Thanks for your clear response. I certainly now understand your point of view.
In
my own eyes there's a difference between moving to a residential area
and moving to one that has a homeowners' or residential association.
When I lived in Elizabeth City, I lived within the city limits. In that
city, which is just as urban as Chesapeake in certain sections, hens are
considered neither pets nor livestock but poultry.
Although
livestock is not permitted in the city, poultry is. Residents can keep
up to three hens (no roosters) with restrictions regarding noise, odor,
and keeping the hens out of roads and on one's own property. I
volunteered
with the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals there, and very
rarely did Animal Control need to bring in chickens. They are not much
of a problem. But since my home used to be in a location with a homeowners' association, and this association prohibited chickens, I followed the bylaws.
If
homeowners have such deeply held convictions about not having hens near
their residences, these residents can live in areas with such
restrictions. It's a free country, and the proposed zoning law will not
remove residential associations and their restrictions. But the rest of
us should be able to feed ourselves, fertilize our gardens, improve our
soil, improve our health, fight pollution, and prepare for disasters or
other local emergencies as we see fit, assuming we are not impinging on
our neighbors. With hens we can do all these things to improve our
community. And our proposed
ordinance will give the (sic) Chesapeake a law with teeth that can address
any rare instances where residential chickens present a nuisance due to
owners' negligence.
In our view, there is "a clear and overarching public need or interest" that our proposed ordinance will address. Society's needs and expectations change over time, as this 1918 advertisement
by the U.S. Government proves. Research shows that we now live in a
world with drastic climate change, the threat of bio-terrorism,
increased
population density, increased pollution, health and nutritional
challenges, and imminent peak oil. Hens and local foods are an important
part of the solution. This is certainly the view of Patricia Foreman, a
Cornell-educated (sic) author and lecturer who plans to appear in Chesapeake
sometime in the coming months. The City of Chesapeake, led by
intelligent and well-informed City Council Members such as yourself,
should therefore take a proactive stance by supporting the urban
agriculture movement in general and our proposed ordinance in
particular.
I fear I am belaboring the
issue. If you follow up on my assertions, you will find selected
readings and research available on Google Docs through this link. After researching these issues for yourself, if you still disagree, we will simply have to agree to
disagree.
Update on 8/20/12: I doubled-checked the "About the Author" information in City Chicks, and Pat was educated at Purdue in Indiana. Ow! My apologies, Pat!
Update: On November 20, Chesapeake City Council voted 6-3 to allow hens with certain restriction in residential areas. De Triquet was one of the three Council members who voted against the ordinance. The others were Council Members West and Ritter.
Excellent response, Mary Lou!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Valerie! Pat is Purdue-educated, though. How I told folks Cornell, I don't know!
ReplyDelete