upon any type of a remand. We don’t think it’s appropriate to reassign…We don’t think this is a situation where there is such a clear prejudice or inability for him to be impartial that it could not be remanded back to this same judge.”
McClain ended his opening statements by speaking to the notion of past crimes falling on innocent owners, saying,
“These cases were started against the prior owner. They were never pursued against the prior owner…And it’s not just the outstanding permitting violations. It’s not just that there’s nuisances on your property that are causing harm to the society at large. It’s that there was cannabis cultivated on this land, and you’re facing cannabis penalties for the past conduct of the prior owner. And although we agree, nothing about this case should upset how normal practice of nuisance abasement works, crimes do not run with the land. Just because prior owners have committed illegal conduct on the land doesn’t mean that years down the road, a new purchaser should have investigated the garage to see if maybe there was a crime, because they could possibly conceive that they might be subject to over a million dollars in penalties.”
The two possible outcomes at this point are that the Ninth Circuit could either affirm or reverse the decision, if they affirm the decision, it means they agree that the magistrate was right to dismiss this case. If they reverse the decision, they’ll remand it back to the district court—either back to Magistrate Illman or to a new, randomly assigned judge in the Northern District of California. Because Magistrate Illman is the only judge in the Eureka Division, the case would probably go to San Francisco if it’s reassigned to a new judge.
McClain explained that “what happens next is an open question,” and wrote,
“Typically they would decide that he erred by dismissing our case, and the next step would be going to discovery at the district court. But there’s a chance they may “vacate” his decision instead of reversing it. In that case, they’d say that he screwed up so badly in how he analyzed our complaint, that they’ll basically give the case to a new trial judge to decide the motion to dismiss again…Its impossible to say, unfortunately, how long it will take the court to rule. There’s no timetable; it’s just whenever the court gets done writing the opinion.”
After the arguements ended, Plaintiff Rhonda Olson told us,
“I feel Judge Sung understands, she pointed out the “coercive” behavior of John Ford’s planning department. I almost felt sorry for the lawyer for Humboldt County, having to defend her clients’ behavior. If one considers Ms. Graham‘s arguments as true, no one should buy property in Humboldt County because you are responsible for the crimes of previous owners and will be threatened with millions of dollars in fines. In my case, Humboldt County even tried to coerce me to sign a contract saying I had created the nuisance when in FACT Humboldt County knew I did not…I am praying that the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals rules in our favor and also reassigns our case to a venue where we can be heard, and Justice will prevail.”
Stay engaged with the RHBB for ongoing coverage on this story.
Full disclosure- this reporter worked for the law offices of Eugene “ED” Denson since 2018, on over 100 cannabis abatements since the programs inception, including plaintiffs Blu Graham, Rhonda Olson, and the Thomases. This article is in honor of EDs legacy and all the work he did to help our community. ED passed at 84 years old on April 12, peacefully at his home in Alderpoint by his beloved wife MaryAlice. While he is missed by so many, his influence lives on.
If you wish to support investigative journalism for the RHBB, please consider donating to the GoFundMe page Eugene Denson created for Nichole Norris’s ongoing work on the issues that meant so much to him.
Earlier:
- Penalties, Costs, Fines, and Fees: A Deep Look at the Humboldt County Cannabis Abatement Process
- Punished for Another’s Crimes: Humboldt County Demands New Owners Destroy Any Unpermitted Building Used for Cannabis Cultivation
- ‘Buildings for Rich People’: Part Two of Punished for Another’s Crimes, a Look at the Ramifications of the Abatement Process
- Humboldt County Cannabis Abatement Program “Unconstitutional,” Says the Institute for Justice Which Today Filed a Federal Class Action Lawsuit
- Humboldt County Files a Motion to Dismiss the Institute for Justice’s Federal Class Action Lawsuit Against Its Cannabis Abatement Program
- The Pressure Is the Point’: The Institute for Justice Has Filed an Amended Complaint for the Lawsuit Against the Humboldt County Cannabis Abatement Program
- Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Humboldt County’s Cannabis Abatement Process
- Undeterred: After Judge Grants County’s Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against Abatement Program, Plaintiffs and their Lawyers Appeal
- Humboldt County Strikes Back With Response to Institute of Justice Claims in Federal Class Action Lawsuit Against the Cannabis Abatement Program
- Humboldt County Cannabis Abatement Lawsuit Moves Forward in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with a Reply Brief From the Institute of Justice
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Ms. Olson is spot-on with her statement: The county cronies, (along with the disgustingly corrupt planning department), truly ARE an utter embarrassment to any lawyer who represents such blatantly Machiavellian fools…..indeed we should pity the pathetic barristers in their employ. Sadly, the same pity must be extended to Humboldt’s beleaguered citizens, too.
Keep in mind the appeal isn’t about the facts of the case but only about whether the case should go to trial. A win here simply puts the case back in the local court without making a decision on the merits of the case.
Keep in mind that the County of Humboldt, in it’s infinite wisdom and imbalance of justice approach, granted cannabis permits without so much as property lines firmly established by legal survey…
The same with their planning and building code enforcement abatements…
The same with their sheriff’s office cannabis eradication efforts, with search warrants actually signed by judges, albeit in error, based on incorrect, sworn affidavit only, that their satellite images, of so called cannabis offenses were in fact, in reality, actually trespass grows that they had eventually, “legally” permitted, that appeared to the ongoing satellite imagery, to be, one and the same, garden grow area as the original abatement satellite images, because they, in fact, WERE of the very same albeit ongoingly misidentified area…
Imagine the look on the legal growers face, as he is handcuffed, but is also misidentified by property and person, and then also imagine the look on all of the faces of law enforcement, when he shows them his “legal ” paperwork and “legal” , (trespass grow), permit, and then proceeds to attempt to implicate the undeserving neighbor for his own, very same, violations, AGAIN, as he is uncuffed…
The Planning Department HAS NOT, LIKEWISE, unfortunately, FREED THE FALSELY IDENTIFIED NEIGHBOR, of his ongoing, misapplied, unjust, “abatement fetters and chains”…
Maybe properly consider the unfortunate, adjacent “new” property owner, that had already been, and was still being, and IS STILL, for YEARS, being subjected to previous, ongoing, and current abatement consequences, respectively, FROM THE VERY SAME GARDEN GROW AREA, that triggered the initial abatement, whose place the LEO had just ransacked and tore up, AND THAT THE JUDGE HAD JUST WRITTEN THE DAY’S SEARCH WARRANT FOR, THIS TIME FOR A, “BIG TIME”, MULTI AGENCY “BUST” , that was a follow up to the original, initial, associated, ongoing abatement…
All a mistake…
“HIS”, misapplied abatement, still hangs inappropriately, and vexingly over HIS head, with no way to resolve it…
But the County Planning Department, proceeded to PERMIT the offending neighbor, after he dodged the initial abatement…
Shouldn’t the Planning department acknowledge it’s proven “SURVEYING”/”SATELITE”, mistake, and drop the Neighbors abatement in it’s entirety, with an optional apology…???
