June 21, 2013

City Clerk Tracy Delaney, Members of the Common Council, Common Council President Donald Moore, City of Hudson 520 Warren Street Hudson, New York 12534

Re: Veto Message on Local Law Introductory Number 6; a Law to Allow the Raising of Chickens in the City of Hudson

On Wednesday June 19, 2013, I was presented with Local Law Introductory #6 amending the City Code to regulate the keeping and raising of chickens in Hudson by City of Hudson Clerk Tracy Delaney. As a result and pursuant to the authority given to me as Mayor by Hudson City Charter section C6-2, I have reviewed Local Law #6 of 2013 and report the following to Clerk Delaney, and members of the Common Council. As the movement continues to grow with more residents looking toward the possible benefits of raising backyard chickens in the City of Hudson, and local laws begin being crafted to allow for backyard chickens, it is incumbent on all elected officials to be complete and compassionate in their consideration of a new law. This includes considering public input, existing data, common sense, keeping an open mind, and being reasonable in judgment. I realize that there are some individuals who want to be able to raise chickens (hens) of their own for some of the health and other benefits provided. Such as eggs being a good source of nutrition, chickens providing companionship, chickens eating insects, and chickens helping to build communities. On the other hand I realize the concerns of residents who are equally concerned about noise, odor, disease, slaughter, chickens running wild, and property value declines. Regardless of the validity of some residents concerns versus others, all voices need to be heard and carefully considered.

Chicken Law Veto

Page 2 of 5

After carefully reviewing this law I believe more thought and consideration are needed to ensure that the interests of all Hudson residents are considered. A law such as this affecting so many residents has to be comprehensive in nature covering every question and concern of all residents. In keeping with these standards and while reviewing this local law provided to me I am vetoing this law for the following reasons: 1. The Law Must Provide Equal Opportunity for all Hudson Residents When referring to Hudson being labeled a Food Desert and this being a key factor in providing households with the ability to raise chickens, it most definitely has to be inclusive of all residents. This law fails to do that by potentially limiting who can have chickens and who cant based on ownership of property. The proposed law does not take into account residents who will not be able to reap the alleged benefits of a chicken law. Some City residents are low or moderate income earners and live in Section 8 or other subsidized housing such as Bliss Towers, Schuyler Court, Low Rise, Hudson Terrace Apartments, Providence Hall, and Cross Winds. Others are elderly and live in retirement communities where they also rent space. Both of these populations could benefit from the law. Yet, in these instances, permission from property owners would most likely not be granted. Instead, this law is likely to benefit only a select group of residents only who are fortunate enough to own property. The law would also likely exclude tenants in other rental properties where tenants would have to seek permission of the property owner to possess chickens on the property. If the City of Hudson is going to go down this road, the Council should have thought about ways to allow all people in Hudson to reap the alleged benefits of this bill. I suggest that the bill be sent back to the legal committee where options such as providing a contained space within community gardens or other areas may be considered to accommodate those who may want fresh eggs but who do not own property. 2. Health and Safety Issues Related to Rodents and Predators It is recognized in most model ordinances for regulating chickens in cities, that rodents such as rats and mice, and predators such as raccoons and hawks could become problematic in an urban environment. This law fails to include and provide for permit holders to have an independent inspection provided by a professional exterminator or rodent control specialist periodically to control pest and rodent issues and outbreaks.

