Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. <br /> <br />February 10, 2005 -- Page 3 <br /> <br /> Ordinance .-- City bam.pige°ns, as pets <br />Makes no distinction between feral and homing birds ' <br /> Citation: Greater ChiCago Combine and Center Inc.' v.. The City of Chicago, <br /> U.S. District Court for the Northern District of lllinois, Eastern Div., No. 04 C <br /> 5429 (2004) <br />ILLINOIS (12/-17/04) -- A new:Chicago ordinance made it illegal to sell or keep <br />live pigeons in any residential distriCt~ For several years,-Chicag° residents <br />complained of the noise,, smell, .feathers, and droppings generated by pigeons <br />kept in coops. In addition, the city was Concerned with the health effects asso- <br />ciated with pigeons. <br /> · Greater Chicago Combine and C. enter Inc. was aaonprofit corporation <br />whose members bred, raised, and: trained, homing pigeons 'for educational <br />purposes. Greater ChiCago was completely opposed to the new ordinance, <br />as it made no exemption for pige°nskept for educational or zoological pur- <br />poses. <br /> Greater Chicago sued, arguing homing pigeons were less intrusive than <br />feral pigeons, and the City's deeisiOnVi°lated the Constitution because it did <br />not address all potentially haxmful pets. <br />DE CISION: Judgment in favor of.the city. <br /> The distinction betWeenpet°wners did not violate the Constitution. <br /> The legislature was free to make distinctions among animals 'and could' <br />determine which animals, or which ~ breeds, warranted greater attention <br />because of annoyance~°r danger.~ ~ <br /> The city council could determine that pigeons, unlike other animals, <br />were particularly prone to being kept in large numbers, thus increasing their <br />nuisance and disease-carrying ,potential in residential neighborhoods. Pi- <br />geons were not typically recognized as traditional pets. Thus, it 'was rea- <br />sonable that residents could find the pigeons' presence to be uniquely <br />intrusive. ' <br /> The controlling issue· was Whether the city's action had a rational basis, <br />not whether its basis for doingsoWas correct. The court focusedon whether' <br />the city had a rational basis for enacting the ordinance, and not whether <br />homing pigeons werel uniqUely noisy or messy when compared to feral <br />pigeons. The court d6termined that the city's actions had a rational basis <br />because distinctions based on Zoning districts and types of pet ownership' <br />were within the bounds of rational deCision-making. Therefore, the zoning <br />ordinance prohibiting pigeons from residential neighborhoods Was consti- <br />tutional. <br />see also: Woods v. City'of Chicago, 234 F. 3d 979 (2000).. <br />see also: City of Burbank v. Czaja, 769 N.E. 2d 1045 (2002).' <br /> <br />© 2005 Quinlan pUhlishing Group~ Any reProductiOn is prohibited. For more inlormation please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />lOl <br /> <br /> <br />