They are/have been putting him, FOR YEARS, through unjustified, hopeless, abatement misery, Errantly Submitted and Signed Warrants, Searches, Seizures, and Destruction of Property, all stemming from a sloppy, misdirected, misidentified abatement, in the first place…
(Was there a grudge involved…???)
(Is there still a grudge involved…???)
I wonder what John Ford thought about it at the time, (was he also there???), or what John Ford thinks about it now….???
Did he correct the horrible mistake…
I don’t think so.
Did he absolve the innocent adjacent property owner, of his ongoing, now proven to be unjustified, abatement…???
Were all of his inappropriate fines returned…???
Definitely not…
Because those would be the right things to do…
Or did John Ford just pretend, (and is he just continuing to pretend), that his organization didn’t make a horrible mistake, by abating the wrong property owner, and then by PERMITTING the truly offending trespass grower that actually deserved the abatement instead of the neighbor…
Why is the undeserving neighbor STILL facing such an abatement, which was proven to have been triggered by someone else’s cannabis violations…???
Maybe John Ford has been hoping that no one would notice, or would even care, and he can just continue to sweep it under the rug, with the rest of such problems that have arisen from other, multiple, inappropriate abatements…???
I’d like to think he’s the type of official that would properly correct such a mistake if it was brought to his attention, without further ado…
I’m hoping he ISN’T the kind of guy that WOULDN’T properly correct it, nor that would REFUSE to properly correct it…
Is that overly naive of me…???
John Ford is likely THE ONLY OFFICIAL that COULD properly correct it, by completely dropping the improper abatement, and is also likely the ONLY ONE SO AUTHORIZED TO DO SO.
So why hasn’t it already happened…???
Collective punishment…???
Why the Departmental hesitance to return tens of thousands of dollars of fines that were inappropriately assessed…???
Oh, wait, there are obviously tens of thousands of reasons, per mistake, to not correct their mistakes…
Obviously, Planning Department Code Enforcement served the original abatement to the wrong individual, IN THE FIRST PLACE, and by the subsequent permit holder, (who should rightfully have been the PROPER recipient of the original abatement), being eventually placed in cuffs, (during a “bust”stemming from said original abatement), AT THE SAME ORIGINAL SATELITE “SURVEYED”, ABATEMENT GARDEN GROW AREA, it has subsequently been proven, beyond even a shadow of a doubt.
But, still no proper planning department resolution for their obvious ongoing mistake, absolving the improper abatement recipient of the ongoing abatement, nor has their been proper restitution made for the exorbitant fines which they have improperly, yet “dutifully”, collected…
California’s very own, “Humboldt County Planning and Building Department”…
“At your service”…
What a fucking, hopeless, perpetual, neverending, terrible, nightmare…
I wouldn’t wish it upon anyone…
Thank you, Institute of Justice, OUR ONLY HOPE, from the bottom of my heart…
Hopefully, their valiant efforts, will bring some resolution, and relief, to these quasi legal, yet very serious and unconstitutional affronts…
Rant over…
Please contact me at 17073626655 or [email protected] thanks.
Usually your very wordy choppy over the top know it all not at all funny posts are too much to get through. I do appreciate where your heart seems to go on issues like this though. If I knew how to thumb up I would. Thank you
Important to note that the Institute for Justice regularly takes cases to the Supreme Court which is super rare. Of all firms to have our community’s fait in their hands, we can all rest assured.
“The Thomases bought their property with free and clear title, and just six days later, they were subject to $12,000 in daily penalties because someone else had cannabis in their garage two years before they even bought the place. Now, the county knew that the cannabis was gone, but that didn’t stop the fines. The Thomases would soon learn that they were part of an extremely convoluted system that punishes innocent people by design.
Brilliant model county clowns…let’s deter anyone from coming to Humboldt and helping “cleanup” the mess you’ve created over the past decades of pretending not to see these grow sites while they were active. Just take your new tax $ permit $ etc $ etc $ and leave the good folks trying to save properties and property values here. Extortion is a terrible means of solving your poor decision making and greed.
I hope these people eventually get a settlement that bankrupt this county
That would be excellent. And maybe put some of these county clowns in prison.
So let me get this straight…there are all of these pot properties available, driving down the property values around here. We have folks like Doug moving in from outside the area – and we are going to bust his balls for “helping” create new income by relocating here…and the geniuses at County are screwing this viable economic solution up…
Time for some new “leadership “
This is precisely the County’s idea, on how NOT to LET the exorbitantly inflated, pre legalization assessed values of VIRTUALLY ALL of the land in Humboldt County…
There is method to their madness, although it’s as corrupt as can be…
By the Humboldt County, CA Planning and Building Department ABSOLUTELY HAMMERING the figuratively FIRST purchasers of Humboldt County Property, now that it’s at it’s new and improved more affordable, post legalization glut, lesser value, the County thereby ensures that the current assessed values, albeit grossly overinflated, along with of course, the associated overly inflated tax collection (that allows them to live in the lavish manner with which they have become so accustomed to), will NOT BE DIMINISHED BY SUCH PESKY, PREVENTABLE, THINGS, SUCH AS ANY FUTURE SALES OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY CA LAND, AT ITS NEW GREATLY REDUCED TRUE VALUE, WHICH WOULD TRIGGER AN IMMEDIATE, AND MUCH LOWER ASSESSED VALUE, OF NOT ONLY THE LAND AND IN QUESTION, BUT ALSO A REDUCTION IN THE SURROUNDING LAND, VIA COMPS DURING THEIR POTENTIAL REASSESSMENT…
This way, they can fuck over EVERYONE ELSE, while not fucking over themselves…
Make no mistake about it, this was A VERY INTENTIONAL, self serving, County of Humboldt, Planning and Building Department, strategic maneuver…
I’m sure that the Supervisors would agree and concur, even though they would be screwing over EVERY ONE of their constituents, by allowing such a crooked approach to maintaining the current, grossly overinflated, tax base…
It’s FRAUD, plain and simple…
And the Supervisors are ALL COMPLICIT.
LOWER THE CURRENT, GROSSLY OVERINFLATED PROPERTY TAXES, NOW…!!!
REASSESS HUMBOLDT…!!!
IT’S THE ONLY RIGHT THING LEFT TO DO…
DO IT NOW…!!!
