Thu
Jul 29 2010
11:10 am
Important Update from the Knoxville Urban Hen Coalition
By: agrarianurbanite

Dr. Chad Hellwinckel posted today at the KUHC:

**IMPORTANT**
I just talked to council members. 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 It will either be withdrawn or it will be voted down. They understand that the amendment would kill the intent of legalization. I still encourage you to contact your reps to let them know the amendment is not acceptable, but don't loose sleep over it!! Good news!!

Tamara Shepherd's picture

Good deal

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Thu, 2010/07/29 - 12:17pm.

Good deal, agie.

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

rikki's picture

chicken

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2010/07/29 - 1:31pm.

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.

rocketsquirrel's picture

I have assurance that there

Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Thu, 2010/07/29 - 4:12pm.

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 It will either be withdrawn or it will be voted down...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?

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Thu, 2010/07/29 - 4:41pm.

Not necessarily, rs. It's likely the case that Chad has just spoken with more than one council member. No sunshine violation in that.

bill young's picture

"Chicken Ordinance"

Submitted by bill young on Fri, 2010/07/30 - 8:00am.

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.

bizgrrl's picture

And if the "Chicken

Submitted by bizgrrl on Fri, 2010/07/30 - 9:32am.

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.

Why have them review after the fact? Why not have them review it before passage so that it doesn't have to be changed in the future?

Seems they could use the same text in the ordinance covering other animals and be done with it.

The City of Knoxville ordinance section regarding Inspections (Sec. 5-6.)

Sec. 5-6. - Inspections.

(a)
Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of or perform any duty imposed by this chapter or other applicable law, or whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises any violation of the provisions of this chapter or other applicable law, the administrator or any animal control or police officer is hereby empowered to enter such property at any reasonable time and to inspect the property and perform any duty imposed by this chapter or other applicable law, but only if the consent of the occupant or owner of the property is freely given or a search warrant is obtained, as follows:

(1)
If such property is occupied, he shall first present proper credentials to the occupant and request entry, explaining his reasons therefor;

(2)
If such property is unoccupied, he shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other persons having charge or control of the property, present proper credentials and request entry, explaining his reasons therefor; and

(3)
If such entry is refused or cannot be obtained because the owner or other person having charge or control of the property cannot be found after due diligence, the administrator, animal control or police officer shall obtain a warrant to conduct a search of the property.

(b)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the administrator or any animal control or police officer shall have the authority to enter upon any property to enforce the provisions of this chapter if a violation of such law is being committed in the presence of the administrator or officer.

bill young's picture

Yes but..

Submitted by bill young on Fri, 2010/07/30 - 4:03pm.

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.

Lisa Starbuck's picture

hey understand that the

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Fri, 2010/07/30 - 4:41pm.

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.

rikki's picture

Della Volpe needs to decide

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2010/07/30 - 9:56pm.

Della Volpe needs to decide which is more important to him, the fears of the anti-chicken people or his pro-chicken constituents. He can't represent everyone on every vote. He should choose one or the other and stop trying to drag everyone into his dilemma.

Animal control has been involved in drafting this ordinance throughout the long process, and waiting a month or two after it passes is not going to suddenly illuminate problems no one anticipated. Cities all over the country have made hen ownership legal in recent years. If we can't learn from them, maybe we are simply beyond help.

This much is clear: if lawyers always decided things, we'd still be in the trees munching fruit trying to anticipate every possible outcome of climbing down and creating agriculture and civilization. It may be an intellectual quandary whether the chicken or the egg came first, but it's obvious lawyers came long after the real challenges were worked out.

Lisa Starbuck's picture

Ordinance Examples from Others

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Fri, 2010/07/30 - 11:34pm.

Cities all over the country have made hen ownership legal in recent years. If we can't learn from them, maybe we are simply beyond help.

I agree Rikki, we should look to other cities for successful ordinances. That's why I think the Alcoa language is especially interesting.

bill young's picture

Rikki

Submitted by bill young on Sat, 2010/07/31 - 7:58am.

"Waiting a month or two after it passes is not going to illuminate problems no one anticipated".

More than likely your comment is correct.

But simply,a problem nobody anticipated is just that..
a problem nobody anticipated.

So why not review the ordinance in 60 days..to make sure
all th i's are dotted & all the t's are crossed?

And reviewing the ordinance,in 60 days,would go a long way
in addressing the concerns of those in opposition.

That way the debate on the ordinance doesn't get caught up
in two hours of..what if?

Pass it & in 60 days review it.

If the ordinance covers all the bases..move on.
If not..fix it.

bill young's picture

It maybe moot..but..

Submitted by bill young on Fri, 2010/07/30 - 5:40pm.

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.

Up Goose Creek's picture

60 days

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Sat, 2010/07/31 - 8:53am.

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.

fischbobber's picture

Agreed. The part of the

Submitted by fischbobber on Sat, 2010/07/31 - 7:44pm.

Agreed.

The part of the ordinance that said you couldn't kill the chickens after they quit laying didn't make much sense to me. And what happens if an egg hatches and it's a male?

I'm in favor of urban hens, but my opinion is that we would be better off going with a broad ordinance and dealing with regulating individual problems with nuisance behavior ordinances rather than nuisance chicken ordinances.

bill young's picture

I agree,Goose

Submitted by bill young on Sat, 2010/07/31 - 1:17pm.

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives