New Haven Independent

Posted by: jelizg | June 9, 2009 9:31 AM

People have lived in close proximity to animals, including livestock, for thousands of years, in some cases even sharing their shelter with them in extreme weather. Dr. Michael Darre of UConn, or another poultry expert, might be willing to provide expert testimony on the safety of chicken-keeping in the future. See http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/11/14/news/new_haven/a3-nechicks.txt

Posted by: DAFeder | June 9, 2009 9:34 AM

Really -- "research he did over the Internet" versus Yale doctorate in immunobiology? Really? You're going with the internet, Mr. Kowalski? Really?

Thanks to Alderman Lemar for staying on top of this one -- sorry I couldn't make the meeting. But I think I'll sit out the discussions of whether every 2-foot high tool shed and doghouse needs a building permit.

David

Posted by: Bill | June 9, 2009 9:36 AM

My grandfather raised chickens in southern Hamden while I was growing up, next to where the Hamden Middle school is and there was a dump at the time. There were no issues health or otherwise we just had fresh chicken and eggs. I also had no issues from the dump that I used to play in. I didn't develop any allergies or asthma.

Posted by: Seriously? | June 9, 2009 9:51 AM

In these hard times it's a crime to deny families the right to raise affordable food in their backyards. (It's also a crime, and pretty stupid, for the City's public health director to get up and testify before a legislative body based on an incomplete Google search, particularly in a town where you're more than likely to have to go head-to-head with a Yale-employed PhD in immunology!)

If the City doesn't create a standardized policy on this, it's inviting an equal protection or due process lawsuit. At the end of the day this is about City staffers who "trust" East Rock and Westville residents to raise chickens but don't trust Fairhaven residents to raise chickens. They're happy to keep giving white upper-middle class residents variances to raise chickens so long as they don't have to ok the practice across the board. I'm surprised that the Black and Hispanic Caucus hasn't taken this up. It's all fine and dandy to shuffle around CDBG funds and whine and moan when the City cuts funding for homeless services, but how about championing an issue that actually puts food on the table of local low-income people?

Posted by: Roland L. | June 9, 2009 10:15 AM

Thank you to everyone that came out to testify last night! Great testimony, well constructed arguments and strong passion were in ample abundance!

I want to clarify some of what is articulated above and again outline why I was adamant that we not find an excuse to table this ordinance or allow for the attachment of an amendment that would have created unnecessary hurdles to the responsible keeping of hens...

1) Recognizing that there was some extreme opposition (despite the lack of any real facts that would support the fear or opposition), this ordinance proposal was crafted to be more restrictive than those found in many small and large sized cities across the country.

2) This ordinance proposal goes beyond almost all others in the United States in its efforts to protect neighbors from improper behavior or use. Click on the link Len provided above to see the conditions in which a property must be kept in order to keep hens as of right within residential neighborhoods.

3) Contrary to the fear of widespread health emergencies as a result of the keeping of hens - the reality (or at least the opinion that has voluminous scientific research to support it)... there are many POSITIVE health impacts associated with the keeping of hens (including, but not limited to the fact that they are a high-protein food source accessible to our residents at pennies to the $ of current cost, that they eat ACTUAL disease carrying tics and mosquitoes, and actually provide for an ENHANCED immuno-defense).

4) We already have a well-regulated building permit process, health codes and ordinances that protect against the misuses that people seemed concerned with. This ordinance does not make it easier to do the wrong or illegal thing... it makes it easier to do the RIGHT thing while establishing a means in which the City can evaluate and punish bad behavior.

We have delineated a set of conditions in which a property must be kept, have penalties in place to prevent misuse, will take all the illegally and improperly kept hens that CURRENTLY exist in New Haven and allow the City to meaningfully regulate those users. Thus, I am strongly opposed to creating a burdensome, costly or otherwise inappropriate regulatory/licensure/permitting procedure that would make compliance less convenient, unneccessasarily onerous and in direct opposition to the govt.'s role in supporting behavior that is beneficial to its citizens.