??,
To finish my previously unfinished sentence
“This is precisely the County’s idea, on how NOT to LET the exorbitantly inflated, pre legalization assessed values of VIRTUALLY ALL of the land in Humboldt County…”
…be reassessed to the current lower value, due to it’s sale, for a lesser, much more realistic, amount…
?♂️?♂️
This is a very good point
Thank you, J,B.
If the County Planning and Building Department’s overbearing action towards the Thomases, (the people from out of the area, spending their outside money in Humboldt, on property in Salmon Creek, that I can only assume came down radically in price, since the last time it had been previously sold), didn’t make sense before, well, now it suddenly makes PERFECT financial sense, even if ONLY from, ‘The County Government of Humboldt’s, narrow-minded, self-serving, overly-entitled, point of view, as crooked as it is…
Which is ALL they care about…
They have NO INTENTION of creating ANY situation, (for themselves), that requires THEM to tighten THEIR belts, tighten THEIR purse strings, AND/OR creating a situation that causes THEM to go without…
And they have EVERY INTENTION of creating that kind of financial hardship situation, for EVERYONE ELSE in Humboldt County, CA, even though we literally represent their proverbial, “bread and butter”…
They have grown accustomed to collecting and living off of the highly overinflated, Green Rush Era Tax Base, when properties went for multi-million dollar price tags, that you couldn’t give away today, or might only sell for 5% to 10% of what they sold for during The Green Rush, or during one of the Early Permit schemes, before the legal prices tanked and the glut hit…
While they mercilessly target all other residents and property owners of Humboldt County, CA, and they simultaneously REFUSE to cut them even a small, reasonable, property tax break, THEY are VERY, VERY, CAREFUL, TO AVOID ALSO SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT, while they are at it, so to speak…
Hence, the absolutely shameful treatment of the Thomases, whom they made an example out of, with the intentionally chilling effect, real estate sale-wise, I might add…
Call it Ford’s ulterior motives…
He knows where his paycheck comes from…
John Ford doesn’t care if he causes anyone else’s financial hardships, so he damn sure isn’t going to cut any slack to any of them, even if they are the very source of HIS bloated paychecks…
Again, You are on point, and I appreciate you putting out a thoughtful comment that really seems to understand the finer points of how fucked up the county has handled this whole shitshow.
Holy shit you are actually right on point, dead on.
No unnecessary ellipses or emojis either.
Great points thank you.
You know that’s pretty easy to do right? Talk to your assessor about prop 8 filing- I did that and it saved me a lot on my prop taxes.
Oh, I talked to the assessor all right…
I don’t know anything about “Prop 8 filing”, and the assessor mentioned absolutely nothing about that…
I explained my situation, and the assessor explained that I could get a reassessment, but when I realized from the tone of the assessor’s voice, and the direction the conversation was taking, (Spidey Senses tingling off of the chart), that my taxes would end up not going down, but going substantially UP, if I made the mistake of any continued interaction along those lines, with them…
Like I already mentioned, they are not at all regretful for, nor were they concerned at all for, overtaxing the shit out of me for decades…
That became very clear.
I realized that I was making the same kind of mistake that I had made decades ago, which was contacting them in the first place, that led to nothing but problems…
That’s when I promptly ended the conversation, realizing, in dismay, that I was AGAIN, dealing with the very same County of Humboldt, with their very same “resource extraction” attitude, and I would, AGAIN, come out wor$e for the wear, not better, for the associated effort…
Fuck that…
They must not hate YOU.
Thanks for the, “Prop 8 filing”, idea…
It’s a lead that I will research right away, but I seriously doubt that I will ever again make the mistake of contacting anyone affiliated with Humboldt County…
At least I hope not.
Bunch of vultures.
The harder I work, and the more improvements that I make, the more they want to take from me…
It’s a serious disincentive to making improvements, such as building a home, to one’s property, due to promptly increased associated property taxes.
Imagine the dearth of improvements, that are being made because of it…
I’m not a professional real estate developer. I’m just your average Joe, trying to make my way in the World…
If I was a professional real estate developer, with the sole intention of making a quick profit off of the improvements that I’ve made, by planning on reselling my property ASAP, that would be one thing, but I’m not…
It’s my feeling that if the County Government wants to properly incentivize and encourage individuals into making improvements to their land, buildings included, that they should wait to reassess the value of property improvements, until the property is eventually resold, separating the developers, from those simply trying to “improve their lot”, so to speak…
Imagine the improvements that would be made, if such progress wasn’t promptly punished.
I paid retail price, AND sales tax on all the materials to build my home, and hired various tradesmen along the way, supporting my State, my community, and the economy…
A contactor, or real estate developer, gets to buy wholesale, and/or get all kinds of other tax breaks, and can write all their costs off…
Not me.
So I shouldn’t get further taxed the same as them, for property improvements…
I’m not trying to get rich, I’m just trying to put, and keep, a roof over my family’s head, and keep food on the table…
Let a future buyer get hit with the reassessment, and the increased taxes, not me…
That would, maybe, cover my groceries…
Yeah, property taxes are tough. It makes you feel like you never really own your property! I pay near $1000 /month at my place on taxes. Forever/ plus more as it increases every year.
My tax guy for my area in WC is max Martin. Nice guy. You know, you have to put yourself in other people’s shoes to deal with them respectfully. So treat them with respect and they will do the same. Good luck. Maybe we can get another proposition on the ballot for more fair property tax laws.
Remember- taxes are the price we pay for civilization. I’m not against paying a fair share.
As someone who was impacted by the abatement program and got off fairly easily with only having to pay an attorney (thanks ED) who ultimately got our case dismissed with no fines at all, I am hopeful that the county will get it’s proper comeuppance from the 9th circuit. 5 years of stress over the possibility of $90,000 in fines on a piece of property we paid $6000 for is in my rear view window and certainly should be for the plaintiffs in this action.
I just read that our gentle warrior Ed Denson has died. What a sad day for so many of us. He was a giant in this battle for our rights. ?
RIP Ed Denson
“ED passed at 84 years old on April 12, peacefully at his home in Alderpoint by his beloved wife MaryAlice. ”
Ed was my attorney years ago. I did not know Ed passed away ?
Lighting one up and lighting a Candle today April 15th in Eds Memory.
He was a legendary cannabis and defense attorney. Ed Denson will be missed.
Ed Denson has passed away…???
I am so sorry to hear this…
He was a guiding light in a sea of darkness…
A true Pillar of the Community…
He represented real hope, in otherwise hopeless situations…
My deepest condolences to his family, his colleagues, and his close friends…
He always had, and always will have, my utmost respect…
His loss is too much to bear today ?
The last thing ED text me after I shared the YouTube video from the ninth circuit court of appeals and my interview with IJ was, That government is best which govern[s] least.”
This is very sad to hear.
