Huge Win for Cannabis Abatement Recipients in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Screenshot of responsive brief, showing Plaintiff Blu Graham using his abatement letter juxtaposed with his empty greenhouse, as evidence he was not guilty of cannabis cultivation as alleged.
It’s a happy new year for Humboldt County property owners who have been impacted by the cannabis abatement program the past seven years. The long awaited decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sided almost entirely in favor of abatement recipients claims against the County.
The decisions also set legal precedent in the Ninth Circuit regarding our Eighth Amendment protection from the government’s use of excessive fines and fees. This case helped shape laws for the northwestern part of the country, including Hawaii, Alaska, California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho.
The federal class action lawsuit Thomas v County of Humboldt challenges the constitutionality of the 2017-born Humboldt County cannabis abatement program and has been worming its way through the courts since it was filed in October 2022 by the Institute for Justice.
The Institute for Justice wrote in their press release,
“Today, in a significant victory for property rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a district court decision that dismissed a lawsuit challenging Humboldt County’s unconstitutional code enforcement program.”
The cannabis abatement program began right after the legalization of cannabis, when the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approved new ordinances pertaining to the eradication of unpermitted cannabis, predominantly using satellite imagery to establish guilt.
Notice to abate given to Blu Graham.
Over the past seven years about 1200 notices were posted on property gates and community boards across rural Humboldt County, often with threats of fines of up to millions of dollars, for violations such as grading without a permit and/or having a hoop-house or other unpermitted structures. Some new homeowners were cited for previous owners’ alleged cannabis cultivation, and many innocent buyers were caught up in the “abatement scheme” as described in the recent ruling.
For seven years Humboldt County has claimed their abatement program is merely “routine enforcement of local land use laws,” as argued by the County’s legal team in their responsive brief, while citing the importance of the program for the community, for safety, and the environment.
In 2023 Magistrate Judge Illman based at the courthouse in McKinleyville agreed with the county and their representatives, and dismissed the case entirely, before oral arguments were even made.
The Institute of Justice appealed Judge Illman’s decision to the Ninth Circuit in September 2023, and in April 2024 oral arguments were heard on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants before the Ninth Circuit court (video of arguments here).
One of the lead attorneys on the case, Jared McClain, spoke with RHBB after his oral arguments at the Ninth Circuit last April saying he was “cautiously optimistic.
Institute for Justice Attorney, Jared McClain, reflected on the ruling, writing to the Redheaded Blackbelt,
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision is incredibly vindicating. The Court recognized that our allegations show that Humboldt’s code-enforcement system is unconstitutional in at least four ways—just as we’ve been saying all along. Now we’ll get to go to discovery and prove our case at trial.”
The seventeen page published decision and another unpublished explains why the Court of Appeals decided in the plaintiffs’ favor on almost every claim based on the county violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in various ways, including their right to due process.
In his dismissal Judge Illman argued the abatement program served a legitimate purpose and the county’s actions were not egregious, writing, “When executive action is at issue…only egregious official conduct can be said to be arbitrary in the constitutional sense: it must amount to an abuse of power lacking any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective.”
However the Ninth Circuit disagreed, writing, “Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the County’s administrative penalty procedures are “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.”
The ruling continues,
“It is irrelevant that Plaintiffs were aware of other property violations because the …claims are based on cannabis-related conduct—and Plaintiffs’ lack of [guilt]. Under these circumstances, a practice of charging subsequent owners of a property with the cannabis-based offenses of the previous owners cannot be said to have “any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective.”
Attorney McClain wrote in the press release,
“This ruling is a critical step toward dismantling Humboldt County’s unconstitutional enforcement regime…The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirms that counties cannot impose exorbitant fines based on flimsy evidence and delay hearings indefinitely. This sets an important precedent, and we are eager to continue our fight for justice on behalf of Humboldt property owners.”
One claim not “affirmed,” essentially agreed on, by the court was a single plaintiff Cyro Glad’s timeliness claims, which can be further evaluated in the local court. Another claim not affirmed pertains to the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, which is a decision the Supreme Court may need to make.
