The Right to Grow and Raise Your Own Food

[DaikaijuTorira]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Section 1 states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Whereas the right to food protects the right of all human beings to be free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition, which is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of the right to an adequate standard of living, article 25.

Whereas all domesticated animals (domitae naturae) are recognized as personal property with ownership rights and liabilities retained by the one(s) with a rightful claim to ownership, even when the animals have strayed from the owner's property. William Blackstone (1765-1769)

Therefore, any law or ordinance made or enforced by any State or Local Government which abridges the ability of any citizen of the United States to provide for themselves an adequate standard of living, or attempts to deprive any citizen of the United States of security in their food source, or of personal property where no Constitutional Law has been broken should be deemed Unconstitutional.


Yes, No, What do you think? Would this be a reasonable argument?

 

[chickortreat]

Sounds reasonable to me, but it's like fixing something that ain't broke. The burden of proof/argument should lie with those who want to infringe on the rights of individuals.

In other words, I'll have chickens on my land, I'll have goats on my land, and I'll garden on my land. And I'll lock-and-load in defense against anyone who tries to infringe on those rights. It's that simple.

The whole point of the second amendment was that the founders realized that the Constitution, though priceless, could not defend itself. It took men to win it, men to pen it, and it takes men to defend it. All the rights defined by the Constitution are worthless without someone willing to stand up for it/them.

Let a man tell you how many chickens you can have, next thing he'll be taking inventory of your food stores.

This is, after all, the United States of America......this ain't Germany in the 40s.

 

[DaikaijuTorira]

I mostly agree with you, chickortreat, mostly. I would tend to question whether or not something isn't broken. It seems there would have to be with so many people needing to petition their local government for a redress of grievances.

I also agree with what you said in a previous post, that it all could have been avoided if the people had fought it back when the ordinances were enacted. But they didn't, now it's up to us. Civil disobedience and preparing the defense on the home front are fine, but would it not be preferable to attempt a more peaceful solution first, to attempt to reach an agreeable solution?

I am curious if what I wrote up there fits in with what the OP had in mind, or if it's way off. I haven't yet decided which avenue to travel in this city, but if declaring the law unconstitutional is feasible, then great, it could be something that would work everywhere for every one. If it worked in one area it would set a precedent for other groups to use, especially in areas where a milder attempt has failed.

 

[chickortreat]

I confess I have a difficult time being objective in such discussions because I live out in the sticks, and cannot imagine having to live in a neighborhood with neighbors, be they good or bad. My whole point is that we all could find something about our neighbors (if we have any) that drive us bonkers. Whether or not such grievances give us the right to govern said neighbor(s) is debatable.

For example, barking dogs drive me nuts. I'd hate to have to live next door to someone who owned a dog that barked non-stop. But does that give me any "rights" as to what I can dictate they must do about it? To me, a barking dog trumps chickens any day of the week for nuisance, but that's just me. I grew up on a broiler farm, and the smell of chickens doesn't bother me at all. I grew up in the country on a quiet farm, however, and barking dogs gets my dander up.

 

[chickortreat]

As to whether or not the system's broken, there's no doubt.....it's gone! What I meant was a rhetorical (so to speak) view of your post. You asked if what you posted was a reasonable argument......I question where in the world they reach out and grab these "powers" to start with. I daresay 90% of this country's "laws" are un-Constitutional, from income tax to zoning to imminent domain.

 

[Jenny1]

Okay, Pretty sure everyone will send their roosters to attack me for this, but here goes anyway. When I read this, I totally agree with all of you. It seems like an important right. But then when I think about it from the opposite extreme, I wonder. For example, I think everyone should be able to have a tomato plant in their yard/balcony. And, in a yard, a few chickens is nice. But what if people go crazy? Say put a cow on the apartment balcony? Or cover the balcony in 12 inches of dirt and plant a garden? Dont the downstairs neighbors have the right to not have that? Honestly, people move to certain apartments, HOAs, neighborhoods because of a certain "look". Its true whether you live in the country, or the city. I just wondered where you guys all draw the line. Because while I have 3 chickens in my backyard and hope my neighbors dont notice, I really wouldnt want someone to move in nextdoor with 35 roosters and a cow. (Our backyards are about the same size as our house)This just isnt the place for that.