Ed helped me out many years ago too.
I hope there will be some sort of public memorial.
He was a pillar of this community and no doubt touched many lives.
RIP ED. Condolences to MaryAlice and all who will miss him. I spent many happy hours listening to him on KMUD. The times I spoke with him he was gracious and kind.
I have an old pin that says Ed for DA with a crossed out helicopter in the background. RIP
Only a democrat could look at this case and a million other examples of government overreach and abuse stretching back throughout the entirety of history and somehow reach the conclusion that we need more government to make our lives better. Liberalism is a mental disorder!
No. We need smarter government. Not an abusive, close-minded government that is trying to prevent free thinkers that are tired of an oppressive bureaucracy .
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.
Yes, rollin, who would want that ?
Your analysis of assigning political party responsibility is so thinly veiled in stupidity, well, Ill leave it at that
We needed a government who took the time to record a lien or abatement on the title! Or have the creativity to go after the offender instead of future owners.
The fundamental problems are lack of 1) notification, 2) process, 3) accountability.
If there is an ongoing investigation, the county should have a duty of notification that the property has a pending abatement – or could. Reliance on people’s lack of knowledge is fundamentally wrong.
The county needs to change the process it uses, particularly in the escrow window. A purchase of property should be able to give the county time to assess any abatement, and be absolved of any future cannabis related abatement should the county fail to document prior to close.
To include methods such as: a) require the county to document any and all abatement issues within 90 days when cannabis permits are closed/canceled/transferred, and b) require notification of the impact of abatement to sellers and buyers – essentially enable the buyer to require the seller to close any permits on request and take the responsibility for any abatement.
Nullify or create abatement fairness for illegal use of a property. I can’t know what occurred on the property prior to my ownership – illegal or not. “should have known” is not an appropriate method to hold someone accountable, particularly when the owner is paying taxes that create a burden of responsibility for the county.
As of two years ago – there is no process in the county to notify any party or department, close permits, review, or schedule abatement or permit review when a property closes. Getting information out of the permitting system is a joke – as hard as the county has tried to make that system work for everyone.
From personal experience – it will take several phone calls and personal appearances in *each* department to find any permits, investigations, and actions. Compounded by the secretive and deliberate obfuscation by previous owners.
If buyers knew and understood all the unknown responsibilities they take on when purchasing a property – no property would ever be sold in Humboldt County. Certainly not a sale which includes title insurance or a mortgage.
Some clear rules, methods, and laws around accountability are needed for all parties – including the county. “Buyer beware” is not such a thing.
You could have included,
“Lack of Accuracy”…
VERY well said, thank you! This has been my experience 100% working in the law office. Before ED passed we started working on “abatement prevention” cases together for innocent buyers, often from out of the area.
that is why god created TITLE INSURANCE. if are past issues with a property’s title they will be revealed, and if not, they cover. the current property owner will always be liable for any past issues, from grows to a tenant who contacts business without the owner’s permission even. due diligence required.
Wrong! Code violations, per se, are seldom, if ever, recorded against a property. Same for NOVs. Once a financial penalty is FINALIZED, then, and only then, would it be recorded as a lien against the property.
People are losing their minds over the cannabis issue but pretend the large unpermitted grow structure on the Thomas’ property was really built as a garage/workshop and it’s still an unpermitted building subject to abatement.
That fact wouldn’t show up in a title report but could have been learned by checking with the Planning Dept, the Assessor or the Tax Collector.
The Achilles Heel for the County is they’re leaning too heavily on the cannabis aspect instead of arguing it as routine code enforcement.
Really, could it have been learned by checking with the planning dept before sale? Although they fully for fucking sure collected property tax on it, why would they not allow to retro permit it? You have to tear it down? That s fckn bullshit. not sure you truth be telling
Yes. Planning could have verified if the “garage” was permitted or not. The Assessor could have verified if it had been assessed and added to the property rolls or not. Many unpermitted structures are on the tax rolls, but many are not.
All structures related to this lawsuit (other than hoop houses ) have had taxes paid on them for a long time, in Rhonda’s case for decades.
Unfortunately, paying taxes on an un-permitted structure does not legalize the structure.
Decades of lax enforcement by the County created a false sense of security but it didn’t make up for not having a permit.
Had the County simply acted on the alleged code violations (leaving cannabis out of it) this case would probably never have been filed. But the County saw an opportunity to impose an onerous cannabis related fine schedule.
The Plaintiff’s strong suit is the effort by the County to penalize the current owners for the previous alleged criminal activity of former owners.
Based on the questions from the judges it won’t be a surprise if the appeal succeeds and the case is remanded to the trial court. But no matter the outcome at trial it will trigger the next round of appeals.
PS: I was sorry to hear of Ed’s passing. He was a good and kind man and led an interesting life.
Collecting taxes on unpermitted structures means that the County has been on the take…
Call it tacit approval…
If it has no real value, because it’s a liability instead of an assert, is it even legal for the county to assess a value to such an unpermitted structure that has no real value…???
Certainly a bank wouldn’t loan ANY money against an unpermitted structures dubious “value”…
My home is permitted, and my Humboldt County assessed value is nearly $500,000, which is roughly 7 times what I paid for the land…
But the bank would only lend me about 8% of the Humboldt County assessed value, or about 1/12th of the assessed value…
That tells me how hard the County is ripping everyone off…
Why is there such a huge discrepancy between what the County figures that your property is worth, that they levy taxes on, when compared to what the bank figures that your very same property is worth, that they base what they will loan you, against it…???
It’s a 95% discrepancy, between what The County of Humboldt, and what your local bank, each figure your property is worth…
Even if they meet in the middle, that means that the County is levying taxes, that are about twice what they should be charging, AT LEAST…
And you must have never personally tried to get a building permit approved from them…
At least not for a property in Southern Humboldt, that is…
It’s next to impossible, if not feasibly impossible, and can literally take years…
Far longer than it takes to build an entire, completed home, which can be done in a matter of as little as a few months…
That can really take the wind out of a guy’s sails, and since time is money, it can make the difference between a project being affordable, and it becoming totally unaffordable, and totally unfeasible…
It can break a guy, in spirit, and in the money’s sense…
Not to mention the weather related complications the county’s unnecessary extended delays will create for a guy just trying to put a roof over himself and his family…
A guy has two choices that he must decide between…
Build without a permit, or be left out in the cold FOR YEARS waiting for his building permit to be approved by the County of Molasses, er, um, Mollusks, er, um, I mean, Humboldt…
I learned my lesson, I will never again apply for a building permit from them, nor will I ever build in Humboldt ever again…
I got left in the cold, along with my family… For years… Before my permit was even ever finally approved…
That broke me.
