Comments on Urban Ag Code Amendments

Marra Farm, Photo by Steve Tracy

Dozens signed up to have their turn to speak to members of Seattle City Council during Wednesday’s public hearing on the urban agriculture code amendments. (To learn more about what was on the table, see this earlier UFH post or listen to the first six minutes of the hearing.)

Generally speaking, public comments fell into one of two camps:

1) in favor of the code amendments as written

2) not in favor of domestic fowl

Since increasing the number of fowl from three to eight was just one of many far-reaching code changes, I think it’s safe to say that the proposed amendments are overwhelmingly supported by Seattle residents.

Here are some highlights of the hearing:

For:

Those supporting the urban ag amendments cited a number of reasons for doing so. I’ve put them into four general categories:

Increasing Food Access:

By creating more opportunities to farm, the city is expanding the supply line of food to the food insecure. A member of Food Lifeline believed these amendments would help address the hunger issue and hoped that the council would consider focusing its efforts on expanding urban agriculture operations in low-income areas.

Supporting Financial Viability:

Organizations that focus on those groups, such as Alleycat Acres, were supportive of the amendments because they allow the group to earn money by selling their produce. The Alleycats are currently donating their harvests to food banks, as they are restricted from selling it. They would like to continue to provide food to those who can’t afford it, but cannot sustain themselves if they are not allowed to make any sales.

Brad Holm of Seattle Urban Farm Company noted that by promoting urban food production, more opportunities for new businesses and jobs will be created.

A representative from architecture firm Weber Thompson was also encouraged by the amendment that would allow greenhouses on rooftops. He says this action would remove one of the biggest barriers to urban agriculture–the cost of obtaining land–because it simply opens up a resource that is already available.

Building Community:

Michelle Venetucci Harvey, a member of the student-run farm at the University of Washington, said that the project has been key in creating a stronger community on campus and that these code amendments will help legitimize using land for agriculture.

Local food advocate and city employee Ron Harris-White said that urban agriculture and farming do not only promote community they can also act as  “vehicles for race and social justice.”

Two young members of FEEST talked about how growing and eating their own food has contributed to creating a stronger community by encouraging conversations at the dinner table about sustainable agricultural practices and healthy diets.

Improving Environment:

Though environmental benefits did not take center stage in the reasons for supporting urban agriculture, many of those giving public comment alluded to how the amendments would lead to a more sustainable Seattle. Allowing for additional green space and promoting a more local diet will reduce Seattle’s carbon footprint.

Against:

The only negative comments about the proposed code amendments were regarding domestic fowl and the majority of those complaints were directed towards the proposal not to ban roosters. Currently, roosters are permitted within city limits and a ban was proposed in the original draft of the code amendments. However, City Council President Richard Conlin asked for that provision to be removed since any rooster disturbance is and would continue to be regulated by the noise ordinance.

Many city residents stood before him to tell him that wasn’t sufficient. The mantra for the evening seemed to be: “All roosters crow. All crowing is REALLY loud. My neighbor’s rooster wakes me up REALLY early.” A couple of people said one of the benefits of moving to the city was never hearing any pastoral sounds like clucking hens and crowing roosters.

Others complained about the smell and pests that can result from unkempt chicken coops. One woman said her neighbor spent a lot of money on paving an area upon which her chicken coop would sit, thinking that would be the proper foundation.  Though well-intentioned, this decision simply allowed the chicken manure to build up and convert into unpleasant, perhaps hazardous, ammonia-laden fumes.

Not everyone who was opposed to increasing the number of allowable chickens from three to eight necessarily described themselves as anti-chicken. Some simply wanted more regulation to help keep the peace in the neighborhood. Some suggestions included that plot size should be a consideration when determining how many chickens could be allowed, that chicken coops should be a certain distance from neighbors’ property lines, and that more education be disseminated to ensure that new chicken owners can properly care for their chickens as well as prevent pests and smells from emanating from their property.  (Seattle Tilth is a great place to start if you are planning on keeping chickens or want tips on how to better maintain your coop.)

If you didn’t show up at the hearing, but still want to express your concern/support for the amendments, you can send your thoughts to Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov.

No related posts.

Comments RSS You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.