Additionally the Ninth Circuit ordered that a new Judge was unnecessary, and sent the case back “on remand” meaning the case will be heard by our local magistrate, Judge Illman, who initially dismissed the case entirely.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruling states,
“Although the district court’s dismissiveness of Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations is cause for concern, we trust that the “original judge would [not]…have substantial difficulty in putting out of his . . . mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous.”
It’s been an almost decade-long battle now, and Plaintiffs have been patiently waiting for news from the Ninth Circuit all year.
“[I’m] so happy… I couldn’t think of a better way to close the year and begin anew,” one plaintiff Rhonda Olson explained.
Olson added,
“I’m so relieved the ninth circuit listened to us. We’ve been so abused by Humboldt county it’s really gratifying to feel heard after all these years. The fight alone has taken it out of me, my family and our whole community. Huge thank you to IJ for taking on our case, without them we wouldn’t have overcome this hurdle. And I praise god for Nikki Norris, because without her coverage of our story for Kymkemp, shedding light on this unconstitutional program, we would be still getting abused by Humboldt county today.”
Lead plaintiffs, Doug and Corrine Thomas also wrote,,
“The Ninth Circuit Court made landmark decisions regarding homeowners in Humboldt County regarding Notice of Violations regarding properties with a nexus to cannabis, including huge fines and penalties , and demolition of buildings. Humboldt County has misused their power in our case, and is seen as unconstitutional. This is a huge victory for all residents, including us, (the Thomas’s), who no longer have to fear for abatements and liens. It might even bring a new growth in the economy for this distressed but beautiful area.
We would like to thank Nichole Norris, who was instrumental in our victory, without her support as an investigative reporter, this victory would not be possible.”
Now the case goes back to the local trial court to begin the discovery phase, which was previously denied to the plaintiffs.
Stay plugged in to the RHBB for more news as the case progresses.
We have reported on this matter since 2020 on the Redheaded Blackbelt, if you value local reporting that makes a difference please consider making it your New Year’s resolution to donate to the RHBB so we may continue.
- 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
- Ninth Circuit Hears Appeals in Landmark Case Against Humboldt County’s Cannabis Abatement Program
- Federal Class Action Lawsuit Against Humboldt County’s Cannabis Abatement Program Makes National News and Even International News
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
This is the first of many such rulings that will be coming about now that corruption is starting to get routed out of the government it is truly something to see what is happening now that people are fearing their pensions and freedom with the changing of the power structure in this country
there are many heads that will be rolling soon and the smart one are bailing out now , look at how many board members are exiting not in humboldt but around the nation citing fear of punishment , that fear of punishment should be a daily fear for all those whom think that their office entitles them to trample the freedoms of those that they do not agree with as it is their duty to honor those freedoms above all else while in office
All this does is put the case back in the local court and allow the plaintiffs to go forward with their case – it is not a decision based on the merits of the case – only that they’ve presented enough of an argument to take the case to trial.
Case is pretty cut and dry though. Penalizing property owners for actions done by a previous landowner is unconsitutional. And using satellite photos to make the determinations were unwarranted searches. Two blatant weaknesses at the crux of the case.
Sucks that it goes back to Illman though. He refused to do his job last time and threw it out without even addressing the merits. I doubt he will see clearly at trial. Which meand we’ll be reading about this for years to come still.
I truly feel for the victims here. And this case is a huge reason I haven’t looked into building that dream cabin in the woods of SoHum yet.
I think the previous judge may have relied on how owners of Superfund sites have joint liability for the costs of clean up & of pay outs to aggrieved parties.
Don’t quote me on it. I might be wrong in my recollection. My understanding is that Under Superfund law, “joint and several liability” means that at a contaminated site, the party that holds the title, with the deepest pocket, pays for cleanup, regardless of their contribution to the contamination.
The County’s Legal team may have assumed they could use the same premisses on the pot properties.
it is not unconstitutional by the fact state law holds the property owner responsible for anything to do with property. states are guarantied the right to have stricter/different laws than those the fed’s are granted in the constitution, from injury to a trespasser, to paying a tenant hired contractor they didn’t hire, to unpermitted activities/buildings, and such.
I guess you never heard of the 14th Amendment which imposes constitutional norms of due process on the states
Satellite images? Really? That’s just one rub. I wish I was a lawyer. I am not worthy.
Pretty amazing we have so many experts in Constitutional Law in the RHBB comment section!
But the case is not as cut and dried as you think – code violations – (no building permit, unsafe electrical, etc.) – go with the land and new owners can be held civilly (but not criminally) liable for what previous owners did or didn’t do.
The weak side of the County’s case is they specifically targeted properties that were believed to have been used for weed so they’ll need to explain how the public health and safety justified a program of targeted enforcement.
And of course there’s the not so minor issue of excessive fines and penalties – is $10,000 per day (applied only to alleged weed properties – excessive?
And of course the lawyers are the only sure winners – all paid for with taxpayer dollars!
who said anything about criminally, it’s civil (unless of course there’s gross negligence, or criminal intent)
Have you been paying attention?
The County’s abatement program was targeted at properties with code violations allegedly tied to illegal weed production – and the fine schedule imposed onerous fines that only applied to such properties – the County introduced alleged criminality into the otherwise civil code enforcement procedure.
You must be on the lawsuit and/or Board of Directors
Ha, ha! No, but I’ve followed the case for years and I’ve read all the case briefs and decisions as well as Nikki’s reporting.
Really? Taxpayers pay for property owners’ defense? Was that on NewsMax or Fox?
Yes, really.
The County always has to pay their own lawyers but when the County loses they also have to pay the other sides lawyers.
I think you nailed it. Code violations are tied to the property. If these weren’t disclosed to the new owner, such owner recourse is against the prior owner. Regardless the violations need to be corrected or the whole concept of safe building standards goes to hell.
If fines are excessive that’s another matter.
The fact that the county’s actions focused only on pot is irrelevant in my opinion. The law is the law. If broken for pot or other reasons the law should be enforced
Had the County pursued the alleged cannabis related building code violations strictly as building code violations and without tying enforcement and a punitive fine schedule to alleged criminal activity, in some cases of prior owners – I’d agree with you.
But the County has put itself in the position of trying to exact civil penalties based on alleged criminal activity which has complicated the case and confused the issues so thoroughly that the County now finds itself on very shaky legal grounds.
I think the most interesting aspect of this case, and the one with the widest implications, is the 4th amendment question.
Can municipalities employ blanket aerial surveillance to find violations?
Given the trend in technology deployment, this seems like a very important question
I don’t recall if the IJ raised the 4A issue regarding aerial photos – only that they were imprecise in determining that actual violations were occurring.
What’s most interesting to me is the way the County has compromised normal building code enforcement by seeking to use civil code enforcement procedures to exact penalties for alleged cannabis related criminal activity.
”Oh, what a tangled web we weave.”
In so doing, the County may have lost the present case and may also have compromised the standard building code enforcement process which has never relied on recording an NOV – something the 9th Circuit seems to think is the most reliable way for new owners to learn of potential code violations.
If this becomes case law it would exempt new owners like the lead Plaintiffs for having an unpermitted 3 story structure even though they and their realtor knew or should have known that it was unpermitted.
Looking back at the amended complaint, I am reminded that their 4th amendment complaint is primarily that the aerial imaging that the county relies on do not actually produce probable cause to issue a code violation. So it appears that I had added a bit of my own critique on top of my memory of their complaint.
However, if you’re curious to see what I’m talking about, the relevant part of the complaint starts on paragraph 80 of the amended complaint (page 11, line 12, Part B of the Statement of Facts section).
I do think that the issue you raised is one that has the potential to ensnare the county in a mess for years after this case is settled. It will be interesting, if a bit frustrating, to see how this shit show that the county created plays out.
One thing is for sure, we – the citizens of this county – got absolutely hosed by this foolish policy that didn’t accomplish anything for our community beyond harm.
The County has mos def created a shit show and an expensive one at that – and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out – Will the County keep shelling out for the high priced legal beagles? – Try to settle and cut their losses? – And what would a settlement look like?
Rightly or wrongly, courts long ago determined that a homeowner has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the air space above his or her premises.
As I responded above, the issue isn’t so much that they are just collecting the imagery as it is that they are making unfounded assumptions based on the images and treating their assumptions like they are probable cause to initiate orders to abate and even raids.
Having to follow up in a more formal and legal way on these aerial images eliminates a lot of the supposed cost and efficiency savings that were used to justify the satellite program.
