Monday, August 12, 2013

Jacksonville Planning Staff: Anti-Chicken Speculation Posing as Objective Analysis?

Elected officials rely on their planning staffs for objective consideration of proposed changes to ordinances and codes. Staff are expected to use the best available data and analysis when they issue reports. That's not to say their professional experience should not be brought to bear, but it should be substantiated, if not because elected leaders may be linking their reputation to their reliance on staff analysis, then because government decisions sometimes need to withstand legal challenge.

The City of Jacksonville, Florida has been considering relaxing the rules on chicken keeping. Jacksonville is unique because the City boundary is synonymous with the (Duval) county boundary. Staff was asked to weigh in on the proposed changes, and has done so. [Planning Staff Report 2013-0415].

The question is: does their analysis reflect the best available professional information, or is it really a collection of unsubstantiated and unreferenced allegations that cannot stand up to scrutiny?

Probably the most current and authoritative review of current "backyard chicken" laws is Jaime Bovier's Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens, which was published by Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. This 33 page report was not produced by a chicken advocacy group, but rather a group that "fosters, innovative, just and practical law and policy solutions to enable leaders across borders and sectors to make environmental, economic, and social progress."

So let's compare just three examples of Jacksonville Planning Staff (JPS) statements with findings of the ELI report:

NOISE

JPS 
While four hens may not sound like much, the peace and tranquility of a single family neighborhood could very well be altered when multiple neighbors introduce chickens. As the hens are treated as accessory uses (due to being placed under 656.403), the setback standards are merely five feet from the nearest side and rear property line. It may well be inappropriate to allow hens so close to a neighboring yard and dwelling.

 ELI 
The most frequently expressed concern is that hens will be noisy. This may come from associating roosters with hens. Roosters are noisy.81 Hens are not particularly noisy. While they will cluck, the clucking is neither loud nor frequent.82 The clucking of hens is commonly compared to human conversation—both register around 65 decibels.83 By contrast, the barking of a single dog can reach levels well over 100 decibels.84
It should also be noted that chickens have a homing instinct to roost and sleep at night. A hen will return to her coop at night and generally fall asleep before or at sundown.85 Thus, there should be little concern with clucking hens disturbing a neighborhood at night.

ODOR

JPS
There are thousands of single-family dwellings, both new and old, with minimal yard space. This could result in the concentration of chicken droppings, possibly leading to odor and health issues. There are no specific rules or regulations regarding the disposal or management of the droppings. Therefore, neighbors would have to rely on Animal Care and Control to enforce Section 462.301(c) . . .

ELI
Many people are concerned that chicken droppings will cause odors that reach neighbors and perhaps even affect the neighborhood. These concerns may stem from publicized reports of odors from large poultry operations.86 While it is no doubt true that the odors coming from these intensive commercial-scale chicken farms is overwhelming and harmful,87 these operations often have hundreds of thousands of chickens in very small spaces.88
Most of the odor that people may associate with poultry is actually ammonia. Ammonia, however, is a product of a poorly ventilated and moist coop.89 Coop designs for backyard hens should take this into account and allow for proper ventilation. And, if coops are regularly cleaned, there should be little to no odor associated with the hens.90

PROPERTY VALUES

JPS
One of the main purposes of the Zoning Code is to provide property owners with a reasonable expectation of how neighboring properties can be developed. A current expectation is that farm animals are not allowed in residential developments. The introduction of hens could have an impact upon the desirability of living in certain neighborhoods, thereby impacting property values. 

ELI
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 surrounding 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

   
The two reports go on in similar veins. The ELI concludes with a model ordinance based on analysis of 100 cities that allow chickens, while the Jacksonville Planning Staff's negative, unbalanced assessment goes on conclude that the proposed changes would be contrary to the comprehensive plan. For instance, there doesn't seem to be much mention of the aspect of Objective 2.2 that calls for "re-emergence of diverse urban neighborhoods."

Bear in mind the Jacksonville Planning Staff report appears to have no citations, no references, and no supporting materials, while the ELI report has 463 citations. And other municipal planners have reached conclusions that differ significantly from Jacksonville. Check out the findings prepared by Springfield Missouri's planner. And if backyard hens were as debilitating and threatening to neighborhoods as the Jacksonville Planning Staff would have you believe: 

• What does that say about Manatee, Hernando, Pinellas, and Orange counties, (not to mention the cities of Tampa and Sarasota) all of which approved backyard hens in the last three years??

• And why, in 2010, would Seattle have voted to INCREASE the number of chickens people could have in the city from three to eight?

• And if Jacksonville's lots are too small, how do we explain the fact that Jacksonville is one of only six of the 25 largest US cities to prohibit backyard hens? The other 19, including New York and San Francisco, allow chickens. 