Again, there are some concerns that I will continue to work with my committee members to alleviate, but almost all opposition to this point has been grounded in unsubstantiated fear or concern over what "might" happen if "those" people are allowed to keep hens. Its hard to create legislation against the backdrop of fear, and its hard to do something that may be politically unpopular ( we had an ex-alder and LCI specialist make illusion to the silent majority of citizens who would vote us out of office if we supported this ordinance.) Prior to meeting with the advocates and supporters of this ordinance, I too had concerns, but by doing extensive research, having numerous conversations and recognizing that cities across the country have allowed the keeping of hens for DECADES without a single case arising that would warrant the fear that this has generated, I feel that we have crafted responsible legislation that everyone can support. Believe it or not, I'm trying for brevity here and never dreamed that we would have the BOA spend this much time on this particular issue, but I welcome my colleagues or any members of the public to listen to the testimony provided last night, contact myself or those supporters who were in attendance and to do the research necessary to carry out our legislative responsibilities.
Again, on behalf of the Legislation Committee, I want to thank you to all those who came out and spent hours waiting to testify. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 507-7869 or email me at rjlemar@yahoo.com

Posted by: mother hen | June 9, 2009 11:28 AM

Roland,
I must confess that we have kept chickens in New Haven for years now (hens only) and have had no problems with neighbors, disease, or predators. At the time we first got our chicks, we made inquiries at City Hall and were told that, per the section of the Code of Ordinance dealing with the keeping of animals, chickens WERE allowed in New Haven as long as they were properly contained and not causing a nuisance or danger (for example, no free range roosters). We love our fresh eggs, and our children have learned a great deal from taking care of our flock. Can you cite for me where the law forbid the keeping of chickens before this whole cackle got started? Thank you.

Posted by: Ned | June 9, 2009 11:31 AM

How many parking spaces will be required for each chicken coop? Not all of these chickens are going to bike or ride the bus.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 9, 2009 11:37 AM

If living with farm animals was good enough for little baby jesus, then gosh darnit it's it good enough for me!!

VIA LA CHICKENS!!!

Posted by: Roland L. | June 9, 2009 11:51 AM

Mother Hen-

Intersting..... if you follow the links attached to this story(and linked to those links) you will see that many other families were forced to incur great expense, hassle and govt. oversight in order to have a few chicks in their backyards....the reason?

TITLE VI,VOLUME III, of the NEW HAVEN ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 12 (b)(1)c excludes the keeping of livestock.

We seek to except hens from that exclusion, so long as they comply with a new sec. 34 which outlines the standard of care you must comply with to maintain your legal right to own hens.

Posted by: Carl Goldfield | June 9, 2009 12:07 PM

If there is a national chicken pun competition, my money is on Len as this year's winner.

Posted by: Seth | June 9, 2009 12:28 PM

Roland,

What I witnessed last night was political cowardice at its worst!

Aldermen Sandman and DePino's continued attempts to inflame irrational, unsubstantiated fear was straight out of the GW Bush & Dick Cheney playbook. Good politics, maybe, but where was the intellectual honesty? Alderman Sandman considers himself a holy man? The intellectual leaps he would have to make in order to support his opinion must be exhausting! Alderman Perez's badgering of a young woman who waited hours to testify, all so he could create enough confusion to justify needing to table this item and not vote was, well, what I've come to expect from almost everyone of the Alders. The arrogance of the Health Department Official without any facts? Off the charts, even after you, Alder Sturgis and the Yale PHD completely debunked his myths. Don't even get me started on the uneducated LCI specialist who testified! But she was persuasive, scaring the visiblly annoyed Alderman Lehtonen, who hated the fact that he was forced to listen to anyone who forced him to think. He honestly looked as if he was bothered to have to sit on the committee.

Congrats to the BOA! Despite all the evidence in favor of approval, the public support, debunked myths held by the naysayers and countless positve benefits associated with approval, you still managed to live up to your well-deserved reputations as children afraid of their shadows, searching the bargain-bin for any wayward vote you can find. With political leaders like this, no wonder we can't acheive a voter turnout rate greater than 20%!