This announcement article is obviously rushed, and it’s particularly challenging for a laymen to grasp the legal concepts and then implications of the over 40 pages of 9th circuit rulings. Please look for yourself at the published decision regarding the eighth amendment and the unpublished decision that applies to our county specifically. We had technical difficulties getting both decisions linked properly at first, they are fixed now.
do you understand how many claims we won? I forget off the top of my head, but there were a ton and It was a near wash. There were at least five overarching claims, with subsections and we won on literally everything except a couple minor ones (one is fixable and the other was not expected to win bc it applies to the Supreme Court only), and of course the judge aspect was a shocker. Not only is the unpublished decision said to be a “cutting edge” ruling with claims of this kind never made previously, the published 8A decision is the law of the land now for the entire ninth circuit. So no longer can any county tell any resident they owe millions in fines or to demolish structures in this way. It violates our 8A rights, the threat alone is an injury in itself. Etc. I’m still on my third read through and I’m still trying to grasp it all.
Thank you so much, Nicole Norris, for all the time, effort, and energy you have invested in this positive outcome.
If only Ed had lived to see this glorious day…
It’s unconscionable that so many people have been put through this for this length of time, as the seemingly endless judiciary delays have taken their toll on so many people’s lives and well being…
How the County of Humboldt can and/or will ever properly rectify this blatant, massive injustice is beyond me…
So much productivity lost, so many unnecessary cases still pending, so many unnecessary headaches still pounding…
How will the county ever return so many $10,000+ cash payments that they didn’t even ever properly record…???
How can the County of Humboldt ever make good on the untold damages and duress of so many wronged citizens…???
It seems irreparable.
I read the published decision elsewhere – glad your links are fixed – but I think you’re overplaying the Implications of the published decision – it’s a remand to the District Court – it says the Plaintiffs have made sufficient pleadings to proceed to trial and that the case was timely filed – it’s not a decision on the merits.
But the County clearly muddied the waters by seeking to impose onerous civil penalties for alleged code violations tied to alleged criminal activities – not sure how the County is going to unring that bell.
And where does the County go from here?
Agree to scrap the cannabis targeted abatement program and cannabis only fine schedule and start over with traditional code enforcement procedures?
Keep pouring money into lawyer fees for what may be a losing proposition?
Or?
And what would the IJ accept as a settlement?
Let the closed door negotiation games begin!!
I’m not sure about settlement potential in cases like these, are you? I’ll ask.
They sort of already scrapped the program when the lawsuit was filed, at least as we knew it. Now it’s been them piggy backing on raids and that just took a hit, idk if any of their findings are legit if they didn’t serve the proper warrants.
I understand it goes back to the magistrate. Doesn’t published mean it is the law of the land now? Doesn’t the decision say that IJ raised a proper claim under the eighth amendment about excessive fines and other punitive measures like forcing people to demo structures or property owners having to make the land look exactly as it was before anyone grew cannabis on it? ED was right, should have gone to law school. Sure missing him!
Yes, the 9th Circuit slammed the District Court on the 8A issue and the start clock for timeliness – and published the decision to dissuade others from making the same mistake.
But as here, courts are fond of saying “For the reasons below, we affirm in part, and reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.”
Which means the nuances of the decision are open to interpretation and will be defined by future rulings in this or other cases.
And it’s important to remember at the motion to dismiss stage the court is obligated to accept as true Plaintiff’s pleadings and interpret them in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs – and that’s why the 9th Circuit opinion says Plaintiff’s have “plausibly alleged” violations of their rights which leaves the door open for the County to try and disprove the allegations at trial.
But what’s clearest to me from reading and re-reading the Published Opinion and Unpublished Memorandum is the County has thoroughly conflated routine code enforcement issues with weed abatement issues in ways that have complicated and confused the issues.
Call it a shop building or a grow house but if the County had gone after the three story unpermitted structure owned by Corrine and Doug without making any mention of cannabis or seeking to impose cannabis only fines the Plaintiffs would have no case.
As it is, the County may have hopelessly (and fatally for their case) entangled routine civil code enforcement issues with weed abatement and grossly overstepped in adopting a cannabis only fine schedule and trying to punish innocent owners for the alleged criminal actions of previous owners.