And I still had a house to build…
Not very user friendly…
I’ve gotten non cannabis projects permitted thru the county and found the process easy and the people in the planning department very helpful and accessable. They want to give ya permits, what are you talking about taking years for a building permit? I’m convinced people unable to work within the confines of the building department as probably just incompetent…
Alright dude 3 points:
1.the employees are more often very kind and helpful, true.
2. BUT you are completely missing the point, this lawsuit isn’t about friendly faces, this lawsuit, as Jared says, is about whether the cannabis abatement laws in our county violate our constitutional rights in five specific ways, or not. Did you watch the oral arguments? Start there.
3. As you said you are basing your opinion off of your “non cannabis projects,” while failing to understand there is a separate cannabis enforcement and/or branch in almost every government agency, often riddled with what I call a canna-bias, aka completely different rules, extreme fines etc. they don’t say cannabis is the most regulated crop for nothing.
What general area was your permit for…???
I never said paying taxes legitimized the structure. Someone mentioned taxes and I find that aspect fascinating that a government can tax you for something and also abate and fine you over the same thing.
The three story structure was the featured image in the real estate magazine and one main reason Doug and Corrine bought the property to facilitate a remodel. The structure demolition would require the removal of over 20 trees in the old growth redwood forest to facilitate it, and cost $200k, aka their retirement. That is not fair.
Context is critical here, are you aware of how many unpermitted structures are in rural Humboldt? There was an entire movement and laws passed around owner builders. It’s hardly the time to be removing usable structures, RVs that could be inhabited etc. also.
I think the root injustice is how legalization ushered in this under the guise of protecting the environment. Removing old growth trees to remove a structure, or pay tens of thousands, or more to get a piece of paper to legitimize an ancillary structure no one hardly plans to use, seems hypocritical and pointless. The “damage” has been done already, removing it would cause more damage and is senseless from my perspective.
Really,You are saying buying property with title insurance on 30 day escrow contacting the planning dept to find out if a garage is permitted is the way to protect yourself from “crimes” committed years previous? Those guys don’t seem to even miss a shed as an improvement on the tax bill, first hand knowledge here. In the salmon creek case you think the tax assessor missed the building? So every building on a homestead that had a pot leaf in it at one time without a permit has to be torn down, not given the chance to retro permit. The planning department was so out of line on this and others. If you agree with them, I hope you live very far away from me. If they were collecting property taxes on this building what’s your thoughts on that?
This whole abatement shit is all on its own in scope and severity in civil law in california with the way fines and appeal went down any one who thinks its legit is totally fucked in the head.
I’m saying title insurance won’t disclose code violations and paying taxes won’t make up for not having permits.
Prospective buyers who don’t determine the permit status of improvements prior to close of escrow are being very careless.
I’ve also said the weak link for the County is ramping up fines based on the alleged cannabis related criminal activity of prior owners. It seems like a huge stretch to apply these penalties to the “innocent buyers” who had nothing to do with the prior cannabis activity.
Take cannabis (and the cannabis only fine schedule) out of it and the Plaintiff’s case collapses. But the County got greedy and here we are with dueling lawyers.
My suspicion is if a buyer called the planning dept, they would try to bait them into paying to”fix “ the property. Still I suggest all buyers contact them before signing their life away, it’s just too risky to buy property in rural Humboldt.
Goes to t real guests point that making rural property sales such a risk to change hands and lowering the assessed value is exactly what the county wants to control. I really try to be a cup is half full guy, but DAMN, county government is either totally evil soul crushing overlords, or so fucking stupid they have no sense of balancing peoples property rights with raising money to fix our fucking roads and give themselves raises. The problem with them getting sued into oblivion is we tax payers have to pay for their narcissistic incompetence , putting us even further behind than we already are! wtf
Well said JB!
AND…These county workers who did this will still get their pensions! That we pay for!! Many people I know, myself included do not get pensions…yet we will pay for theirs. Pretty sick!
That is actually a very astute observation, Farce.
Also more relevant than might meet the eye at first glance…
The County of Humboldt was in MAJOR arrears in it’s funding of it’s California P.E.R.S. mandated payments, BEFORE this whole abatement program with it’s astronomical fines ever even began…
In fact, I vaguely recall that they were SO FAR behind, and owed SO MUCH, that it was threatening to bankrupt them…
I think that you have just revealed the true impetus for the abatement program…
It was initiated precisely to shore up the County of Humboldt’s rapidly sinking, ready to capsize, P.E.R.S. “ship”…
For the County of Humboldt, especially for the current, highest paid, soon to retire, employees at the time, without the abatement program coming to the financial rescue for them, they would have likely lost their pensions, when the County of Humboldt was forced to declare insolvency, and went into bankruptcy…
That’s probably why nobody knows where the $millions and $millions in abatement fines have disappeared off to…
(1200 abatements × $10,000 – $30,000 minimum = $12 million – $36 million minimum collected…)
All those $Tens of Millions, have probably been structured into interest bearing accounts, fully funding the County of Humboldt’s previously insufficient PERS deposits, (that were so dreadfully in arrears, and costing the County of Humboldt an unaffordable fortune in payments and interest, just to maintain the minimum required balance, before they extorted the necessary money from the people of Humboldt, through the abatement program, to make up the difference…)
You sure don’t hear much of anything about the County of Humboldt having ANY problems making their mandated PERS funding payments any longer, do you…???
It boiled down to THEIR SURVIVAL, OR OUR SURVIVAL, and so, of course, predictably, THEY SOLD US ALL OUT, because the abatement program has not just inordinately penalized the abatement recipients, the abatement program will end up sinking the entire County, growers or not…
Somebody might want to look into THAT.
https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2020/feb/29/county-has-accrued-more-60000-late-fees-calpers-oc/
From pdf…
‘Will Unfunded County Pension s Unfund Our Future’
[(From fiscal year 2016-2017)]
[(About the time of the abatement programs inception…)]
[(Is that more than just a coincidence…???)]
“Our County pension liability is less than one-tenth of 1% of the State liability, but at $232 million, it is twice
our annual fund revenues of $118 million. A Humboldt County bankruptcy would have no real
effect on the State’s unfunded pension liability problem, but could decimate many of our
County services. So what is an “unfunded pension liability,” and how did we get ourselves
into this serious financial situation?
Simply put, an unfunded pension liability is the shortfall between retirement benefits that
governments (in our case, Humboldt County) have promised to their workers and the current funding
available to meet those obligations. How we got ourselves into this situation is much more involved.”
……………………….
