3 ms·

I have no problem with backyard chickens but I do dislike this issue being used by libertarians as a wedge. Property rights shouldn’t be sacrosanct over and abo

I have no problem with backyard chickens but I do dislike this issue being used by libertarians as a wedge. Property rights shouldn’t be sacrosanct over and above reasonable restrictions by the broader community.

TulliusCicero 1y ago
I don't see the issue you see here. It seems like the city fucked things up and is now penalizing the woman to cover up their own incompetence. One would think that any sensible person would object to this, not just libertarians.
- tptacek 1y ago
  Not really? Under the city's rules, she's not allowed to have backyard chickens. She's refusing to get rid of them, and recurring fines are how cities respond to that. (I'm aware there's a claim the city mismanaged its rules).
  - TulliusCicero 1y ago
    Yes really? She got explicit permission from the city to raise the chickens, and then they tried to pull the rug out from under her later, after she'd already spent thousands on a chicken coop. > The city claimed that it had forgotten to notify the neighbors of their right to object during the review process and had therefore done so retroactively. Like lmao, that's not how due process works man. You can't tell someone they can build something, then go "oh whoops we fucked up, you can't build it after all" after they're already done and then punish them for it. Imagine if NYC tried to pull this for a high-rise after it was already constructed. "Oh you already built it? Sorry man, turns out you're not allowed to put a building that tall there, you'll have to take it down. Oopsies!"
    - nemomarx 1y ago
      Yeah, I can see the neighbors having an issue with the city (failed to notify them) but the remedy should reasonably be between those neighbors and the city for losing an opportunity to object. Retroactively removing permission doesn't make sense.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    That’s not quite accurate. There was a procedural failure where the city issued a permit while failing to follow its process. It an internal control failure, and the permitee by all accounts acted in good faith.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  The city fucked up by accidentally telling her she was allowed to have chickens when in fact she’s not.
  - TulliusCicero 1y ago
    Right, and if the neighbors have a problem with the city fucking up, that makes sense. The city should be punished for their fuckup. The person who shouldn't be punished is the woman who only built a chicken coop after the city explicitly granted her permission.
    - School-Cotton 1y ago
      She doesn’t have permission and never did. They accidentally told her she did. Now that she knows about the mistake she needs to get rid of her chickens. I’d support her being able to force the city to reimburse her for her costs but it’s ludicrous to say someone should be allowed to permanently do something illegal because at one point they were told it was legal due to a bureaucratic mistake.
      - trollbridge 1y ago
        The entire point of a permit is that you can do something and invest without worrying about the city later saying “oh sorry, you can’t do that”.
      - TulliusCicero 1y ago
        > She doesn’t have permission and never did. Yes she did. The city explicitly granted her permission. If they fucked up their own process, that's on them, not her. > I’d support her being able to force the city to reimburse her for her costs but it’s ludicrous to say someone should be allowed to permanently do something illegal because at one point they were told it was legal due to a bureaucratic mistake. So if someone constructed a high rise in Manhattan and after it was already finished, and NYC tried to say, "oh sorry turns out we gave you that building permit erroneously, we screwed up how we handled the permitting process, you'll have to take it down now", you'd think that was reasonable? 99% of people would think that was absolutely crazy if they tried to do that, unless there was an actual safety issue involved.
tptacek 1y ago
That's true, but "neighbors have a veto over whether you can do X" is an untenable way to manage those property rights. A bigger city would codify limits on what you can do with waterfowl or whatever. Douglas doesn't even have a city attorney.
- TulliusCicero 1y ago
  Exactly. It's nonsense to have a law that says, "you can do X on your property unless someone, anyone objects". Imagine if other laws all worked that way. Oh, you can drive whatever speed you want, unless someone else on the road with you has a problem with it!
  - Bjartr 1y ago
    You can, however, drive any speed you want on your own property.
    - readams 1y ago
      And yet, if you tried it, you might find this often not as true as you might think.
    - Spooky23 1y ago
      Not if your excessive speed is exacerbating my migraines and disrupting the sleep patterns of my cats. Also, the dust thrown up by your excessive speed by vehicle is increasing particulate matter in the air, which may contain known carcinogenic compounds.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  The charitable take would be that chickens are otherwise forbidden, but having all your neighbors approval grants an exception. Reading the article I wouldn't assume her city to be in that position, but the system itself can have merits depending on how it's deployed.
pfdietz 1y ago
So, you can't accept when libertarians are right?
TulliusCicero 1y ago
I can understand having restrictions against chickens in an area, but "you can do this unless a single neighbor objects" is a crazy way of handling it imo.
- MiddleEndian 1y ago
  Yeah. The FDA exists for some level of food safety and that's fine over-all. even if they sometimes make mistakes in one direction or another. But my neighbors can't randomly veto my lunch. That would be absurd lol
chimpansteve 1y ago
I guess it depends. There's been a major issue in the UK for a while regarding quite a few very iconic, decades old, live music venues. Back in the day they were in less salubrious areas of town so no one really cared, but now they're prime property with very expensive flats being put up all around them. Many of the new residents never even do so much as even visit the area before buying them, and then immediately (and sadly often successfully) put in noise complaints attempting to get the venues shut down, despite the already strict licensing laws (curfew at 10.30 at the absolute latest, no outside drinking etc).
- TulliusCicero 1y ago
  That's the kind of situation where I think both sides are kinda right. I see what you're getting at here, but from the other side, it's reasonable for people to be bothered by loud noise where they live. If it was gonna be a problem, the real answer is that the government shouldn't have permitted housing right next to places that are gonna stay loud. Or maybe mandated stricter soundproofing requirements for flats.
  - trollbridge 1y ago
    Except there’s always been housing around these music venues. The problem is the housing went from affordable housing for working class people to “investments” for rich people.
    - TulliusCicero 1y ago
      In either case, people have a right to reasonable peace and quiet where they live. That this wasn't addressed when the neighborhood was more blue collar doesn't make it okay once it's not.
cynicalpeace 1y ago
Incurring your neighbor $200,000 in costs for having 7 chickens is a "reasonable restriction"

