[Grovenet] What the cluck?

Thu Jun 11 00:03:49 PDT 2009

At the risk of egging this discussion on, maybe instead of housing chickens 
at individual  residences,  a system of neighborhood  coops could be placed 
throughout the community, along the lines of a community garden. Small plots 
could be strategically located in several areas around the city containing 
small individual coops that would be assigned to families. These clucker 
clusters could be located in areas that would have minimal noise and odor 
impact while still being conveniently located close to neighborhoods.

I'm not yoking or trying to  ruffle anyone's feathers here.  Communal 
chicken coops would be a wonderful means of offsetting the deleterious 
effects of the giant flag and all of it's negative connotations. Anyone 
embarrassed of the impression that outsiders may acquire from the flag's 
presence can point out the communal coops as a progressive community 
attribute.

Steve "thank God I'm a country boy" Jerrett

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Holly T." <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?

> Yep, that's a pretty astute summary of what's been goin' down lately in 
> The Grove, Mark.
>
> I'd love to see the flag come down and replaced by another of equal size 
> that has a great, big chicken appliqued on it. One that holds a sign that 
> reads, "Cluck permits and license fees!"
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mark oberzil <obrzl at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:56:29 PM
> Subject: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
>
> Lemme see if I got this straight (I've been out of town):
>
> Put up a giant flag in a public place -no permit required.
>
> Put a few pullets out of sight on your own property, and here comes the 
> government with its hand out?
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 6/10/09, Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Allen Warren <osubuckeye59 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Chicken Amendment
> To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 5:39 PM
>
>
> It's interesting how the Council is reconsidering requiring a Residential 
> Permit, especially since there are already homeowners within city limits 
> raising chickens today.  But since most of these homeowners don't have 
> roosters, neighbors don't readily notice chickens in the vicinity.
>
> All pets are "supposed" to be licensed, but truth is there is some 
> percentage of pet owners who never license their pets, and this becomes a 
> problem when said pets are found wandering the streets or captured as a 
> result of the pet attacking another pet/person or the pet being a 
> nuisance.  With chickens, there's really no incentive for a homeowner to 
> obtain a permit for the chickens and, again, if the chickens are 
> unnoticeable/undetected, there will be some homeowners who simply forgo 
> the cost of obtaining a permit.  Plus with chickens, homeowners realize 
> they need to do everything possible to keep them caged/restricted more so 
> to do with preventing the likes of raccoons from getting in and eating the 
> chickens.
>
> I truly don't understand the logic of Residential Permits for chickens, 
> other than the City would then know who has/has not chickens.  But maybe 
> the only logic is to get additional monies, however small they be, for the 
> city coffers.  And no, we don't own any chickens.  :-)
>
> Maybe I'll show up at the next meeting to find out details.
>
> Question: who manages Council meetings?  Sets & publishes the agendas? 
> Publishes minutes?
>
> Allen Warren
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Martha Khoury <khourym at verizon.net>
> To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:21:57 AM
> Subject: [Grovenet] Chicken Amendment
>
> WHAT??!!
>
> Did I hear you say they are back to permits for the residential zone?
>
> Didn't they hear me say... "minimal bureaucracy?"
>
> Did someone mention that the staff had worked through that idea
> already and REJECTED it?
>
> I love TriMet, but that guy coming threw us off schedule so badly that
> I missed all the important stuff.
> And the mayor talks way too much.
>
> --Martha K.
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:08 PM, David Morelli wrote:
>
>> The chicken legislation is not an "emergency" so there will be two
>> public readings before the vote.  The first reading was Monday and
>> the next reading was scheduled, likely for the next regular council
>> meeting.  Because there was a change to the area impacted by the
>> proposed permit process that was not in the originally published
>> announcement, they have extended the testimony period for that single
>> item.  People may provide written comment on the expansion of the
>> area subject to permits from the Commercial Zone to both the
>> Commercial Zone and the Single Family Residence Zone.  There may also
>> be public testimony on that single item at the next hearing on the
>> legislation.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Bob Browning wrote:
>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet 