Home > City of Eureka, Humboldt County > Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

“I kind of feel sorry for what Mr. Ebenstein went through because he had no knowledge that (his tenants) were growing marijuana. I’ve never known a landlord who wanted people in their property growing marijuana.” Eureka attorney Andrew Stunich displays his deep knowledge of the local landlording business.

  1. April 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    That got my first “WTF?” of the morning when I read that…several times. REALLY? Not ONE landlord? Shocking to even imagine, especially in Humboldt, right?

  2. April 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    Well, you know, it’s just that he personally has never known such a landlord so it’s just really hard to imagine that any landlord in Humboldt County would want or approve of marijuana gardens on their property.

  3. April 6, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    What’s so hard about that? A landlord wants someone who cuts holes in the sheetrock, walls and floor? Dismantles the garage door and constructs grow-rooms inside? Fills up the house with dirt and mold? Burns his house down with unsafe wiring? Gets the neighbors upset?


    You can’t comprehend that?

  4. Joe Bro
    April 6, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Most simply double the rent and play dumb.

  5. Plain Jane
    April 6, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    The problem with defending landlords like Mr. Ebensten is (from the TS article) “According to court documents, one of the tenants of the property also admitted to officers that the “premises were ‘set up’ for growing marijuana” when he moved in in September 2009, and that a crop of marijuana plants was even ready for harvest at the time.”

    So it was an on-going marijuana operation with a series of tenants, not tenants growing mj? I think Mr. Ebensten is lucky he isn’t criminally prosecuted for conspiracy.

  6. tra
    April 6, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    I think that when it comes to the issue of cannabis grows in residential rentals, local landlords can be broken down into three groups:

    (1) Those who are fully aware of the grow, and charge way over the market rate for the rental in exchange for not hassling the grower. A subset of this group would be those who will nonetheless claim, after the fact that they are “shocked, shocked to find out there is cannabis growing going on in this establishment.”

    (2) Those who didn’t agree to have a grow there, and would, in a perfect world, rather not have one, but didn’t do anything in particular to prevent the space from being used that way (walk-throughs, provisions in the lease) and meanwhile are perfectly happy to collect a high rent that is high in part due to the demand created by growers. These folks would, or course, rather get the best of both worlds by not having a grow in their own rental units, but nonetheless benefit from the high rental prices that are created by the scarcity of housing units (which is in part due to people using other rental units as grows rather than residences). Most of these landlords will play the “shocked, shocked” game if a grow in one of their rental units is busted or causes problems.

    (3) Those who absolutely DO NOT want any cannabis being grown in their units, made that clear to the tenants from the outset, and have taken measures(like walk-throughs, etc) to prevent a grow from being conducted there, and despite those measures their tenants have set up a grow anyway.

    I have a lot of sympathy for group (3), not so much for group (2), and none for group (1).

  7. Plain Jane
    April 6, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    A landlord who has a change of tenants with a pot operation going on undoubtedly fits (at the very least) in the first category, Tra. It would be a little interesting to find out what he charged for rent. Doesn’t it seem extremely odd that the previous tenants left their “ready to harvest” crop behind?

  8. tra
    April 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    I’d rather that there were no indoor residential grows, except for small, personal ones. But as long as some people are going to continue to grow indoors in bedrooms, basements, garages, etsc, then in my opinion, landlords in group (1) should be every bit as responsible for setting up a safe electric system, installing sprinklers/fire supression systems, ensuring proper security, ventilation and filtration, and everything else needed to ensure that the grow doesn’t have a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood.

    Of course that would all be a lot easier if most indoor growing was just done in industrial buildings and/or light-assisted greenhouses, something built or retrofitted for that specific purpose. Or better yet, we could get over the whole indoor-growing scene and embrace the blessings of sun and soil. But I suspect it may still be a while before enough people come to their senses on that one, so in the meantime it sure would be nice if both landlords and their tenants would show good judgement in how they use their space.

  9. bunny
    April 6, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Clearly if I got a call, letter, or reports that my rental had unsavory activity ie, traffic, drug dealing, flop house of transient traffic, fencing stolen property, ect. I would immediately serve a 24 hour notice of right of inspection on my tenants. No one wants commercial grows, meth labs, and illegal activity next to their homes as they are raising families. Grow up Ebenstein and Stunich, you are supposed to be educated!

  10. Mark Sailors
    April 6, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    This was a NON 215 grow.

    City, ST Zip
    Phone Number


    Landlord/Property Manager
    Title (if appropriate)
    Management Company (if appropriate)
    City, ST Zip

    Dear Landlord/Property Manager:

    I am currently a tenant on your property and I recently contacted Americans for Safe Access, a Bay Area-based non-profit that advocates for medical marijuana patients. Joe Elford, Chief Counsel, has informed me of my rights as a medical marijuana patient under state law and I would like to provide you with the following information

    Under California law, “seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana. . . .” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(b)(1)(A).