TulliusCicero 1y ago

I don't see the issue you see here. It seems like the city fucked things up and is now penalizing the woman to cover up their own incompetence. One would think that any sensible person would object to this, not just libertarians.

tptacek 1y ago
Not really? Under the city's rules, she's not allowed to have backyard chickens. She's refusing to get rid of them, and recurring fines are how cities respond to that. (I'm aware there's a claim the city mismanaged its rules).
- TulliusCicero 1y ago
  Yes really? She got explicit permission from the city to raise the chickens, and then they tried to pull the rug out from under her later, after she'd already spent thousands on a chicken coop. > The city claimed that it had forgotten to notify the neighbors of their right to object during the review process and had therefore done so retroactively. Like lmao, that's not how due process works man. You can't tell someone they can build something, then go "oh whoops we fucked up, you can't build it after all" after they're already done and then punish them for it. Imagine if NYC tried to pull this for a high-rise after it was already constructed. "Oh you already built it? Sorry man, turns out you're not allowed to put a building that tall there, you'll have to take it down. Oopsies!"
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    Yeah, I can see the neighbors having an issue with the city (failed to notify them) but the remedy should reasonably be between those neighbors and the city for losing an opportunity to object. Retroactively removing permission doesn't make sense.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  That’s not quite accurate. There was a procedural failure where the city issued a permit while failing to follow its process. It an internal control failure, and the permitee by all accounts acted in good faith.
School-Cotton 1y ago
The city fucked up by accidentally telling her she was allowed to have chickens when in fact she’s not.
- TulliusCicero 1y ago
  Right, and if the neighbors have a problem with the city fucking up, that makes sense. The city should be punished for their fuckup. The person who shouldn't be punished is the woman who only built a chicken coop after the city explicitly granted her permission.
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    She doesn’t have permission and never did. They accidentally told her she did. Now that she knows about the mistake she needs to get rid of her chickens. I’d support her being able to force the city to reimburse her for her costs but it’s ludicrous to say someone should be allowed to permanently do something illegal because at one point they were told it was legal due to a bureaucratic mistake.
    - trollbridge 1y ago
      The entire point of a permit is that you can do something and invest without worrying about the city later saying “oh sorry, you can’t do that”.
    - TulliusCicero 1y ago
      > She doesn’t have permission and never did. Yes she did. The city explicitly granted her permission. If they fucked up their own process, that's on them, not her. > I’d support her being able to force the city to reimburse her for her costs but it’s ludicrous to say someone should be allowed to permanently do something illegal because at one point they were told it was legal due to a bureaucratic mistake. So if someone constructed a high rise in Manhattan and after it was already finished, and NYC tried to say, "oh sorry turns out we gave you that building permit erroneously, we screwed up how we handled the permitting process, you'll have to take it down now", you'd think that was reasonable? 99% of people would think that was absolutely crazy if they tried to do that, unless there was an actual safety issue involved.

