Jeffersonians en masse

Hundreds of people flocked to the Butte County Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday (June 10), most of them decked out in green and gold, their shirts and hats emblazoned with the words “State of Jefferson.” Others carried little flags with the double-X symbol that has come to represent this mythical 51st state.

“We don’t have someone representing our way of life up here,” one man told the board. “Our votes are being controlled by LA, San Francisco and Sacramento, and our taxes are going to things that don’t benefit us.”

That was the consensus during more than two hours of public comment regarding a proposal that the supervisors declare their support of the withdrawal of Butte County from the state of California. Other comments included things like:

“I’d like my vote to count.”

“When was the last time we saw Dianne Feinstein up here?”

“[Declaring your support for the State of Jefferson] reserves you a seat at the table. If you aren’t seated at the table, you will be on the menu.”

“This northern state is viable.”

“The people of Butte County have become irrelevant.”

One woman pointed with outrage to a recent segment on MSNBC’s The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell about the State of Jefferson movement in which several Northern California county names are mispronounced and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who was brought on to comment, characterizes the area as a “very poor place; they do not offer anything to the rest of the state of California except for maybe a little bit of land.”

Speakers came from all over the county, representing Chico, Oroville, Durham, Paradise, Magalia, Concow, Butte Valley, Cherokee, Palermo and Biggs. The lone dissenter, a well-spoken man from Bangor, said, “I love the state of California—we’re an economic powerhouse. I think the State of Jefferson is out of line.”

The vocal crowd got early assurance from Supervisors Bill Connelly and Larry Wahl, who came out in support of the declaration and the State of Jefferson. Both echoed concerns of speakers including water rights, taxes and representation.

“Smaller government is generally always a good idea,” Connelly said.

“If we can’t get representation in Sacramento the way we deserve, we need to do this,” Wahl added, and before the rest of the board had a chance to discuss the issue, he made a motion to declare support for the State of Jefferson. Connelly seconded. Then Supervisor Steve Lambert jumped in.

“I think we ought to have a discussion, or you boys might be caught with your pants down,” he said. “Let’s be smart here. … I think you guys are making a foolish mistake and I don’t want to go down the same road we did with medical marijuana.”

He then proceeded to offer a counter-argument to almost every point Connelly and Wahl had made. It was the beginning of some back-and-forth between Lambert and Connelly.

“I don’t think you should chastise me for having a different opinion—you’ve never done that before,” Connelly said. “I was keeping my word to the people that asked me. You weren’t aware of that.”

Back to the discussion at hand, Lambert said, “I want to buy into this. As a kid growing up, I always wanted to be the governor of Northern California. That was always kind of a joke.

“A hundred fifty years ago West Virginia pulled away from Virginia,” he continued. “I don’t want to be West Virginia. I don’t want to beat up another state, but I don’t want to be that. I don’t want to be an empowered, poor state.”

He pointed to a lack of infrastructure like an airport and the fact that institutions of higher education in this region are funded by the state of California as concerns about backing the State of Jefferson.

Supervisor Maureen Kirk voiced similar concerns.

“I agree with a lot of what you say,” she told the audience. “But I have huge concerns about the State of Jefferson, economically.”

The big cities that Jefferson proponents want to break away from are the same cities that generate sales and property taxes that go back into Butte County schools and other services, she said. “In our area, we would end up paying more taxes for the same level of services.”

Board Chairman Doug Teeter sat, quite literally, in the middle. He appeared on the fence, but said he would not vote in favor of declaring support for the State of Jefferson because a vote of 3-2 would be “milquetoast” and lack the strong message to Sacramento that a declaration should carry. He asked if the backers of the State of Jefferson could return with more information in six months that could sway the majority of the board to vote in favor. They agreed.

Ultimately, Wahl rescinded his motion and Connelly did the same with his second.

“Thank you for paying attention to what’s going on around you,” Lambert said to the pair. “I don’t want to be a jerk here … but this political game-playing is ridiculous.”

In other news: The board also voted on several other items Tuesday. Perhaps the two most noteworthy involve the much-anticipated Hall of Records and the much-debated medical marijuana ordinance.

As for the Hall of Records, the panel voted unanimously to move forward with the project, approving all current plans and awarding the construction contract to Chico-based BCM Construction Co. for $7.2 million.

Medical marijuana is a little trickier. It’s easier to explain if started at the beginning. Last year, the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance regulating the growing of medical marijuana. In February, it amended that ordinance, making it stricter. Growers didn’t like that, so they gathered signatures as they’re wont to do, and those signatures were sufficient to stop the amendment in its tracks.

In April, because of the successful petition drive, the board was forced to look at the amendment to the ordinance and make a decision: repeal it or put it on the November ballot. It chose the latter.

To make matters more confusing, however, the petition is also an initiative, similar to the original cultivation ordinance passed last year by the board. On Tuesday, the supervisors discussed their options: adopt the initiative as is or put it to a vote of the people. Once again, they chose the latter, meaning not one but two initiatives regarding medical marijuana cultivation will be put before voters come November.