So what do you think? Does the Jacksonville Planning document reflect the best available data and analysis? Or is it burdened with unsubstantiated speculation that should not be used to evaluate the proposed ordinance?



____________________


Bouvier, Jaime M., Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens (July 27, 2012). 42 Environmental Law Reporter 10888 (Sept. 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494

"A survey of municipal ordinances in the top 100 most populous cities in the United States that concern keeping and raising chickens offers lessons that may be applied to designing a model ordinance. This survey reveals that chickens are, perhaps surprisingly, legal in the vast majority of large cities. The survey also identifies regulatory norms and some effective and less effective ways to regulate the keeping of chickens. A proposed model ordinance, based on the background information and survey results, could be adopted by a city or easily modified to fit a city’s unique needs."



Monday, July 22, 2013

CLUCK's News: Tampa OKs Chickens, plus news from Gainesville, Indian River County, and Madeira Beach

TBO summed it up in six words: Chickens Now Legal in Tampa Backyards. The Tampa City Commision voted 5-2 to allow hens (one bird per 1,000 square feet of lot) in the City. Part of the action was redefining chickens from "livestock" to "pets".

According to the Gainesville Sun, some Gainesville residents are lobbying to increase the number of backyard hens from only two to between four and six. A feed store owner estimates there are between 500 and 1,000 chicken keepers in Gainesville. 

TCPalm is reporting that the urban chicken movement is "sweeping" Indian River County. Three hens can be kept on residential properties in the unincorporated county. But cities such as Vero Beach prohibit "livestock and fowl" - reflecting old stereotypes about the pets that are less problematic and more productive than more common pets.

FInally, Madeira Beach's Church by the Sea is a diverse denominational house of worship that has been attracting visitors for what some believe are the wrong reason. Although the church was built in 1944, it took an insightful photographer to re-envision the steeple as a chicken. Once posted on the internet, the image drew the curious to see for themselves.
Photo by the Queen's Jester
http://lifeinacannedham.blogspot.com/2011/03/eyes-of-march.html

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.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Colbert Comments on Confining California Chicken Cages

One factor driving the resurgence in backyard chickens has been growing awareness of the inhumane conditions that layer hens are subjected to in large commercial layer operations in what are called battery cages.

In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 2, the Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act, requiring, among other things, that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in way that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. 


Stephen Colbert contemplates 200 square inch cage. 
Egg producers were given until January 1, 2015 to come into compliance. 

Friday, July 19, 2013

(ABC) Annotated Bibliography of Chicken Legalization Reference Material

Here are several documents you need to get hold of and read if you are trying to legalize chickens in your community. These are NOT how to raise or take care of chicken documents, but rather material related to legalizing backyard hens. 

There are three basic types of documents: synoptic reviews of chicken communities and their ordinances, persuasive case statements, and strategic advice. 

Sunday, June 23, 2013

CLUCK News: Chickens in Orlando, Tampa, Venice!

Three years ago no one probably thought the City of Sarasota, Hernando County, Pinellas County, Holmes Beach, and Manatee County would vote to allow backyard hens. They did and it looks like chickens aren't done. Check out recent developments:

Orange County and Orlando: Move over mouse, the chickens are coming. Orange County is looking at a three hen ordinance that may be approved July 2nd. 


And after Orlando started with a three hen pilot program involving 25 households, in April they tripled the number of pilot households and bumped the number of birds up to 4. It seems unlikely these changes would have happened if the original program was going astray.


And, that's not all. According to the Orlando Sentinel:

"Maitland is hatching its own ordinance, and Lake County and Winter Park are exploring the idea."

Tampa: After two years of consideration, a measure relaxing chicken rules in Tampa has passed the City Council. The final vote is July 18, but with only two (of seven) City Council members voting against, the change is believed to have a strong chance of passing. Provisions inlcude: hens only, one bird per 1,000 square feet of land, coop no more than 125 square feet and no more than 6 feet high. They will have to be confined to the owner's property by a fence or wall. The Council wisely directed staff to review the City's Wildlife Sanctuary laws to make sure they don't complicate enforcement.


Venice: It turns that what CLUCK has long claimed is true: Chickens are not illegal in the City of Venice. They cannot be "at large" (ranging off the owners property) and are no doubt subject to standard nuisance laws that would make roosters (noise) and large numbers violations, but apparently discreet hen harborers need not fear the man in Venice. 


Sec. 10-4. - Domestic fowl running at large.permanent link to this piece of content
It shall be unlawful for any person to allow chickens and other domestic fowl to run or be at large within the city. The term "chickens and other domestic fowl," as used in this section, shall be construed to mean any chicken, goose, turkey, guinea hen, duck, peafowl or other domestic or domesticated fowl.
(Code 1982, § 5-4)