Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2013

Home

THE AUTHOR JoINUSONLINE! Go online during the month of April to participate in our "Ask the Author" forum, an interactive feature of Zoning Practice. Jaime, Bouvier will be available to answer questions about this article. Go to the APA website at www.planning.org and followthe links to the Ask the Author section, From there, justsubmit your questions about the article using the e-mail link. The author will reply, and Zoning Practice will postthe.answers cumulativelyon the`website for the" benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at announced times. After each. online discussionis closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available; through the APA Zoning Practice web pages. About the Author JaimeBouvier is a senior instructor of law and codirector of the Writing and Academic Support Program at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. in Cleveland, Ohio. She has also represented state and local governments as well as landowners in zoning and land -use litigation. a few animals were kept. Instead, exiling livestock was partiallya class -based phe- nomenon. Excluding animals that were seen as productive, that is animals kept for food purposes, was a way to exclude the poor. Animals that came to be viewed as nonpro- ductive, such as dogs and cats, required money to keep and did not have the same associations. By illegalizing behavior as- sociated with the recently rural and poor, a city could present itself as prosperous and progressive. The desire to exclude the poor is a reason why ordinances making Livestock illegal are often found in suburbs and even exurbs where the tot sizes are especially conducive to raising animals. It is also a reason why changing the regulations, even in such suburbs, is often especially contentious. Now, however, raising livestock is becoming an activity that many young, educated, middle-class people seek out. The association between micro -livestock and poverty is no longer relevant. And dis- tinguishing cities and suburbs from rural occupations is no longer universally seen as a sign of progress. In fact, many view a well -regulated return of micro -livestock to the cities and suburbs as embracing progressive values. And legalizing micro - livestock can actually attract people who seek to live in a place that supports the close-knit communities that this hobby creates. MICRO -LIVESTOCK COMMUNITIES Communities are essential to the micro - livestock movement. They provide much - needed support for people to discuss common problems and share interests. Many communities began as a few people who already raised chickens, or goats, or bees —in violation of city law. They organized to legalize their animals. One of the leading examples of this is a group called Mad City Chickens in Madison, Wisconsin. Members of the group who kept chickens illegally, the self -described "Chicken Underground," were Many communities began as a few people who already raised chickens, or goats, or bees —in violation of city law. generally law-abiding citizens uncomfort- able with their outlaw status. They did not understand why raising chickens in a way that did not bother their neighbors should be illegal. In zoo4, in response to the group's lobbying efforts, Madison amended its zoning ordinance to allow chickens (and, subsequently, bees in zosz). Their lobby- ing efforts became the focus of a film, also titled Mad City Chickens, and have been a model for other groups seeking to legalize micro -livestock, such as the New York City Beekeepers Association and Seattle's Goat Justice League. These groups' stories show that many people already keep micro -livestock in cities whether or not they are legal. It also shows that once citizens and city leaders are edu- cated about these animals and shown how they can, and already do, peacefully coexist in cities, they often will legalize these ani- mals. Finally, it shows that cities are better off reasonably regulating micro -livestock, rather than forcing hobbyists out of their cities or underground. CHICKENS, GOATS, AND BEES: BENEFITS The main benefits to keeping chickens, goats, and bees is not so much to eat the animal itself, though people do eat chick- ens and goats. The main benefit is to eat the food they produce: eggs, milk, and honey. There is good research to show that backyard eggs are tastier and have more nutrients than store-bought ones. Milk from backyard goats, moreover, tastes better because goat milk does not store or ship well. It is also, arguably, easier to digest for those who cannot drink cow's milk. Goat hair is a prized material for making cash- mere and mohair fabric. Manure from these animals is an excellent, and surprisingly pricey, fertilizer. Many people also value these animals for their companionship and become as close to them as they do any other pet. Finally, backyard and hob- byist livestock keepers ensure a diverse and more robust population of animals, ensuring the propagation of breeds that are not valued commercially but may become important if commercial breeds, because of genetic uniformity, become threatened by disease. Apart from honey, keeping bees in urban areas has two main benefits: pollina- tion services and ensuring an extant bee population. Honeybees pollinate two-thirds of our food crops and in recent years have suffered devastating losses. Some experts assert that these losses are caused or exac- ZONINGPRACTICE 4.13 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3