Posts
About ten people spoke or registered in support of the proposed ordinance. My comments are posted below.
Plan Commissioner and council candidate Jim Busse gave a very fair and accurate description of our visit to a backyard chicken coop. Commissioner Grif Dorschel was fairly adamant that chicken keeping is inconsistent with the aesthetics of suburban life. He also expressed a concern about a proliferation of outbuildings in general. Alder Kugle expressed some support for a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The other members in attendance (Alder Thomas, Chris Homburg, Jane Kuzma, and Busse) basically expressed no settled position at this point.
A couple thoughts on the appropriate aesthetics of suburban life: Aesthetic values evolve over time. I think many people in Monona (or likely to move to Monona) are open to a bit more diversity in their surroundings than they were in the past (I am inevitably reminded of the song Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds and popularized by Pete Seeger. See Little Boxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). (For more see MALVINA REYNOLDS: SONGWRITER / SINGER / ACTIVIST and Pete Seeger).
Monona will lose the battle to attract people looking for the classic suburban life of big houses with big garages on big lots with immaculately mowed bluegrass. People looking for that lifestyle are going to move elsewhere - places where they still turn cornfields into subdivisions.
The Plan Commission will hold a formal public hearing at its April 13 meeting (State law requires a published notice of changes to the zoning code.). The Commission will probably vote on the proposal at that meeting.
***
Below are my comments that were presented to the Commission and will bew presented to the Public Safety Committee this afternoon at 5 pm:
Statement on Proposed Ordinance to Allow the Keeping of Chickens
March 9-10, 2009
My belief and purpose in proposing this ordinance is that the government should NOT prevent a person from using their property in a way that does not interfere with their neighbors’ use of their property.
Imagine that dog ownership was not already legal. If we subjected a proposed dog-keeping ordinance to the same high level of scrutiny that this ordinance has received, I doubt we could pass an ordinance to allow the keeping of dogs.
We should not use the coercive power of the government to prohibit a use of private property just because some of us or even a majority of us think the proposed use is odd, unconventional, or nontraditional.
Under current Monona ordinances, the legal status of keeping chickens is unclear. Monona ordinances place very few restrictions on the keeping of animals as pets. Monona ordinances do NOT prohibit keeping chickens. The Monona zoning code DOES prohibit agricultural uses in single-family and two-family residential districts.
The proposed ordinance would allow property owners to keep up to five chickens (hens only) in single-family and two-family residential zoning. The proposed ordinance would clarify the legal status of keeping chickens and would regulate the activity.
The primary factual argument that I have heard against allowing the keeping of chickens is concern about phosphorous and nitrogen runoff in stormwater. Let’s keep in mind the scale of the issue. We are likely talking about perhaps 50 chickens total being kept within the city limits. By contrast there are about 2000 dogs in Monona.
But, nobody wants to add harmful pollution to stormwater runoff. Unlike dog waste, chicken waste can be collected and composted. Unlike phosphorous in yard fertilizer, composted chicken waste is not spread across the surface of the entire yard, but rather is spaded into the garden soil.
The fact that some people may be irresponsible chicken keepers is no reason to deny all people the opportunity to legally keep chickens. Irresponsible people can abuse any activity, whether it’s dog ownership, driving a car, or drinking alcohol. We don’t prohibit dog ownership because some people fail get their dog vaccinated and an unvaccinated dog can be deadly.
I am available to answer any questions regarding the proposed ordinance. There are also a number of people here who know far more about the practicalities of keeping backyard chickens than I do. I would urge the Committee to take advantage of their knowledge.
You know, I have thoughts along Kugles approach, maybe. Not sure what his sentiment is, but do our ordinances specifically prohibit chickens? We're allowed to keep, say, parrots or canaries, right? We're allowed to keep rabbits in hutch outside, right? So why can't we keep chickens, as pets? Nothing prohibits it, right?
ReplyDeleteOh, I forgot to add that this issue reminds me of Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" where the lady who answers the door at the house with the "rabbits for sale" sign says asks him if he wants them for "pets or meat?"
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of outstanding issues here:
ReplyDeleteR you going to raise chickens, r you going to buy one of those nifty looking hen houses and am I invited for fresh omelets?
I will bring the vouvray.
Raising chickens sounds a lot more fun than chasing my poop eating dog.
HP
Little Boxes in Monona, little boxes made of ticky-tack ... and they all came out just the same.
ReplyDeleteThought your comments about 'what we call chickens' was also spot on. Pets? Livestock (Wiswell)? Poultry (Dorschel)?
Watch out for Wolves (woof) and Tigers (meow)!
Seems like people are carrying a lot of former farm fear into this discussion. Wild stuff.
Quick question - if the only prohibition to keeping chickens in your yard (for your own personal use) is the prohibition on "agriculture uses", is my vegetable garden in the front yard in conflict with this statute? It's definitely agricultural according to dictionary.com, but it's for our own personal use. Would keeping chickens really be that different?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I'm just stirring the pot a little. :)
"So why can't we keep chickens, as pets? Nothing prohibits it, right?"
ReplyDeleteThe ordinances are unclear. You can keep pretty much any animal as a pet, but agriculture is prohibited in single- and two-family districts (EXCEPT that gardens are allowed). And there are NO restictions on the number of pets except for cats and dogs. So, I guess you could keep a herd of zebra.....
My concern is that someone would invest $500+ in setting up their chicken thing and then the code enforcement guy comes along and says "hey, that's agriculture."
At what point does keeping chickens become agriculture versus pets? Three, four, five, ten birds?
This is not that complicated.
And never say never, but I'm not planning on keeping any chickens (that I know of yet).
Yeah, the more I think on it, the best option is to regulate it. We have some really obnoxious barking dog issues in our neighborhood and if people here and there are going to be keeping chickens I'd really like it if the law was clear on no roosters.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention obnoxious two-legged mammals.
ReplyDeleteI hope, Doug, that you will give copies of your blog statement, along with Heather's well researched comments, to each member of the council and to Mayor Kahl.
ReplyDeleteI think your description of reactions to "odd, unconventional, or nontraditional" ideas is an apt description of some of the knee-jerk reactivity to new ideas by many of our Monona City Council members. As much as I appreciate and admire their service, I do wish they would be more "thought-full" when asked to consider ideas that are different from their own. I wish they would use Tom Metcalf as a model--someone who was willing to encourage, as well as listen to and consider, (and agree to) ideas divergent from their own.