Which is why the County might be interested in cutting their losses and settling the case.
But Ed was right! And it might not be too late to go to law school – wasn’t Ed sixty when he became a lawyer?
Are you an attorney? I am not, but “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable” seems pretty cut-and-dried, especially with the other derogatory assessments by judicial authority. Are you on the same thread? A mis-post, maybe? Looks like once again, people who DON’T smoke weed develop cognitive issues. There’s a treatment for that!
Your comment reveals a dearth of knowledge about the stages of a case and the rules that apply as they move through the legal process.
In other news, science has validated a tendency for aging outlaw tokers to believe their own bullshit causing them to think they’re better looking, smarter and wittier than the other lab rats.
Both of you. Knock it off.
?
(But Mom!!! They started it!!)
They do seem to have an opinion though didn’t they? “a practice of charging subsequent owners of a property with the cannabis-based offenses of the previous owners cannot be said to have “any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective.”
Targeting the abatements only at properties with “cannabis based offenses” and adopting a punitive fee schedule that applies only to those cases is the Achilles heel of the County’s case.
The County may be able to justify targeting unpermitted cannabis related infrastructure allegedly used for cannabis activity by arguing that it’s being used for ongoing criminal activity.
But that argument falls down when it’s applied to “innocent owners” who bought the property after cannabis activity ceased.
The County will also struggle to justify a fine schedule of $6,000-$10,000 that applies to cannabis related violations only.
Had the County pursued the alleged code violations without tying them to cannabis and a cannabis only fine schedule this case would have been over long ago since it’s clear the County can hold new owners accountable for building code violations of previous owners – but they can’t punish them for the alleged criminal actions of the previous owners.
At trial can the County untangle the alleged cannabis related activity of former owners from obvious code violations like unpermitted structures?
And will this case benefit anyone besides a cherry picked group of sympathetic plaintiffs claiming to be “innocent owners”?
Tune in 3 years from now when the trial and subsequent appeals may have concluded!
That’s exactly what I thought. The appellate Court may not have rendered a decision, but they damn sure rendered an opinion and it was clearly a spanking of the lower Court. Finally, a bright spot in politics and government. The anti-weed folks will turn themselves into knots, driven wild by not smoking weed, and cling to every means of defeating us. Meanwhile, Red States like Oklahoma beat us at our own game.
Once again, the county in the end will pay and so will all of us. We will be paying lawyer fees on both sides. This is John Ford and This is why he must go.
This is very welcome good news. Yay the lawyers win?! No doubt in the end John Ford will have led the county deeper in deficit by their terrible execution of bad policy. Why would we ever expect more?
It wasn’t John Ford. It was misguided Ryan Sundberg who made the motion and incompetent Estelle Fennel who seconded the motion to codify the draconian and ill conceived regulations drafted by County Counsel. Rex and Virginia put their stamps on it as well. Goofy, emotional Mike Wilson was absent. They thought it would save the legal cannabis industry. Instead it was the beginning of the end. We all know how that ended up.
I said it then and I’ll say it now. Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Shasta, Nevada and other rural counties where illicit cannabis cultivation historically occurred and their economies benefited, should have petitioned the State to restrict cultivation to those counties. Look at us now!
Ya know, everybody knows somebody around here that grows or is involved in it in someway, our government personnel included. It’s really not possible to not know someone who is unless you moved to the area last week. When drafting some of these new codes and feed, one might think they’d craft legislation in a way that benefits their relations to the industry, not tax it to death.
You mean we shouldn’t have given Ford a 15% raise for fucking our county out of its economy. SMH The taxpayers will be paying out the nose to all of the people who got abatements if this case prevails. They also didn’t keep a record of all of the cash payments (zero receipts for illegally collected abatements) or where they spent the money. Madrone said it went to raises and the courthouse roof guess we are going to see. This shit is going to tear the truth out of them when we start paying people settlements and our county goes bankrupt
And that will be just about the time that John Ford and the supervisors who put him there will announce their retirements and ride off into the golden sunset. And as the massive settlements bankrupt the county we will still be paying these incompetent and corrupt officials their pensions. It’s not like this is the first time scams like this have been run in uneducated counties like ours but damn-you would think people would catch on eventually!!
