After passage of the state recreational marijuana amendment, local governments are

Transcription

1

2

3 Ei- X4cLI' 1o' Iv s vs" y iz, 2_0, 7 I/ 12( 1' 1 Board of County Commissioners January 30, 2017 Grants Pass OR Subject: Recreational and medicinal JoCo. marijuana regulations and controls within residential Dear Commissioners: After passage of the state recreational marijuana amendment, local governments are charged with evolving ways and means of regulation and control to prevent adversely affecting existing residents. Future public hearings regarding recreational and medicinal marijuana regulations and controls within residential county zones pose challenges and need for preservation of rights and property of current residents, who have pre- existing standing and interest over others. Those whom own property near new and existing proposed marijuana enterprises pay taxes, a proof that they have prior standing, maintaining first rights over others, particularly if the value of their property is adversely affected or their rights are infringed. Actions by others which negatively affect any aspect of property must be subordinate to protections of preexisting persons and property without need to defend their values. Current residents are subject to zoning and development codes, pay taxes, must abide by laws which protect them and their neighbors from unforeseen or unintended consequences, or, suffer criminal or civil penalties. Residential codes are intended to provide a baseline for self-control, consistency in societal peace, and, legal consequences when violated. Some important issues concerning maintenance and assuring personal rights of current and future property owners, renters and businesses, include: Reduced real property market values and county tax revenues Negative affects of organized gang and cartel intervention Negative visual property security fence and gate "compound" appearance Increased crime, home invasions, need for additional law enforcement Increase in incarceration infrastructure due to " gateway" drug use Increased need for zoning enforcement manpower and court actions Tax increases as a consequence of licensing and enforcement Increases in personal and property insurance premiums and exclusions Increased road noise, surface street wear, tear and maintenance Ground water pollution from increased pesticides, nitrates & plant residue Lower ground water table, need for more wells, negative arid surroundings Increased wildfire threats resulting from water-starved forests & wildlands Negative odor pollution and need for environmental protection enforcement Stress on electric power grid infrastructure, with higher private power costs Marijuana users may suffer schizophrenia, psychosis and depression, according to a recent National Academy of Sciences report Several suggested ways and means of marijuana controls needed to protect property and rights of people are: Maintain and protect people' s current property zoning, land value and health Page 1 of 2 cove o-)

4 with pre- approval of existing property owners before implementation Require new and existing marijuana sites be licensed, bonded and insured Require initial and follow-on air and land environmental impact statements Predetermine probable negative affects on property values, roads and water Require individual registered plant RFID chip ID and dissemination history to assure compliance with codes, rules and regulation limitations Require that closed indoor structures manage marijuana odor, light and activities so as not to interfere with preexisting quiet & safe environment of neighbors Establish or define current rural industrial or commercial zones away from private property as preferred grow, processing, warehousing and distribution sites Require environmentally sound ways and means to dispose of marijuana waste and post processing residual products Limit ground water use and encourage rain capture and storage as an alternative source of water supply Use marijuana taxes as an off-set to prevent property tax increases. As elected representatives of the people, it is your duty and responsibility to protect JoCo resident' s preexisting rights and standing in light of the new marijuana law. Please respect and maintain the people' s rights and property when dealing with this issue. Robert Thomas PO Box 1925 Cave Junction OR Page 2 of 2

5 EN-)I*hi W8S NOTICE ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED -//) 71 California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from enforcing City or County Codes and Ordinances upon property that is not OWNED by the City or County even if the property is within City limits. The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L. Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct 2001) ( no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 ( 1992). ( butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 ( 1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct 1998). In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another$ million for the aggravation of a forced sale. Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C , quoting Section 891 " An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property." Black's Law Dictionary 5 th Edition ( page 1140): Recaption. At Common Law, a retaking or taking back. A species of remedy by the mere act of the party injured ( otherwise termed " reprisal"), which happens when anyone has deprived another of his property in goods or chattels personal, or wrongfully detains one's wife, child, or servant In this case, the owner of the goods, and the husband, parent, or master may lawfully claim and retake them, wherever he happens to find them, so it be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peace. Woe to those who that join house to house, that lay field to field, there be no place. that they be placed alone in the midst of the earth. Isaiah 5: 8 The strongest link in the chain of civil government is at the local level. Equality is paramount and mandatory by law.

6 The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty ( to submit his books and papers for an examination) to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land ( Common Law) long antecedent to the organization the State, and can only be taken from, process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. by due Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 ( 1905). The United States Supreme Court declares that the " Sovereignty" remains with the " people" and resides with the " people"... Yick WO vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins (118 US S. Ct. 356)

7 THE DOCTRINE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS United States ofamerica v. Scott, No ( 9th Cir. 06/ 09/2006)( It may be tempting to say that such transactions where a citizen waives certain rights in exchange for a valuable benefit the government is under no duty to grant are always permissible and, indeed, should be encouraged as contributing to social welfare. After all, Scott' s options were only expanded when he was given the choice to waive his Fourth Amendment rights or stay in jail. Cf.Doyle v. Cont' l Ins. Co., 94 U.S. 535, 542( 1877). But our constitutional law has not adopted this philosophy wholesale. The "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine, cf. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 385 ( 1994), limits the government' s ability to exact waivers of rights as a condition of benefits, even when those benefits are fully discretionary.5 Government is a monopoly provider of countless services, notably law enforcement, and we live in an age when government influence and control are pervasive in many aspects of our daily lives. Giving the government free rein to grant conditional benefits creates the risk that the government will abuse its power by attaching strings strategically, striking lopsided deals and gradually eroding constitutional protections. Where a constitutional right " functions to preserve spheres of autonomy... [ u] nconstitutional conditions doctrine protects that [ sphere] by preventing governmental end-runs around the barriers to direct commands." Kathleen M. Sullivan, Unconstitutional Conditions, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 1413, 1492( 1989); see generally id. at ; Richard A. Epstein, The Supreme Court, 1987 Term Foreword: Unconstitutional Conditions, State Power, and the Limits of Consent, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 4, ( 1988). caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ data2/ cires/ 9th/ p.pdf Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 ( 1994) ( Under the well-settled doctrine of unconstitutional conditions," the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit. In evaluating Dolan's claim, it must be determined whether an" essential nexus" exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837. If one does, then it must be decided whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. Id., at 834. Pp ); laws.findlaw.com/ us/ 0001/ 2t html Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 ( 1987) ( Nollan wanted to expand his beachfront house and applied for a permit. The California Coastal Commission replied with a conditional approval: Nollan could expand on the condition that he grant an easement to the general public to use the beach in front of his house. The Supreme Court found that such a " condition" on a building permit constituted a taking for which Nollan must be compensated.); la i'slindlati>>. convirs/ 483/ 825. htmi Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm' n., 271 U.S. 583, ( 1926) aff'd. U.S. v.butler, 297 U.S. 1, ( 1936)( It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power ofthe state in that respect is not [ 271 U. S. 583, 594] unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose_ conditions which

8 require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. Ifthe state may_compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition ofits favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution ofthe United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.); Imp:// lcnis.findlcnv.com/ us/ 271/ Public Licenses and Private Rights: 33 Or. L. Rev. 8-10, Fn. 30( Barnett, 1953); Oppenheim, Unconstitutional Conditions and State Powers, 26 Mich. L. Rev. 176( 1928);_