Wow, Stan, please let me know what is so important that we can't take a sideline on something that actually inspired ".. more conversation in the village than the budget meeting".

M Dunham - that is EXACTLY what I propose!

Yes! That would be a fine compromise. Or maybe just the written permission of adjacent neighbors.

The latest trendy eco-snobbery shut down.

It's actually a suburban setting, but since you brought it up: do you know New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, San Francisco, Portland, Austin, Minneapolis, Baltimore - even Chicago! - allow chickens? (that's just off the top of my head, there are many more).

Also, sweet straw man, but since you brought it up: a 1500 lb animal on 1/4 acre will result in certain impacts and challenges that a few 5 lbs contained birds will not. Can you think of any? If not, i'll ask my pre-schooler and get back to you.

Bill, I wish I could also see your evidence that this poses a threat as I have not seen anything to that effect. I know you brought some to the meeting and I would love to review it. Is there any way we can help you understand that these issues are not relevant? We are not talking about 100,000 chickens here! In fact, it is that issue that we are compelled to go against!

"Is there any way we can help you understand that these issues are not relevant?"
You're clucking up the wrong tree, David.

Council elections are on April 9th. Mr Waldack is not running again. Barnett and Schnell both up for re-election. Will need to flip at least one and replace with more progressive thinkers.

Not sure who that will be yet. Anyone know the new candidates' stance on the issue? (David Olsen, Susan Walaszek, Don Jankowski, Greg Hosé).

A few hundred votes determined the outcome last Council election. There were 250+ signatures on the pro-chicken petition last night. Just saying.

MC - While I might disagree with the results of the meeting, I have never been a 1 issue voter. I would rather work within the existing membership of a council to move us all forward than to vote any one member out. Remember - he/she represents a larger group (which is why there were elected in the first place) and voting them out does not change the minds/opinions of their constiuants.

Fair enough, David. But Mr Waldack has been pretty clear in his refusal to look at this particular issue in any way other than that which he determined beforehand (evidenced by his statements at Council meetings and on these message boards).

How do you change the mind of someone who repeats the same faulty information over and over? How do you have a discussion with someone who is a fear-monger? How do you work with someone who ignores evidence to the contrary? Anyway, he is leaving - why bother.

Representatives should be held accountable, hence elections. This may not be a one issue town, but as we all heard this is a passionate issue for a lot of people. Council received more feedback on this than any other. Support was overwhelmingly in favor (in person and email - per Waldack). Sounds to me like they did not listen to their constituents. If there is a viable alternative that will listen, they should be replaced.

MC - I conceed that even if we cannot change the representative's mind, we might help change the minds of his people and that is just as important if not more.

William
Would you please post the "abundance of resources" that reflect on "the basics of health, property values and other issues" on this blog? I appreciate the George Eliot (aka Mary Anne Evans) reference, though I might suggest returning to the late 18th century American writers for further inspiration. Thank you!!

Yes, Commissioner Waldack, get cracking, and give Council Candidate Jankowski all your research.

What is your position on backyard chickens Mr. Jankowski? As a candidate people have a right to know.

The extensively annotated staff report indicated that there are effective ways to mitigate any of the nuisances that can occur should someone elect to keep chickens -- similar to the types of regulations that we have for dogs. And concerns about overburdening code enforcement also appear to be unfounded, based on the report. In spite of those findings, our current ordinance prevents over 95% of property owners from keeping backyard chickens. So the current ordinance gives rights to a small group of homeowners and excludes the vast majority from having the same rights. I am not sure that the proposal, as crafted, is the right way to address this inequity, but I disagree with limiting what a home owner can do with his/her private property in an arbitrary way. The reason that I asked Commissioner Waldack for his research was because it seemed to be the polar opposite of the staff report, and I wanted to understand why. He appears unwilling to share.
In addition, it is likely that the large parcel owners (the less than 5%) are more affluent than those living on smaller parcels, so we in effect are telling people with fewer means that they cannot use their private property in the same way as those with greater means.
So I am in favor of continuing the discussion to ensure that private property owners are treated equally and not unduly restricted by a somewhat arbitrary ordinance.

Check. Fence straddled. Position avoided.

excerpt from DG Staff report:

Will chicken coops impact property values?
Staff researched this topic and could not find any information on the subject.

