Chicago-Kent Law Review

Volume 95 Issue 1 The State of the Law of the New Labor Article 49 Movement

9-15-2020

Nuisance Most Fowl: The Problem With 's Permissive Livestock Ordinance And How To Fix It

Shelley Geiszler Chicago-Kent College of Law

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview

Part of the Torts Commons

Recommended Citation Shelley Geiszler, Nuisance Most Fowl: The Problem With Chicago's Permissive Livestock Ordinance And How To Fix It, 95 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 367 (2020). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol95/iss1/49

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 188 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 , , . 5 As As RIB (May (May . T HI NFO , C , CMAP, Indeed, Mo Mo Indeed, 7 , DNA I Jonathan Bellew, Bellew, Jonathan See See Rogers Park, Chicago Park, Rogers See but her real name is Mo Mo is name real her but 1 “the issue that really gets gets really that “the issue 6 EISZLER G 367 367 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM Mo erected her farm, aptly named Moah’s Moah’s named aptly farm, her Mo erected ELETE HELLEY 3 D S OT N Community Data Snapshot: Rogers Park Rogers Snapshot: Data Community O Moah’s Ark Urban Farm Sprouts Life in Empty Lot Empty in Life Sprouts Farm Urban Ark Moah’s a diverse neighborhood on Chicago’s northside. Here, Here, northside. on Chicago’s neighborhood a diverse A judge threw out the lose chickens complaint; the the complaint; chickens lose the out threw judge A 2 8 note 2. 1 EIC 5.4 (D ‘Chicken Lady’ Farms in Rogers Park, Despite Neighbors’ Gripes Neighbors’ Despite Park, Rogers in Farms Lady’ ‘Chicken note1. note1. supra ACRO ACRO . (May 20, 2019, 7:45 AM), https://blockclubchicago.org/2019/05/20/as-successor- M HI supra supra C , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Park,_Chicago [https://perma.cc/C8LP-AE2C] (last EISZLER Id. LUB LUB NUISANCE MOSTNUISANCE FOWL: PROBLEM THE WITH CHICAGO’S C From across the street, the farm resembles an overgrown community community an overgrown resembles the farm street, the across From 14 G She’s known as “The Crazy Chicken Lady”, Chicken Crazy “The as known She’s to Al- but according and detractors, supporters gained Ark Moah’s 4 PERMISSIVE LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE AND HOW FIX IT TO IKIPEDIA LOCK (June 19, 2017, 10:59 AM), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-rogers- people’s blood boiling is the roosters and their crowing . . . .” . . . crowing and their roosters the is boiling blood people’s derman Joe Moore of Chicago’s 49th Ward, 49th Chicago’s of Moore Joe derman 1. Gregory Pratt, Pratt, Gregory 1. 16, 2013, 8:10 AM), https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130516/rogers-park/moahs-ark-urban-farm- AM), 8:10 2013, 16, [https://perma.cc/59FZ-CGQC]. sprouts-life-empty-lot/ sworn-in-rogers-parks-longest-serving-alderman-says-thanks-reflects-on-28-years/ visited Sept. 14,2019); Cahill. In 2011, Mo purchased a vacant lot between two apartment build- two apartment between lot a vacant purchased Mo 2011, In Cahill. Park, Rogers ings in park-chicken-met-20170625-story.html [https://perma.cc/H8P8-LNUQ]. in the middle of an urban community with a population density of over of over density a population with community an urban of middle in the mile, square per 29,000 people found herself in court, fighting tickets for excessive rooster noise and keep- and noise rooster for excessive tickets fighting court, in found herself ing loose chickens. Successor Sworn in, Roger’s Park’s Longest Serving Alderman Says Thanks, Reflects on 28 Years 28 on Reflects Thanks, Says Alderman Serving Longest Park’s Roger’s in, Sworn Successor B 4. Woodard, Woodard, https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/126764/Rogers+Park.pdf Pratt, [https://perma.cc/F557- 2019). 14, Sept. visited (last 3JQ7] 4. 5. 6. alderman. a sitting longer no is Moore Joe publication, of time the At Ark. garden, littered with patio furniture, tools, and plastic bins. Mo’s chicken chicken Mo’s bins. and plastic tools, furniture, patio with littered garden, Justices. Court Supreme after named are fowl her van; converted a coop is 2019. of June of as people 55,062 is population its and miles square 1.85 is Park Rogers size. 3. its by an area of population the dividing by calculated is density Population W 2. Benjamin Woodard, Woodard, Benjamin 2. [https://perma.cc/NUJ8-W67C]. [https://perma.cc/NUJ8-W67C]. 7. Pratt, Pratt, 7. 8. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 188 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 188 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 188 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 . 