Chicken Law Veto

Page 3 of 5

3. Minimum Set Backs Necessary for Permit Holders Further, though model ordinances for regulating backyard chickens recognize the importance of ensuring chickens be kept at a suitable distance from any house and kept out of gardens, the law exempts permit holders from minimum set back requirements. For example, section 70-17 states that Chicken coops and enclosures must be set back 5 feet from property lines, and 15 feet from the nearest dwelling or other occupied structure, but then goes on to exempt a permit holders own dwelling from this requirement, indicating a free reign to place enclosures and coops anywhere. Permit holders should also be held to the standard of 15 feet from their own dwelling and 5 feet from property lines to prevent coops and enclosures from being placed next to or on a deck and porch of the permit holder. 4. Ensuring the Humane Treatment of Chickens Model ordinances for regulating chickens also stress the importance of being good stewards. Though this law requires that permit holders maintain properly cleaned coops and enclosures, it allows a sixty day window for permit holders to vacate the premises containing backyard chickens without fear of the permit holders permit being terminated, thus aiding in the potential for chickens not being attended to properly and the potential for disease regardless of enforcement efforts for a two month period. 5. Definition of Slaughtering vs. Killing of Chickens Needs Clarification This Local Law lacks any section in regards to mentioning or detailing the killing of chickens by City residents. Under section 70-17, the proposed law states The Slaughtering of Chickens are Prohibited. There is no mention of the killing of chickens being permissible under this new Law. In an article reported in the Register Star on June 19, 2013, entitled Chicken Law Squeaks By creators of this Local Law, specifically Alderman Miah, Alderman Haddad, Alderman Friedman, and Council President Moore all commented in reference to the difference between the term Slaughter and Killing.

Chicken Law Veto

Page 4 of 5

Alderman Haddad said he understood the law to be allowing for hens but not slaughtering, and was corrected by Alderman Friedman who responded by advising Alderman Haddad that you can kill a chicken for personal use only, although I fail to find a section in the proposed law referring to killing chickens for personal consumption. Council President Moore then responded by saying that killing does not equate to slaughtering and that slaughtering is a commercial term applied to business purposes. Contrary to the aforementioned aldermens conversations, according to Websters (2) Dictionary, SLAUGHTERING is defined as to kill for food, and, KILL as cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). So it appears that slaughtering should be the accepted practice of those who would choose to eat their personal chickens, and it appears to be prohibited in this law with no mention or section containing information in regards to any details of slaughtering chickens. The law is absent of a clear and concise section which identifies: a. The City accepted practices of slaughtering back yard chickens to be used by the permit holder. b. Any limitations or provisions against certain techniques of slaughter. c. Disposal of chicken parts unused, and d. Clean up practices. Some cities require that slaughtering not occur outdoors or in a public place. Other cities allow on site slaughtering, but only if it is meant to be consumed on site. Rochester for example, requires a poulterers license to both keep chickens and slaughter them. And Glendale in keeping with its aversion to rats only, allows for slaughter if it occurs in a rat - free structure. Yet this law contains no provisions for how this process would take place, in fact its omitted from the law all together. 6. Identify Chickens by Banding It is recognized in most model ordinances for regulating City chickens that it is inevitable that chickens will eventually wander out of the yard of their owner and onto the property of others. For the purpose of enforcement in section 70-19 any violation of a permit holder allowing chickens to wander about causing the chickens to wander on public streets or onto adjoining neighborhood property, would be unenforceable if the chicken owner could not be identified. It is imperative that any proposed Chicken Law also include a detailed section for the City to provide mandatory banding of chickens for identification purposes.

Chicken Law Veto

Page 5 of 5

7. Enforcement At a time when the City has moved to cut cost, provide tax relief to its residents, and restructure some of our top heavy services, there has been no cost analysis or discussion on what the enforcement efforts of this law might burden the taxpayers of Hudson with or if we even have enough personnel to deal with some of the potential issues. To me the law needs more consideration, thought, and dialog on many sections that honestly were either left out, or not presented with enough detail. Therefore I have vetoed proposed Local Law #6 2013. I respectfully request the Common Council to review the law in its entirety and determine if the Council wishes to resubmit the current Local Law #6 2013 for Council vote. I have noticed a public hearing on this law for Friday June 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM in City Hall. I look forward to hearing comments from the public at that time and may transmit additional comments following the hearing to the Common Council for its July meeting.

Very truly yours,

William H. Hallenbeck, Jr. Mayor