Planning commission consideration of chicken rules on Monday revealed diverse thinking but lacked the aubunique view.
The view that wasn't expressed by anyone is that, in a truly "sustainable" city, we would be REQUIRING each household to try to reduce its carbon footprint by every means possible.
In that view, a suggested ordinance would be
Houses on lots of less than one-fourth acre would NOT be REQUIRED to maintain a vegetable garden.
Houses on lots of less than one-half acre would NOT be REQUIRED to harbor a minimum of four laying hens, whether chickens, turkeys, ducks or geese.
Houses on lots of less than 1 acre would NOT be REQUIRED to harbor a milk cow or milk goat.
Houses on lots where water wells could not be successfully drilled would NOT be REQUIRED to have a well but could substitute an appropriate storage tank in which to capture rain water.
Houses on lots where the sun doesn't shine would not be required to include solar panels.
Houses on lots where the wind doesn't blow would not be required to include windmills.
These minimal standards are just a few of the things that LEED building certification should take into account.
Everyone needs to understand that we depend on rich soil, clean air and clean water to survive.
Look at your utility and grocery bill and think how much of your day goes to pay for things your ancestors got the old-fashioned way.
It sounded as though the proposed ordinance would require keeping the chickens in cages off the ground. Above ground roosting inside an enclosure is important to chickens for their safety, but the hens would be much more useful in reducing insects if allowed outdoors all day. The natural-food stores used to sell "veggie-fed" hens, which would be the opposite of free-range chickens. The benefits of fowl in the yard include controlling insects and getting protein from earthworms and naturally growing grass seed.
The reasons to keep a taste of nature and of traditional farming in the city are practical and important and numerous.
Please see someone else's explanation of parts of this aubunique view better than this outdoor writer has ever been able to explain it at www.urbangreenspaces.org
Urban greenspace Web site
linked near the bottom of the link list on the right side of this page.
New structures can be REQUIRED to use solar panels and a gutter system to guide rainwater to storage tanks. New houses and all buildings on sites where windmills have a chance to work and with a relatively large lot can be REQUIRED to include windmills to supplement power needs.
Why would the planning commission pass the massive Southpass plan without including these requirements?
Twenty-first century planning cannot be based on 20th-century fossil-fuel expectations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I like your direction, but the responsibility of a planning commission does not include the scope you speak of. They cannot require people by law(at the moment) to have a hen, cow, goat, or vegetable garden. Freedom is what this country is about and that's what we as Americans protect whether it is self destructive or not. You may not like the way they may be headed RIGHT NOW with the consideration of the chicken rules, but at least they are headed in that direction.
Does Aubrey have a wind generator? How about solar panels...a hybrid car? How about a vegetable garden, one that could sustain you? Does your house sit on top of a wetland? I find it funny how a person can site and type out rules for a city/society but be unwilling to follow his own rules. It is easy to tell people to spend there own hard earned monies on things you think are important. The hard part is leading by example.
I saw Aubrey DRIVING his clunker, high-emissions, low gas mileage van to Walgreens (a very short walk from his house) to buy his cigarettes. What's the carbon footprint for a 2 pack per day habit?
"Freedom is what this country is about and that's what we as Americans protect whether it is self destructive or not."
I think aubrey was pointing out that people's freedom is being limited by the current rules. Adam Fire Cat says our rules already limit the freedom of people who don't want to be dependent on store-bought everything or maintain monoculture lawns or combine families in a single house or apartment to save money and get by on the jobs they can find.
He might agree that people whose property provides zero habitat for any living thing except themselves are not making sustainable choices.
To require things forbidden by code at this time is the opposite of forbidding people to do these natural things and requiring them to mow harmless vegetation that actually reduces pollution if allowed to grow. Freedom would be learning to accept diversity in all things.
He obviously supports the new ordinance but probably wonders why the basic barnyard animals, including a horse to ride, were ever outlawed.
My parents are like him, always talking about World War II when their parents had victory gardens and chickens and got ice delivered because they hadn't saved up enough money to buy a refrigerator.
Post a Comment