11 US .B HI C S ’ Strangely Strangely 15 Undeterred, Undeterred, RAIN 14 10 , C level at a dis- level [Vol 95:1 [Vol e and time of the violation. time of the e and average conversational average ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM inner-city Chicago. Chicago’s livestock livestock Chicago’s Chicago. inner-city ELETE D OT 13 N O CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT In a separate ordinance, the city limits excessive excessive limits city the ordinance, separate a In § 7-12-300 (2019). (2019). § 7-12-300 (2019). § 7-12-100 Chickens and Goats and Pigs, Oh My! Chicago’s Backyard Livestock To accommodate her neighbors, Mo rearranged her her rearranged Mo neighbors, her accommodate To 12 9 ODE ODE Who’s Building Those Lincoln Park Mega-Mansions? Park Lincoln Those Building Who’s . C . C 1 EIC 5.4 (D (Feb. 19, 2017), https://www.wbez.org/shows/curious-city/chickens-and-goats- UN UN ACRO ACRO ., M ., M M Monica Eng, LL LL HICAGO ., I ., I ., see ; HI HI EISZLER Id. Id. Id. Id. 368 368 14 G Perhaps the most surprising thing about “The Crazy Chicken Lady” is is Lady” Chicken Crazy “The about thing surprising most the Perhaps The excessive animal noise ordinance offers no definition for the the for definition no offers ordinance noise animal The excessive But proving excessive noise under the Chicago ordinance is a high high a is ordinance Chicago the under noise excessive But proving tance of 100 feet or more. tance of 100 [H]abitual barking, whining, crying, howling, whimpering, crowing, or or crowing, whimpering, howling, crying, whining, barking, [H]abitual consecutive ten that exceeds species an animal’s to common loud noise of a significant intermittently portion for occurs minutesorduration in than louder that is night, the day or on either: based may be issued section this of for a violation A citation or employee officer by any city a violation of observation (1) personal thischargedof section; or a complaint with(2) enforcement alleginga differ- three of residents by to sworn and signed section, of this violation dat the and specifying ent addresses, , WBEZ C , WBEZ (May20, 2014, 7:00 AM), https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140520/CRED0701/140519783/lincoln-park-sees-more- breeding and hatching schedules, moved her chickens further from the the from further chickens her moved schedules, hatching and breeding coop. her soundproofed and buildings, apartment adjacent Mo continues to keep her backyard fowl, and Moah’s Ark thrives in the the in thrives Ark Moah’s and fowl, backyard her keep to Mo continues Park. Rogers of center in roosters to keep legal is it that allows otherwise but slaughter, for animals keeping prohibits ordinance milk.” or eggs as such by-products, “edible for them raise to residents words “intermittently,” “significant portion,” or “average conversational conversational “average or portion,” “significant “intermittently,” words feet “100 distance the of designation ordinance’s the Furthermore, level.” ani- inordinate by bothered residents shield to much do not does more” or x 125’. 25’ is lot Chicago average an of size the noise: mal bar: bar: Laws 12. 12. Rodkin, Dennis 14. 15. 9. 9. C 10. 11. The ordinance puts no limit on the type or number of animals a person may may a person of animals or number on the type no limit puts The ordinance purpose. this keep for noise complaint stood. complaint noise enough, residents who live next door to a rooster, and are likely to be the the to be likely are and rooster, a to door next live who residents enough, multiple-lot-mega-mansions [https://perma.cc/Z9AY-84U2]. animal noise, including: including: noise, animal and-pigs-oh-my-chicagos-backyard-livestock-laws/b08ac437-8d53-4bc5-8130-565d84f5c1e6 13. C [https://perma.cc/U6E3-ATRY]. 13. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 188 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 188 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 189 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 18 , N.Y. Kim- see . (2017), . (2017), CI Rooster Yage Yage Rooster S This level of of level This PEN (Aug. 31, 2018), 2018), 31, (Aug. O 20 (Aug.2014), 6, Y ’ 17 LOCK F OC All You Need to Know About About Know to Need All You LOBE S 369 369 OUR . G Y OYAL OS In fact, “intermittent for a a for “intermittent fact, In In Hawaii,Chickens Gone Wild 19 ,B , 4 R ANAGING ANAGING Circadian Clock Determines Timing of Rooster Rooster of Timing Determines Clock Circadian :M ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM OOP C Kenneth Chang, Chang, Kenneth ELETE D Sound Attenuation in the Ear of Domestic Chickens (Gallus See OT N HICKEN O R231 (2013), https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960- (2013), R231 C CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE APPY IOLOGY Or the neighbor so sleep-deprived and driven to the to the and driven so sleep-deprived Or the neighbor H B 1 EIC 5.4 (D 16 HE ACRO ACRO M , T URRENT EISZLER , 23 , 23 C 2020] 14 G What is more, a rooster’s crow averages 130 decibels, with scientists with scientists 130 decibels, crow averages a rooster’s is more, What Meeting the criteria of the excessive animal noise ordinance was was ordinance noise animal excessive of the the criteria Meeting Treating a crowing rooster like any especially noisy barking dog, as dog, as barking noisy especially any like rooster a crowing Treating (Apr. 6, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/science/in-hawaii-chickens-gone- 2015), 6, (Apr. IMES https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/06/chickens/LDhdhmNVdY4mCX8tlj8WCP/story.html. 18. he escapes. of course, Unless, recently determining that the crow can reach 143 decibels. 143 reach can crow the that determining recently brink that he decides to take matters into his own hands? own his into matters take to decides he that brink https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171286 [https://perma.cc/T39V-CLWA]; [https://perma.cc/T39V-CLWA]; https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171286 https://www.thehappychickencoop.com/rooster-crowing/[https://perma.cc/46EY-WXDU]. T Roosters crow periodically, regardless of day or night, and for a variety of of for a variety and or night, of day regardless periodically, crow Roosters my sun. the rising not only welcome to reasons, 2018, of summer the During topic. this in interest my sparking me, to happened that fence the along a coop built They chickens. keeping to start decided four, This of family a neighbors, 16. giving next-door, living chickens of prospect the by unbothered was I mine. from property their divided most bothered by the noise, have little recourse under the ordinance be- ordinance the under recourse little have noise, the by bothered most crowing. rooster’s the of feet 100 within live they cause farm conspicuous large, the as neighbors, Cahill’s Mo for easy probably citizen private ordinary the about what But attention. of lot a generated a solitary to next-door living suddenly herself to find enough unlucky rooster? backyard 9822%2813%2900186-3 [https://perma.cc/AEQ4-MZA6]. Roosters also crow to protect their territory, territory, their protect to crow also Roosters [https://perma.cc/AEQ4-MZA6]. 9822%2813%2900186-3 Chicago’s excessive animal noise ordinance does, oversimplifies the prob- oversimplifies does, ordinance noise animal excessive Chicago’s a for walks, premises the off and indoors go will that a dog Unlike lem. noise. making backyard the in life entire its spend will rooster backyard significant portion of the day or night” accurately characterizes all rooster rooster all characterizes accurately night” or day the of portion significant ordinance. of the language the echoing noise, wild.html [https://perma.cc/RS25-8ZM9] (Reporting on the history of Kauai’s feral chickens.). chickens.). feral Kauai’s of history the on (Reporting [https://perma.cc/RS25-8ZM9] wild.html 20. al., et Muyshondt G. G. Pieter Gallus Gomesticus) as a Result of Beak Opening it very little thought until all of a sudden, I began to hear a rooster crowing at all hours of the day. As it it As day. the of hours at all crowing a rooster hear to began I a sudden, of all until thought little it very turnedout, neighbors when my bought their chickensback the from farm, theygot a rooster by mistake. Muchto chagrin, my they decidedto keep the roosterbecause their children were attached to it. The sporadically crow to continued and morning every AM 5:15 and AM 4:30 between crowed rooster was there if asked and neighbors my approached I sleep, little of a week After day. the throughout anything to be done about the crowing. My neighbors were conciliatory at first: they tried putting the rooster incrate a in thegarage over-night and purchased a collarof forthe roostercouple that another was intendedensued to so act and sufficient, were options these of Neither crow. his quiet to muzzle a as weeks with very little sleep. Eventually, my neighbors agreed to taketherooster back to thehatchery came. he whence from Baker, Billy rooster. their kill to intending coop, chicken neighbor’s his poisoned he after 17. A Massachusetts man was charged with 11 counts of malicious killing of a domestic animal alert of danger, when mating, and when in competition with other roosters. roosters. other with competition in when and mating, when danger, of alert Crowing Rooster Yoshimura, Takashi & Shimmura Tsuyoshi hours. 23.7 is rhythm 19. circadian mean their because dawn before just crow roosters believe Scientists Crowing may have led to Chicken Deaths in Carlisle in Deaths Chicken to led have may 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 189 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 189 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 189 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 . CI U., U., S . (Jan. but, IFE ECORDS As a a As 28 AG (Jan. 30, R 26 , L M URDUE URDUE ORG . , P 10,888,10,898 HYS CIENCE , P ORLD , S W NALYSIS &A EWS EWS [Vol 95:1 [Vol .N 24 UINNESS AP note 21. 21. note .L.R , G supra NVTL Noise Sources and Their Effects Their and Sources Noise After studying the sound levels of of levels the sound studying After 22 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM , 42 E , 42 Parts I.C and III.A, a rooster is not neces- not is a rooster and III.A, I.C Parts ELETE D So, under circumstances where a hen effec- a hen where circumstances So, under In contrast, the world record for the loudest 29 OT infra N 21 O CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT § 7-12-300 (2019). (2019). § 7-12-300 note 20. ODE Scientists theorize that hens and chicks do not go deaf and chicks not do go that hens deaf theorize Scientists . C Illegal Fowl:Survey A Municipalof Laws Relating to Backyard Poultrya and 1 EIC 5.4 (D 23 supra Sex-Change Chicken: Gertie the Hen Becomes Bertie the Cockerel the Bertie Becomes the Hen Gertie Chicken: Sex-Change UN note23. Why Roosters don’t go Deaf from Their Own Loud