This won't stop the fear-mongers from repeating the claim though.

We have ordinances for special use that may or may not apply to a particular type of business.
I would point out that in the inception of the OASIS program, I pointed out that approval of applications were optional and not by right, which meant that we could exclude massage parlors and such businesses. Com. Neustadt then took exception to my comments saying that such businesses were legitimate and should qualify for funding. So if you think that I support such establishments or would go a step further and give them grants of tax money, you are barking up the wrong tree.
It took years for previous admins to close an adult bookstore. The Village has taken action and is ongoing on certain establishments

don't forget the SPAS (picture that in Neon) with the blacked out windows

So I guess that means "no" -- you won't share the sources of information that you used in arriving at your conclusions.

"They are so few and scattered comparatively speaking that statistically would be negligible".

So, the fact that dozens of cities that have legal backyard chickens - some for decades - have not reported any negative impact on prop values is "negligible". Then would not the anecdotal opinion of your single realtor be negligible? I too have talked to several realtors about this issue - and they claim the opposite of yours. Maybe they are all just telling us what we want to hear? (There are also dozens of signed statements from realtors around the country on pro-backyard chicken websites that claim no impact to property values).

Could the presence of backyard chickens be a problem for certain individuals on a case-by-case basis? Possibly. Just like a prospective neighbor with loud barking dogs at the fence, or one with a half dozen cars in the driveway, or the house/yard in some state of disrepair. People have hang ups - and homebuyers have a list of wants. There is no accounting for taste. I would prefer that my neighbors don't spray pesticides and fertilizers on their lawns, but i understand that is their right.

Property values are driven by demand. I know for a fact there are people who will target a town specifically because it allows backyard chickens. Even if the opposite is true - people who will purposely not consider DG at all because of its leniency on this specific ordinance (which i don't think is the case) - it would be a wash at best.

By the way, you know this because it is in the Staff Report, but:

City of Evanston legalized backyard chickens in 2010. Population = 75k (DG = 48k). They have issued 20 permits. TWENTY.

So it seems this "500 to 13k = too much too soon" argument is - again - fear-mongering. You can legislate based on fear, but I prefer fact.

"We had a Coffee with the Council in which a realtor clearly stated the problems and effects on property values and the feeling in the office. She also echoed the fear of others to come forward."

I heard the Advocates Big Dog and former D99 board member was wagging fingers and clucking and cawing like an angry hen at Commissioner Neustadt for supporting the proposed changes, and that Nuey barked back like a dog that they needed to take their discussion off-line.

Good stuff, but where's the Patch report on that?

The law only allowed for 20 active licenses in Evanston. So 100% of active licenses were taken.

"The law only allowed for 20 active licenses in Evanston. So 100% of active licenses were taken."

Kind of. 20 coop limit expired after 12 months. It's been over 12 months. 28 in fact (since Sept 2010). Rules have not been revoked. What does that tell you?

Alderman Donald Wilson, 4th Ward, offered several of the last-minute amendments to the ordinance that the council adopted. They included a provision that would let a city-wide limit of 20 coops expire after 12 months. He said that if problems develop with the chicken-keepers over the first year of the ordinance the aldermen could change the rules, but that assuming the program operates smoothly, there's no long-term need for the cap on coops.

THIS SEEMS LIKE JUST THE "COMPROMISE" THE ANTIS ARE LOOKING FOR.

Did we just watch the same CDC video? Some excerpts:

"Keeping chickens in your backyard takes responsibility, just like keeping any other pet, like a cat or dog"

"Infectious poultry diseases can make your birds very sick .... although they are not usually harmful to humans."

"The best insurance is to follow everyday common sense practices"

"It's very similar to what we do every day to protect ourselves from human infections. We wash our hands. We wash our dishes. We avoid eating food that may be contaminated."

I feel bad that you feel the need to live life in a constant state of fear. I really do.

"Yet a mother had no problem with her kids handling and bringing chicken feces into the house"

Now it's Council's job to mandate how people raise their children? Who decides what is allowed? I personally feel that excessive TV, processed foods, violent video games and antibacterial soaps should be banned.

Thank you for your consideration.

