Good deal, agie.

Has anyone with your group yet copied council members with Alcoa's text? Why reinvent the wheel?

If Della Volpe is so worried about the chaos and disease hens will unleash upon Knoxville, he should vote against the ordinance rather than encumbering it with worry-wart, busy-body babble. Surely it is not necessary to write inspection and enforcement protocols into every ordinance, nor to redundantly include Constitutional constraints.

Della Volpe made it clear during the discussion that animal husbandry is foreign to him. His amendments are at best needless micromanagement, at worst poison pills designed to delay or sabotage an ordinance he lacks the courage to oppose. He should stop being such a chickenshit and just cast a No vote.

I have assurance that there is no way that the last amendment will be in there. It will either be withdrawn or it will be voted down...

and do we now have a sunshine law violation over a chicken squabble?

IMO,the "Chicken Ordinance" should be passed.

City Animal Control is very good @ enforcing existing code & will do the same if the "Chicken Ordinance",is passed.

However,we can not ask or expect the city law department to advise on the ramifications of this ordinance because we simply don't know all the ramifications.

It could be the "Chicken Ordinance" & existing code is sufficient.OTH,maybe not.

But it is a waste of the city law department's time to attempt to advise Council on pure speculation.

Council should pass the "Chicken Ordinance".

And if the "Chicken Ordinance" passes,in a month or so,it would not be a bad idea to bring City Animal Control Officers before Council to review the ordinance to insure that the ordinance & existing code cover any problems that may arise.

Then the City Law Department will be able to advise Council
as to how to properly proceed with respect to a remedy per the city code.

I agree that the ordinance itself & existing code may well be sufficient,in this matter.

However,one would "review",the ordinance,"after the fact" because,when passing any ordinance,we never know all the ramifications.

That is especially true when passing an ordinance concerning animals.

We may discover unforeseen ramifications,with respect to this
ordinance.

And I don't believe we can legislate the unforeseeable.

Therefore,if the ordinance passes,Council should provide that
City Animal Control,in a month or so,come before Council to make sure the provisions of the ordinance & existing city code
are sufficient in the matter of the "Chicken Ordinance".

If so..move on.

If not..fix it.

At one time I worked for the Humane Society & worked with
City Animal Control officers with respect to city code.

So I'm not just talking off the top of my head.

hey understand that the amendment would kill the intent of legalization.

Chad, I'm not following why you think the amendment would kill the intent of legalization.

Allowing inspections if they have reasonable cause to suspect violations or in the case of a health emergency - with the caveat below as in Alcoa -

but only if the consent of the occupant or owner of the property is freely given or a search warrant is obtained,

doesn't seem to me to be that onerous or to "kill the intent of legalization."

And I'll have to defend Nick Della Volpe - I believe he has been an excellent representative of his constituency. I think he was trying to work out a compromise because he has constituents who are on both sides of the issue - it's a way to ease the fears of the anti-chicken people while allowing him to vote to pass the ordinance at the behest of his pro-chicken constituents, like me.

I am a urban-chicken supporter - think local food is definitely the the way to go - but believe it is crucial to make sure the chickens don't cause problems for neighbors.

It maybe a moot point but,as I pointed out on the previous thread,the language giving inspection power to the Animal Control Board,IMO,is not the way to go.

Because the Animal Control Board simply can not act quickly enough if a situation warrents quick action.

KPD & City Animal Control officers can.

And it could be that if the "Chicken Ordinance" codifies
the Animal Control Board to inspect violations of the
ordinance..it could present a problem for citizens wanting
a quick resolution of said violation.

I have worked with City Animal Control in matters of violations of the city code.

One must always be aware of the prevailing state law &
city code when dealing with these matters.

It doesn't take much to envision a quick resolution to a violation of this ordinance,being hampered,if KPD & Animal
Control officers must go,first,to the city law department & then a judge to resolve a conflict between the "Chicken Ordinance",the Animal Control Board shall inspect,& existing code that states,KPD & Animal Control shall inspect.

Bizgrrl has posted the city code vis a vis the inspection power vested in KPD & City Animal Control & those powers should not be in conflict with the "Chicken Ordinance".

Futhermore,the inspection powers granted to KPD & Animal Control,should not be changed..period.

Because,in all violations of the city code regarding animals,inspections should be the sole power of KPD &
Animal Control,especially in emergency situations.

I think in the case of agriculture, problems may be seasonal and take time to show up. Or the life cycle of the birds. So a 60 day review may be too short.

Goose,when talking about city code & animals many factors are
in play.

And your comment has brought that to light.

I had not thought about agriculture animals vs domestic
animals.

And raising chickens is about agriculture.

How about this?

First review in 60 days.Just to make sure,intially,the ordinance works ok.

I guess that would be in early October.

Then I would defer to someone that knows more about
agriculture,than I,to set the next review.