    While landlords have some discretion to determine whom they lease to, that discretion is not unlimited. In particular, under California Civil Code § 1942.5(c), “[i]t is unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because he or she . . . has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law.” See Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244, 252; Rich v. Schwab (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 803, 810-11. Furthermore, under the Bane Civil Rights Act, it is illegal for anyone to “interfere[] by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment of any constitutional or statutory right. See Cal. Civil Code § 52.1; Bay Area Rapid Transit District v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 141, 144. Because California law now provides for the rights of seriously ill Californians to cultivate and possess marijuana for medical purposes, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(b)(1)(A), the eviction or threatened eviction of a qualified marijuana patient simply for exercising these statutorily-conferred rights constitutes unlawful retaliation and violates the Bane Civil Rights Act. Violation of these provisions may subject the violator to compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. See Cal. Civil Code §§ 52.1(h), 1942.5(f) & (g).

    I write to request that you cease any action that would result in my eviction for possession/cultivation of medical marijuana, thereby ignoring my status as a qualified patient. Add an optional sentence specifically refuting your specific notice to quit. While I appreciate that your drug policy is motivated by the best intentions, I believe that in this particular case it must be reconsidered. I hope that we can work together to resolve this matter in a cordial and expeditious manner.



    April 6, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Typical Attorney detracting from truth to win the case….which is why attorneys, for the most part, are devoid of any ethics.

    When crud hits the fan and law can no longer protect the non-innocent, guaranteed many attorneys are gonna be running scared, big time!

    Now, on to a more truthful statement, “that there exists landlords who swap indoor growing operations for higher rents – it works out for both parties when both parties have a verbal kinda contract unbeknownst to the masses.

    Rose – it does not take that much effort or time to do repair works after mega bucks has been made to offset the costs to repair…. need to get out of the equation or discussion those who truly are victimized by tenants as compared to what both tenant and landlord are willing to knowingly accept.

    Renting is not about monolithic users, never has been – same as home ownerships (at least the past half century).

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  12. High Finance
    April 6, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    I cannot believe you people think a landlord would purposely encourage a pot grow in their property.

    So they “double the rent” ? Oh goodie, they get an extra $800 per month. How is that going to help when two years later they have to pay for $15-20,000 worth of repairs ? And that is IF the place doesn’t burn down !

    There are plenty of tenants around to keep the place rented legally. If the landlord is charging even more than double then even Gallegos would see that the landlord is complicit in breaking the law.

    When this happens, the landlord involved is almost always naive and doesn’t suspect. Most landlords aren’t even aware of their rights for walk throughs.

  13. Andy Stunich
    April 6, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Keep in mind that if the landlord is indifferent to or wants the rental property used as a grow house, he or she does not come to see me. So i do not doubt that grow friendly landlords exist – my only point is that I have never met one. But I have dealt with dozens of landlords that all have had major concerns about their property being used for marijuana growing. You should see what is done to these rental units to convert them to grow houses. If you did, you would understand why most landlords do not want such renters. Some insurance companies also have exclusions they claim apply to the damage leaving the landlord to pay for repairs out-of-pocket.

  14. Andy Stunich
    April 6, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    In response to some of the articles, I wish to set the record straight. Mr. Ebenstein lives out of the area but when he received the anonymous phone call he did give 24 hour notice and inspected. He observed no grow operation. That tenant left and a new tenant moved in. It was the new tenant that the EPD raided. There was no notice to Mr. Ebenstein.

  15. Anonymous
    April 6, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    I spent less than two minutes searching Craiglist and found a landlord welcoming growers. $2000 a month is well above market rate for a 3 bedroom. http://humboldt.craigslist.org/apa/2294537618.html

  16. Anonymous
    April 6, 2011 at 4:27 pm
  17. Plain Jane
    April 6, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Mr. Stunich, surely you read the court record where a tenant stated there was a grow ready to harvest when he moved in? It’s obvious that if Ebensten rented the house to a new tenant and there was a grow in progress that he knew it was a grow house. The fact that the previous tenant left a crop ready to harvest suggests that it wasn’t the tenants’ crop. Whose crop was it? Has anyone ever rented a house to find a grow room with ready to harvest plants? It’s ludicrous.

  18. Your Reminder of the Obvious
    April 6, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    High Finance wrote:

    “Most landlords aren’t even aware of their rights for walk throughs.”

    Then those landlords are complicit. Ignorance is not a defense.

    I feel sorry for Andy Stunich. He had no idea what he walked into with that slimeball. Ebenstein is in deep doo-doo beyond the small claims case ruled against him. His financial problems are huge. He has the property on Hillsdale for sale which he will take a massive loss on, another on Gibson that is in foreclosure and was scheduled for auction last monday, and has somehow managed to escape foreclosure on his property on E Street.

    And with all this in mind, Alan aka Lanny Ebenstein is heading up a California ballot initative from his mansion in Santa Barabara that mirrors the same attempt in Wisconsin to strip public workers from their barganining rights. Google it, mofos. Alan/Lanny is a Cato adjunct scholar, economics professor @ UCSB, his father wrote many books which were the basis for modern conservative ideology– this guy is much more than a poor, ignorant landlord he depicts himself to be. He profited from a commercial grow operation.

    Look it up: Lanny Ebenstein. Same dude, but very different look outside of Humboldt County.