"Mr. Jankowski, you’re the candidate. You get to vote aye or nay – no hedging on ifs or buts, do you support chicken proliferation in Downers Grove?"

let me rephrase that:

Mr. Jankowski, are you in favor of allowing the majority of Downers Grove residents to practice their right to grow & raise food as they see fit, raise & educate their children as they see fit and use their land as they see fit - provided it does not unnecessarily infringe on public health, safety or environment? The same right that is currently afforded to the top 3% of land owners?

Depending on your answer, the pro-backyard chicken lobby may have a fair number of votes to deliver.

MC -- I know these threads are a little messy, but that answer is above in response to Dan F. My summary was as follows:
"I am in favor of continuing the discussion to ensure that private property owners are treated equally and not unduly restricted by a somewhat arbitrary ordinance."

I am sorry if my intent did not come through in my answer to the original question regarding my views on this issue. I am an "aye" for equal rights for private property owners, and that applies to this ordinance. I would have voted with Becky Rheintgen and Geoff Neustadt on Tuesday,. Please contact me directly if you have any questions regarding my views on Village policies or ordinances, including this one. You can reach me at donjankowski@ymail.com. Happy to sit with you and discuss this or any other topic over a cup of coffee (but only in DG). Thanks you!!

Wayne, so you are saying if I dont want a coop in my yard, I dont have one and I have the right to tell my neighbor they can't have one. Who is closed minded? Who wants to control people? Who wants individuals to have more freedom?

The only reason Waldack was against this is that it was proposed by Rheintgen. If Becky would have proposed banning all fowl and removing the 1987 ordinance, I'm sure Waldack would have cited many sources in favor of backyard chickens. He would have also twisted it to paint the other members as evil. He would have brought in some props to tell the story how seniors and low income people would be unable to provide for themselves.

jj, what do you picture when you hear chicken coop? I think you are picturing 100's or 1000's of chickens grazing on an open plain. Maybe you are picturing something out of "deliverance". Neither of which is the case here, we are talking about 3 or 4 small birds in a coop smaller than a shed. What is wrong with you? Why do you and people like you, (i.e. walldack) feel the need to control everyone's life? That is the real question we should be asking here.

Bacon is next. Fresh bacon with fresh eggs!!

You call the people wanting coops "progressives", couldn't disagree more. Shows how out of touch you really are. Progressives, liberals and socialists all use government to control people and take away individual freedoms. Conserative values are the values of people doing with their property as they see fit, within reason. For you to classify it as "progressive" is mistaken, but not an accident. You are trying to bully people into your opinion. Calling them "progressive" and making them sound delusional with "fantasy of chickens and eggs" are tools of the manipulative mind. What "fantasy" are you living in? When you hear chicken coops in Downers Grove are you picturing 100's or 1000's of chickens roaming the fruited plains? Maybe your are picturing something from the movie "Deliverance" and we are all gonna regress to neanderthals? Neither, of course is true. What did your parents do to you? All we are talking about is 3 or 4, 2 to 3 pound birds in a back yard with a coop smaller than a shed. You may not like this chicken movement, but it is coming. As the government nationally takes away more and more of our freedoms the individual will seek out new ways to express their individual liberties.

Bailey,
Here's what I picture:
My neighbor keeping a filthy coop after the fun of having chickens has worn off after a month or so.

Me having the responsibility to call the authorities for enforcement on my neighbor.

Rats and mice finding shelter in my home and garage at night while feeding at my neighbor's coop during the day.

DHD, Valid points. The same points can be made for the animals that are already permitted in the Village. Their are families in this town that have 3 dogs, all about 150lbs each. The dogs spend the majority of their time outside relieving themselves all over the property, tearing to shreads the many toys left strewn throughout the yard, and constantly barking at the sight of any person. I don't see a push to outlaw dogs. By the way, rats, mice, and raccoons eat dog feces and dog food as well. I don't think we, as a society should be "governed", (anothered word for controlled), based on fear. I would prefer to put my trust in the individual to look after their "food source" for their own self interest. In economic terms the "invisible hand", if you will.

