To the editor:
The Monday, June 20 city council meeting was a sham.
A number of people gave their comments in favour of or against having backyard chickens in all of Thunder Bay, not just the rural designated area as it is now.
Councilors asked a number of questions of the proposed by law to permit backyard chickens. Neebing Coun. Linda Rydholm said she grew up on a farm and they had chickens. At-large Coun. Rebecca Johnson said it will teach our children where our food comes from and we as a community will be at the forefront spearheading the backyard chicken movement.
Northwood Coun. Shelby Ch’ng said in 50 years our children will be sitting in the seats of administration and council proud of what we just did.
At-large Coun. Aldo Ruberto repeatedly asked that details be added to the present proposed bylaw.
Senior planner and author of the bylaw, Thora Cartlidge, told him that the concerns were covered in other city bylaws. Ruberto wanted to see details that the coop/ or building would be of a standard that would be aesthetically pleasing and maintained which was also requested by the Health Unit ,and not bring down property values.
Two representatives of the Thunder Bay Real Estate Board pointed out that homes with abutting backyard chickens could be harder to sell, deter buyers, and possibly lower property values.
Ruberto asked that if someone in enforcement saw a violation, how that would be dealt with. Administration said that it would only be dealt with if a resident filed a complaint; the bylaw enforcement would be driven by complaint only. Ruberto said if you saw the violation would you drive right past it and the administrator said yes I would drive right past it - the violation.
Once again administration was asked how the city could enforce a bylaw that is so loose that interpretation can be many things.
Cartlidge was asked why the bylaw does not state that the chickens can not run free and the councilor was told that was IMPLIED. She was asked how this bylaw could be legal when the official plan only allows chickens in the rural and rural residential zones where the frontage is 60 metres (200 feet) and minimum two hectares.
Council was basically told that by calling the chickens pets this bylaw would fit in the framework of the official plan.
Red River Coun. Brian McKinnon stated that 90 per cent of the calls he received from his constituents were against backyard chickens and he could not vote in favour of such a poorly written bylaw that goes against the wishes of the people.
McIntyre Coun. Trevor Giertuga and At-large Coun. Iain Angus reiterated many of the same reasons they were not voting for backyard chickens.
At-large Coun. Larry Hebert stated that the majority of the people who contacted him were against backyard chickens.
As well as Mayor Keith Hobbs, Couns. Paul Pugh and Frank Pullia were absent; what do their constituents want? Will we see the next meeting run by council not administration? I hope so.
It was evident that three would not vote in favour.
Most of the councilors who spoke out either said they were against backyard chickens or they could not support this proposed bylaw as it was too loose.
When administration's Mark Smith realized the amendment would not pass, he proposed that what was on the table was a draft of a bylaw and council could give suggestions and he / administration would make any changes council wanted. By this time the meeting had gone on for more than four hours and all were tired. Aldo Ruberto placed out an amendment that would tighten the bylaw. Three councillors, Angus, McKinnon and Giertuga, were against the bylaw to allow backyard chickens and others did not like the wording.
Smith said that he would include anything councilors wanted. At this time city manager Norm Gale stated this is the bylaw as presented and no changes will be made. It will come back to vouncil as is.
Administration wanted to save the bylaw apparently and did everything they could to save it. That is not their job. Since when does city administration tell council what to do?
We, the residents, voted for council and they represent the people of Thunder Bay.
All I saw was an administration that wanted the bylaw to pass and they were doing anything possible to have it go through. In this way, Administration would not have to deal with the topic and they would not have to enforce much as the bylaw was so loose. Also, the city does not have the resources to enforce the bylaw so it will be complaint driven.
When many councilors ask to have the bylaw strengthened and an administrative member in charge of the bylaw says we will do anything you ask, then Why can it not be done?
Council can still place on the floor an amendment that can strengthen the bylaw and/or vote against backyard chickens.
Couns. Johnson, Rydhollm and Ch’ng, who are in favour of backyard chickens did not say how strongly their constituents felt for or against the present bylaw.
They constantly stressed sustainable food, gardens, education, fresh eggs but the bylaw is for chickens in your residential backyard. If you do not want backyard chickens, phone your councilor and if the mailbox of the phone is full drop off a sheet or note giving your opinion.
Why not start a petition in your municipality and show how the majority of the your community feels?
A majority of residents of Thunder Bay were unaware to the issue of having backyard chickens.
The reason that they were unaware was that there was no survey, pro or con for the City as a whole. According to a councillor, a survey was too expensive. Mention on a website by the food strategy group for sustainable food have you thinking of gardens not raising chickens in residential areas.
Who is running our city? I thought we elected the council to operate our city on the present bylaws within our official plan and follow the wishes of the majority of the voters. Not administration. This should not be happening.
Arlene and Gary Ramsdale,
Thunder Bay
