[Grovenet] GroveNet Digest, Vol 55, Issue 9
Theresa Carter
theresacus at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 11 18:23:07 PDT 2009
Speaking of the flag... has anyone else noticed that it is not to American Flag specifications. The stripes are too long. http://www.montney.com/flag/proportions.htm
Take a look at it on a windy day and you too will see what I am talking about.
It currently is not lite at night either and no one is taking it down as per the rules.
The answer to your question is they did not have a permit but they did changed the height requirement to accomodate the flag and then changed it back after the installation.
Theresa Carter
--- On Thu, 6/11/09, grovenet-request at rdrop.com <grovenet-request at rdrop.com> wrote:
From: grovenet-request at rdrop.com <grovenet-request at rdrop.com>
Subject: GroveNet Digest, Vol 55, Issue 9
To: grovenet at rdrop.com
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 12:00 PM
Send GroveNet mailing list submissions to
grovenet at rdrop.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
grovenet-request at rdrop.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
grovenet-owner at rdrop.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of GroveNet digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. trumpet teachers (Martha Khoury)
2. What the cluck? (mark oberzil)
3. Re: What the cluck? (Steven)
4. Re: What the cluck? (Holly T.)
5. Re: What the cluck? (Steve Jerrett)
6. Re: What the cluck? (Steven)
7. Re: What the cluck? (Katie Allnutt)
8. Re: What the cluck? (Katie Allnutt)
9. Re: What the cluck? (Martha Khoury)
10. E-Card from an OleHoss (OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:32:57 -0700
From: Martha Khoury <khourym at verizon.net>
Subject: [Grovenet] trumpet teachers
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <06952F2D-7AB4-41A8-9D86-2C1E9277E0B4 at verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Anyone have a personal recommendation for summer trumpet lessons?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: mark oberzil <obrzl at verizon.net>
Subject: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <511694.44653.qm at web84203.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:10:41 -0700
From: "Steven" <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <FBEAKAJNIJPKEDCBPHFNGEJFMAAA.NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The tyrant in the grove.
Best description since the time he tried to tax the property of businesses
except his own.
-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
Behalf Of mark oberzil
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:56 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
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
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Holly T." <feralcattamer at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <572578.5970.qm at web56104.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:03:49 -0700
From: "Steve Jerrett" <stevedj at teleport.com>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <756707BAE9614D30885623D68CB8EF61 at Maincomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
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
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:17:27 -0700
From: "Steven" <NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
To: "Forest Grove local interests list" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <FBEAKAJNIJPKEDCBPHFNCEJGMAAA.NoSpam03 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
How about the community coop being at the flag triangle.
This would put everything for the birds in one location.
-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
Behalf Of Steve Jerrett
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:04 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
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
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:25:57 -0700
From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <E421F031-594D-4821-B35E-3AB138A172CE at verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Isn't it because the city itself (parks dept) put up the city owned
(donated to the city) flag?
Does the city require itself to get permits? I'm not
On Jun 10, 2009, at 10:56 PM, mark oberzil wrote:
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:28:25 -0700
From: Katie Allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <69787DA1-6393-4D39-96C6-93C04CB5C726 at verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Isn't it because the city itself (parks dept) put up the city owned
(donated to the city) flag?
Does the city require itself to get permits? I'm not going to be
amazed if they don't.
Katie
On Jun 10, 2009, at 10:56 PM, mark oberzil wrote:
> 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
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:14:04 -0700
From: Martha Khoury <khourym at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] What the cluck?
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Message-ID: <BA506796-EB5C-4014-838B-D342D973AD8A at verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I read an Oregonian article about just such a thing in SE Portland.
Frankly, I want to keep mine to myself. The area in the article seemed
to be much higher density. --MK
On Jun 11, 2009, at 12:03 AM, Steve Jerrett wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: 11 Jun 2009 09:42:16
From: OleHossTreeFarm at webtv.net
Subject: [Grovenet] E-Card from an OleHoss
To: GroveNet at rdrop.com
Message-ID: <200906111642.n5BGgSQK049442 at www168.123greetings.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hi,
Congrats for Free Iphone.
http://tinyurl.com/2a86ht
Hurry. the offer is limited.!
You have been just sent an electronic greeting card at Nicegreetings.com - The free site for online greeting cards! (http://www.nicegreetings.com)
To view your card, choose from any of the following options
which works best for you.
--------
Method 1
--------
Just click on the following Internet address (if that doesn't work for
you, copy & paste the address onto your browser's address box.)
http://cards.123greetings.com/cgi-bin/cards/showcard.pl?cardnum=ZQU80611094216839&log=beinlove
--------
Method 2
--------
Copy & paste your card number in the view card box at
http://www.nicegreetings.com
Your card number is
ZQU80611094216839
(For your convenience, the greeting card will be available for the next
30 days)
Webmaster,
http://www.nicegreetings.com
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
End of GroveNet Digest, Vol 55, Issue 9
***************************************
More information about the GroveNet
mailing list