Crowing Loud Own Their from Deaf go don’t Roosters Why ACRO ACRO ., M M supra LL How Roosters Protect themselves from their own deafening crows deafening own their from themselves Protect Roosters How ., I ., HI Muyshondt, EISZLER Chickens are born with both sets of sex organs, and when a hen’s a hen’s when and sex organs, of sets with both born are Chickens Loudest bark by a by a dog bark Loudest Id. Id. The Chicago livestock ordinance allows residents to keep tradition- keep to residents allows ordinance livestock The Chicago 25 see 27 370 370 14 G It is important to note that while both roosters and hens vocalize, only only vocalize, and hens roosters both while that to note is important It (2012). (Mar. 31,2011, 3:25 PM), https://www.livescience.com/13514-sex-change-chicken-gertie-hen-bertie- female sex organ is compromised, her male sex organ activates. organ sex male her compromised, is organ sex female rooster’s crows, scientists also sought to understand why roosters do not go go not do roosters why understand to sought also scientists crows, rooster’s opens rooster a when that discovered They crowing. own their from deaf a like acting canal, ear his covers tissue of soft a piece to crow, mouth his earplug.” “built-in https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm[https://perma.cc/J6E4- 2019). 14, Sept. visited (last 2TKP] 22. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/loudest-bark-by-a-dog [https://perma.cc/XGY4- result, the hen will begin secreting androgens, causing it to develop male male develop it to causing androgens, secreting begin will the hen result, laying stop and to to crow, ability the including characteristics, physical eggs. 2018), https://phys.org/news/2018-01-roosters-dont-deaf-loud-crowing.html [https://perma.cc/9GMK- as discussed in more detail in more detail as discussed sary for a hen to lay an egg. lay to a hen for sary 29. Jaime Bouvier, Bouvier, Jaime 29. Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens berly Hickok, Hickok, berly noise is louder than the rapping of a jackhammer and rivals the din on the din the the rivals on and of a jackhammer the rapping than is louder noise carrier. aircraft an of deck milk,” eggs or as such by-products, “edible their for animals al farm roosters crow. However, in rare cases, female chickens appear to change change to appear chickens female rare cases, in crow. However, roosters adrenal diseased or cyst ovarian an like conditions medical to due genders gland. dog bark belongs to a golden retriever and measures 113.1 decibels, the the decibels, 113.1 and measures retriever a golden to belongs dog bark concert. rock as a level noise same 19, 2018, 1:50 PM), https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/how-roosters-protect-themselves-their- from the crows because a rooster directs his crowing away from the coop, coop, the away from crowing his directs a rooster because the crows from congregate. flock the of members other or where tively becomes a rooster, Chicago ought to treat the hen as a rooster rooster a as hen the treat to ought Chicago a rooster, becomes tively Under the ordinance. by required as eggs produces she no longer because 39MF] (last visited Sept.14,2019); Purdue University, 23. Bob Yirka, Yirka, Bob 23. cockerel.html [https://perma.cc/AU33-EZ4X]. [https://perma.cc/AU33-EZ4X]. cockerel.html 25. Remi Melina, Melina, Remi 25. 24. Yirka, Yirka, 24. own-deafening-crows [https://perma.cc/7R9H-72SM]. [https://perma.cc/7R9H-72SM]. own-deafening-crows 26. 26. C 27. 28. 6GDS]; Chemistry, of Dept. University Purdue 21. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 189 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 189 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 190 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 But 33 ? Prior to the Civil Civil the to Prior , (June WTTW 21,2018), 32 371 371 Chicago’s proximity to to Chicago’s proximity 34 RDINANCE O From Farm to Nuisance: Animal Agriculture and the the and Agriculture Animal Nuisance: to Farm From ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM . 113,113 (2014). ELETE IST D HICKEN OR THE .H OT C N O LAN HE T CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE When Chicago Was ‘Hog Butcher to the World’ A. A Brief History of Urban Livestock Livestock Urban of A. A Brief History I. , 13 , 13 J. P 1 EIC 5.4 (D ACRO ACRO M at 10,891-93. at 10,888. at 10,888. EISZLER Id. Id. Id. inner-city Chicago vastly differs from the farming communities of of communities farming the from differs vastly Chicago inner-city 31 2020] 14 G Part I of this article examines the history behind Chicago’s livestock livestock Chicago’s behind history the examines article this of Part I While there are benefits to raising personal livestock, particularly particularly livestock, personal to raising benefits are there While Animals and people lived in close proximity and in symbiotic rela- symbiotic and in proximity in close lived people and Animals 30 ordinance and its evolution in response to the popularity of urban home- urban of popularity to the in response evolution its and ordinance comparing while roosters prohibit should Chicago that argues It steading. as Chicago, suburban in ordinances similar with ordinance the Chicago Part more narrowly. livestock approach that areas urban major other well as com- codifies ordinance noise animal excessive Chicago’s that argues II livestock urban of rights unique the balance to fails but nuisance mon-law As a re- appropriately. neighbors owning non-livestock their owners and live- Chicago’s law. that advocates III Part good a not is the ordinance sult, In noise. regulate to tailored narrowly be and roosters ban ordinance stock resi- for action of right private a for allow should ordinance the addition, livestock. noisy neighbors’ their by affected dents 31. 