Hey, there! Log in / Register
Dethpicable: Cambridge board votes to boot ducks out of town
By adamg on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 11:51pm
Wicked Local Cambridge reports the Cambridge Zoning Board of Appeals ruled tonight that a Putnam Street co-op house has to send its three ducks and two chickens to someplace more rural, such as Arlington.
Residents vowed to appeal the decision that fowl are not allowed under city bylaws to the city council, which, however, is a bit preoccupied these days with attempting to select a mayor - something it has so far failed to do after six weeks.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What an outrage!
The mayor shall here about this!
Oh, wait.
No, what's outrageous here is the fact that a few residents
feel they're somehow entitled to not follow the rules and laws of the City, and DEMAND those rules be changed for their personal convenience. And if this totally frivilous matter actually goes to court, it's the TAXPAYERS who will have to foot the bill.
Debating whether chickens (Waltham) or ducks (Cambridge) should be allowed as pets because one or two residents don't like the present ordinances is not responsive government, it's just another WASTE of government time and resources.
How dare citizens try to change the rules!
Is that what you are saying? It is certainly how it sounds.
I think the city has to demonstrate why there is any interest in limiting what these people are trying to do, in order to justify any resources put into enforcement. Enforcing ordinances with no purpose or reason or point or larger planning goal is a far larger waste of resources than people who (GASP!) try to get rules changed.
Um, roadman, have you heard of this thing called democracy ... you know, if you don't like the rules, get them changed? Oh, but that is wasting the government's time and taxpayer money. This is Massachusetts! You aren't allowed to question your betters! How DARE you think you have some say in your government! Just kiss ass enough on the crony structure and you get to flout the law and ignore it and have your friends in high places get the cops to turn a blind eye.
Well it would be nice if we
Well it would be nice if we changed the rules before we broke them... If the rules say no horses in my back yard as a good citizen I should avoid having horses in my back yard until I make it legal to do so.
Clarify the rules before obeying or changing them
In this case, it was quite unclear whether the law allowed the chickens or not.
These people knew they were wrong from the get-go
Just think all they had to do was ask the city before they brought their fowl into the neighborhood and they would have been told that if chickens and ducks were not on the list of permitted uses then "they are not permitted" which is the proper way to read the ordinance. Instead when they were told by the inspectors chickens and ducks were not permitted they told the inspector that "their research suggested otherwise".
Rest assured, I do NOT believe that rules and laws should never
be changed or eliminated when doing so will have a clear benefit for the majority, and I certianly subscribe to the tenants of democracy. However, in this case, I believe that what is happening here is contrary to one of the basic principles of democracy - the concept of "for the common good".
If a politician or developer or other high official wants to gets the rules changed to serve their own narrow benefit, it's considered unacceptable (and IMO rightfully so), but if two ordinary citizens want to get the rules changed to serve their own narrow benefit, it's somehow considered democracy.
Lets think about the larger ramifications of the citizens' request and how they are pursuing it. In the name of democracy, the Cambridge City Council should divert their attention away from electing their new mayor, attemping to resolve their fiscal woes, and any and all other urgent matters that are currently pending just to accommodate TWO PEOPLE who happen to disagree with the current rules and laws. And just what is the noble cause here justifying taking the City Council's attention away from these other critical issues? So two people can keep Daffy and Daisy as household pets.
Sorry, but in my opinion, tying up the City Council's time and resources to deal with a TRIVIAL issue that should rightfully be a matter for the City HEALTH DEPARTMENT to deal with is NOT responsible or democratic government, it's just more "politics as usual" - i.e. - if you don't like something , pressure your elected officials to change it or, better yet, force the City into court with a frivilous lawsuit.
And needing to defend the city in court over such a trivial matter that NOBODY has been damaged by (which may very well happen in this case) is nothing more that a HUGE waste of the taxpayer's money, especially if the jury decides to award the "aggreived" parties a huge lottery settlement for no good reason other than "they deserve a settlement because they think the City "wronged" them.