The staff report gave no indication that there is a health risk with proper procedures or that property values would be lower. We don't tell citizens that they cannot buy raw meats because they may not wash counter tops and their hands after handling, and that poses a health risk. We don't tell citizens that they need to remove 37 garden gnomes from their front yard because there may be an aversion of certain people to that kind of individual expression, and property values may be impacted. To borrow MC's words from above, I am favor of allowing the majority of Downers Grove residents to practice their right to grow & raise food as they see fit, raise & educate their children as they see fit and use their land as they see fit - provided it does not unnecessarily infringe on public health, safety or environment. I am not in favor of municipal ordinances which arbitrarily limit individual freedoms. I am not sure what you meant by a "proliferation of chickens," but I definitely am against large flocks of well-armed chickens roaming Downers Grove. I don't think I have heard the word "proliferation" since the cold war...

Don - great comment...

Bill - many of your supporters have also failed to give their real names. Why should I let YOU and why should you let ME decide what occurs in our/your back yard? That should be something that happens only between me and my neighbors! Why do you care?!?!?

Bye,
You continue to show your lack of knowledge on issues.
Simply put, Com Durkin was always known as anti-bus and I have always been for the commuter shuttle. Your assessment of the single vote is mistaken. I hope you aren’t a commissioner or a candidate!
Your persistence on this issue makes you probably one of three people, none of whom know anything about the issue. You are wrong in your assumptions about the vote and effects.
I read the contract, did you? Didn’t think so.
Did you talk with the Village Attorney about the issue and contract? I did. Did you?
Were you aware of the relationship between the parties and the contract? I was. Were you? Didn't think so.
Were you aware that the contract as written could have had unnecessary and unwanted consequence by removing many residents from the ADA transportation which gets people to and from work, school, medical and that is their lifeline? I was. You weren’t.
You already have come out against seniors and disabled, so it wouldn’t have mattered to you anyway.

I think that this discussion is over. You asked about where I stood on this issue and I answered your question. You have, in your recent post, insinuated that I will be part of a system of political patronage and favors -- that borders on slander. Mr Waldack, please try to be civil. Thank you!!

THERE it is! The taking offense and ending discussion, the accusations, the demands for civility, wrapped around the perceived injury and insult of being slandered. Missing the usual demand for an apology, but 4 out of 5 is pretty good!!

You still have not answered any of the requests for your position. All you have said, is you would vote the same as Commissioners Rheintgen and Nuestadt.

Dan F.
I did not take offense, nor was I accusatory. I favor civility (kind of hoping that you and your good friend Mr Waldack do too). I am not part of a system of patronage and favors but, if Mr Waldack or you believe that, I recommend immediately contacting the State's Attorney. I answered Mr Waldack's questions regarding my views on the chicken ordinance discussion. I am disappointed that Mr Waldack was unable to address the chicken coop issue directly. He has not shared the sources that support his view on the ordinance. I have been clear about my position -- please read the thread, Dan.
Don
PS I perceive you are injured or insulted, and you demand an apology (OK - I used a bunch of your fun words and am 80% [or 4 out of 5 which you rate as pretty good] sure that you support Mr. Waldack.

MC,
I could say you intentionally misled, but what you have stated is nothing but pure lie. Never made those alleged phone calls. Is that supposed to help your cause and your candidate?

Mr Waldack
You asked for my view on this issue. i answered you and Dan F. I requested your sources earlier in this thread and you refused to provide them. I have reviewed the DG staff report and CDC materials, and have a different view than you. You also insinuated that I am part of a "system of patronage and favors," which I thought "borders on slander," as I am not part of any such system. I answered questions regarding my opinion on this issue based on my review of DG Village staff materials -- those materials were available to all of our citizens. So all I have to offer based on your rant is, "Bully for you..."

How dare you?!?!?! I speak for myself. Representative Sandack has never "mentored" me. I stand by my words.

Mr. Waldack, I don't know much about you but after reading your posts it seems you think the only way you can get your point across is to type in CAPS. I re-read many of them and I don't see your fact sources either. You obviously have a beef with Mr. Jankowski and I think you should contact him and converse face-to-face instead of hiding behind your computer. Just my two cents.

Bill,
The Issues the CDC is tracking are related more with hatcheries that are sending out chicks with the bacteria strains that infect humans. There are strains that are natural and do not infect humans or the birds but even basic hygene solves those problems. After reading these articles last year, I was more concerned about all the wild duck and goose poop in the parks here in Downers right next to the playgrounds and picnic benches. The best response I have seen on this issue is this, "Poop has germs in it, no matter what animal it comes from, chickens, humans, or otherwise. Anyone who handles an animal that walks through its own poop (cats, dogs, chickens, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs) and doesn't wash their hands is asking for trouble."