Here is more…
By early 2021, the pension debt for Humboldt County, CA, had increased to $330 million…
That pension liability has increased by nearly $100 million, ($98 million), in about 5 years, maybe in as little as 4 years…
Gosh, I wonder what it is by now…
(It’s probably sitting right around 370million – $400 million, by now, I would estimate…)
It would take about three years, to pay that off, if that was ALL that Humboldt paid for…
Not one penny for anything else…
At that rate of increasing indebtedness, how much longer can Humboldt County, CA, even conceivably, continue to dodge complete insolvency…???
https://www.sfgate.com/cannabis/article/massive-california-properties-getting-price-cuts-19406346.php
At this point I’d want written confirmation from Planning that there are no code violations, especially for grading, which may have occurred decades ago.
It’s hard to find property in sohum without code violations because district two was systematically targeted post legalization (72% of abatements), due to the prominence of cannabis cultivation pre legalization. I’m working on a case where a permaculture farmer bought 60acres to clean up, remediate and use the once permitted cannabis farm to cultivate food and medicines for the community. The county has not been helpful. They demanded evidence of produce sales two weeks after he moved to his property and a whole host of costly tasks he did not sign up for. The value of the land had plummeted too and this is why, it’ll cost him twice as much to appease the county.
Good luck with that…
I hope you are planning on a lengthy, hopelessly prolonged escrow, if you intend to involve the County of Humboldt like that…
My advice to you would be…
“Don’t hold your breath waiting for that type of confirmation, because it likely won’t ever be forthcoming.”…
The County is prepared to do everything in it’s power, to delay, discourage, derail, and/or deny, any and all post legalization, post boom and bust, greatly reduced dollar value, property sales, due to the associated lessened tax base, which they parasitically live off of, and have grown accustomed to…
“The Achilles Heel for the County is they’re leaning too heavily on the cannabis aspect instead of arguing it as routine code enforcement.”
-Truth Be Told-
……………….
True that…
You don’t hear of Meth Lab nor Meth Bust associated properties being abated, nor being prevented from being sold, nor their buildings, if previously permitted or not, being subsequently slated for destruction…
Why would weed production, so much less toxic than meth production, be cause for such actions, but not Meth associated production…
I know for a fact that property known to have meth equipment found by law enforcement, has subsequently been sold without so much as a wrist slap, let alone any kind of a title encumbrance, whatsoever…
Same with illegal vehicle salvage yards, probably some the most toxic eyesores that exist in the County…
What is the likely prevalence of property with either an old grow room, a previous outdoor cannabis garden, a hoopster dep, and/or fentanyl/opiate dealing…
One/quarter of them…???
Half…???
Three/quarters of them…???
Why single out only cannabis production facilities for demolition…???
As bad as that might be from an inhabitation angle, an old meth lab has got to be way worse for a future abode than an old grow room or dry shed, from a public health perspective…
We won’t include structures with “a red light socket”, of course, because they would have to tear down EVERY Motel, Hotel and Inn, in Humboldt County, that ever catered to, “A Lady Of The Night”, over the years… Especially on Second Street, Eureka…
Not much would be left, if all illegal activity was included in a preclusion to sale of real estate…
Would every building in Humboldt have to be demolished if it always had been full of criminals…???
If so, then start with the Humboldt County Jail, then start on the Planning Department itself, where plenty of illegal activity has been taking place, for years…
In fact, it is illegal for the County of Humboldt to allow the sale of any parcel that does not have an existing potable water source…
How many thousands of times have they done just exactly that…???
Countless times…
Countless.
I am absolutely appreciating your go get em on this. You do have a knack when you focus your worldly tenacity on a deserving target.
wordly tenacity
“Wordy”…???
That would also fit…
?♂️??
If I live by the “words”, might I also die by the “words”…???
(Sword)…
“Dyslexics of the world, untie”…
(Unite)…
If I have ended up with a “thick skull”, I guess that was always just my “density”…
(Destiny)…
I love you
Well the cannabis point is the justification for outrageous fines
Yes, of course. I think the County even adopted a fine schedule that applied exclusively to cannabis related code violations!
But no one was fined based on allegations that they were growing cannabis – they were fined based on allegations that cannabis RELATED code violations were committed on the property.
I actually don’t think that is legal though. Because you can’t charge a certain type of business more for permits or fines. Just because you have an ice cream shop doesn’t mean the county can impose double the charge for a fine than an Italian restaurant just because they dont like ice cream or cow farmers.
To be clear, are you saying code violations should be assumed and everyone down chain of ownership bears responsibility? If that is true, where does that end? The county shooting violations off their hip where maybe someone grew weed, built a cabin?
Code violations attach to the property, not the person who originally created the violation.
The same is true for property taxes.
Why? Property owners may easily skip town but the property isn’t going anywhere.
It’s critical for buyers to do their due diligence to verify whether structures, septic systems, ponds, etcetera are permitted BEFORE closing escrow.
Because once escrow closes the code violations become the responsibility of the new owner.
The seller and the agent(s) had a duty to disclose any known material facts that could affect the value of the property. But in a lot of cases the former owner’s are long gone or are judgement proof.
So, I personally know someone who was coerced into signing compliance agreement on log decks legit pushed decades before by threat of exorbitant fines accruing, parts of that property changed hands to green diamond in the mean time. can you guess what happened? If these abatements are not on the title attached to the property then what exactly is your point? you are saying the agent and seller are liable if its not recorded on the title? Do you know any local realtors
???
Id like to think you are talking about the reality of properties in southern Humboldt, but I’m starting to realize I’m wasting my time
I agree the person with the decades old log landing got screwed.
Until recent years no one would have thought decades old grading from legacy logging would be a present day liability.
But you know very little about title insurance if you think code violations are going to show up in a title report.
Title reports (and therefore title insurance) cover taxes and recorded exceptions to title such as easements.
Fines that have been fully adjudicated and recorded as a lien against the property will show up.
Pending or prospective code violations (like the log landing) will not.
In the current climate prospective buyers should have a heightened approach to due diligence.
And sellers and agents should be practicing full transparency and maximum disclosure.
Are you aware of a different reality?
Routine enforcement? what about the specific target on rural Humboldt? 72% of abatements went to district 2, sohum, 17% went to district five, norhum& about 10% went to district 1 in the rural honeydew etc areas. The county agreed they targeted those areas and called them “high cannabis concentration zones.”
Something tells me that one of the main criteria, for deciding whom to abate, had to do with multiple parcels being owned by private individuals… I believe that there may have been certain County Employees in the Planning Department, let’s say, that decided that this meant that they must also have deep pockets, and could also therefore, simply liquidate a property or two, to pay the fines levied upon their other parcel(s)…
Some people got multiple abatements…
It would be interesting to compare the instances of abatements, and multiple abatements, to see if there is an underlying theme…
For example, Not incorporated, non LLC properties may have represented what the County deemed to be,”Easy Money”, compared to Incorporated or LLC owned properties, that may have represented more legally knowledgeable and savvy, therefore more likely capable to properly defend themselves against such “legal” intrusions, and much less likely to be strong armed into signing a compliance agreement, which the County was banking on for them to do…
Would that be discriminatory…???