31. 32. Vitiello, Domenic & Brinkley Catherine Rise of Planning Regulation 33. Daniel Hautzinger, Daniel 33. https://interactive.wttw.com/playlist/2018/06/21/union-stock-yards [https://perma.cc/VHJ9-6WE5] during the war, Confederate forces blocked access to Cincinnati, and the the and Cincinnati, to access blocked forces Confederate war, the during Chicago. west to moved industry meatpacking hens, War, Cincinnati, Ohio, was known as the meat capital of the country. of the capital meat known as the was Ohio, War, Cincinnati, Midwestern farms, its myriad railroad convergences, and its location on on location its and convergences, railroad myriad its farms, Midwestern tionship in early American cities. During that time, urbanites relied on ani- on relied urbanites time, that During cities. American early in tionship management. waste and transportation, food, for mals 30. 30. ordinary circumstances, hens cluck at a level similar to human conversa- to human similar level a at cluck hens circumstances, ordinary tion. close in of living the practice is in a city residing of Part . greater own bun- one’s exercising that understanding people, other with proximity by. close very to someone cost at a come may rights property dle of (“[B]efore Chicago was the meat capital of the world, that role was held by Cincinnati, which in the the in which Cincinnati, by held was role that world, the of capital meat the was Chicago (“[B]efore ‘Porkopolis.’”). as known was century mid-nineteenth 34. 34. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 190 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 190 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 190 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 36 38 Despite the shift the shift Despite 41 Cities responded to to responded Cities 39 [Vol 95:1 [Vol At first, new professions new professions At first, 37 This, coupled with Union Army Army Union with coupled This, In the early 20th century, the Su- century, 20th Inearly the 35 During World War II, a Louisiana a Louisiana War II, During World 40 43 42 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM . 2551, 2569 (2013). ELETE D EV Putting Paradise in a Parking Lot: Using Zoning to Promote to Promote Zoning Using Lot: in a Parking Paradise Putting OT N L. R O note 32, at 114. CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT AME supra D B. The Resurgence of Urban Agriculture Agriculture Urban of B. The Resurgence 1 EIC 5.4 (D note 29, at 10,891. OTRE ACRO ACRO supra , 88 N M EISZLER Id. Id. Id. 372 372 14 G In fact, zoning ordinances limiting farm animals in urban environ- urban in animals farm limiting ordinances zoning fact, In After World War II, and through the latter half of the 20th century, century, 20th the of half latter the and through II, War World After As industrialization progressed and people’s consumption of animals animals of consumption people’s and progressed As industrialization roosters, within a very short time the chicken family would become extinct, and the familiar American American familiar the and extinct, become would family chicken the time short very a within roosters, breakfastof bacon and eggs would be no more.”Myer v.Minard, 20 So. 2d 72,76 (La.Ct. App. 1945). ington urging everyone to raise poultry, eggs, Victory gardens, and other foods . . . If we destroyed the the destroyed we . If . . foods other and gardens, Victory eggs, poultry, raise to everyone urging ington Id. Packing.” Meat of Street Wall “The as 36. known be to came Stockyards Union the Eventually, 37. Vitiello, & Brinkley 38. 38. 39. 40. Note, Maloney, A. Stephanie ments laid the foundation for modern city planning. city modern for foundation the laid ments court decided that a rooster’s crowing was not a nuisance, in part, because because in part, nuisance, a was not crowing rooster’s a that decided court Gar- Victory cultivate to citizens private for and demand popularity of the the war dens in effort. to support order emerged to address concerns over health and sanitation, but eventually, eventually, but sanitation, and health over concerns address to emerged cities.” from exclusion agriculture’s animal “zoning codified American suburbanization led to a decline in urban livestock, but urban urban but livestock, in urban a decline to led suburbanization American transformed, so did their relationships with them. “To combat nuisances, nuisances, combat “To them. with relationships their so did transformed, city from untangled to be had cities for provided animals that the services part large a up made cities from animals remove to Reforms infrastructure. during health and environments in urban interventions authorities’ of public centuries.” nineteenth and eighteenth the 35. 