In these difficult times, there are clearly far more important things that citizens and government alike should be focusing on. After all, one of the principles of democracy is that government should make decisions that benefit the majority. And frankly, changing long established rules that were enacted to insure the health and welfare of the citizens just because two people don't like the current ordinances doesn't mesh with this at all.
One final comment: Just WHY should the City have to demonstrate the need to keep a law that is already on the books and has been for a number of years?!? Yes, that's right, because TWO PEOPLE out of a large city think it's unfair.
Clearly, in this case the burden of proof that the law should be changed should rest with the wannabee duck owners. Oh, but that would require that ordinary citizens actually do research and prepare arguments in defense of their position. Much easier to put the onus on the "govinmitt" and force them to waste time and resources (all on the TAXPAYER's dime of course) defending an established law that the large majority of citizens have no problems with.
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD
This situation is not trivial because it could affect the entire city of Cambridge. The public at large had no idea that had this been snuck under the table by the owners of the fowl and council member Henrietta Davis thier political connection and partner in all of this that they could wake up the next morning and find that their neighbors could house and raise chickens, ducks, turkeys, swans whatever kind of fowl they wanted without their say so or knowledge and without rules and regulations. Residents would find themselves in the same position as the complaining abutters. Coops up against their fences, odors, rats, disease and noise and loss of use of their yards. That is a long standing ordinance designed to protect the safety of the public and furthermore it is a State Law (no fowl or livestock) which supercedes any city ordinance. The court does not recognize any of them as co-owners (Blake Brasher, Liv Gold, Adam Fastman or Allison Fastman) of the property or the fowl. The court only recognizes the owner whose sole name is on the deed and he is being held responsible and liable for the action of his tenants. The name on the citation is Bayard Wenzel the sole owner, yet Blake Brasher was allowed to appeal the decision of Inspectional Services to the Board of Zoning via council member Henrietta Davis. Henrietta Davis told the other council members she would respond to the complaints of the abutters and she never contacted any one of them. Then she formed a committee called "barriers that prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove those barriers" and she tied up members of 4 departments of the city (zoning, inspec. svcs., health and animal control the very depts. the abutters were contacting)for 8 weeks to come up with a "cheat sheet" to give to the owners of the fowl to bring before the zoning board to keep their fowl and they still lost. It should have all ended with the citation. What a waste of taxpayers money. If my tenants ever put me in that type of situation they and their fowl would be gone in a flash. Get rid of the chickens and ducks!!
More details
The Crimson was there:
Overheard on the campaign
Overheard on the campaign stump for Mayor of Cambridge
"A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage!!!"
"Um sir, you are in Cambridge"
"Oh wait this is Cambridge... a chicken, duck or other small fowl in every yard and a car on the street if you are lucky enough to find a spot that is not saved for a zip car, bike or chicken. Also do not even think about parking that car during a time when we may or may not get snow because we be towing it even if it just rains."
Car on the Street?
Well, maybe one car per house. Tops. No real reason to drive in Cambridge ... except the lack of sidewalk clearing ... and bike lane clearing ...
I guess it has to be Rabbit season then.
Michelle Obama starts a
Michelle Obama starts a national vegetable garden trend - and Cambridge kicks out a couple of chickens. And we think this is such a liberal and progressive city.
This reinforces my feeling that Cambridge is filled with crusty ex-hippie homeowners who have grown to hate people and things - and clearly can no longer abide what other people do in their own back yards.
Those neighbors should have just put up a plank fence and shut up.
My impression is that it was
My impression is that it was not crusty, uptight hippies who were unhappy about the chickens.
Whit
Your comment has no fact
The property in question is surrounded by the fences of 9 abutters. The owner of the fowl use those abutter fences to keep their fowl in their yard. A plank fence won't keep out the smell. You should know the facts before you comment.