The Sarasota Herald-Tribune continued an ominous trend by printing an editorial Hatch a Compromise today on the subject of backyard chickens without bothering to meet with backyard chicken advocates first.
First, the editorial takes a swipe at the testimony of young professionals and others who emphasized that allowing chickens would signal to the post-college set that Sarasota is welcoming to the young people the City purports to want to attract. By dismissing the compelling testimony of several citizens, the Herald Tribune took a cheep shot. In this editorial, the Herald Tribune is actually arguing that the City should not be "hip" and by doing so is sending subtle signals that young professionals are not wanted. This is truly sad and the Herald-Tribune should know better. In addition, selecting an ancillary argument and pretending it was the central objective of the initiative is another cheep shot.
The real story that the paper apparently chose to ignore was the behavior of the Planning Board's chair who used (or abused?) her position to personally attack at least two advocates, and who seriously misrepresented the truth on at least three occasions. CLUCK can provide an email* from the chair conceding one mistruth, although without any apology, contrition, regret or remorse. Many of her spurious claims could have been addressed had the Zoning Text Amendment applicant been allowed to rebut or clarify, but that is not a right afforded proponents.
APPARENTLY CLUCK CANNOT PROVIDE THIS EMAIL. IT ARRIVED WITH AN OMINOUS POSTCRIPT LABELED "IMPORTANT MESSAGE" THAT INFORMED US THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE MESSAGE WAS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IT GOES ON TO PROHIBIT THE RECIPIENT FROM DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING. SO, UNTIL THIS IS CLEARED UP, YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. In the meantime, feel free to ask yourself how correspondence with a public official could be confidential.
One of the most offensive tactics of the Chair was to admonish CLUCK and probably staff for failing to incorporate the views of those opposed to or with concerns regarding backyard hens. CLUCK was publicly excoriated for failure to solicit these views and, in response, CLUCK would be happy to provide copies of the email correspondence from CLUCK asking to meet with Chair, specifically "to review the provisions of the staff recommendation regarding chickens, try to answer any questions you may have, and better understand your concerns" as well as the return email* from the Chair denying the request.
*APPARENTLY CLUCK CANNOT PROVIDE THIS EMAIL. IT ARRIVED WITH AN OMINOUS POSTCRIPT LABELED "IMPORTANT MESSAGE" THAT INFORMED US THAT THE INFORMATION IN THE MESSAGE WAS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IT GOES ON TO PROHIBIT THE RECIPIENT FROM DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING. SO, UNTIL THIS IS CLEARED UP, YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. In the meantime, feel free to ask yourself how correspondence with a public official could be confidential.
The Board engaged in a lengthy discussion amongst themselves with creating any opportunity to correct erroneous statements. One citizen wryly noted afterward that while citizens have to raise their hands and swear to tell the truth, the board does not. CLUCK is not suggesting that any board member deliberately lied during their discussions, but in their ignorance they did end up voting on a tainted record compromised by several significant inaccuracies that could have been corrected had the Chair allowed those most familiar with the initiative a few minutes at the end of the discussion. Of course, the newspaper was unaware of, and perpetuated, these errors because they also didn't bother to get the other side.
The newspaper fails to note that none of the neighborhood opposition was based on the document being proposed, that none of the neighborhoods expressing opposition had involved CLUCK advocates in their decision-making process, and the revelation that one neighborhood spokesperson had never bothered to read what was being considered. These are the hallmarks of prejudice – that is pre-judging, and it is unfortunate when done inadvertently and shameful when defended as legitimate practice. Watching the newspaper ratify these behaviors is indeed unfortunate.
One of the most perplexing statements in the editorial is the proposition that "areas of the city with small treeless lots --think of them baking in the hot summer sun -- are inappropriate for backyard fowl." First, it is hard to decipher exactly what part of the city they are coyly attempting to refer to, secondly chickens are derived from jungle fowl and obviously do quite well throughout Mexico and Caribbean, and thirdly this is inherently an argument against small treeless lots, and not chickens.
The Herald-Tribune also apparently ignored the testimony of Senior Planning Staff who expressed belief that adequate enforcement provisions already exist, both in 99-4163 and in the City's general nuisance laws.
Perhaps the most aggravating aspects are the cavalier, unsubstantiated accusations such as “overly broad sweep” and “enforcement difficulties”. Talk about over broad sweep!
CLUCK has worked a year and a half on its proposal, the majority of which has been spent on what the Tribune might characterize as a compromise. The City's professional planning staff continues to advance the proposal and had the Herald-Tribune taken the time to thoroughly review the record, they would have discovered the thirteen provisions specifically included out consideration for neighbors. This measure is laden with compromise, and one has to wonder if the Tribune also weighed in without actually reading the proposed Code changes.
It is regrettable that institutions such as the Herald Tribune are continuing a trend of adopting a position on backyard hens before they speak with the proponents. This prejudicial approach is unfair and perpetuates the double standard that permeates this (typically one-sided) discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment