Home > marijuana > HuMMAP Proposes Licensing For County Marijuana Farmers

HuMMAP Proposes Licensing For County Marijuana Farmers

[Press release.]

Graduated Fees Will Encourage Small Farmers and Boost County Income

The Humboldt Medical Marijuana Advisory Panel (HuMMAP) is proposing commercial cannabis regulations today to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. HuMMAP Chair Syreeta Lux says that “This proposal is designed to stabilize our county’s rural economies with a tax policy that encourages families to stay on their land, while increasing county tax yields. Recognizing that a greater number of small farmers contributes more to our county’s economy and culture than fewer large growers can, our proposal also reduces crime and police concerns.”

HuMMAP proposes that county licensing fees be levied based on mature plant canopy area. They suggest a yearly fee of $200 to be paid for the first 100 square feet of cultivated area per parcel, with graduated fees increasing for larger cultivation areas up to one acre, as in this table:

100 square feet, annual fee of $200

200 sq. ft. ” ” ” $500
300 $800
400 $1200
500 $1500
1000 $3500
2000 $8000
3000 $13,000
4000 $19,000
5000 $25,000
10,000 $60,000
20,000 $140,000
40,000 $300,000

HuMMAP also suggests that a plan for responsible water use accompany all permit applications, with a countywide cannabis trade association and/or Supervisorial Task Force working cooperatively to encourage compliance, and to address enforcement and evolving policy issues. Non-compliance would be punishable by civil fines.

In her statement to Humboldt Supervisors Tuesday, Lux said “As our elected officials, we ask you to pass a resolution to state officials urging them to adopt these or similar standards statewide, in support of the many small rural counties also dependent upon cannabis farming. We also urge you to work with private industry and county agencies to protect our appellation, and to brand values and practices no less than location, so that Humboldt becomes ever more synonymous with healthy and sustainable small-scale agriculture.”

In return for program compliance, growers would receive an official Humboldt-Grown tax stamp/certificate of provenance affixed to fee-paid production in various unit sizes. Growers smaller than 1000 square feet could receive a distinctive Humboldt Home-Grown certificate. HuMMAP asked that this permitting structure be put in place by March 1^st , 2011.

# # #

/The Humboldt Medical Marijuana Advisory Panel is a community-based nonpartisan policy group created to foster comprehensive approaches to legal marijuana policy, integrating health, safety, economic, and regulatory issues in Humboldt County, California and the United States. Formed by a public meeting process, HuMMAP speaks for the interests of legal marijuana growers, patients, caregivers, distributors and support services across Humboldt County. See more at www.HuMMAP.org/

  1. October 12, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Maybe we ought to get all the county taxpayers to pay these people live on their “farms” and grow pot. Think the trade-off would work?

    October 12, 2010 at 9:26 am

    More power grabbing for taxation collection while using comercial business as the guise. Seems to me plenty of money is floating around between rural and urban Huumboldt. The MJ trades already pump money into the local economy that comes in the form of part taxations (sales/purchases of products). The political race to be number one IS NOT APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION BY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THE COMMITTEES THEY CREATE! The attempt to make another Williamson Act-esque power and control boondoggle will not go over so well with mj.

    There should be no taxation for production purposes that do not harm the basic environment.

    All taxation should be sales taxation, and that is it!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

    October 12, 2010 at 9:29 am

    I meant to say as I forgot too that a penalty serves as punishment for environmental harms.


  4. Big Al
    October 12, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Policing plot size looks like a headache.
    I’m not a farmer so I can’t say if the fees look right.

    October 12, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Also, if it is about water allocation rights and future alotments/discharges from dams and diversions, then trying to create a “pay scale” to prove uses is not the way to go about it appropriately. I understand “legal and appropriate uses”, but this is the crux of the matter. For millennia, what has not been a legal and appropriate use when considering agriculture? Was it when the government said screw you to small family farms in the 1930’s and 1940’s when the stock market and futures/bond market dictated fascist controls that benefitted the corporate conglomerates and their ability to monopolize the agricultural markets for corporate profits on the backs of the displaced and over-populated water consumers. Further, this will be an open-door tactic to go upon someone’s land and snoop around on the property for conformance to a proposed set of rules/standards that are being used as a tool to help retain water rights. This is what all the b-s is about – water rights being stolen by urbanite city slicking grubbers and government not having the ballz to say quit growing in those areas where rainfall is near non-existant.