Roland and Erin, You two are too good for this type of service, resign before the stench of the rest of the BOA engulfs you too!

Posted by: Peter Stein | June 9, 2009 12:57 PM

Just to clarify the article: by my count, there were exactly three people who spoke against the proposed ordinance, including the person from the Health Department - who, by his own admission, knew little to nothing about chicken keeping in cities and based his negative recommendation on one report he pulled from the Internet. By contrast, there were 20+ people who spoke in favor of the ordinance, including at least four current chicken keepers who could testify how little trouble their hens actually are, and Dr. Anderson, who provided very knowledgeable testimony about the negligible health risks associated with this ordinance.

Posted by: Ali | June 9, 2009 1:11 PM

I still don't quite understand all of the opposition. The concerns are of course valid, but seem to have been addressed over and over again.

It seems like no matter what kind of facts are presented, some people just don't like the idea and will find whatever evidence supports their claims. Why don't the opponents go visit a family with the hens and see if they are as disease-ridden and filthy as they fear?

If there are such big concerns about health issues with hens, there ought to be more of a concern for dog waste that gets left all over the place. It is far more common to find dog waste not picked up *in public areas* so you are far more likely to step in something unpleasant and track it into your house (and then potentially get sick) than by living a few doors down from some hens.

And seriously, a permit for a hen house? Do you need one for a dog house?

Posted by: Edward_H | June 9, 2009 2:03 PM

"When you live with your food, you have issues," Kowalski (pictured) said. Citing research he did over the Internet,

OMG! He found it in the Internet, it must be true!

ALI
And seriously, a permit for a hen house? Do you need one for a dog house?

You don't need a permit for a dog house yet. But now that you have mentioned it sooner or later an alder will propose that the city do so.

Posted by: hadchickens | June 9, 2009 2:30 PM

Two points:
1) Having had chickens, and yes a rooster, when I ran a group home in VT on a farm, I can only say that I it's not only the chickens you'll have to deal with (in the city), rats and possums are drawn in as they also like the chicken feed.
2)This is the only city I know of that makes ordinances and then does not enforce them. So if they currently don't enforce the ordinance of not having livestock within city limits, are we suppose to believe they are going to do a better job of enforcing pest control as a result of having chickens. LCI, do you have the time to enforce? I doubt it.

Posted by: Seth | June 9, 2009 3:19 PM

Hadchickens,

So because LCI isn't doing a good job enforcing against those who operate illegally, we should punish those who seek to be good owners? No one can have chickens because a few people don't take care of them and LCI is too lazy to enforce? Should no one have cats because some old lady on the East Shore had 92? This ordinance makes it easier for the people to do the right thing, to, as Lemar said last night, live a value we should be supporting. The illegal behavior will still be illegal, and I doubt that people were waiting for the legal authority to be established so that they can then buy chiks and operate illegally. Fear and intellectually dishonest rhetoric is all you guys have got....and Alderman Sandman's dishonest approach to legislation.

Posted by: Peter Stein | June 9, 2009 5:33 PM

Seth,

Although I am very much pro-chicken, I am concerned with the tone of your two posts. Alderman Sandman, who I know personally, is a good person who is responding to legitimate concerns from his constituents. I'm sure the same is true of the others who I have not had the chance to speak with. It is not fair, nor helpful to our cause, to attack their character. Similarly, it is not fair or accurate to characterize LCI as "too lazy to enforce" the ordinances already on the books. LCI, like many departments and organizations these days, is overworked and short-staffed in general. I do not think that this ordinance will generate much if any new work for them - and that is a point we can debate - but to characterize their opposition as resulting from laziness is not fair to the good people at LCI who make our city a better place.

Let's keep the debate on track and work to build an even broader base of support for the chickens.

Posted by: robn | June 9, 2009 5:36 PM

Dear BOA,

The purpose of building permits (and the licensure of building professionals) is to ensure that life safety standards are upheld for dwellings or workspaces regularly visited or inhabited by people. They are not for chicken coops and they are not for revenue generation...permit fees are intended to cover governmental oversight of construction.