  19. Walt
    April 6, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    Might be of interest that Dr. Ebenstein is an adjunct scholar with the CATO Institute, and best known for his biography of Austrian Economist/Philosopher Friendrich Hayek. Quoth Wikipedia: “Friedrich August von Hayek, was an Austrian-born economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought.” Hayek won a Nobel Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George H.W. Bush. “Hayek’s account of how changing prices communicate signals which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.” Would that apply here?

  20. Walt
    April 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    OOH! and this on the CATO Institute: “The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the oil conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company (after Cargill) by revenue in the United States.[1][2]”

    Koch. As in Tea Party.

  21. Landlord
    April 6, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Er, $1500 to $2000 is not unusual for a nice 2-3 bedroom house. A beat up rental will bring at least 4-500 per bedroom. This would not even begin to cover damage from a grow and those ads posted above are for “normal” rentals.

  22. Farmer
    April 6, 2011 at 5:27 pm


    800×24= 19,200

    Looks like it would help.

  23. Anonymous
    April 6, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Surely you jest, landlord. The $1200 duplex is less than 750 sq ft, and both ads quite clearly state that they welcome growers with 215 permits. Try reading next time?

  24. Plain Jane
    April 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    5:31, The ads say 215 welcome which doesn’t translate to indoor growing. Many people with 215’s grow their own in backyards.

  25. Anonymous
    April 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Sorry that was $1500 for the duplex, not $1200. And if you look at actual rentals listed on the same site, you’ll see that those rents are actually quite far above what is customary for similar properties that state NO 215.

  26. Landlord
    April 6, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Just going by my own rentals, which may be nicer, but they are rented by college students, many of them. 400-500 per bedroom is not out of line for the norm.

  27. Anonymous
    April 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    400-500 per bedroom does not equal $1500 for two or $2000 for three! PJ this is in response to people claiming no landlord welcomes growers. And while some might grow in their yards, the VAST majority grow indoors, where they can grow it faster, keep it protected from thieves and grow it over and over all year round!

  28. Dave
    April 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Is it just me, or does it seem slightly odd that a lawyer is defending his client on this blog before going to court?

    Really? “To set the record straight?” Hmmmmmmm…..

  29. taxed
    April 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    This is the perfect example of some sleazy out of town landlord that buys up several houses in Eureka because they are so affordable compared to real estate in other parts of the state. This greedy man doesn’t give a shit about the neighbors or the historic architecture. This man has supposed to have done this in other towns. Probably not in his own town of Santa Barbara. As a property owner I have been offered double the going rental price of a house if they can use it to grow in. Definition – Defense Lawyer-Professional liar.

  30. Plain Jane
    April 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    It’s already gone to court, Dave. The neighbors around his grow house rental won.

  31. Your Reminder of the Obvious
    April 6, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Walt hit it right on the head. Ebenstein=Cato=Koch= the same uber-right politics headed to California. Simple math. Nice work Walt. Now, all that’s left to do is notify the press covering Lanny’s constant push on this issue. He is in the papers on a daily basis advocating the same agenda that the right in Wisconsin/Ohio/Indiana/Michigan are currently at war with the working class.

    April 6, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    Problem is with those who report their concerns


    they are indifferent to those who don’t; so effectually, whatever statistics based upon those who report concerns as landlords


    be compared in a percentage of the overall landlord/tenant grow-no grow percentage


    those who don’t have concerns are not going to incriminate themself for the convenience of not being associated with destructive tenants.

    No assumptions should be made that all grows are damaging to property. Fact is the media exploitation on real victims makes it seem more than it really is compared to the overall ops that involve many who “get it”.


  33. Landlord
    April 6, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    5:43 I get 500 a bedroom easy and need to to keep a rental in the shape I want people to have. Some are nicer than others and have rooms that renters use for a bedroom or choose it to be something else. I am telling you what I get easily in Eureka and Arcata. It is not speculation. It is a fact. I get $1500 for a three bedroom and I get 2500 for a 2 bedroom with other rooms that could be bedrooms. I get 850 for a house that is not nice and 850 for a beautiful studio. Most of these places have had grows in them at one time or another because going in to inspect once a month is sometimes not enough. Go ahead and argue about what landlords get. I can only tell you what is very easy for me to get and what I need to get to keep them nice.

  34. tra
    April 6, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    I can only tell you what is very easy for me to get…

    In part thats because the local rental market is inflated due to higher-than-normal demand for residential units…which is partly due to so many of them being used for indoor grows. So if you are a landlord in Humboldt County, even if you don’t rent to any growers at all, the cannabis industry is still subsidizing you by driving the market price for rents much higher than it otherwise would be.

    Personally I don’t think that’s a good thing for anyone…except, to some degree for the growers and the landlords (those that don’t mind having a grow, and in exchange charge rent that is even higher than the already-inflated market rate. )

    For your average renter just looking for a place to live, the inflated rent market means that they have to pay more for less, if they’re lucky enough to find anything at all.

    If/when indoor growing transitions into industrial spaces and/or light-assisted greenhouses (or better yet, when most growing moves outdoors entirely), there will be a whole lot more residential units on the market in Humboldt, and, at least in theory, residential rental rates should fall (or at least not increase as fast as they have in the last 10 years).

  35. Landlord
    April 6, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    My rents haven’t changed that much over the past 10 years but the prices of homes did for awhile. The damages we have had from grows have made the business not very profitable, so I would gladly trade the higher rents for a guarantee of no growing. I would like to be a renter someday, have someone else take care of my home and yard, not be responsible for it all. Maybe if I ever retire I will do just that.

  36. Landlord
    April 6, 2011 at 11:28 pm

    Also, rents here are still not high compared to some other CA college areas.

  37. tra
    April 6, 2011 at 11:55 pm


    In light of your 11:27 comment (and some of your other comments) it sounds like you are saying that you would fit into what I called category (3) in my 2:06pm comment.


    So when you end up with a grow scene mess you never wanted, you certainly have my sympathies. As stated above, I look forward to the day when commercial indoor cannabis grows being operated in residential rentals are a thing of the past. Full legalization would get us there most quickly and efficiently, since growing in a residential structure is not efficient at all, when compared to an industrial space or a greenhouse.

    The residential-growscene is entirely an artifact of Prohibition, and it would melt away immediately if people didn’t have to hide their crops in garages, basements, attics and bedrooms. And it will come to an end, one way or another, if the price drops to the point where the economics of all that rental cost, and the lights, electricity, potting soil or hydroponic systems, etc., no longer pencils out.

    The “good news” (not for the indoor growers, of course) is that’s the direction the market is headed already, and anyone who invested a ton of money in lights and equipment for an indoor residential rental grow today might have trouble just breaking even in a couple of years. Meanwhile, sun and soil beckon, and the quality of Humboldt’s outdoor ganja just keeps getting better.

    Meanwhile, I hope you realize that there are quite a few Humboldt landlords who are firmly in categories (1) They are direct and willing participants in the cannabis grow that is in their rental unit, or (2) they at least turn a blind eye to it. Unfair as it may be to you personally, the fact is that this leads many people to view local landlords as part of the problem, even if you, individually, are not. In other words, it reflects poorly on local landlords as a whole.

    So be sure to save some of your outrage for some of your colleauges in the rental business who profit handsomely by agreeing to have large, commercial cannabis grows in their residential rentals, and those who don’t agree, but do “turn a blind eye” while pocketing hefty rents.

  38. April 7, 2011 at 6:02 am

    As someone who once moved into a place that was an indoor grow, I think only greedy, short-sighted landlords (which, indeed, probably encompasses many of the ones here in Humboldt — but not all) would want an indoor grow. It screwed up the apartment, and the grow was, from what I understand, fairly small in comparison to others. Carpets destroyed. Outlets destroyed. Rodents. Only a fool would want that for their property.

  39. case of facts
    April 7, 2011 at 6:12 am


    Why did Mr. Ebenstein not produce his right to inspect notice to the court or any other receipts for a trip to humboldt county that week? If he would have done an inspection when the tenants changed, he would have noticed six inches of soil on the floor and a 69 strange looking plants. Why is it that his properties in humboldt have all gone into default now that there is no agricultural activity in them? What exact factual errors did the judge make? That he did not believe Ebenstein inspected because he offered no proof and that he believed the police report when the tenant said Mr. Ebenstein knew about the grow?

  40. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 6:46 am

    “Plain Jane says:
    April 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    It’s already gone to court, Dave. The neighbors around his grow house rental won.”

    Not to be rude, but the neighbors did not “win”, the case was settled by the owners insurance. Huge difference.

  41. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 6:52 am

    Outdoor cannabis will never be clean enough to be considered “medical” grade. It is too exposed to the elements, bird and other animal feces, bugs and airborne molds.

    Only indoor cannabis can be grown under “controlled” conditions.

  42. Landlord
    April 7, 2011 at 6:52 am

    I hope the neighbors prevail, if it is shown that this landlord knew. Most landlords I know fit into #3 category. I don’t know any in the other categories actually! If you want to be in the illegal grow business, that is a different business. I want to be respectable, ethical, and legal, and enjoy my retirement someday from monies that are not ill-gotten gains.

  43. robash141
    April 7, 2011 at 7:25 am

    Maybe Stunich didn’t actually say, that maybe he just plagiarized it from another idiot lawyer

  44. PJ admirer
    April 7, 2011 at 7:36 am

    If we can destroy all the greedy corporations, kill all development, destroy all sources of income except government union employees, then we can live on the street and not have to worry about landlords. Problem solved.

  45. High Finance
    April 7, 2011 at 7:40 am

    Landlord is right. $400-500 per bedroom is not unusual at all.

    Does being a liberal blogger mean all of you lack any common sense or any math skills ????

    The damage that indoor grows do to your rentals far outweighs any extra income you will ever get ! It is ludicrous to claim landlords are allowing their valuable properties to be almost destroyed like this.

  46. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2011 at 7:47 am

    It’s funny that someone who uses the name High Finance can’t do basic math. A 2 bedroom duplex at $1500 is $740 per bedroom. A 3 bedroom house at $2000 is $666 per bedroom. You keep saying $500 a bedroom is not unusual so do you guys charge extra for kitchen, living room and bathroom? While charging $250 and $166 per bedroom more than usual might not seem “unusual” to you, that’s a lot of money to working class people struggling to make ends meet, $3,000 and almost $2000 per year respectively.

  47. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2011 at 7:49 am

    There was a typo, that should have said $750, not $740, of course.

  48. blackcoffee
    April 7, 2011 at 7:54 am

    I spoke directly to my neighbor. Her rental house had just had an upgrade of the electrical panel by the tenants.

    “You have a grow house”, no action, two more years of growers coming in and out.

    They make extra money and don’t have to do anything to the property.

    Yes SOME landlords know about and welcome growers.

  49. longwind
    April 7, 2011 at 8:13 am

    This thread sure makes it plain what a godawful mess our laws and practices are.

    Mark, some indoorspeople do say that dirt is too dirty to grow life in, but can you think of another natural product that’s ever been propagandized to grow in an insanely unnatural fashion? I can’t. Every other herbal botanical, and intoxicating natural drug, in the history of the world has been, and is, grown naturally, in sunshine and dirt, including 6000 years of cultivated marijuana. If someone’s badly immuno-compromised, they shouldn’t smoke at all.

    Walt, thank you for all the dope on Ebenstein. What strikes me about his investments is that he didn’t learn anything from his study of von Hayek. The Austrians are most useful on the subject of fiscal bubbles, that’s what you read that crowd *for*. But Ebenstein bought here at the top of the real estate bubble, and all his Humboldt properties must be way underwater now.

    HiFi, thanks for confirming that the guy’s in deep doo doo.

  50. Landlord
    April 7, 2011 at 8:15 am

    Jane, it is all depending on the area/price/quality/condition/amenities etc that come with the house. Does it have a washer and dryer and all appliances. Granite counters and other expensive upgrades? Is it located in an expensive area? Alarm system? Yard care? None of the above and kind of a “student” rental means lower rent, but still enough to cover the landlord’s butt!

    The standard $450 or whatever per bedroom applies to the “average” rental and what people are paying for the basic place. It is the market rate, and the minimum necessary not to get underwater on a property a person owns.

  51. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2011 at 8:26 am

    And of course, if 215’s are permissible by the landlord, the rents are adjusted upward as well. Do you REALLY think anyone with a nice house in a nice neighborhood or with luxury amenities is advertising to attract pot growers, Landlord?

  52. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 8:29 am

    News flash…..Prop 215 passed 14 years ago. It give patients the RIGHT to grow cannabis for themselves in any unit they live in. The MMPA (the Medical Marijuana Program Act) better know as SB 420 laid out a more specific set of guidelines for transportation, collectives, co-ops, and caregivers. It also put into place an ID card system, and plant and weight limits. The courts ( up to and including the US Supreme court in NORML V San Diego) have ruled the ID cards are legal and provide protection from arrest as well as prosecution or an “affirmative defense”. They have also ruled that plant numbers and weight restrictions are an illegal amendment to prop 215. Under that logic all local laws that limit wattage, area and who may belong to a co-op or collective are illegal.
    To comply with the law, a land lord must accommodate legitimate patients with reasonable garden. If you do not like this as a land lord, sell your property in California and buy somewhere where growing medical marijuana is not legal.

    Also, if you are running a commercial cannabis operation out of a residential home, shame on you. Go rent an industrial warehouse.

  53. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 8:39 am


    The fact is that people with AIDS and other immunodeficiency disorders can DIE from exposure to certain molds and mildews. That is a fact. It is why reputable “clinics” south of here pay to have product tested in laboratories. You can not protect patients from this as a commercial grower if you grow outdoors.
    Really, the only way to keep a lab clean environment is “CEA” or controlled environment agriculture. That means running sealed room, no intake or exhaust, air conditioning, dehumidifying, Co2 enrichment monitored and controlled with infrared sensors, and recirculation carbon scrubbers.

  54. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 8:43 am

    The answer here, is respect. respect your neighbors, respect your tenants, respect your landlord, and most of all respect the LAW. Stop abusing it, and that applies to all sides of this discussion.

  55. one who knows
    April 7, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Mr. Stunich,
    Does Mr. Ebenstein have a NO Cultivation, 0 Drug policy clause in his rental agreement? Then why are they clearing out his A street property today? Seems he can’t take the heat. Have you done a walk through in all his properties lately? Maybe you should…

  56. longwind
    April 7, 2011 at 9:12 am

    Mark, ask your doctor.

    People with AIDS should (and do) use edibles. It’s a fast-growing industry for good reason. They shouldn’t smoke at all. Putting smoke in the lungs of people with compromised immune systems is crazy, whether indoor or outdoor is hardly the point.

    I’ve yet to see test results showing meaningful differences between indoor and outdoor. You can spend a lot of money and energy holding plants in Babylonian captivity, but justifying it takes a lot more energy.

    And remember, our scientificisers already sell technologies that will kill stone dead anything on anything, so that foods don’t have to be grown responsibly in the first place. Do you think that makes them healthy? Good growing conditions are the key to good, balanced, healthy products.

    I don’t mean to go overboard one way or the other on this, but a lot of people only hear one side of this issue. The other side of this issue is, in a word, Fukushima.

    If your light-source isn’t nuclear, you’re putting a ton of greenhouse gases, plus particulates, into the atmosphere for every pound of pot you grow. If we must in truly exceptional cases, why not just sterilize it?

