Los Angeles Times Reports Eureka is Birthplace of California's  (Racist) Housing Crisis

"Article 34, which remains in effect, requires voter approval before public housing is built in a community. At the time it passed, the real estate industry argued taxpayers should have a right to vote on low-income housing projects because they were publicly funded infrastructure similar to schools or roads. The campaign also appealed to racist fears about integrating neighborhoods and featured heated rhetoric about the need to combat socialism." 

On February 3, 2019, the LA Times reported, Article 34 grew out of a fight in the northern coastal city of Eureka in 1950. Residents there collected signatures to overturn a decision to build public housing financed by a federal program inaugurated during the New Deal. Eureka unfortunately remains racially, and demographically divided. Nonwhite residents under 50 years-old consistently report being excluded from participating in Eureka events. Eureka received national attention because a local "progressive" group was excluding nonwhites, whether intentional or not.

We receive complaints younger people are also being excluded while other young people appear to have cult like allegiance to these groups. Calling themselves environmentalists some groups have joined forces with slumlords in Eureka to prevent any low-income housing from being developed. Eureka's politicians are often backed by the same lawyers and bankers each election. Rumors are circulating local grants are being channeled to benefit national political parties while Eureka falls into disrepair.

February 3, 2019

Fred Fletcher 

California Proposes Reducing Cannabis Taxes to Fight Illicit Market 

Assembly Bill 286, dubbed the Temporary Cannabis Tax Reduction bill, would temporarily cut state excise taxes for legal marijuana retailers from 15 percent to 11 percent and also suspend cultivation taxes altogether through 2022.  The proposed legislation, which is sponsored by state Treasurer Fiona Ma.  “The whole aim of legalization is to compete with the illicit market and to get people to buy from the regulated establishments,” he said. “You can’t do that if the taxes are so high and onerous that people are driven out of that market.”

This is at odds with the taxing scheme in Humboldt were the black market is estimated to be 1,500% larger than the white market.  Yesterday, the Court refused to dismiss the Measure S lawsuit attorney Eugene Denson and I filed. The lawsuit seeks to return the tax to a crop tax as approved by the voters. The suit challenges the constitutionality of an amendment our county supervisors made to impose the tax whether or not plants are grown. 

Fred Fletcher

January 29, 2019

Human Rights Update

Judge, Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the US District Court in Oakland, on Sunday granted a request by more than a dozen states to temporarily block the Trump administration from putting into effect new rules that would make it easier for employers to deny women health insurance coverage for contraceptives. 

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

New Laws in California for 2019

Farm Employee Overtime

In 2016, California became the first state in the U.S. to require employers to pay overtime for farmworkers who work more than eight hours. The first phase of the new rules will begin in January, when agricultural employees will earn overtime after working 9 1/2 hours in a day or 55 hours in a week. Currently, California farmworkers can get overtime after working 60 hours in a week or 10 hours in a day.  The change only applies to businesses that employ at least 26 people. The rules do not apply to smaller agricultural employers until 2022. Discloser, our office consults with agricultural employers on compliance matters and we represent employees on wage and labor claims. Aside from wage and hour claims, sexual harassment and discrimination are constant concerns on the farm. 

Street Vendor Permits

A law going into effect in January will allow local governments to design permit programs for vendors and limits when they can be criminally prosecuted. It pertains to anyone selling food or other merchandise from a pushcart, stand or “non-motorized conveyance.” I anticipate the City of Eureka will embrace this new law and its economic benefits. I predict the County will ignore this law until the County is forced to follow it by a judge.  

Home Kitchen Businesses

A new law encourages Counties (like Humboldt) to permit home kitchens for the purpose of selling food products. California Assembly member Eduardo Garcia, who authored the bill, says that homemade food sales are a vital part of self-reliant communities. “Legitimizing these home businesses will offer a means of economic empowerment and pathways for many to achieve the ‘American dream,’” Garcia said when the bill was signed. Humboldt historically resists new opportunities which provide residents access to residual income. Perhaps after the County Supervisors election in 2020 progress will be made on this front.  

Fred Fletcher

January 17, 2019

The Measure S Lawsuit

Measure S is the cannabis cultivation tax the voters passed. We are challenging the County Supervisor's decision to amend Measure S as passed by the voters. The Supervisors amended the tax to apply to the property owner, not the farmer, and regardless of whether any crop is grown.  

Yesterday, we filed our response to the County's demurrer to the Measure S lawsuit. (Set to be heard January 28, 2019.) The County hired a large Sacramento Firm (founded the year I was born) to defend the lawsuit. They argue it's impossible to tax farmers for the actual crop grown because the County can't verify how much was grown. We informed the Court, governments since the beginning of governments have taxed farmers for crops actually grown, and we cited the Book of Genesis as our evidence.  

The amendments by the Supervisors have been misreported. The Supervisors amended Measure S to tax the permitted area regardless of the amount of crop grown.  As such, the supervisors have amended the tax to be assessed against fallow land, without regard to crop grown. We provided the Court authority that Measure S as amended is a property tax and is unconstitutional. We ask the Court to return Measure S to its original state which acted as an excise tax on legal crop actually grown. 

