Showing posts with label property values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property values. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

North Port Nixes Hens Again

Despite strong support from Commissioner Yates and Mayor Moore, the North Port City Commission once again sunk an effort to have staff draft a backyard hen ordinance based on the successful experience of the City of Sarasota. 

Commissioner Cook's objection to my being able to speak for more than three minutes signaled her continued, and strident, opposition to backyard chickens and Commissioner Tom Jones seemed concerned about the possibility of residents living in mandatory Homeowner Associations (such as Sabal Trace) being unable to prevent poultry. (The City of Sarasota makes it clear that mandatory HOA regulations take precedence over the Citys' ordinance.) That left former supporter Vice Mayor DiFranco, a former chicken owner, as the swing vote. 

Commissioner DiFranco argued that while she had supported backyard hens previously, contact with the community had convinced her that the majority of North Port residents opposed hens. 

Her argument was bolstered by the fact that only three North Port residents argued strongly for hens, and they were offset by three residents (including the ever-entertaining and feisty Buddy Hughes) who argued against. Another citizen thought chickens could be appropriate on large lots with tight regulation. 

Opponents frequently cited property rights ("I don't want to look at coops or cows.") and a concern about property values, although no information or testimony has been brought forward at any level that backyard hens decrease property values. In fact, a recent article documents the fact that chicken coops are being included in some real estate ads as amenities. 

One prominent Sarasota realtor has said "If your neighbor has three lawn ornaments or paints their house pink, that will have more effect on the ability to sell your house than if they have backyard chickens." 

Research presented in a comprehensive study of 100 cities that allow chickens concluded that: "As of yet, no studies have been done on how backyard chickens in particular affect property values, but given that communities express little concern that other pets, such as dogs or cats, reduce property values, and given research showing that pets and urban agricultural practices can increase them, there is little reason to believe that allowing backyard chickens will negatively affect them."*

Commissioners Moore and Yates will need more citizen support if they are to challenge Commissioner DiFranco's conclusion that the community support just isn't there. Of course, the majority of Sarasota City residents never said they favored chickens -- proponents simply demonstrated that allowing chickens posed no discernible threat to residents.

*Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens by Jaime Bouvier 
Jaime Bouvier is Visiting Legal Writing Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. 

Sunday, July 21, 2013

CLUCK asks: Do Backyard Hens or Coops Affect Real Estate Values?

"I won't be able to sell my house!" "Is the government going to pay me for the reduction in value?" These are the plaintive arguments we hear when local governments consider relaxing chicken ordinances - the fear that chickens negatively affect property values. And we hear it from some realtors.

I'm not sure I would say realtors are skittish, but they all probably have a story about a seemingly minor detail costing them thousands of dollars of commission fees when a hot prospect discovers what they think is a fatal flaw.
Photo from Center for Biological Diversity (not a New Jersey deer). 

True Story: My father was an experienced salesman who worked in Manhattan. One summer he thought he would try his hand at real estate after he came home from work. So one evening he was showing an urban couple a new home in a subdivision carved out of former New Jersey farmland. The couple was clearly interested and my observant father, hoping to seal the deal, drew their attention to a magnificent buck standing bathed in the setting rays at the edge of the woods. The woman froze, turned to her husband and demanded to be taken back to the city immediately, opining that she had no intention of living where there were wild animals. The sight of the animal that so thrilled my father, terrified the woman -- so you never know. Probably some people immediately walk out of homes with spas or granite counters.

Consequently, I'm sure that somewhere in the US a modest coop in a neighbor's yard has made a deal head south. There are alektorophobes out there. But that's a far cry from the inevitable allegations that allowing backyard hens will "obviously" depress property values. What depresses property values is the behavior of  irresponsible neighbors that color outside the lines of the neighborhood norms or standards -- and people don't need chickens to do that. There is no dormant irresponsible neighbor gene that only gets expressed when chickens enter the picture. Jerks will be jerks with or without chickens. 

A prominent realtor here in Sarasota told me that if your neighbor paints their house pink or has three lawn ornaments in their front yard, that will affect your ability to get your price more than a few hens in your backyard. For people who don't want to take that risk there are mandatory Residential Community Associations (RCAs) that uses codes, covenants, and other restrictions to enforce standards.

The rest of us live in neighborhoods with no neighborhood associations or voluntary associations that lack the power to enforce. These neighborhoods rely on municipal codes to set limits on what is acceptable so you run the risk of having a neighbor with a pink house, or three lawn ornaments. (You also have a lot more latitude to do what you want on your property.)