    Please remember, the original and most efficient solar panel is . . . a leaf.

  57. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 9:30 am

    The science on smoked cannabis is in and it is startling.

    Medicinal Uses of Marijuana: HIV/AIDS

    Excerpts from the American Public Health Association (APHA) amicus brief in Conant v. McCaffrey

    Marijuana is effective in treating nausea, anorexia and wasting

    Nausea, anorexia, and wasting are common symptoms of many cancers and AIDS.(36) These symptoms are also the common adverse side effects of chemotherapy and other aggressive therapies used to treat those diseases and associated pain.(37) While other antiemetics are available, not all patients respond to these therapies.(38) Marijuana can provide critical relief for persons suffering from acute or chronic nausea and vomiting who do not respond to conventional therapies.(39) As the Institute of Medicine explains, “[t]he critical issue is not whether marijuana or cannabinoid drugs might be superior to the new drugs, but whether some group of patients might obtain added or better relief from marijuana or cannabinoid drugs.” IOM Report at 153.

    The IOM unequivocally concludes that there is indeed a group of patients to whom marijuana offers relief and that even the potentially harmful effects of smoking marijuana may be outweighed by the benefit provided. It is possible that the harmful effects of smoking marijuana for a limited period of time might be outweighed by the antiemetic benefits of marijuana, at least for patients for whom standard antiemetic therapy is ineffective and who suffer from debilitating emesis. Such patients should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and treated under close medical supervision. Id. at 154.

    Similarly, marijuana affords essential relief to patients suffering from anorexia and wasting syndromes for whom no other medications have worked.40 (See complete APHA amicus brief for footnotes.)

    Books and Articles

    Randall, Robert C. Marijuana & AIDS: Pot Politics & PWAs in America. 1992. 196 p.

    Hollister, M.D., Leo E. “Marijuana and Immunity.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 1992. 24:159-163.

    James, John S. “Medical Marijuana: AIDS-Related Information in the New Federal Report.” AIDS Treatment News. 1999. 319.


    Morton, Rachel. “Study finds pot safe for AIDS patients: Government funding for research a first.” San Francisco Chronicle, 14 July, 2000.








    The facts are in and smoked cannabis is a safe and effective treatment for AIDS/HIV.

  58. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 9:34 am

    Is anyone else having a hard time posting?

  59. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 9:37 am

    “Mr. Stunich,
    Does Mr. Ebenstein have a NO Cultivation, 0 Drug policy clause in his rental agreement? Then why are they clearing out his A street property today? Seems he can’t take the heat. Have you done a walk through in all his properties lately? Maybe you should…”

    You can not legally deny someone with a recommendation their RIGHT to grow medical cannabis for themselves in California. It is a violation of the Baine civil rights act.

  60. April 7, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Mark, WordPress thinks comments with a bunch of links are trying to sell Viagra and sends them to the spam file.

  61. Landlord
    April 7, 2011 at 9:41 am

    Jane, I don’t understand what you are talking about. I am only stating the current rents for our area. Nobody with a nice place wants pot grows in there. I have allowed a few plants in a tub for personal use/215. Not a “grow” for sure.

    Mark, I think if you state in the beginning that your rental is NOT for any sort of grow, you do not have to allow a 215. Does anyone know for sure about the legality of that? I believe in 215, just have been abused enough to not allow it. Ever seen copies of 215s posted in grows that are copies of those posted in other grow houses? Who knows how many copies of the same permits are out there. This is one of the more corrupt practices I have witnessed first hand, and destroys the credibility of those who truly use pot as a medicine.

  62. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Well maybe the Craigslist landlords advertising for 215ers are guilty of puffing on how nice their rentals are, Landlord. My POINT was that landlords who are charging 50% more than “usual” per bedroom and stating in their ad that 215’s are welcome are knowingly making money from pot grows and, much worse, depriving working families of affordable housing and driving up the price of rentals. It’s likely that such a landlord doesn’t worry about damage to his property because he isn’t going to fix it, just rent it out to other growers. Of course, their increased rents encourage landlords, like yourself, to increase rents as well due to decreased supply and the “usual rate.”

  63. Coda 4jr
    April 7, 2011 at 10:25 am

    “The facts are in and smoked cannabis is a safe and effective treatment for AIDS/HIV.”

    Are there any AIDS/HIV patients in Humboldt? Your point here might be moot.

  64. Landlord
    April 7, 2011 at 10:28 am

    The only thing that encourages me to increase rents are the damages related to renters who grow or bust up the place, and the latter has never happened. I have left my rents the same for literally a decade when I have an incredible renter who is respectful. The only point I have that differs from yours, I think, is that 50% increase would not be enough to tempt a landlord to allow a grow. If I had a place that rented for 1500 and I got offered 10,000 a month, it could potentially tempt me, if I were only in it for the money and didn’t care about being legal. I do, however.

  65. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    “Mark, I think if you state in the beginning that your rental is NOT for any sort of grow, you do not have to allow a 215. Does anyone know for sure about the legality of that? I believe in 215, just have been abused enough to not allow it. Ever seen copies of 215s posted in grows that are copies of those posted in other grow houses? Who knows how many copies of the same permits are out there. This is one of the more corrupt practices I have witnessed first hand, and destroys the credibility of those who truly use pot as a medicine.”

    As with “no pets”,”no grow” can only be used for non disability related dogs or non medical grows. Those with “service dogs” are exempt from your “no pets” policy, the same applies to medical cannabis. If they have a recommendation your ” no grow” policy does not apply to them.
    As to credibility, does that mean that one bad cop ruins the reputation of all police officers?

    Sorry for the massive amount of links, I just get so sick of people pretending that cannabis has no medical value.

  66. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    “Coda 4jr says:
    April 7, 2011 at 10:25 am

    “The facts are in and smoked cannabis is a safe and effective treatment for AIDS/HIV.”

    Are there any AIDS/HIV patients in Humboldt? Your point here might be moot.”

    I volunteer with the Arcata Food Project, we distribute food to those living with HIV/AIDS. Trust me on this one, there are literally hundred of people in our area living with HIV/AIDS.
    Your cavalier attitude about that fact sickens me.

  67. Anonymous
    April 7, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    How funny that the argument about the normal amount of rent is still going on. PJ stated it perfectly, those advertised rents are MORE THAN $500 a bedroom and they CLEARLY STATE that they welcome growers. Those landlords are increasing the amount of rent and allowing growers. Pretending that’s not what’s happening makes no sense when you have the ads right there to prove it is!

  68. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    I pay regular attention to rental rates. Such matters need people who care about the bigger picture to be able back what they say. Unless you want to consider me a liar, local rent increases follow the same pattern as the state’s. I’m always paying attention to commercial rent prices, and it takes little more effort to look into houses/apartments. They’re equally inflating across the board. Local media jumps at the opportunity to blame “growers” for everything. Guess it makes for a good story. The bottom line is the bottom line…a landlord, of all people, doesn’t want to lose what they’ve got because they allowed illegal activity in their homes. 1:10 would be pleased to present to us a single such ad that clearly states growing marijuana is welcome.

  69. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    He linked to 2 of them, Guy. Look up thread.

  70. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    And 2 landlords have stated that $500 per bedroom is usual and these 2 215-friendly landlords are asking $750 and $666 per bedroom.

  71. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    You’re not comparing the rates to other adds, Jane. 215 is legitimate, and it’s good to know there are at least…two?…landlords willing to accomodate.


  72. Random Guy
  73. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    If the argument is that local renters are accomodating marijuana growers, the entire bay area must be welcoming full blown meth labs.

  74. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    I don’t understand what you wanted me to see, Guy. The 215 friendly at $1500 was a very small, 2 bedroom duplex. What you linked to was a long list of $1500 houses, some even in Arcata, which sort of proves the point. Here’s one of the ads:

    3 bedroom, 2 bath, 2 car garage, with family room and living room. Clean, new appliances, lots of light, on culdesac. Near Pacific Union School and not far from HSU. $1500 + dep. No S/P/Grow.”

    Sounds like a much better deal than the 215 permissible 2 bedroom 750 sq ft duplex for the same price, don’t you think?

  75. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    That’s one add to one add, jane, and by no means exceptional…


    My point is that the local rental rates shot up right along with, and relative to, the entire nation’s housing boom, and haven’t subsided since. It has nothing at all to do with “growers”.

  76. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    JL made an excellent point above…but that has to do with assumed mutual responsibility anywhere. Based on the rate increase across the state related to Humboldt’s, you could blame “growers” for rent increases absolutely everywhere.

  77. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Aspects of logging and real estate development are on the incline right now, whereas marijuana prices have plummeted…next time rents shoot up, let’s see if the media blames standard industry.

    To me one of the lowest forms of low is real estate investment as a career. It’s one thing to cover one’s own costs by making a few smart moves, it’s another entirely to regularly buy property, let alone in droves, jack costs/rents across the board according to the nation’s uniform, and pretend to be doing anybody a service.

  78. Anonymous
    April 7, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    RG I linked to TWO of them and for whatever reason, people just keep ignoring it. Those ads very clearly state they welcome growers and the rents for those particular properties are definitely without question above and beyond the rents asked for other rentals on the same website as well as above what “landlord” stated as a customary amount. Why you refuse to acknowledge that those two rentals state they welcome 215 is beyond me.

  79. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    I don’t refuse to acknowledge anything, 229. I stand corrected regarding my original comment. I scan prices, not so much individual details at all. But I do so in areas other than just Humboldt as well. Should I be convinced of your argument based on two adds? And what of the other local properties going for that rate? And how many include garages? And in what neighborhoods? And what of identical properties in areas outside Humboldt?

    You’ve got a “growers” bias, and it shows like a second head on your shoulders.



    …should I include sacramento, the bay area and the LA basin as well?

  80. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    How many landlords do you anti-grower people associate with? People trash homes, leave tons of garbage, etc. regardless. It’s a matter of individual character, just as income is a matter of individual occupation.

    In Humboldt, how many people have more roomates compared to 10 years ago? How much additional work have people had to pile onto themselves to make up for increased costs of living? Until about 2003, just about every coffee shop in the area was able to pay their employees $8. Ten years later, that’s not even starting pay.