We will update this one. 

Fred Fletcher

January 15, 2019


County Supervisor's Can't Silence Critics, including Humboldt's Supervisors. 

In a 3-0 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Phyllis Randall, chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, violated the First Amendment free speech rights of Brian Davison by banning him for 12 hours from her “Chair Phyllis J. Randall” facebook page.

Last election my office received a few complaints from citizens who were censored for making comments critical of politicians, on the left and right (somehow our local politics are becoming politically polarized). Now these citizens may have recourse. This First Amendment decision could impact local elections nationwide by allowing the public to be heard.    

Fred Fletcher

January 8, 2019

Update on Nation v Trump filed in the 9th Circuit

This lawsuit challenges HUD's rule which forces subsidized apartments to evict medical cannabis users. Plaintiff was evicted from her HUD apartment on July 10, 2018 when a maintenance man discovered some medical cannabis in her bedroom. She remains homeless and is not alone.

The lawsuit not only challenges HUD's rule but relies upon Murphy v NCAA (decided May 2018) to challenge the constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act itself relative to medical marijuana in the State of California. The Supreme Court in Murphy v NCAA resurrected from near death the anti-commandeering doctrine, which in laymen's terms means the Congress cannot make orders directly to the States. 

We are optimistic this lawsuit will prevail. If the District Court issues an order in our favor appealing the decision would pose a political pitfall for the Trump administration. 

I will update this one.

January 3, 2019

Fred Fletcher 

Update on Volkswagen Diesel Fraud Case

We filed an action in Butte County on May 17, 2018 with the intent of having a jury decide punitive damages. We would be the first party to bring the defeat device case to jury trial.  Peer reviewed studies proved thousands of people with lung diseases died from the fraud.  

 

The (Green) Rush to Make Mistakes

Posted by Fred Fletcher on Friday, July 15, 2016 Under: Commercial Cannabis
It's no secret the cannabis industry is normalizing. Over the next 10 years the cannabis industry will be under the spotlight. Participants will be held to a higher standard than other industries. This new industry will have to prove itself. Decades of dysfunction and bad press from the black market has tainted the industry's reputation.

If you're interested in becoming a "legal" cannabis operation here's a couple of pointers to avoid disaster:

1) Be diligent but do not be in a rush. Many in the cannabis industry want to be the first operation permitted. This is largely based upon scarcity mentality. There's an assumption only a few permits and licenses will be granted which is not true. AB 266 et al, and Proposition 64 include provisions which prevent monopolies both on the state and county level. Although the county may presently be on the path to violate the anti-monopoly protections offered by the State, once the State begins issuing licenses, Humboldt County will have to follow the new state laws. What is happening in Humboldt County right now is an experiment. The ordinance will need to be amended significantly to make the state happy. Many of us will learn from the mistakes of those who were a little too eager. 

Some cultivators in Humboldt are submitting the Commercial Cannabis Activity Registration Form without a reservation of rights which is dangerous. Without a reservation of rights registrants are exposing themselves to civil and criminal liability. Some cultivators are having their Forms completed and submitted by engineers, insurance agents, mortgage brokers, and even a Pastor. To submit any permitting or licensing documents for cannabis operations without having legal counsel review the documents is negligent. Many documents submitted to the county are binding contracts which can lead to lawsuits. The county had its lawyer review the contracts you will be signing. The county's lawyer is paid to protect the county's interest, not yours. 

2) If it sounds too Good to Be True... Compliance businesses are springing up everywhere. Some are based on a model to take in as many customers as possible while the price of cannabis is still high. These companies exist for short term profit and whether you are permitted is a secondary concern. These companies are easy to spot. They claim to have the resources to meet all your compliance needs. Avoid companies who refuse to delegate work to specialists. Compliance companies who understand this new industry is complicated involving numerous regulatory agencies will work with reputable firms and specialists to meet their customer's needs. 



The black market has existed on the idea of cutting corners to save a dollar. Cultivators like the idea of paying a compliance company a lump sum of money and forgetting about compliance concerns. Compliance companies in Humboldt on average are charging significantly more than lawyers to submit permitting and licensing documents while their customers are being exposed to civil and criminal liabilities. This is a new industry. Everyone is still experimenting. This is not the time to charge premium rates. The appropriate hourly rate for submitting permitting or licensing documents at this time should not exceed $150 an hour. Some local compliance companies are charging as much as $750 an hour and the permitting documents are not even reviewed by an attorney. These companies are learning on their customer's dime and are charging a premium rate. 
  

In : Commercial Cannabis 


Tags: commercial cannabis  ab 266  proposition 64  cultivators  cannabis activity registration  compliance  cannabis  humboldt  engineers 

About


Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. "Civil solutions for a sustainable community" and the logo at the top of this web-page is an advertisement for Fletcher Law Offices.