Also...please consider reviewing the qualifications of department heads to check for some specific knowledge of what their department does.

Posted by: concerned | June 9, 2009 6:25 PM

First, I heard the chairman was so bias and obvious about it that he should have never been allowed to run the meeting. I am glad I decided not to attend.
I have heard of many residents deciding not to come out to testify regarding this ordinance because they felt "what is the point" when it comes to most issues the aldermen just create new laws, more problems, and do not heed what folks say anyways.
And yes, I think LCI has alot more problems to work on than enforcement of counting chickens, clean coops and listening to screaming neighbors that just hate this whole idea and will send in constant complaints. No, I don't think LCI in general is lazy, in fact I think most are very hard working.
I was also told that the LCI specialist that came to testify made clear she was testifying as a tax payer and resident, not as an employee. What? a city employee loses thier right to have a voice? Why? That makes them wrong and uneducated? If Lemar felt the alders were being told they will be voted out of office, maybe he has some sort of complex? I personally think alot of people do not want this chicken law to pass. When I have discussed it with neighbors, they are not happy. I also belong to an association that really feels issues are being pushed over the top.
I have been noticing that many people that write in are very hateful and hurtful people that attack anything and anyone that doesn't agree with them.
I actually support this law, but I don't support what people are writting in and it's scarry how angry and manipulative these hen huggers are. And as far as Alder Lehtonen, what gives anyone the right to read his expression and interpret it? And as far as Sandman, why don't you just shut up about him, what is it you didn't like about him and for that matter Alder Depino, they can't ask questions because they seem to be opposed to this legislation? Really people, you need to take a step back ...!

Posted by: Ilovethiscountry | June 9, 2009 7:58 PM

The only chicken I want in my neigbors backyard is fried Chicken.

Posted by: CHICKENNEIGHBOR | June 9, 2009 10:31 PM

We are the neighbors of chickens, in fact that we live closer to them than their owners who are lovely people. Unfortunately they have attracted foxes, cayotes, and rats.

The chickens themselves are not bad. If you are not upwind from the coup. And their owners truly love them like we love our pets. However we have witnessed Foxes and rats and heard tales of the cayote running though our yard ( we have young children) during the day. We have also found an escaped pit bull taking a tour of the chicken coup while my children were outside.

When we purchased our house we had no idea that our neighbor had chickens or the natural predators and other associated problems of smell and rodents.

There should be minimum amout of land required to own chickens and they should not be any closer to a neighbor than the must be from the street.

Posted by: peckstreet | June 9, 2009 10:47 PM

Old time pols promised "a chicken in every pot".
New pols promise "a chicken on every lot".
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Another consideration is the possible up tick in fowl play that might arise in the vicinity of Peck Street. Seriously, I do hope that this issue becomes the litmus test for Sotomayor and all potential Supreme Court nominees, as we can't risk having foxes guarding the henhouses...This topic is ripe for satire.

Posted by: Roland L. | June 10, 2009 8:26 AM

Hi Seth,

I'm not sure if you attended the hearing or not, or if you are just basing your comments on the article and prior comments, but I must agree with everything that Pete Stein has stated above.

Civil discourse is better served when considerate of another's viewpoint and responsive when appropriate. Having an opinion and fighting for it is fine, tearing others down while you do it or attempting to scare others into siding with your viewpoint is not. "Concerned" takes a similar approach in their comments, using false information and an second-hand opinion to try to take on the proceedings or stick up for their friends as if they had real knowledge, but at least they stop before making callous or personal attacks (the few against me are somewhat laughable, so I can just laugh at them).

Blogs and comment sections have become the appropriate places for the otherwise anonymous to take on topics without fear of reprisal - we in the public eye have come to except this as the new reality - and the anonymous comments are often taken with a grain of salt. They are indicative of a person's feelings, but even that person is too embarrassed at what they said to put their name next to it!