    Government is not worried about people making the mj trade work; no, no, no, government is worried they can’t get their taxation fingers in the pockets of MORE PEOPLE unless they force people to live under certain conditions.

    This is not a good direction to go folks…the popularity thing that is!


    October 12, 2010 at 9:49 am

    as if someone will be content paying $300K annually (not including the property tax on new construction improvements/valuations) on a 40,000 square foot structure.

    Pure idiocy by folks who have no brains. Typical for many appointments by elected officials who are scared by others politically in the community – threatened to such a degree that locking-out potential committee/advisory panel applicant’s becomes necessary for the fraudulant decision makers to continue their deceptions and manipulations. It is the carbon copy affect to control a community through Oligarchial methodologies.


  7. skippy
    October 12, 2010 at 10:43 am

    On one hand I do not prefer taxation or over-regulation driving up the cost of any product. I prefer to let the free marketplace decide.

    On the other, organizations and organizing has its merits.

    The premise of MMj being openly brought up to the BOS is refreshing; it never would have happened so freely 10+ years ago.

    After reviewing this article, posts, and the link to the HuMMAP website, I’d like to hear more of the intelligent, cogent, and concise thoughts of ‘Heraldo’s Think Tank’ readers on the matter.

    (Thanks again, Heraldo, for presenting the current news and a forum of interest not typically found elsewhere)

  8. AnonymousX2
    October 12, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Nice looking bud!

  9. Un-Named
    October 12, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    This is more symbolic than anything. If there’s a collective contributing above and beyond the call of duty, as these fees or taxes or permits or whatever would have them do, then they will be held in the highest regard when it comes to genuine commercial distribution. If you’re not playing ball with their collective, you won’t share in their rewards. Basically, I think they already know who they are…they’re OG’s who know their shit and are ready to make Humboldt weed a registered commodity. It’s not gonna fug with anybody else’s program, unless like Henchman suggests they actually put force into enforcement. I agree that taxing, permitting whatever is bogus. Woes be the farmer who coughs up $300k to grow his acre, only to have the Feds take it all anyway during one of their annual shows of force. If legalization happens, the feds WILL continue to regularly remind everybody who’s holding the leash.

  10. Richard Lee is coming
    October 12, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Hummaps ordinance opens the door for the Richard Lee’s and Philip Morris’s to come right into Humboldt and set up farms. What growers here have a check for 300k? How does this protect local farmers and Humboldt’s way of life from corporate entities? This will encourage big money to invade Humboldt and dominate the industry we have worked so hard to establish. Hummap blew it with this one as well as the last one. This will just create another Oakland with big business being the only ones who can afford to play.

  11. Tired of PJ
    October 12, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    This smells of Mark Lovelace, Ken Miller, etc. Keep the government out of MJ, period. It is about power and control, you will be sorry if any of these guys are involved. Your product will stand on its own merit, you grew it here, it is branded.

    October 12, 2010 at 3:15 pm


    is MMj= Medical Marijuana


    Manufactured Marijuana?

    Since a concern is “commercial operation” and how it affects Taxation, Water Rights, Prop 19, etc…… it really appears once again about pure power and control to create a tax base to collect taxes to put back into the community the way government and its collaboration of groups design it to be.

    If the idea is to get some royalty outta the product (or appurtenent infrastructures) PRIOR to proven sales transactions that render the product’s exportation outta the county; or, if the actual idea is to maliciously and intentionally inflict economic injury through local only taxation subsidies to gain a royalty, then failure is imminent, especially prior to proven sales transactions. Once again, a sales tax only is the key in economics because for one thing, it is a tax at the point of consumption (an after-tax) for the consumptions of a full process of productivities to create any product designed for consumption (IOW, a proven sales transaction), which a jurisdiction does not get to collect taxes on anything but tangible and factual conditions (actual sales). Plenty of sales taxes occur within any process to produce something prior to final consumption (sales transaction).

