My Strong Opinion - The Workshop Packet Is Bias And Not Balanced ...

I have finished unpacking the workshop document and have come to the conclusion that it is strongly bias in a negative way. It is my opinion that it is not a balanced presentation of the positive aspects of backyard hen ownership.

Here is the last paragraph:

"In conclusion, staff believes the City's interests would be best served by protecting the peace, quiet, and quality of life issues that are paramount concerns for single-family neighborhoods, while noting that there are current provisions for keeping of chickens within the City."

1. "... staff believes the City's interest would be best served ...": The real issue here is protecting the City's interest of the status quo. This document is about the City's interests and not the residents'. What should have been written is, " The interests of the invested citizens of the City of Bakersfield would be best served ..."

2. "... by protecting the peace, quiet, and quality of life issues ..."" Who are they protecting? Not you and me. The residents of Bakersfield don't need their protection from hen noise. They write in the first paragraph of their conclusion section, "... very definite potential problems, issues and complaints to be generated that would be disproportionate to the benefits." 24 letters written with six people speaking in person over the last several months (all in favor of backyard hens) with no recorded negative comments. Our large numbers with website visits (hundreds), Facebook membership (hundreds) and online petition signatures (hundreds) is who they are talking about when they say "protecting" and "potential" and "disproportionate to benefits." Us - the single-family neighborhoods. Again, this is clearly about their interests.

3. "... issues that are paramount concerns ...": Paramount is another very strong and loaded word. How can it be paramount with only approximately 10 annual complaints that they respond to? Again, bias and unbalance conclusion.

4. "... there are current provisions for keeping chickens within the City.": I believe this refers to the R-S ordinance that allows chickens. That ordinance allows for unlimited roosters and hens with no permit. (Granted, there are setback expectations.) This can be on a lot size of 24,000 square feet. This is equal to 0.55 acres. My R-1 zone lot is 0.31 acres = 13,503 square feet. I live on a lot that is more than half the allowable lot size. Maybe a compromise can be reached where I can have half of unlimited hens and roosters. They are saying, "Move somewhere else." Again, their interest. "More work for you and none for me."

5. The paragraph prior to this one states "potential for added cost and burdens to Code Enforcement department ...": Potential is not happening and they should not get away with it. If we want to play the "potential" game then backyard hens can "potentially" save the City money as being bio-recycler partners (eating food wasted and composting to reduce City trash). Actually, this is factual.

My concluding thoughts: The culture of Bakersfield is one where people already own hens in the R-1 zones and are currently raising them. This has been true for years. Neighbors without hens accept this and value it. The City's own data shows that this is true and that it is being done in a responsible and respectful manner. There is no evidence that this would change. The real benefits of backyard hens outweigh their "potential" negatives, while the real negatives that exist have solutions that the Bakersfield community already have practicing solutions for. How can they brush aside food security and not even mention the benefits of child participation/education? Their conclusion has no room for a compromise where we work together to find an agreeable plan. This is very disappointing. Final thought, many of my new friends that I have made from the previous months of working with the community on trying to amend the City's ordinance are scared and intimidated by the "potential" backlash and retaliation that the City might do to them if they knew that they currently own hens. This is a silent and large group that our City Council Members don't even hear from. If the Council Members do not recognize this or acknowledge it they are out of touch with who they serve. I do not want to believe this. I am hopeful that they will also come to the conclusion that the workshop packet presentation from the City Employees is unbalanced and negatively bias.

You need to write, call and/or be there in person this Wednesday, August 12th at 3:30 to let the Council know how you feel and what you want. Or, the unbalanced and clearly negatively bias workshop packet will.