35. Lake Michigan made it a natural choice. a natural it made Michigan Lake to in order ordinances zoning with growth population and industrialization conflicts. and prevent use land regulate Urban Agriculture Urban 42. Bouvier, Bouvier, 42. 41. (1926). 390 365, U.S. 272 Co., Realty Amber v. Euclid of Vill. 43. “The time for this action. theis Agricultural most . inopportune, Department. with Wash- at contracts, spurred the opening of the Union Stockyards in 1865. Stockyards the Union of opening the spurred contracts, preme Court found that a city’s decision to regulate land use through mu- through use land regulate to decision city’s a that found Court preme power. its police of exercise valid was a planning nicipal to push agriculture out of cities, it was not unheard of for urban families to to families for urban of unheard it was not of cities, out to push agriculture no outright had that Chicago like cities in livestock small raise to continue every exhorted States the United I, War World “[d]uring ban. For example, chickens.” to raise in America person 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 190 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 190 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 191 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 . 49 HI Food , C . (Sep. . (Sep. OMPANY OMPANY US Many Many C 47 .B HI AST C S , F ’ . (Oct. 3, 2018), 2018), 3, (Oct. . RAIN EP , C . R HI 373 373 , C 365, 372 (2011). (2011). 372 365, EV 45 When Urban Agriculture Meets Michigan’s Michigan’s Meets Agriculture Urban When .L.R T While zoning operated as a way as a way operated zoning While .S 44 Bill to Create Urban Agricultural Zones Passes Passes Zones Agricultural Urban Create to Bill . 231,234-35. (2012) (“Locavores’ goals include ICH EV ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM see Complete List of Farm to Table Restaurants Table to Farm of List Complete see Urban farms, then, provide underserved underserved provide then, farms, Urban 48 .L.R ELETE , 2011 M UL D OT N O Alex Ruppenthal, , 87 T see see Of Backyard Chickens and Front Yard Gardens: The Conflict Between Between Conflict The Gardens: Yard Front and Chickens Backyard Of CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE (Apr. 30, 2018, 3:19 PM), https://news.wttw.com/2018/04/30/bill-create- PM), 3:19 2018, 30, (Apr. This cultural shift is likely a response to the wider the wider to response a likely is shift cultural This When Farm to Table is Just a Few Blocks Away Blocks a Few Just is Table to Farm When note 29, at 10,891. 46 EWS 1 EIC 5.4 (D supra Why Chicago is Becoming the Country’s Urban Farming Capital Farming Urban Country’s the Becoming is Chicago Why ACRO ACRO M , WTTW N , WTTW Ben Feldheim, Feldheim, Ben Bouvier, Bouvier, EISZLER , http://www.thechicagotraveler.com/complete-list-of-farm-to-table-chicago-restaurants/ , http://www.thechicagotraveler.com/complete-list-of-farm-to-table-chicago-restaurants/ See See See 2020] 14 G In Chicago, social movements and economic interests drive the prolif- the drive interests economic and movements social Chicago, In RAVELER to push livestock and agriculture out of cities, many cities and suburbs suburbs and cities many of cities, out and agriculture livestock to push like agriculture, of types certain to permit ordinances zoning today use usually operations These limits. city within nurseries, and greenhouses lots. or on vacant areas, industrial in up spring 21, 2017, 7:00 AM), https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170921/ISSUE03/170919868/urban- urban-agriculture-zones-passes-illinois-house [https://perma.cc/67FG-WL96]. [https://perma.cc/67FG-WL96]. urban-agriculture-zones-passes-illinois-house https://www.chicagoreporter.com/food-deserts-persist-in-chicago-despite-more-supermarkets/ https://www.chicagoreporter.com/food-deserts-persist-in-chicago-despite-more-supermarkets/ T 44. 44. (Jun. 3, 2016), https://www.fastcompany.com/3059721/why-chicago-is-becoming-the-countrys-urban- agriculture never entirely disappeared. disappeared. entirely never agriculture 46. Jeff Link, Link, Jeff 46. 45. Patricia Norris, GaryMark Taylor & Wyckoff, communities with fresh produce, create jobs, and foster community pride. community foster and jobs, create produce, fresh with communities eration of urban agriculture. On the one hand, urban farming grew in re- grew in farming urban the one hand, On agriculture. urban of eration Chicagoans and food consciousness: in sponse to trends consumption food and from food comes their in where interested increasingly have become produced. how it is also view urban farming as a solution to address poverty and Chicago’s Chicago’s and poverty address to a solution as farming urban view also deserts. food with battle ongoing reducing their carbon footprintby reducing their reliance onindustrial agricultureandoil-based food of ingestion reducing foods, modified genetically avoiding economy, local their supporting production, humane and laborers farm of treatment fair supporting money, saving pesticides, and fertilizers residual origins.”); food about others teaching and animals, farm of treatment like illness chronic of rates higher to lead Restricted that foods. disparities health affordable magnify fresh, to may access foods healthy to access reasonable lack that areas are 48. deserts “Food Wolf, Myles & Block Daniel Kolak, Marynia disease.” cardiovascular or hypertension, diabetes, Supermarkets More Despite Chicago in Persist Deserts farming-alive-and-well-at-site-of-former-robert-taylor-homes [https://perma.cc/N383-CD2E] (Describ- “locavore” movement, the “key tenet” of which is “eat food—preferably food—preferably “eat which is of “key tenet” the movement, “locavore” season.” in is and lives one where to close is grown organic—that Right to Farm Act: The Pig’s in the Parlor the in Pig’s The Act: Farm to Right farming-capital [https://perma.cc/5EKZ-5ECS]; whole city.”). [https://perma.cc/UF5E-49E8]; [https://perma.cc/UF5E-49E8]; Illinois House Illinois 49. 49. [https://perma.cc/4KEY-88BZ] (lastvisited Sept.14,2019) (Listing fifty-three farmtable to restaurants good . . . This farm is taking a big step towards positivity and productivity for both the area and the the and the area both for productivity and positivity towards a big step taking is farm . This . . good 47. Sarah B. Schindler, Schindler, B. Sarah inChicago and boastingthat byvisiting these restaurants, “[n]otonly you are indulgingin some ofthe farms.”). local supporting directly are you but food quality highest 47. Locavores and Governments Local ing Legends Farm, an urban farm erected on the site of the former Robert Taylor Homes housing pro- housing Homes Taylor Robert former the of site the on erected farm urban an Farm, Legends ing ject, formerly “a fenced field compacted of rubble withgrasssomeand weeds.” provides farm The find ex-offenders help to “designed program apprenticeship an of graduates” for training “hands-on .”chef One noted, “It’s an exampleof SouthSide land beingutilized . for . . lasting employment 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 191 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 191 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 191 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 . EV .L.R (Jan. 19, ON OUNCIL OF THE OUNCIL OF THE 52 C , 44 C , 44 EWSWIRE Growing food food Growing ITY 51 . (Mar. 21, 2018), 2018), 21, . (Mar. C PR N KLY In 2007, Alderman In 2007, Alderman ISON ISON 55 Raising chickens also also chickens Raising W 54 , C IDE [Vol 95:1 [Vol § 7-12-300 (2019). (2019). § 7-12-300 S ODE .C OUTH ROCEEDINGS OF THE ROCEEDINGS Vertical Farming Market Growing at 30.7% 30.7% at Growing Market Farming Vertical P UN , S .M LL Debating Over Backyard Chickens Backyard Over Debating ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM ., I HI C ELETE D See Experts speculate that Chicago is becoming becoming is Chicago that speculate Experts OURNAL OF THE OT she proposed an amendment to the municipal municipal the to an amendment she proposed N 50 O 56 CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT note 29, at 10,889. The chickens not only serve as pets but provide their their provide but pets as serve only not chickens The 53 A City of Hen-Keepers of City A 1 EIC 5.4 (D . 10,683 (Sep. 27,2007) (Alderman Laneto wanted amend the chickenordi- supra note46] (citing ReportsnReports, LL 1, 15 supp. (2012). (2012). supp. 1, 15 ACRO ACRO ,I M C. A Brief History of the Chicago Livestock Ordinance Ordinance Livestock Chicago the of History C. A Brief supra supra Bouvier, Bouvier, It appears that Alderman Lane’s concerns over sanitation and and sanitation over concerns Lane’s Alderman that appears It 57 EISZLER HICAGO Id. Id. See C TEMPLATIONS 374 374 14 G But urban farming in Chicago is also big business: one marketing marketing one business: big also is Chicago in farming urban But And while livestock never completely vanished from Chicago, the re- the Chicago, from vanished completely never livestock And while Historically, Chicago never regulated livestock, except to prohibit an- to prohibit except livestock, regulated never Chicago Historically, ITY OF ITY OF code that would ban the keeping and selling of live chickens in residential residential in chickens live of selling and the keeping ban would that code districts. 57. J Chi., of City Council, City https://southsideweekly.com/city-of-hen-keepers-urban-livestock-expo/ [https://perma.cc/9PGV- https://southsideweekly.com/city-of-hen-keepers-urban-livestock-expo/ nance). nance). study anticipates that vertical farming will be “a nearly $4 billion dollar dollar billion $4 “a nearly be will farming vertical that anticipates study 2020.” by globally market disease were exaggerated: humans and chickens have lived in close prox- close in lived have chickens and humans exaggerated: were disease locally with inexpensive LED lighting and solar energy helps meet the the meet helps energy solar and LED lighting inexpensive with locally agriculture. urban supporting movements social the of demands CONN C 50. Link, Link, 50. CAGR to2020 Dominatedby Lightingand Hydroponic Components surgence of urban farming has translated into renewed interest in raising raising in interest renewed into has translated farming urban of surgence chickens. backyard 