    Why continue to punish those in any business who are producing (or not much at all) IF they are not damaging the environment? Nonsense to super glue economic progress the way current income tax regulations and tax collection systems are applied, imo.


  13. Anonymous
    October 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    you must tax it if it is legal, except if it is in prescription form. and the profits must be taxed.

  14. Un-Named
    October 12, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Baloney, anonymous 3:37…we’re talking about marijuana. There’s no snack tax in california. :P

  15. anonymous#1
    October 12, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    We had better fix the railroad so that we can move all those bale of high quality ganja to the rest of the nation.

  16. Mr. Nice
    October 12, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    $300,000 for less than an acre of outs? Bullshit.

    Oakland’s licensing is $211k for two and a half acres of indoor. Oakland got a sense of humor… 211 is code for armed robbery.

    How the fuck does the price go up the more you get? If it was all $200 per 100 square feet, wouldn’t 40,000 square feet be $80,000? Bulk should go down not be damn near 4 times as much.

    I propose the county say fuck all that stupid shit since it is hard enough to collect money for permits as it is to go round tryna collect $300,000. Like anyone is really gonna pay that. Make it up to 2,178 square feet = free, 2,179-21,780 = $1000, and 21,781-43,560 = $1500 and anything over one acre requiring a different permit. Fuck these round ass German numbers too this is fucking America we use acres and pounds and shit.

  17. Not A Native
    October 12, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    This idiot “idea” demonstrates how those heavily involved with pot get stupid and unable to distinguish reality from their fantasy trippings the come with getting stoned.

    Reminds me of a couple of years back when Johanna Rodoni was trying to get the votes of growers. She invited man-who-craps-in-the-woods to present an idea that the Supes create a County program of guidelines for illegal diesel grows. The Supes politely pointed out that their function isn’t to aid and abet illegal activities. Guess that never occured to the presenters. Sorry children, but like Kat Williams quips, “weed is for those whose lives are fucked up”.

  18. longwind
    October 12, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Want some real fun, NAN? Go to the Warfinger Building tomorrow morning for Bonnie Neely’s Humboldt Big Growers Association Medical Marijuana Policy Workshop (it’s invitation only, but they’ll make an exception for you), and tell Bonnie what you think of her new friends and their policy proposals. Blog us what you learn, we’ll all be waiting.

  19. Harold h. Greene
    October 12, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    “This idiot “idea” demonstrates how those …”

    Nice … so, I guess you’ll be voting yes on prop. 19.

  20. Not A Native
    October 12, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    FWIW I’m voting YES on prop 19. IMO its good for HumCo, though bad for CA.

    longwind, I’d guess that workshop is about how Eureka will implement its new ordinance. Is that right? I’m not interested in operating a dispensary, so why would I possibly want to attend? The topic of this thread has nothing to do with medical marijuana, which isn’t legally grown other than by people with medical recommendations or their bonafide non-profit caregiver/cooperative.

  21. Harold h. Greene
    October 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    prop. 19 is good for CA. It will reduce the amount of violence associated with prohibition related activities.

    and other things, I think. Like, for example, the boost to hemp related industries getting the defacto nod of approval that’s inevitable coming from marijuana’s legalization.

    October 12, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Prior to Prop 19 or any other legalization format passing such proactive MJ legislation, why waste time on something like this (taxation/water rights retentions scheme) for local regulatory control with regard to commercial grow ops when nothing currently explains whether or not the LOCAL proprietors of regulation can even base fair and appropriate conditions upon something (a new legalized California industry) they have yet to understand AS BEING “proof or not based on the premise of legalnesses created by actions that tender some purpose…… as a result of“.

    In fact, when legalization DOES OCCUR – and it will – it makes much more fiscal sense to allow over the first couple years some restraint in not creating a regulatory mess while observing and understanding the new traits that which will invent themselves or become accentuated through transparencies of legalization.

    Alas though, all budgets in California are trying to tax as much and as fast as the jurisdictions can. This state is in a frack job of a financial disaster.