tptacek 1y ago

That's true, but "neighbors have a veto over whether you can do X" is an untenable way to manage those property rights. A bigger city would codify limits on what you can do with waterfowl or whatever. Douglas doesn't even have a city attorney.

TulliusCicero 1y ago
Exactly. It's nonsense to have a law that says, "you can do X on your property unless someone, anyone objects". Imagine if other laws all worked that way. Oh, you can drive whatever speed you want, unless someone else on the road with you has a problem with it!
- Bjartr 1y ago
  You can, however, drive any speed you want on your own property.
  - readams 1y ago
    And yet, if you tried it, you might find this often not as true as you might think.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    Not if your excessive speed is exacerbating my migraines and disrupting the sleep patterns of my cats. Also, the dust thrown up by your excessive speed by vehicle is increasing particulate matter in the air, which may contain known carcinogenic compounds.
makeitdouble 1y ago
The charitable take would be that chickens are otherwise forbidden, but having all your neighbors approval grants an exception. Reading the article I wouldn't assume her city to be in that position, but the system itself can have merits depending on how it's deployed.

pfdietz 1y ago

So, you can't accept when libertarians are right?

TulliusCicero 1y ago

I can understand having restrictions against chickens in an area, but "you can do this unless a single neighbor objects" is a crazy way of handling it imo.

MiddleEndian 1y ago
Yeah. The FDA exists for some level of food safety and that's fine over-all. even if they sometimes make mistakes in one direction or another. But my neighbors can't randomly veto my lunch. That would be absurd lol

chimpansteve 1y ago

I guess it depends. There's been a major issue in the UK for a while regarding quite a few very iconic, decades old, live music venues. Back in the day they were in less salubrious areas of town so no one really cared, but now they're prime property with very expensive flats being put up all around them. Many of the new residents never even do so much as even visit the area before buying them, and then immediately (and sadly often successfully) put in noise complaints attempting to get the venues shut down, despite the already strict licensing laws (curfew at 10.30 at the absolute latest, no outside drinking etc).

TulliusCicero 1y ago
That's the kind of situation where I think both sides are kinda right. I see what you're getting at here, but from the other side, it's reasonable for people to be bothered by loud noise where they live. If it was gonna be a problem, the real answer is that the government shouldn't have permitted housing right next to places that are gonna stay loud. Or maybe mandated stricter soundproofing requirements for flats.
- trollbridge 1y ago
  Except there’s always been housing around these music venues. The problem is the housing went from affordable housing for working class people to “investments” for rich people.
  - TulliusCicero 1y ago
    In either case, people have a right to reasonable peace and quiet where they live. That this wasn't addressed when the neighborhood was more blue collar doesn't make it okay once it's not.

cynicalpeace 1y ago

Incurring your neighbor $200,000 in costs for having 7 chickens is a "reasonable restriction"