What if a guy, hypothetically, had a dozen properties, and 6 got abated, because, well, HE had a dozen properties, so HE “deserved” it…
Would that be discriminatory…???
It’s possible that there was someone making these abatement decisions that held certain “grudges” against certain people, and could “crack the whip” on them, to “settle a score”, so to speak…
I believe it wasn’t always the most egregious cultivators that received the most unwanted attention…
It may have been more of an ego trip…
If so, what would be just or unjust about that…???
Martin Black in Code Enforcement actively discouraged people from shopping for property in the County that employees him. I met a successful melon farmer from Texas trying to relocate his family. He noticed all the cheap properties with recorded abatements and called Black. Black acted like he “knew” this guy really wanted to grow weed, and that it was his job to personally rid Humboldt of the scourge.
Just an example of how one person, empowered then unsupervised, can drag the whole county around…ending up in court.
Several clients I worked with spoke of specific employees holding grudges against the cannabis community at large. I did an interview with Brandon from planning called canna-bias a few years ago. He specifically says the county targets cannabis properties with extreme fines because they can afford it, they didn’t pay taxes all those years, etc. https://on.soundcloud.com/ixF8DmBD7jpp2dzz6
Interesting…
I’m sure that he wouldn’t have admitted to singling out certain individuals, as opposed to their properties, but it might kind of the same thing…
It’s my assertion that “specific employees” held personal grudges against “specific people”, and then acted upon those personal grudges, by personally singling them out for abatements, and/or multiple abatements…
I believe that would constitute abuse of authority under the color of law…
But I’m no legal scholar…
Well, you may be onto something. I thoroughly investigated the majority of the abatements and I did see a bunch of duplicate names come to think of it. It’s wild the treatment of some doing the same things as others. I know the sweetest grandmas who is facing felony charges over the smallest medical grow, just in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing what other all around her did for decades and she’s left to face the punishment, property loss, etc.
The link above is my full KMUD with Peter Childs, ED Denson and Nattalynne delapp. The “canna-bias” segment with Brandon comes on around the 45 minute marker. Really worth a listen, he said the quiet part right out loud.
But it’s not the “properties” that were deemed capable of being able to, “afford it”, it was “the people”, associated with “the properties “that were deemed capable of being able to, “afford it”…
So they were targeting “people”, not their “properties”…
I believe that would amount to illegal profiling…
No disagreement here. The County’s made no secret they were targeting properties with alleged cannabis related code violations.
I’m saying if the County had left cannabis out of it and simply pursued the alleged code violations (such as lack of permits), the Plaintiffs would have no case.
But mixing alleged criminal activity with civil code violations and ramping up fines accordingly has created a slippery slope for the County.
If the appeal is upheld (as seems likely) we’ll see at trial how the County’s scheme plays out.
Forgive me truth, I meant to respond to someone else on that one I believe. I resonate with your comments, thanks for them 🙂
?
What is the maximum penalty for an unpermitted building or unpermitted grading that is not cannabis related?
I don’t think it’s 10,000$/ day
Blu Graham and I looked into this when he was falsely accused back in May 2018. he always admitted he graded his pond for fire use and was adamant from day one for him to pay the max grading fine of 1k I think flat, not 30k every day for 90days. I sat in those dark back room negotiations with bob rusell and ed for years and the county refused to settle for less than 30k, then 20k, then 10k and 5k. It wasn’t until this lawsuit was filed about 4.5 years later, and his participation was leaked somehow to the county, and Bushnell agreed to get Blu a meeting with ford personally, that the county even considered settling for the reasonable $500 penalty he ended up paying. It’s interesting to me this case is used as an example for how this abatement system worked effectively. Definitely wasn’t our take for 5years.
my understanding is that state law caps planning and building ordinance violation penalties at $1000 max plus the cost of restoration.
These fines the county handed out appear to be entirely illegal according to state law. I understand that environmental violations like alleged mishandling of “solid waste” (sometimes being applied to things like stacked plastic pots) and illegal diversions or obstructions of watercourses are a different beast and may be subject to much higher fines.
But all the illegal grading and illegal building would fall under the heading of P&B ordinance violations with a maximum penalty of $1000 + the cost of remediation. Unfortunately I could not find any answers as to what the penalty is for a municipality attempting to enforce a penalty that exceeds the state legislated maximum for a given violation.
Do you have any sense of why this issue has not been raised in these legal proceedings? It seems like a very direct way to gut the heart of this illegitimate program
Oh yeah agreed, the excessive fines and unfairness to innocent buyers is a huge aspect of the claims. There are five total claims but those fines really take the cake.
Seems like an intentional bait and switch, used to lure in buyers who might pay the pumped up fines under duress. The owners who committed the violations are gone, and the County didn’t get their fines while they could. They obviously layed in wait until the property sold before leaping from the bushes demanding hefty fines. Due diligence still requires honesty from the sellers and County. I could lie to you about septic tank maintenance, and hide a leak, or tell you about it during an inspection. Imagine I sold you a parcel, hiding a problem then two weeks later sued you to repair the tank, and oh yeah, I’m a plumber. The only one in 100 miles.
The goverment is corrupt and there is nothing you can do about it, I do not think this case is going to go anywhere, the laws on the books say it is legal, all you can do is fight for lower fees. In Sacramento owners of houses are being fined for renters growing illegaly in their houes, the growers are not fined, but the property owners are. They have been fighting it, and nothing has changed, becasue it is a law, as stupid and corupt as it is, it is legal. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2019/09/16/grossly-draconian-sacramento-issued-94m-in-fines-against-property-owners-for-illegal-cannabis-grows-but-many-claim-theyre-innocent/
The county laws may enable this government behavior, but the US constitution does NOT.
??♥️?
You are the best, Nichole Norris, Thank You.
More Power to you…
Thanks friend! Really appreciate your comments. When I read them, I’m sure I’m onto something important. May this lawsuit shape the future for the people and planet! If we don’t stand up who will?
Unfortunately we are not living in 1787, and interpreting something that was written in a 1787 is hard to align with the the modern era. In the modern era the states can write whatever law they want, and it can be unjust and unfair but we are stuck following it. If we lived in Russia we would get jailed for saying anything against the government, laws are laws, like them or not they are enforceable. You would have to get Newsom on board to change the law, and he seems quite content with these unjust laws and actions.
That’s not the way the existing system, for all its flaws of corruption, works at all. Higher courts routinely overturn local, state, and federal laws as unconstitutional.
