Trending
To the editor:
As reported on June 13, 2020 in the Morning Journal, the Lisbon Village Council voted 6-0 to keep the law banning the harboring of livestock and chickens within the Village limits intact. This action was taken after a community member provided them with a petition signed by 21 individuals requesting chickens to be allowed.
Here we are in 2022 and a majority of our Village Council members that denied the petition in 2020 are now voting to allow chickens. They aren't doing this based on any petition from supporters of lifting the ban but based on a few requests over the years to allow them. If Council is assuming there are droves of residents wanting the change, then let those individuals come forward with a petition. If they aren't willing to do this then in my opinion there really isn't a need for the ordinance change. Why would our representatives act now without a petition and proceed with this action just 2 years after a unanimous vote against such action in 2020? Why after a unanimous vote did they elect to stop enforcing a law until they could have the time review it? I wouldn't think it would be a common practice to "pause" the law.
Community members have asked the Village to consider placing the issue on the ballot and let the voters decide. Some on council have disregarded suggestions on ways to gain more information on what the residents want. A recent article even has one council member indicating that the variety of individuals attending meetings and vocalizing their opinion week after week do not represent the majority of the village. They really do not know this because they are not willing to take on the task of a survey or placing it on the ballot.
Our village council has made some great strides in promoting business growth in our town, and updating recreational areas such as parks/trails, while with other organizations to promote these advances. Do they really think that having chickens walking around town reflects economic growth and progress? Look around us. The communities in the area that maintain their ban on chickens and other livestock are those with the highest growth in housing and economic development.
Council has created an ordinance that is currently being voted on that, according to council, will make it so only a few properties can meet the requirements to have chickens based on the lot size, location of structures, or if they are a rental unit.
Why then would these representatives proceed with such a revision to our ordinance that would only benefit the few that could potentially meet the requirements? Why are they not willing to place the proposed change to a current law on the ballot to know they are proceeding at the will of the majority they serve? These are questions that I assume will never get answered but a verifiable collection of votes from Lisbon residents will tell us what the majority want.
Martina Grimm,
Lisbon