I was disappointed to see that the proposal for urban chickens was voted down last week, although I was completely unsurprised. I guess the reactive and grumpy "no" camp's hold on city council outweighed the well reasoned and researched "yes" camp's arguments, which is par for the course in our fair town.
Even with a progressive city council, Prince George, B.C.'s northern capital, seems unable to innovate, which does not bode well for our city's future.
I've written here many times about how our town could move forward into the 21st century so that costs are better managed, citizens are better represented and city services are less politicized.
But for this instance of silliness from our dear leaders at 1100 Patricia it appears I might need to reach back to a notion that predates our city and even our country: specifically, the ancient idea that a man's house is his castle.
To be clear, I'm not about to conjure up images of a utopian world of anglo-saxon yeomanry or how that might be realized today. But our forebears did have a point when they argued for a right to privacy and autonomy in their own home.
Everyone knows the deep reasons, but it appears that city hall has forgotten the pragmatic side to leaving citizens "masters in their own house" - it costs too much to regulate and every interference is taken as a personal slight.
What does this have to do with chickens? Well it's my backyard, damn it. And if I pay the taxes to hold onto my microscopic fiefdom of less than an acre, I'll do what I like with it.
The great irony of city hall's decision is that it has mishandled and dehumanized this issue in the most patronizing of ways.
I shouldn't have to fear bylaw officers and fines in regards to whether or not I keep friendly fowl nearby.
Rather, this issue ought to center around respect and communication with my neighbours, who are masters of their own houses and yards as well.
How we decide as a neighbourhood to deal with this issue is far more important than rules from city hall.
This and other interferences with my personal property make me less and less inclined to obey city bylaws at all.
My travel trailer being on my property is where the buck stops, bizarre, intrusive rules about it's visibility to the street be damned. Ditto when it comes to purchasing a permit to work on my own roof or construct a shop in my backyard.
Why would I pay the city for permission to improve my own property?
Am I really to kiss the ring for no benefit at all?
From renting spare rooms to my friends for cash in order to avoid the tenancy board and the city's unethically obtained list of rental properties, to tilling my backyard and building planter boxes in my front yard to produce my own food, these and other techniques appear to be obvious choices to me and several people my age who have seen costs and fees increase with no improvement in the services or goods that we must purchase, de jure or de facto.
This then is the crux of the chicken issue, and it is terribly sad that the city has missed its chance to move forward on an item that so perfectly represents how the economy is changing.
As I've tried to convey time and time again in this space, the fees, systems of taxation and even the market controls (i.e. eggs and milk) that are now common, were built for another age, and they are becoming impediments to both business as well as efficient public revenue.
More regulations from an authority that appears more distant and less in tune with the population as well as economic reality on a daily basis will not a happy citizenry make.
In the end, there will be more fights like this one as a new generation of ratepayers begins to buy property and exert its political will.
My advice to this council and future hopefuls of elected office is simple: if you want a growing, vibrant city, leave your citizens and their property alone.
