Regarding the recent article "Chickens Coming to a Yard Near You", I felt slighted with the line "no reason for objection was given by Godbey". First and foremost, there is no city ordinance that a council member is required to give a reason for how they vote. However, I am happy to respond now as to why I went with nay. I was prepared to respond during discussion when asked for by the mayor. For some reason he did not ask for any discussion on the matter at hand. The question was not asked, therefore not answered.
My response would have been something like the following. Last month (November) we listened to discussion on the matter. I would say that 75% of that discussion was more negative than positive. Attracting varmints, cats and dogs and lack of clean up on a regular basis by the owner were at the top of the list of negative comments. The point was made that the ordinance enforcer could take care of the lack of maintenance problems. I would have stated that Scott has enough on his plate with other issues in the city without needing to spend time going to homeowner's properties checking on "poop in the coop".
But, ultimately, the main reason I voted no was that I feel allowing chickens in city limits is opening up a Pandora's Box of headaches for the future. We do not allow horses (other than those grandfathered in) in city limits. Should we now allow this? Chickens were from the livestock ordinance. Kennels are not allowed per the livestock ordinance. Should we change this as well?
I could go on and on, but hopefully everyone gets the idea. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my position on this matter.
Respectfully,
Tom Godbey