Dear Khess,
Because there is no evidence of this since most chickens are kept inside coops at night and fenced in during the day. There is enough food out there with free range rabbits, rodents, and garbage to keep a growing population of coyotes with food. It is a problem that needs solving but this is not the solution.

I have never posted on a site before. I hope Mr. Thompson can see this. I am sitting next door to the coyotes jumping the fence, into the neighbors yard, eating their chickens. That would be in broad daylight. The same time of day that they are stalking children, marking territory, and stealing dogs.

Dear Khess,
Is the village aware of this problem? Have you documented it? I would if I were you because that is a major concern and the first time I've heard of this. Measures need to be taken to ensure this does not continue. There are things we can do as neighbors and home owners to combat this problem and we need to make sure the city knows about these incidents and helps solve them.

JCo,
You should go back over meetings where I opposed the use of the Consent Agenda (in by Fri afternoon, passed by Tues on many issues). I opposed cutting back on meetings and pushed for separate workshop meetings and regular (voting) meetings.
I recently pointed out that what was voted on at one meeting was never discussed publicly but the result of behind-the-scenes phone calls and what was workshopped was not what was voted on. Please do your homework.
I suggested a referendum which would have resulted in public input on the issue and would have sparked discussion beyond what we are doing here. So as you point fingers, know who is in charge.
There has been no discussion of the issues other than “people need to be brought along”. Interpret that as you will. Do you think the issue is dead?
There is way too much apathy in this town and people should talk about issues in a way they are comfortable. Feel free to take any issue to a Council Meeting – Public Comment.
What I have a problem with is non-transparent public officials making decisions out of the public eye.

It was Bob Barnett who snuck through the commuter tax increase, not William Waldack.

And why do you refer to your colleagues on the dais as "the opposition"? Sounds like you just want to be against what anybody wants to do, versus working with them to come to some sort of agreement. And, it was Barnett that wanted to table the commuter parking fare structure because it was charging residents too much. Parking is not a tax. It's a fare. If it is too much, then take the shuttle or car pool.

Bailey,
There was no vote. Council knew it was coming and had time to think about it. There were at least 4 “head nods” to continue conversation. I later recommended an April referendum and did not get head nods, and then came the Jan.22 meeting where again no votes were taken but statements made indicated not to go further (possibly during strategic planning which takes place after the election).
I did not support changing the current ordinance as did all but Rheintgen and Neustadt.

Personal attacks? http://billwaldack.com/ was nothing but a personal attack against anybody that disagreed with you

Furthermore, what even brought me into this cesspool was the personal attacks that were thrown on to a man that cares for this village. If you look back at all of my posts in the past ,most deal with dispelling misconceptions.

Exactly... in fact, i have been a Durkin supporter and the fact that he refused to even have a discussion bummed me out. I knew Waldack would be against it, because Becky proposed it.

"Please be honest Mr. Waldack"

I wouldn't hold my breath, Bailey. The guy is majorly self-delusional (in addition to being insufferable).

And as far as any 'substantive' arguments he has put forth on the issue: he is using a lot of the same strategies as the climate change deniers - cherry picking, exaggerating harm, and just a general poor synthesis of available information. I learned long ago to ignore those people and focus on solutions instead.

In any case, it is a waste of time to even engage him. He will soon be gone and his opinion will no longer matter any more than that of the other bitter old men in this town.

Mr. Cawthorne,
Never happened so keep throwing out the lies, you reflect well upon the members of your party. You can’t even keep the meetings you lie about straight. Never said. Let’s see you support- Barnett, Jankowski, Durkin, Neustadt, Sandack, and Mrs. Rheintgen.

Are you ready to talk about the issue here? “Bye” the way. Thanks for the plug on the website. I guess I will have to update it now. Tommy, I am very sorry you can’t tell the difference between political opinion and personal attacks.
Try reading it.