  23. fair is fair
    October 12, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    what about tracking and taxing grower’s income. bout time those cash-reeking poor people get off welfare.

    oh, we only get our social security check. were so poor. we need free social services that you dumb fu*ks have to pay for. plus pay for your own. that is, if you can afford it after for paying taxes on ALL your income. so we can get ours for nothing.

    sick of freeloaders.

  24. Mr. Nice
    October 12, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    Quality drug strains already exist in small breeding facilities. The cops must know that some people waste gas driving hundreds of miles north and south to obtain good seeds. These seeds need to be produced on a larger scale and delivered in regular mail.

    To ensure seed supply, there must be some kind of allowance for breeding facilities. We have lost all of the North American industrial fiber hemp strains and many lines of quality drug outdoor strains. Turn of the century farmers could get seed from Georgia to grow fiber in Kentucky without the plants ever flowering in Kentucky. Hash farmers in the Middle East traditionally had strains that flowered deeper into the season than contemporary strains. We live in the pure veg, heavy late flowering latitude zone yet hemp breeding has focused on making early flowering and even autoflowering strains. Knowledge and genetic material are disappearing. We’re going backward.

    Industrial hemp and drug hemp breeders need enough space to grow out hundreds of thousands of specimen to select from. SoCal can take care of seed oil strains for the Dr. Bronners as Humboldt exists well outside the seed zone. Someday we will get back to the level of sophistication that existed 100 years ago.

  25. Anonymoose
    October 13, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    What about amnesty? What about truth and reconciliation? Peoples lives have been destroyed. Not by the herb, but by storm troopers and political penalties imposed by supremacists, most of whom are addicted to something or another whether legal or not.
    Yeah, go on and talk about how much you can squeeze out of us to extend your existence I am sure it is a rush to think about how much, and what if….

  26. Anonymous
    October 13, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Someone who chooses involvement in criminal activity has already ruined their life. When the cops come along, that just brings it out into the open. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

    You want to get the excessive profits that come from trading in contraband but not be subject to the legal sanctions that made it high priced contraband in the first place. Big baby wants to have its cake and eat it too.

    And as for fees and taxes, you can’t lose what you never had. The money comes directly from people with dependency who can’t help themselves from paying excessive prices for their habit. And a lot of their money comes from victims of other illegal activities like theft, robbery, embezzlement, and burglary. It ain’t a victimless crime.

  27. Mr. Nice
    October 13, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    I buy $100 / lb teas. I got to drive to either Portland of San Francisco to get the shit so I can smell, touch, and sample it in the store. Fuck the mail and sight unseen.

    Am I a tea addict who cannot help myself? Maybe. Only diff between tea and weed is I do not pay tax on tea and never expect to. If the government started charging tax on tea I would want to go all Boston tea party off that shit.

    I don’t feel like I have a dependency to tea either unless you mean can I live if I ran out and I guess the answer is yes I’d be okay… but for serious, fuck that. I feel bad for folks who can’t sample and decide what type of weed they buy as that used to be me. Serious if a tea shop style weed spot opened in Humboldt, folks would be taking regular trips up.

    And don’t even try and tell me that the tea I buy is no better than the fertilizer shit in the grocery store. That’s like saying indoor city weed is just as good as outdoor Humboldt organic.

  28. macville
    October 13, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    Those rates you have to be kidding. People have grown pot forever here in humboldt and many don’t pay nearly that much in property tax much less a growers tax, Haven’t these people noticed what is happening to the price of weed? Those rates are an ‘ appeasement’ to the county for doing what we have always done and their precious stamp. What BS. Ideas like this and prop 19 are going to destroy our local industry.

  29. Big Al
    October 15, 2010 at 8:20 am

    after looking around I would have to agree that the fees are a bit high, add them to the costs to manufacture and the per oz. tax at the sale, there may well be no profit left.

  30. longwind
    October 15, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    At Bonnie’s Warfinger Building pot workshop the day after HuMMAP’s proposal came out, which I invited NAN to up above the night before it happened, a similar table was proposed that topped out at $50k rather than $300k for an acre of mature canopy, with no breaks for smaller growers but a flat fee of $800 per 400 square feet of canopy up to 40,000 square feet, roughly an acre.

    We’re finally talking turkey about our golden goose!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s