The public hearing on the proposed changes to permit up to three hens as a permitted land use in residential-single (RS) zoned areas of Salem nearly foundered tonight. A bare 5-vote majority of the Council was determined to have some kind of hen-allowing result, but the only thing that could get five votes was to kick the can over to the Planning Commission so that they can ponder the imponderables awhile and then report something back to the City Council (after a mandatory public hearing and at least a 45-day process), when the process will begin again, exactly where it left off.
In other words, it was a grim night at City Hall, till nearly 11 p.m. We almost lost it entirely, although the Mayor's throwing her support to allowing hens in some form saved the day and was very welcome indeed.
The bottom line is that there are a number of councilors who need to ask themselves some fundamental questions about why they serve on city council and how they have come to see their role as conflict-avoidance cops who have a very low opinion of Salem residents.
These councilors all make what Ward 1's Chuck Bennett called "obsequious" bows to the Chickens in the Yard advocates, hmmming and hawwing about how all the CITY folks would, of course, be "impeccable" at keeping hens without causing problems ("Compliance" boss Brady Rogers' term). But, after acknowledging that anyone who is motivated can care for hens properly, these councilors turned right around and voted to say, in effect, that it doesn't matter.
Instead of seeing local government as the agent for building community, they see government's job as anticipating the worst conduct from people and preparing accordingly. In other words, your reward for being a solid citizen is to be ignored in favor of governmental policies that are built on the low opinion of that the councilors have of most of us.
Of course, the miscreants that these councilors fear --- and thus, the ones they actually pay attention to when considering policies -- don't care what the council does or doesn't do. The irresponsible will keep chickens (including roosters) if they want, just like they keep pit bulls, play loud music at all hours, and other anti-social things. And they will play games with any enforcement scheme. The net result of the government as cop mindset that these councilors have is the conflict-avoidance of the no-man's-land: avoiding conflict by privileging objections over actions, giving anyone with a fear a trump card.
The anti-chicken councilors call ignoring the wishes of the responsible citizenry because of fears about irresponsible ones "avoiding conflict" but it actually just decides the conflict in favor of intrusive government that thinks badly of most of its citizens.
As the Mayor said, we've got lots of real issues in Salem that could benefit from this intense level of scrutiny from Council: graffiti, often gang-inspired if not directly gang-related, abandoned cars, homelessness, hunger, high rates of teen pregnancy and dropping out of school. In the face of all these difficult problems, the Salem City Council is apparently not yet ready to let its residents keep a few hens.
Weird juxtaposition: Another presentation, donation, and plaudits for the work of the Marion-Polk Food Share at the start of the meeting tonight. Followed by a couple of hours of hemming and hawing about whether home henkeeping is really saving money or would help with food security or not. Bizarre.
And as much as one might try to respect the opponents, most of them embarass themselves. One in particular tried to tie meth labs to chickens (some meth addicts have tried making meth in chicken coops before! -- but of course that applies to bathtubs too, so . . . ) and then ordered all pro-chicken types to move to the country. Another argued that we shouldn't have urban hens for eggs because it would cut the income of local farmers out in the counties. I guess we shouldn't be allowed to grow vegetables for the same reason.
Posts