In this instance, to impugn the character of a man like Alderman Sandman is beyond inappropriate. I agree that this issue is being clouded by fear and misinformation, but its also true that I have worked with Alderman Sandman enough to trust his opinion and value his concerns as much as any other member of the Board. He works hard, he takes his role seriously and he represents his constituents VERY well. The same can be said for Arlene Depino and the others you have decided to take on. They may disagree with you, me or anyone else.... or even vote in a manner that you find fault with, but they take their role seriously and are representing people who deserve to have their voice heard and their viewpoint supported.

This conversation should continue, but should happen in a constructive way. In the end, we are all trying to serve the same people and create legislation that benefits us all.

Again, if people have questions or concerns or would like more information on this issue, I will gladly connect with those involved.

Posted by: biased? yes, but keeping it real | June 10, 2009 9:08 AM

Concerned - in what world do you live in where a committee chair should not have a strong opinion on the issue within the committee? I was there that night, listened as Alderman Lemar actually started the evening by saying that as Chair of the Committee and lead sponsor of the legislation he had the power to do control a lot of the debate, butin the interests of advancing good legislation, he was going to keep the whole thing open and free flowing. I doubt anyone there would think that Roland did anyting inappropriate, particularly since he held himself to a higher standard (which he then met)that was in no way requirede or that any other chairman of any other committee in any other private, public or non-profit environment would have felt obligated to live up to. Your just trying to take shots at Roland now so that people will look past your silly viewpoint and not focus on the legislation.

The article fails to mention that almost everyone in the room was in favor. The article also fails to mention that those opposed often gave reasons that were likely to lead to lawsuits if applied they way they wished. The article also fails to mention that this supported by alders in East Rock, Westville, Fair Haven, the New Haven Food Policy Council, City Seed and many other organizations.

Posted by: nfjanette | June 10, 2009 11:41 AM

"The fox went out for a chase one night
prayed to the moon to give him light
for he had many a mile to go that night
before he reached the town-o town-o town-o
he had many a mile to go that night
before he reached the town-o.

He ran right up to the farmers pen
ducks and the geese were kept there in
he said a couple of you gonna grease my chin
before I leave this town-o town-o town-o
a couple of you gonna grease my chin
before I leave this town-o."

Copy and paste to various NHI stories as needed.

Posted by: concerned | June 10, 2009 12:12 PM

(Biased, yes, but keeping it real).
Thanks for clarification, because I wasn't there and glad to hear Lemar did the right thing. Again I do support this legislation, but do not support vicious comments about people who do not agree with someones view. Some of the above comments I have read are disgraceful and those people should be booted off the post comment part of the independent.

Posted by: rosemarie | June 11, 2009 12:47 AM

Someone mentioned the odor of chickens. I doubt they've ever been near a well-maintained coop but they must surely have cruised down I95 and caught the stench from the harbour -- of filthy human waste polluting the clean waters of the ocean? The stench is overpoweringly vile and sickening: it is human stench. It is human effluent. Human waste.

But chickens? Come on guys -- this is precious guano -- commercially it sells like gold dust. Why ? Because it is pure nitrogen fertiliser and the best thing for nourishing soil you might ever get for free. Treasure it --! Get your values right. Get educated -- please!

Someone else mentioned that chicken coops attract coyotes, foxes and raccoons. Now if the truth be told, we coop owners -- most of us -=- invest in coyote pheromones which deter predators -- but that's not IT! Fact is that rats infest MY back yard from my neighboring Deli which keeps open trash containers live with vermin and roaches and a whole host of bacterial nasties no respectable chicken coop would ever entertain.

The neighboring deli trash is actually insufferable (though I name no names) . It overflows -- it blows into our back yards in stinking bloody paperwraps -- and disgusting containers of mildewed debris -- and plastic wrappers that get caught in my fruit trees -- we, the neighbors are stifled by it for days and days before it is picked up (if ever it is) and the stench is so sickening you can have your whole backyard air -- your quiet walks, your evening meanders sabotaged day after day after day with the most obnoxious vapors and there you are

WHO is there to say stop! Nobody. You can complain and so what? Nothing happens

I am so lucky to have hens. They snap at mosquitoes in the air and peck at grubs on the ground -- bless 'em they keep my yard pure and clean -- really pure and clean. I - for one - will never ever use pesticides or insecticides or anything that introduces carcinogens and toxic substances into our water table (Do you know why our children DIE of leukemia?)

