Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

Page 6--FebruaryI0,2006 The evidence could be viewed either way. While the court could character- ize the facility as a "school," it was not the court's decision to make. see also: Animal Shelter League of Ozarks Inc. v. Christian County Board of Adjustment, 995 S.W.2d 533 (1999). see also: Board of Education of City of St. Louis v. Daly, I29 &W. 3d 405 (2004). Equal Protection-- Ordinance bans pigeons in residential areas Nonprofit claims ordinance is unconstitutional Citation: Greater Chicago Combine and Center Inc. v. City of Chicago, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 05-1271 (2005) The 7th Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. ILLINOIS (12/22/05) -- Chica~o s cxty councd passed a "Restrictions on Pi- eons ordinance in response to citizen complaints about feathers, droppings, odor, and noise generated by pigeons in residential areas. Specifically, pigeons were prohibited from residential districts. Non-residential areas remained ban- free. The Greater Chicago Combine and Center Inc. was a nonprofit that raised, trained, and bred homing pigeons for educational purposes. However, it was now illegal for it to do so under the ordinance. Greater Chicago sued, arguing that the ordinance violated its equal protec- tion rights. The court ruled in the city's favor. Greater Chicago appealed, claiming that the ordinance impermissibly made a difference between residential and non-residenilal areas, and pigeons and other pets. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The two classifications in the ordinance were residential versus non-resi- dential and pigeons versus pets that could cause unpleasant or unhealthy conditions in a residential neighborhood. It was true other animals made noise, left droppings, and were otherwise unsavory. Nonetheless, without delving into the distinctions between pigeons and dogs, a city's decision to address a problem ~adually was rational. Similarly, there was a satisfactory reason for the residential-only ban. There was a ~eater reason and immediate need to attend to the nuisance and adverse health concerns pigeons generated to residential areas than in predominantly commercial areas, where some people aright have lived. Consequently, the ordinance was constitutional. see also: Ci~. of Burbank v. Czaja, 769 N.E. 2d 1045 (2002). see also: Gammon v. GC Services Limited Partnership, 27 F.3d 1254 (1994). 144 © 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any renroduction is prohibited. For more information please carl (617) 542-0048.