From the very beginning, you and I have been sounding the alarm that something was wrong, sir, but people didn’t want to listen. We should have unified when the abatements began. The public only awakens when their going broke. The anti-grower sentiment has allowed the “good old boys” to line their pockets, strangle farmers, and destroy our overall economic future. Without cannabis, this national recession will push us back to being one of the poorest counties in California.
I’m pretty sure we already are very close to being the poorest county in CA. Ah yes, Trinity is poorest and we are number 7. ‘Appalachia of the west’ Also: we were there in almost last place income-wise during cannabis. There were a few making a lot but most just padding their income a little. Not a lot has changed for most people.
Reported income isn’t going to reflect the real picture. I’m not sure we’re living in the same county. Almost every parent at our kids’ school worked in cannabis, including stay-at-home moms who could trim in between laundry and making dinner. We’ve lost over 60% of the students in the last few years, and everyone is broke! All the locally owned rural shops are struggling. A few wealthy growers now dominate, compared to the many small family farms we used to have. The wealth was consolidated into the hands of those the Board of Supervisors deemed “good growers” or those who could pay the fees. So many people have suffered under this current local government, and the fact that anyone in this industry supports them is essentially a betrayal to the overall farming community. I’ve always been critical because it has been immoral and evil to watch. I don’t give a shit if your legal or not just if your fucking up the environment as of this point. It’s time for a change
I don’t disagree legalization was botched by the Humboldt and Mendo Supervisors but in the end it really hasn’t mattered.
Small Farm Extinction was baked into Prop 64 – and has been rolling out in slow motion since the day it was approved by the voters in 2016.
There’s nothing that could have been done locally to shield Small Farmers from the Market Forces unleashed by the corporatization and consolidation provided for in Prop 64.
The acreage cap was part of what we voted for, but Newsom removed it. They lobbiests also took away small farmers protections through allowing stacking of licenses. The legalization we got was not what the voters approved.
I remember cold-calling people, urging them to write letters and make phone calls to keep the acreage cap in the proposition. The greedy ones gave me the worst responses, laughing at me as if their two acres made them big shots.
Ultimately, it was this greed that led to our downfall. The bureaucrats capitalized on our individualism and greed, allowing them to steal the wealth and the market. We failed to unify and let ourselves be divided by legal/illegal nonsense.
So the acreage cap would have saved the weed business here? Prices are dirt low all over the country. An acreage cap would have just forced a lot of smaller people to stay poor. There really isn’t anyone to blame, it’s market forces, not in the control of people. When you tinker with the risk reward dynamic, you get what we have here in this county. It used to be risky and therefore worthy of a larger reward now you have very little risk and thus very little reward. I always thought it’s silly to try to blame this politician or that board of supervisors or whatever. It was a bubble it’s over. That’s really all there is to say about it. Just about anybody who is paying attention knew it was coming to an end. One thing you still have as a grower is a good quality of life, and working for yourself, just like any farmer. Be grateful for that and the good memories of the days when we all had more money.
Yeah, that had a dramatic effect–the cap removal. Now we have SoCal grows that just one or two pot ranches exceed the whole of our county in production. It’s no different than lettuce or potatoes to them. But I do see at some point, depending on the political and social climates, especially with a return of a previous administration, that there will be more restrictions and regulations coming about. Think of the push to rid the south of tobacco growing, which simply pushed the supply chain to other countries. Big business always adapt. They have the capital to move entire operations to 30 different countries.
One thing going against us is arable, flat land for say, a 400 acre production of anything. That doesn’t flood. I know there are eyeballs floating around looking for people still willing to sell grandpas old ranch because that’s about the only way to get at that type of land. But until the next fad crop starts churning out stacks of Benjamins, plot size matters.
Greed didn’t help. Nor perceived power and influence. Producers wanted top dollar, who doesn’t? But the consumers that paid that top dollar didn’t want to, and risk a jail sentence and now they don’t. And the tax man cometh for both.
The planning and building department could have offered a supportive permit process instead of a punitive one, which drained people’s finances. The B.O.S could have chosen not to overtax people. The CAO could have allowed the $3 million in marketing funds to be dispersed and used to advocate for Humboldt County’s outdoor growers. They could have dispersed equity funding in a timely fashion.