Just wondered what you guys thought about that sort of thing.... not trying to be disagreeable

 

[EdenCamp]

There are usually ordinances governing how many cats or dogs a person/household may own as well. Now granted, not a food issue(at least in this culture), still a regulation of ownership of domesticated animals.

 

[RaZ]

Okay, Pretty sure everyone will send their roosters to attack me for this, but here goes anyway. When I read this, I totally agree with all of you. It seems like an important right. But then when I think about it from the opposite extreme, I wonder. For example, I think everyone should be able to have a tomato plant in their yard/balcony. And, in a yard, a few chickens is nice. But what if people go crazy? Say put a cow on the apartment balcony? Or cover the balcony in 12 inches of dirt and plant a garden? Dont the downstairs neighbors have the right to not have that? Honestly, people move to certain apartments, HOAs, neighborhoods because of a certain "look". Its true whether you live in the country, or the city. I just wondered where you guys all draw the line. Because while I have 3 chickens in my backyard and hope my neighbors dont notice, I really wouldnt want someone to move in nextdoor with 35 roosters and a cow. (Our backyards are about the same size as our house)This just isnt the place for that.

Just wondered what you guys thought about that sort of thing.... not trying to be disagreeable

No roosters here to attack you, but my ninja hens might visit.

Seriously though, your argument just doesn't pass the acid test. Just having a few chickens does not lead to having cows in the yard or balcony. I've heard the same "concern" from my city council that say "if we allow chickens, then someone will want a cow". No sane person would ever attempt that, IMO. However, they can have several Great Danes with no issues at all.

The point is that any person can go "crazy" and that is a completely separate issue from sound animal husbandry.
Having a few chickens for eggs, growing a garden for food is a matter of personal choice and should not be subject to the objections of a neighbor who prefers to get their food from the commercial grocer.

The problem lies with the neighbor who has an undue interest in what I do within the boundaries of my property. Case in point; my yard is totally enclosed by privacy fence, yet a disgruntled neighbor trespassed into my yard, took photos of my chickens and filed a complaint with the ordinance officer. Now I am facing criminal charges for keeping barnyard animals in the city. Because I am fighting that ticket, I have drawn the wrath of the ordinance officer.

Since I received the "chicken ticket" I have been cited for numerous violations which all centre around "farming within city limits". Among those tickets are citations for growing crops. A tomato plant in a pot on my front porch; a cherry tree in the front yard...and my favourite charge, ornamental millet that the OO said was corn. When my kale blooms, I'm sure that I'll get another ticket.

I apologize if I rambled on, but my few hens are not causing any distress or hardship to any neighbor. My vegetable garden did not invade any neighbor's space. Yet, I find myself facing criminal charges in district court because I am not permitted to provide for myself.

 

[chickortreat]

Great post, RaZ! In your situation, if your yard is surrounded by privacy fence, keep a mallet handy and play Whack-a-Mole with nosy neighbors.....

As to the "ordinance officer", (what an envious title), I'd ostracize, ignore, whatever, until they were ashamed to show their face. What planet are folks from when they issue citations to folks for growing veggies on their own land? Another problem that should have been dealt with years ago.

 

[EdenCamp]

Surely there is a difference between GARDENING and Farming?
A patch of produce is a garden, not a farm.
Are they telling you you can't plant flowers or decorative shrubs?
Didn't think so.
What about fresh herbs in your window?
Have they never heard of a chia pet?

If pot bellied pigs can be owned as pets - why not pet chickens?
Crowing roosters subject to a nuisense noise ordinence the same as dogs.
What's the difference between a chicken and a parakeet?
Best tell the kids the guppies have to go.
What about guinea pigs? Believe they are eaten in SA.
Cats and dogs are still eaten in some cultures.
Better not have garden snails - escargot ends up on plates too...

Confined to your property,
Not subject to casual view from the street (and that dosen't include climbing the fence),
not creating nuisence by noise or sanitation - it is an arguable violation of civil rights.

Unfortunately ordinences have the power to do everythigng from limiting the color your house can be painted to curfews.
1 man 1 vote.
Have to wield them!