As far as CLUCK knows, no one has produced any data that suggests backyard hens lower property values. But there does seems to be some indirect evidence that coops are either neutral or potential assets. One real estate brokerage (Redfin) has named "the top five chicken cities" based on homes recently listed in MLS that mention coops as a feature. These cities are not Camden New Jersey or Detroit Michigan, but places people want to move to and live:

Portland: This graphic may say it all:
This wikipedia graphic shows Portland has a strong housing market
in spite of (because of?) being the most chicken friendly city.
California cities in the top five are Ventura, San Diego, and Sacramento. Seattle rounds out the list.

Some might say advertising a coop is simply attempting to make a virtue out of a necessity, but if coops were clearly deal-killers, they would not be mentioned (or owners would get rid of them before putting the property on the market). And if chickens poisoned the real estate market, would 19 of the 25 largest cities in the US allow backyard hens?

Not only does Redfin identify chicken-friendly cities, they post listings for properties that feature coops. Last time I checked, there were 75 properties FEATURING chicken coops (with photos). Check it out. 

An enterprising researcher, Anna Altic, looked at a 2010 Forbes article profiling the top ten housing markets appreciating in value and found nine allowed chickens. Then she looked at the ten sickest housing markets. Guess what? Only three allowed chickens. Does that prove anything? No, but it suggests chickens need not be a drag on a housing market and than banning chickens is not a key to a strong market. Read her article here.

So what are the top four reasons backyard hens or coops appear to be neutral or assets when selling a home?

1) Some MLS properties are now FEATURING chicken coops. - You don't advertise a problem.

2) Cities with strong real estate markets are chicken-friendly. And places young people want to move are chicken friendly. See also the data in Can Backyard Chickens Make Sarasota Hip?

3) The vast majority of large/major US cities allow backyard hens. If they were deal-killers, this number would not be so high. (This urban reality also punches a gigantic hole in the "farm animal" or "livestock" argument).

4) No one seems to have produced any data (that's different than a random anecdote or supposition) that backyard hens or coops by themselves depress real estate values.

Friday, April 19, 2013

CLUCK Responds to North Port Chicken Concerns

Based on Testimony and Questions at the April 5th Planning and Zoning Advisory Board meeting City Staff identified eight concerns raised by the PZAB. Listed below are those concerns and some preliminary CLUCK responses along with selected excerpts from Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens, (a 33 page objective review of chicken keeping in the top 100 most populous cities in the United States) by Jaime Bouvier, who is Visiting Legal Writing Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC.

CLUCK presents this analysis in advance of the City of North Port hearing that will take place at 6:00 pm. on Monday April 22nd. 

1) Who will regulate cage specifications? Coop or cage specifications in the City of Sarasota are, for the most part, performance-based. While there are specific square foot requirements, other requirements can be solved by the owner. For instance, the coops must be movable, but it does not specify if that has to be using wheels, skids, or lifting. See 5. Coop Requirements below.

2) Is a permit required? Staff is anticipating (proposing?) that permits be issued through the building department. This is a major departure from the system in place in the City of Sarasota, which does not require a permit. At the January workshop, the direction to staff was to use the City of Sarasota ordinance as a model, so one has to ask where the permitting requirement originated? Adding a permitting requirement increases costs for both residents and the City. The City should consider allowing chickens and coops without the need for permits or licenses. See 9. Permit Requirements, below.

3) What about those neighbors that do not want to live next to chickens? This is an important question. It presumes that neighbors are entitled to some sort of veto power over their neighbor's activities. But this is America, where a man's (or woman's) home is his or her castle and we allow people to do what they want in pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unless we choose to live in a community with strict HOA covenants, neighbors do NOT have the right to say what pets their neighbors have. The exceptions occur when one neighbor creates a nuisance. That should result in an enforcement action, whether the nuisance is barking or dangerous dogs, squawking parrots, or a crowing rooster.

4) What about property values? No information or testimony has been brought forward at any level that backyard hens decrease property values. In fact, a recent article documents the fact that chicken coops are being included in some real estate ads as amenities. One prominent Sarasota realtor said "If your neighbor has three lawn ornaments or paints their house pink, that will have more effect on the ability to sell your house than if they have backyard chickens." See "D" at the bottom, from a recent Environmental Law Review article.

5) What will be the impact on wells? The photo below shows chicken droppings in relation to US quarters. The idea that this amount of waste could affect potable water wells in neighborhoods with septic tanks is chilling because this is a trivial amount compared with the what enters the surficial aquifer via the septic systems, which treat far more human waste. We presume and hope potable wells in North Port are accessing a deeper aquifer that is isolated from septic tank effluent (as well as dog waste -- one Springer Spaniel produces as much waste as six chickens!)

Yellow triangle arrows point to chicken droppings - insignificant compared with dogs, which are allowed.