If anyone had read Adair’s plan to center the market around small regenerative farmers, they would know that some people in government actually had our best interests at heart and a plan. They chose to betray us—it was a choice.
Good points – all of which might have allowed more small farmers to struggle along – but nothing was going to counter the free fall in prices caused by massive over production of “legal” weed with no legal outlet to absorb it.
And there weren’t enough votes in the producer counties to make a difference one way or the other.
I’d take 15,000 independent farmers and our economy over the 1000 or so we have left in this county and the “safety” legalization has given us.
Prop 64 created the Distro system, banned farm direct sales and locked in high taxes and high compliance costs – but blowing off the 5 acre cap and failing to approve enough legal dispensaries to absorb even a fraction of the built in overproduction was the coup de grace for small farmers – the only option for local officials was to allow farms to go big – as Humboldt did to a degree – but nothing was going to stop the shift from thousands of small farms to a much smaller number of large ones.
You make a valid point. If the B.O.S wants to take action, they need to eliminate the Cat 4 road standards and allow people to self-distribute through microbusinesses. Microbusiness licenses should be an amendment to a cultivation plan. Even the anti-weed advocates would be pleased because growers could reduce their acreage and still earn the same or more income by selling their own products. The idea that consolidation in farming communities is essential to growth is dumb. It is the death of culture. It happened in the food system and look at the poison we are fed and the destruction we serve the earth. I want men and women who care for the land preparing fertility for generations to come not venture capitalists
If anything, moving forward, I do home that people looking to drop in a new grow or put in roads or million gallon ponds to do their due diligence and get a proper engineering report before doing so. There’s lots of hill cuts I see being made that are likely to cause a slide or reactivate an old one that causes the half the mountain behind them to come down. I cover a lot of miles around the county and see some questionable modifications to the land. LIDAR landform scans are becoming more prevalent and public access is increasing and uh…I see a few problems about to happen in some places. Pond wall failures, increased run off, reactivated ancient slides, and plastic hoop house crap all over everyone else’s operation because some new dumbass decided to put up tarps in October on the windy side of the hilltops because somebody said it’s sunny.
Farmers already have to get engineering for roads, ponds, buildings, and more. We live in an area where even our highways are prone to falling into the rivers shortly after being paved, thanks to seismic activity. A Cat 4 road is overkill for a driveway on private property leading to a farm. So, in a way, your hopes have retroactively been granted. However, I’ve also seen and experienced inconsistencies in how laws and permit requirements are applied. If you know the right people, your chances of continuing operations without hindrance are much higher in this county. Speaking out and telling the truth comes with its costs as well. But the thousands affected by abatements and the bait-and-switch permit process deserve justice and I for one am so thankful that people are brave enough to continue this battle. Brave enough to speak out and speak up for our communities and won’t just comply
Well said. Quite a bit of fraud in Board of Supervisors to come out in Discovery. Maybe they’ll get fined or jail time. Also had to choose the most expensive attorney’s to represent them. Fire them all!
Love to have a jury decision
The local good ol’ boy network that is hard at work destroying the economic future of Humboldt and Mendocino is real.
Without RHBB’s investigative journalism all would be lost.
Thanks Kim!!
I think you’re wildly overstating results of the case and seem a little disoriented in regards to the changes musk intends for us all
Musk–Our 2nd African-American president.
That’s hilarious
Musk is a South African American.
Yeah, an immigrant, like, I dunno, millions of others. But he is white and the richest person on Earth, so he can stay. This country looked very, very good to my grand-parents and great-grand-parents. I love it. Hurts to see it ground-up like this.
Glad the appellate got it right. Now it gets heard and the county can try and prove their bullshit stance.
All of this and what?- to get it back into Judge Illman’s hands?!! Judge Illman clearly cannot be trusted! Judge Illlman’s prior behavior shows either extreme bias or incompetence. Perhaps both…
The national forest wrote alot of tickets. Which sometimes were necessary. But their culverts are not exactly in great shape and functioning well. A bit hypocritical.
It’s a good thing farce. The wheels of justice turn slowly. Now Illman has to take the higher courts decisions into account. If not, it can be pushed to the Supreme Court. The county legal counsel knows the abatement process was illegal. The BOS knew the abatement process was illegal. The county relies on the fact their illegal decisions will be mired in courts and be very costly to challenge. It’s a stragedy used by government since our country was born.
Illman will make difficult every single point. He’s an unreasonable liar as evidenced by his first hearing of the case. He should be removed and a fair judge should be hearing the case. Illman probably has some ties into the county leaders who fear the settlements to come. He will do everything he can to drag it out, obfuscate and pretend. The guy is a hired gun not a fair and reasonable judge….He is a bum in a robe
I am not sorry that we paid Ed Denson $6500 (more than we paid for the property in 1976) to get our “grading violation” abatement dismissed. I am delighted at this court decision though I imagine it will not impact the stupidity of the county government and they will doubtless continue to make bad law.
I’m licking my lips for my abatement fees to get returned! I paid over 150k and did all the remediation that asked for. I should have hired Ed too, but I didn’t.
Wow! You think they are going to return your money?! In this decade?!! You’d better buy some chapstick
I think the expression is ‘tongue in cheek’
Humboldts’ own Ian Carroll/ Whitney Webb. Thanks again Nichole Norris!
And, no doubt ED Denson is rolling in his grave. ……Rolling a FAT joint in his grave!
Let’s not forget that much of the research and influence on the articles found here, was under the guidance of Mr Denson, Esquire!
“Found here” = on this topic.
The county will more than likely choose not to go to trial. They will instead just reverse the abatements that they have previously handed out and abandon the abatement policy going forward. Abatement recipients will have to sue the county individually to get their money back.
Follow the Constitution of the United States, John Ford and Board of Supervisors, because in the end, the people that were overcharged with abatements, penalties and fines, are going to win. Instead of a salary of approximately $178,000 a year , do something legal for the citizens of Humboldt County before you have to open up all those records in Discovery. Before fraud, mismanagement , is made public. Also, almost every property in Humboldt has something which is not permitted. You’ve lost, stop spending the people’s money on a lawsuit you cannot win.
All a scam…abatement program violation of our rights.. this county’s always trying to squeeze money out of our residents.should have kept weed illegal.they would have nothing to do if they were not being shady lol
All the way back to the county’s founding. Corrupt and crooked genocide enthusiasts running this county. Corruption is the core that connects them through the years.
There was a Klamath County once. Corruption ran it in the ground. And it was absorbed by bel Norte and humboldt. Humboldt needs fresh blood. The cattle family good ole boys had their run.
Legalization in many ways was totally needed but what they did could best be described as a group of monkeys trying to f**k a football.
CAMP couldn’t do it, but re-legalization did. I knew we were in deep doodoo when the traveling State team was unable to grasp that weed was not alcohol or nicotine. Now we are regulated out if business. Damn shame.
Humboldt hicks tend to have their heads screwed on backwards. No concept of reality half these hicks still fly confederate flags. But hicks and retires are about the only groups represented by our halfwit supervisors. I have had enough of this retarded good ole boy system.
It cracks me up that people dumped amazing amounts of money to get legal. Three quarters of them don’t know jack shit. Big corporations from Florida out McCann that Bushnell really pushed for some stupid reason. It was obvious you represented them, not us. Wtf literally these hicks don’t understand representation. No concept.
Nikki Norris and Kym Kemp have received the warmest recognition of what a free press is for that I’ve ever seen. Lawyers and readers agree–you’re the best! Maybe even KMUD one day will value the advocacy journalism that once made its news worth listening to. Keep informing us, Nikki!
Also, thanks to the commenters whose legal insights make me almost miss ED less. Great perspectives and analysis!
Discovery should include every IRS 8300(10k + cash transaction )that John Fords office collected in abatement “ settlement “ funds . Many people paid fines that may have not even been reported.
———
https://www.wifr.com/2023/03/01/why-do-government-public-officials-steal-so-often/
Yep, the fines for not reporting your 8300 are pretty high….If they reported to the feds why hasnt the state received their audit report?
Get to planting. The old guard is on their way out… Crooks, thieves and unconstitutional power trippers is what has ruled Humboldt for far too long. They will face justice in the incoming administration. Sue, sue, sue, post their pics and deeds up for all to see