    Blaming “growers” for high rents is as juvenile as 420 kitsch itself.

  81. Anonymous
    April 7, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    I have a growers bias? hahahah that’s a good one. I’ve grown. It’s too much work. I know a lot of people who grow, have grown, continue to grow. Most of you are unaware of how many grows do nothing to destroy the house they’re in. Lots of people grow in rentals and move on undetected. It happens all the time. I never blamed growers for high rents. I merely spoke to the fact that a lot of landlords welcome growers and they increase the cost of the rent when they do so. But keep telling me all about what motivates me, you know so well. lol

  82. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    A lot of landlords do a lot of things. News flash, most people are okay with marijuana, and landlords are people too…most landlords would never jeopardize their investment. Society is thankfully waking up to marijuana acceptance, albeit with crap like blaming growers for statewide rent increases. So what about the state’s rate increase vs. local, and all the properties (esp. adds) that dispute your argument? Keep those blinders on…sounds like you need that straight ahead focus.

  83. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    I’ll play my own devil’s advocate to your specific argument, anon…you say it’s lame to deny that SOME landlords welcome growers. That’s true. But don’t deny that they’re grains of sand on the beach.

  84. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    IN either 03 or 04 I was put in charge of subletting a small 2br. house I was already doing maintenance for. I made it very clear that marijuana could NOT be grown, and that as utilities were covered by the property owner, I would know about it if they tried. A couple moved in, and despite enthusiastic agreement to the conditions, they continued to pressure me to allow them to convert a bedroom to the point of harboring resentment toward me that I wouldn’t. It was their breakup, however, that caused them to move out almost a year later. After that, I again went through the application process and selected a very unassuming college couple under the same condtions. Less than a month after they moved in, I drove past the property and a street-facing bedroom window was wide open and glowing like the sun. Middle of the day! WHILE THEY WERE BOTH AT WORK. They’d set up ballasts and plants right in the middle of the room and were building framework around it. My jaw dropped, I immediately went in, unplugged their shit and took down the framework, which had already been drilled to the walls. I got a very angry call from the boyfriend that I’d entered without his permission. “Tough shit”. They stayed. Then they got a dog a couple months later, despite explicitly saying they couldn’t. I’m a big dog person, but that was the owner’s conditions not mine. They neglegted the poor creature to the point of leaving it locked in the bedroom all day. Poor lonely dog trashed the room and lots of the house. You’d never have thought, based on their outward presentation, that this couple could be so inconsiderate. I had to kick them out, gave them plenty of notice. They split without fixing anything. All repairs mostly out of my own pocket for MY poor choice.

    I don’t envy landlords, but have met many that have grown cold and inconsiderate of who they rent to as well.

  85. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    …btw, the funky 2 br. house with large shed, utilities included and a nice yard went for $700/month…typical for the area on the outskirts of arcata at the time. People were able to work dinky jobs and live frumpy albeit relatively comfortably. It was right around the time Manilla was being pressured to mandate a bogus “anti-blight” ordinance that fortunately flopped. The only justification behind that was real estate investors/rent increases, which I believe were only staved a little anyway, as “the market” was still booming all over the nation. The people who actually lived in the area were certainly not complaining about their conditions in exchange for stability.

  86. Random Guy
    April 7, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Holy shit, is it this easy to dominate the post updates right now? *crickets*

    Hey look, it’s 4:20!!! WOOOOO!!!!!!!

  87. Mark Sailors
    April 7, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    “I drove past the property and a street-facing bedroom window was wide open and glowing like the sun. Middle of the day! WHILE THEY WERE BOTH AT WORK. They’d set up ballasts and plants right in the middle of the room and were building framework around it. My jaw dropped, I immediately went in, unplugged their shit and took down the framework, which had already been drilled to the walls. I got a very angry call from the boyfriend that I’d entered without his permission. “Tough shit”.”

    That is breaking and entering, and is a crime. You are damn lucky those people did not have you arrested.

  88. tra
    April 7, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    I don’t understand how anyone can claim that indooor residential grows do not drive up rental prices for those non-growers who are just looking for a place to live. Of course they do, it’s a simple matter of supply and demand. More demand => higher prices.

  89. Plain Jane
    April 7, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Do you think the owner of that house that was just busted in the 3700 block of “H” Street didn’t know it was being used solely for growing with the false walls and all? It makes you wonder how many rentals have been converted to grow houses, doesn’t it? And how many “landlords” have deals with “tenants” to grow for them.

  90. Landlord
    April 7, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    I would be interested to know, Jane. I am certainly not interested in growing and want my rentals to be for people, not pot.

  91. Walt
    April 8, 2011 at 6:56 am

    This from one of the 11 dope-related ads in the NCJ this week:
    “Landlord give you the green light? Let our knowledgeable and experienced staff assist your needs. Indoor/outdoor room design Preventative maintenance programs Air movement Temperature/Humidity control.”
    Now you have landlord, grower, designer/supplier and sales. . .Alright kids, can you say “conspiracy”? Nice try!
    “It’s a matter of individual character, just as income is a matter of individual occupation.”
    Individual? I think not.
    Hello? Mr Gallegos?

  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