This lawsuit was thrown out of court on day one, you know how many people buy properties with liens on them, and they are always responsible for anything owed on the property, in all states. Why do you think they recommend getting a lawyer before you buy a property. This is not something only happening in Humboldt, I could be wrong, but this lawsuit will go nowhere.
I’m pretty sure the people still have their constitutional rights. Cases like this reinforce that fact.
This article says it is an issue anywhere you buy property where marijuana could have been grown, it is not just happeing in Humboldt. There is a risk buying property that could have had marijauana grown there, if you do not want to get a lawyer, then buyer beware. This is a good article for anymone in humbolt to read before buying property there. https://www.cresinsurance.com/represent-properties-marijuana-cultivation/
Oh I am well aware that. this cannabis enforcement post legalization is underway across the state, I routinely speak to people in other county’s enduring much of the same. Abatement programs have never been as egregious as it is in Humboldt that I am aware (feel free to make a case otherwise), but these facts only further illustrate the importance of this federal class action lawsuit that will set precedence for what policies local governments can write and enforce. It’s great that Humboldt county is on the front lines to this important topic too if you ask me.
Mt Vernon? Monticello?
So sorry to hear about Ed. I met him in the early 90 s while helping my friend Colonel Corn clean out the kicking mule studio and packing up and listening to some of the old reel to reel music he had recorded, truly a life well lived.
I started working for ED back in 2016 cleaning out that kicking mule studio ha ha. I wonder if anyone will ever care? I should probably work on getting those files back to clients.
I do believe a lot of people care, before the lawyering that helped so many that is a fine catalog of music that will live on. Don’t get trouble on your mind!
Oh I mean care about my organizing the case files in the barn. Of course we all care about ED, I havnt stopped crying since I found out and that’s why this article is a little clunky too.
The role of the media/press to inform the public of the issues is sometimes called as, “ providing a light in the darkness “. Good work Redheaded Blackbelt, thanks for being that light.
Kym is a saint to publish my work! It took so much bravery, she was the first to challenge the government narrative (after the super indie newspaper the greenfuse with the late, great Paul encimer). She knows what’s really going on and she cares a lot about the community. So grateful for you Kym!
You convinced me, Nikki. I was skeptical that innocent people were being charged fines for something they didn’t do.
So many people were skeptical, it’s surprising government would behave this way. I definitely felt like no one believed me and considered me a conspiracy theorist at first, some still do. Those first anonymous stories took serious guts for all involved and they paved the way to “punished for anothers crimes” where you helped me get the story out most effectively. It was your idea to combine three of the most egregious stories that got IJs attention and helped change a law too. Jared mentioned that article and law change at the ninth circuit too 🙂
It’s been a long five-six years. Wish ED was here to enjoy the exciting process but I sure am glad he knew we were in the best of hands with IJ before he moved on. Thanks for everything Kym, my work for you made ED really proud. I have a binder he made of all my work for you that I will treasure forever.
ED is going to be missed in so many places of our little community–knowledge and passion are powerful forces for good.
Damn, so sorry to hear about the passing of Mr Denson.
This law suit exemplifies the worst of local government. If the county prevails, they’ll be encouraged to continue their habit of playing fast and loose with the spirit and letter of the law in ways that impede local wellbeing and alienate many new comers. If the plaintiff wins then we’ll all be punished for the shitty behavior of the supervisors and planning department
This lawsuit isn’t for money, it’s to set precedence and stop unconstitutional behavior of our government. IJ is free. The only cost is the legal fees the county has incurred which is minuscule in comparison to the millions in fines collected that didn’t slow until the suit was filed. This suit will save the people money by stopping the extreme fines, impacts to property values, and the general ill treatment of rural Humboldt communities. Hopefully those in abatement limbo are no more and can relax for a moment too. I know the plaintiffs finally can sleep at night. This is a small price to pay, and from the general fund to protect our basic rights.
I absolutely agree that the lawsuit is necessary and hope that it is settled in the plaintiffs’ favor.
I’m simply expressing frustration that what I see as the best case scenario involves an additional cost to all of us local tax payers on top of all the wasted county resources to enact this terrible policy in the first place.
Yep…
It’s adding insult to injury, that we have paid dearly for the County salaries for it’s employees to use that taxpayer funded money, to pull it’s, “bite the hand that feeds them”, quasi-legal shenanigans against us, in the first place…
Secondly, we also pay for their taxpayer funded legal representation that they keep on retainer, in case those taxpayer funded shenanigans end up being determined to have crossed the legal line…
We must also pay for our own legal defense, as necessary, against those very same, dubiously legal shenanigans…
And yes, finally, we will ALSO bear the taxpayer funded, burden of a potentially greater cost, for any settlement and/or restitution amount, arising from such litigation…
So, WE must pay THEM, to inflict injury upon US, WE must pay THEM, for THEIR defense, WE must pay for OUR own defense, AND, WE must ALSO pay THEM, for any legal financial settlement consequences levied upon THEM, arising from THEM, having injured US…!!!
No skin off their noses, so to speak, whatsoever…
So much about that, if not all of it, is all about the taxpayer being shamefully wronged, by the treacherous County of Humboldt’s governance.
There ought to be a law against such mistreatment.
Leaving people alone unless they tread upon another person is great strategy for good governance.
It is been proven that Code Enforcement has purposely enforced the law in a corrupt manner that brings them income to pay their $100,000 + income. The Code enforcement has taken a beautiful pristine area and made it impossible to live here without fear of high penalties and abatements.
And you, Warren Black, find pleasure in destroying dreams. Remember that gentleman that built a 4000 sq foot home and you bragged about making him tear it down?
“Now he has to go live with his mommy” you joked.
These litigants did check the properties before they purchased them. There was no abatement filed until escrow was closed. And in the Thomas’s case, the property was vacant for 2 years after alleging cannabis grow when a raid was down in 2019.
Beware, many lawsuits can be filed against you making you personally liable, class actions and criminal.
Classy as always Ty Nichole Norris
Thank you Jared McClain, Institute for Justice, Nichole Norris, The Late Ed Denson, and of course, Kym Kemp and Redheaded Blackbelt…
I have been arguing these cases in administrative and civil proceedings for years. As stated by the attorney “crimes do not run with the land” is correct but also misses the point.
No law authorizes imposing fines against properties. Fines do not run with the land and when the criminals sold the house, the government must now pursue those fines against the culpable person. It does not sound like the attorneys understand that fines are only authorized for culpable conduct and remedies for conditions of property constituting a nuisances are limited by CCC 3491. The County is expediently using fines and withholding of entitlements as their efforts to abate a public nuisance. Extremely odd this was not argued in the lower court.
After reading all the briefs and rulings, I am confident the 9th circuit with reverse