6) What is the cost to City to regulate? To properly answer this question data would need to be produced documenting the current level of effort (and cost) the City now expends reacting to chicken complaints. Code enforcement is already responding to roosters and other complaints. So the real question should be: Will chicken complaints increase, decrease, or stay the same after backyard hens are legalized? See 9. Permit Requirements below.

The experience in many communities is a decrease or no increase in complaints. CLUCK believes this results from two phenomena: 1) some current violations would be compliant if hens were allowed and, 2) people will attempt to come into compliance to ensure they will be able to keep their chickens. Right now there is no greater penalty for having a rooster or two dozen birds --establishing reasonable limits creates an incentive for people to abide by the law -- even if they are now lawbreakers. 

CLUCK believes that enforcement actions should be directed at real problems: animal abuse, animal hoarding, and cockfighting (and there is no cockfighting without loud roosters). 

Two years into allowing chickens in the City of Sarasota, all six candidates at a forum were asked if they were comfortable with the chicken ordinance. All six said they were. 

7) How many citizens really want this? CLUCK does not know how many citizens would be interested in having backyard chickens, but that really shouldn't be a determining factor. If it is reasonable, it should be allowed, even if only one family wants chickens. And if it is unreasonable it should be denied, even if a majority of citizens want chickens. Consider this: if the number is very small, then by definition it will have almost no effect on the community. 

8) Is there a minimum lot size? No, and neither is there in the City of Sarasota. Keep in mind 75% of the largest cities in the US allow hens, which argues that small lots need not be problematic. See Section 3 below.


5. Coop Requirements

Many cities regulate how the chicken coop should be built and maintained. There is a broad range in these regulations, and no two ordinances are alike . Some simply decree that it is unlawful for chickens to run at large, and thus implicitly mandate that the coop be constructed in a secure enough way so that chickens can’t easily escape . Some appear to look out for animal welfare by decreeing that chickens should be provided adequate food, water, and shelter in sanitary conditions . And, some appear to try to proactively head off any potential problems by regulating the dimensions of the coop, how it must be built, and exactly how often it must be cleaned. (more information follows in the original document).



9. Permits (discussion of model ordinance proposed by the author)

The model ordinance, following the ordinances of many other cities, does not require a permit, as long as the ordi- nance is followed . Because chickens are novel to many communities, city officials naturally want to closely monitor how well owners are maintaining their flocks . But, regulating through a permitting or licensing process, dedicating a city official to overseeing it, and maintaining the records that such a process will require appears to be an inefficient use of city resources . It is also expensive for owners to pay permitting fees on an annual basis and is a barrier to entry to keeping chickens to those with low or modest incomes . The fees that some cities charge, over $50 annually, effectively prohibit poorer people from owning chickens .
The permitting process, moreover, does not necessarily give the city more control . If the city prohibits hens unless its ordinance is followed, it can enforce its laws in the same way that it enforces its laws against errant dog, cat, or bird owners . Requiring a permit, thus, appears to provide an unnecessary, inefficient, and expensive layer to the process of legalizing hens .
The model ordinance does require a permit, however, if the chicken owner puts forth a proposal for why she should not have to comply with the city’s regulations—for instance if the owner wishes to keep more than the maxi- mum amount of hens, wishes to keep hens in a multi-family dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is unconnected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster.



D. Property Values

Another common concern is that keeping backyard chick- ens will reduce surrounding property values .108 Several studies, however, have found that agricultural uses within the city actually increase property values .109 Community gardens increase neighboring property values by as much as 9.4% when the garden is first implemented .110 The property value continues to increase as the gardens become more integrated into the neighborhood .111 The poorest neighbor- hoods, moreover, showed the greatest increase in property values .112 Studies have also found that rent increased and the rates of home ownership increased in areas surround- ing a newly opened community garden .113

Studies concerning pets, moreover, find that apartment owners can charge higher rent for concessions such as allowing pets .114 Thus, accommodating pets has been shown to raise property values .

As of yet, no studies have been done on how backyard chickens in particular affect property values, but given that communities express little concern that other pets, such as dogs or cats, reduce property values, and given research showing that pets and urban agricultural practices can increase them, there is little reason to believe that allowing backyard chickens will negatively affect them .115


3. Lot Size Should Not Be Restricted (discussion of model ordinance proposed by the author)
The majority of cities do not require a specific lot size before a person can keep chickens. Lot size restrictions, moreover, often do little more than prohibit the majority of city residents from keeping hens. The concern that cities are mainly addressing through lot size, that of making sure that chickens are not located too close to neighbors, can better be addressed through setbacks .
For this reason, the model ordinance does not restrict through lot size . If a city has a wide variety of lot sizes, however, a city may wish to allow more hens for larger lot sizes . The city, for instance, can legislate a maximum number of chickens for lot sizes of 1⁄2 acre or below, and then increase the number of chickens for larger lot sizes.