As for this discussion, the question was to have Staff spend time and resources to change the current ordinance, not for discussion of the issue. Council members decided not to look at the issue several times before. A minimal estimate of resources already spent easily exceeds $5,000

Jerry – Firstly, I do not speak for any council member or the mayor. I know of them but have never talked with any of them directly on this topic.
While I find it very interesting that you focused on the mayor when all others have kept quiet, and since I did want to see changes in the law to support more chickens, and because I am one of the 500 that can and one of the smaller minority that do, I have enough skin in the game to discuss whether or not the ball has been dropped. First of all, the recommendations by the staff to increase the number of lots that can have chickens were never voted on - this was only a discussion. Secondly, the changes to the ordinance were designed to cover the current owners who wanted to keep their chickens but were in violation - this does not mean that there isn't another way to solve that specific problem more strategically. And lastly, I think we are in the first inning of the game here and it might take a while to finish it up. It is valid to punt this early when you suspect you will have better field advantage later on. Nothing has been voted on so nothing is thrown out and the real loser last Tuesday was not the mayor or council members, but the few people who had to give up their chickens.

David - It does make the mayor look incompetent. As I said, I have no desire to have chickens for myself, but the idea was so good I'm surprised it's facing ANY resistance. The fact that this didn't fly through when the WALL STREET JOURNAL is lauding CHICKENS reveals a problem with uninformed leadership. The excuses I'm hearing why it didn't pass - property values, too much too soon, is just double talk for "I bent to political pressure". You're very nice David - but this isn't a situation for patience and tolerance - the mayor got pushed around by a few council members and realtors whose relevance in this town can only be measured by political games and previous accomplishments. Downers Grove lost $$$ as a result of this decision, this is a new trend that needs to be adopted. If you don't get chickens, you're TOO OLD.

Well, it would be nice to be able to purchase organic chicken feed from a local store instead of driving to Indian Head Park! I agree that property values and health issues are a misconstrued and I know that predator issues can be easily mitigated. I never really looked at this as a financial loss to the community so I thank you for adding that. There is a lot of political pressure in the council which does concern me, but, I don't believe that the mayor’s support would have changed the other members minds so I can't say this should be placed squarely on his shoulders.

Jerry:

While I welcome and respect your somewhat brusquely-stated comments, candidly, they are either mis- or uninformed. Case in point, you plainly have not reviewed any of the extensive comments I made at the Finance & Administrative Committee meeting on this subject. Nor do you appreciate that sweeping, needlessly overly-broad land use decisions make for poor process and can establish undesirable, even dangerous precedent. Of course, you also have no way of knowing of the conversations I have had with the handful of residents who currently can’t keep chickens (but would like to) about developing a more tailored, appropriate and thoughtful solution than what was initially proposed. (In short, anything worth doing is worth doing correctly, yes?) Finally, since you have never discussed this issue with me or, for that matter even met with me, you would have no way of knowing my level of “education,” or that, as an old chess player, I have never been a pawn (or a knight, bishop, or rook) of so-called “political pressure.” (1 of 2)

To that end, I invite you to actually sit down over coffee and discuss with me firsthand the issue, as I suspect you may have some ideas that would be helpful to crafting a solution that both fits with the expectations of our community and addresses the concerns expressed by your neighbors, some of who are very well-educated but strongly disagree with your opinions on this matter. As someone sworn to represent the best interests of the entire community, not just one vocal segment or another, I would welcome the opportunity. I think you might even learn something from the experience. Please call me direct at your convenience: 312-927-1562. Many thanks. (2 of 2)

Mayor Martin Tully

Thank you - what made me comment was that the Wall Street Journal THIS WEEK has identified backyard chicken coops as a 'modern homesteader' craze. This chicken proposal was an advanced idea that illustrated a great insight into today's modern issues, backed up by this week's WSJ! Maybe the mayor can find someone that knows how to use "the google" for "Backyard Farming Gets Fancy". This WSJ issue just emphasizes how sad this decision is - and reveals that our town's leader does not reflect the sophistication of the average Downers Grove resident. There could have been opportunities for local businesses to profit from this craze - at $1300 per coop, not to mention the other utensils required - this has to be the most shortsighted decision that I've seen. This was a money making machine, and we just passed it up. If you don't get chickens - you're TOO OLD.

Gee, I wish we had brought up a loss in local revenue at the meeting. I don't recall that point being made.

Now I know why the "chicken crossed the road"... it was to spend its money in another town!

I see no reason we can't start up a store anyway or work with an existing store to carry some of these products. This might help educate the community.