Bless the Hens and any other domestic animals. They help us to keep clean and fresh our food supplies where human beings do not.

Posted by: Kevin Buterbaugh | June 11, 2009 9:22 AM

New Haven does have plenty of laws to protect health, safety etc. But - it has been sorely lacking in enforcing and insuring proper implementation. Why should we expect anything better with enforcement of this law? Livable Cities Initiative is overwhelmed as it is by the codes it has to enforce. Hen houses will raise the burden further.

While New Haven my seem like a small city - it is only in name. The city is in the midst of a dense urban region. Hen houses do not belong in such a region. A hen house ten feet from my property line puts it a mere 17 feet from by bedroom window. I do not need the noise or potential stink that comes from this. There is a reason that hen houses were kicked out of the city years ago and those reasons still stand. If you want a hen house move to the country.

Posted by: DAFeder | June 11, 2009 12:54 PM

Kevin (and others) --

I understand your concern about noise and smell. I'm not a hen-owner, but I've seen a few urban henhouses, and there has simply been _no_ noise and _no_ odor.

I'm sure you could find ways to make them stinky and loud, if you worked at it. (I've worked in a commercial coop, and it was in fact awful.) That's why the new ordinance is written so carefully. Rule-abiding dog or cat ownership can turn into a nuisance much quicker than chicken -- hello, howling beagle who used to live next door. Hello, cat-lady apartment that smelled down the hall...

I think Seriously? called it right at the beginning of this discussion:
"...City staffers who "trust" East Rock and Westville residents to raise chickens but don't trust Fairhaven residents to raise chickens. They're happy to keep giving white upper-middle class residents variances to raise chickens so long as they don't have to ok the practice across the board."
I'm surprised no one has addressed the issue. Except Alders Lamar and Sturgis-Pascale, who dealt with it like government should -- by setting groundrules that have nothing to do with class or ethnicity, but everything to do with good chicken-management and urban living.

David

Posted by: scaredcrow | June 11, 2009 1:21 PM

People, Do not worry. I can bet that racoons will get them or the cold winter nights will.

Posted by: Seth | June 11, 2009 1:49 PM

People should be able to have whatever they want in their yards as long as it does not infringe up on the property and rights of others.

Roosters crowing is annoying to many people, but I don't think hens make much noise.

Posted by: Kevin Buterbaugh | June 11, 2009 5:36 PM

Sure dogs, cats etc can all be nuisances and many are. And, when they are this city has a history of doing nothing about them. And, that is the key point. Why are we going to allow another potential nuisance and expect the city to enforce the codes to prevent it.

The problem with all of this is that it depends on people being responsible and we all know many that are not. A chicken coop may be a good neighbor, then again it may turn into the worst neighbor one could have. Why should I have to worry about who has a coop? The better choice is to allow no one to have a coop. We live in a city and cities are not where livestock belongs. It belongs in rural areas. If I wanted the sound of chickens sweetening the morning air I would have stayed in small town Missouri where I worked for 7 years. I came to a city to leave the country joys behind and that includes chickens running around in the back yards of my neighbors.

Posted by: robn | June 12, 2009 1:04 PM

It was my understanding that a rooster is only needed if one intends for the chickens to be inseminated...a rooster isn't needed for ovulation (egg production).

Posted by: Fred Shapiro | June 13, 2009 12:13 PM

Both the LCI employee and the city health official seemed to have nothing but vague fearmongering to offer -- no facts. But the LCI employee did at least emphasize that she was speaking as a citizen and taxpayer. What are we to make, on the other hand, of Mr. Kowalski, head of the city Health Department's Bureau of Environmental Health? It's depressing to think that our health is in the hands of someone whose scientific expertise seemed to be confined to pasting the results of a Google search.

Posted by: lil' D | June 25, 2009 4:42 PM

actually, I prefer my hens dipped in raw milk before I feast on their 'business'. mmm mmm, tasty . . .