2016), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vertical-farming-market-growing-at-307-cagr-to- 56. R. Joberg, Frances & Orbach Y. Barak the epicenter of the indoor farming industry in part because Mid- of the because in part industry farming of the indoor the epicenter plants. manufacturing vacant and electricity cheap west’s Lona Lane attempted to change that. Concerned that backyard chickens chickens backyard that Concerned that. to change attempted Lona Lane disease, and rats attracted owners with the same benefits common to rural farming. For example, For example, farming. rural to common benefits the same owners with fresh provide chickens their say Southside on Chicago’s chicken-keepers entertainment. and offer waste, compost eggs, help engenders self-sufficiency and gives urban residents a sense that they are are they that a sense residents urban and gives self-sufficiency engenders consume. they food the in shaping role a playing 4QH2]. prohibition. the slaughtering outside fell 55. therefore and establishment” a “licensed were they because legal were Stockyards The Union imals to be kept by private residents for slaughter. residents by private to be kept imals 2020-dominated-by-lighting—hydroponic-components-565731651.html [https://perma.cc/WR3Z- 54. Tammy Xu, Xu, Tammy 54. KDVJ]). 51. 52. 53. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 191 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 191 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 192 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 (Sep. 10, (Sep.10, . (Aug. 17, 17, . (Aug. Unfazed, Unfazed, US IMES 65 OUNCIL OF THE OUNCIL OF THE T . (Jun. 24, 2019, 2019, 24, (Jun. . .B C . (Dec. 15, 2008), 2008), 15, . (Dec. HI RIB C ITY RIB .T S , N.Y. C ’ .T HI HI Finally, Lane took took Lane Finally, . (last visited Oct. 8, 2019), 2019), 8, Oct. visited . (last , C who attended com- who attended RAIN HI 60 , C 63 67 C 375 375 , C note 52. ROCEEDINGS OF THE ROCEEDINGS P NCYCLOPEDIA supra E , Alderman Lane also complained that that complained also Lane Alderman ODE 59 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM , https://sites.google.com/site/chicagochickenenthusi/ .C UN ELETE LECTRONIC D and “public health scholars have found that that found have scholars health “public and It, too, went nowhere. too, went It, .M , E OURNAL OF THE OT 58 66 LL N O ., I NTHUSIASTS E HI note 57. 61 CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE Chickens Earn Keep in Chicago Backyards Chicago in Keep Earn Chickens supra Semper Corruptus: The Real Illinois Motto Illinois Real The Corruptus: Semper Alderman Narrows Her Chicken Ban and Again Her Tries Ban Narrows Chicken Alderman 1 EIC 5.4 (D note 29, at 10,895. HICKEN Political Culture note 59; C 59; note . 17,251-52 2007). 12, (Dec. C There, the chicken ban mysteriously died before receiving receiving before died mysteriously ban the chicken There, a more clandestine and politically connected chicken lobby lobby chicken connected and politically clandestine a more note 12. 12. note ACRO ACRO LL 62 64 supra M ,I supra Chicago Aldermen and Corruption Cases: Hall of Shame of Hall Cases: Corruption and Aldermen Chicago supra supra Greg Hinz, Sarah Olkon, Olkon, Sarah HICAGO HICAGO EISZLER HICAGO See See See See Id. C 2020] 14 G At the end of 2007, Lane’s amendment was re-referred to the Commit- re-referred was amendment 2007, Lane’s At the end of ITY OF Alderman Lane, who represented the 18th Ward (situated on Chicago’s on Chicago’s (situated Ward 18th the represented who Lane, Alderman a ban then proposed Ark) Moah’s from miles 25 roughly side, south-west ward. her just in on chickens 61. Orbach & Joberg, Joberg, & Orbach 61. 62. City Council, Cityof Chi., J tee on Health. 65. Eng, Eng, http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/987.html [https://perma.cc/63NE-YE52] (Machine cities). American major other than later much existed Chicago in politics 65. that enticed powerful council members to kill the proposed ban. the proposed to kill members council powerful enticed that https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2008-12-15-0812140179-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2008-12-15-0812140179-story.html 20137:00 AM CDT), https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130817/ISSUE05/308179978/illinois-long-tragic-history- [https://perma.cc/F4TK-8YEH] (last visited Sept. 14, 2019). 2019). 14, Sept. visited (last [https://perma.cc/F4TK-8YEH] 2011), https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11cncchicken.html [https://perma.cc/CKQ7-RKSB]. 58. 58. C residents in her ward were killing chickens as part of ritual sacrifices, but but sacrifices, ritual of as part chickens killing ward were in her residents code. municipal the by prohibited already was this imity for thousands for thousands of years imity there is no evidence that the incidence of disease in small flocks of back- of flocks small in disease of incidence the that evidence is no there . . . .” hens banning merits hens yard issue with rooster noise, and with good reason: the year Alderman Lane Lane Alderman year the reason: good with and noise, rooster with issue received and Control Care Animal Chicago the amendment, her proposed com- 65 nuisance and only noise, rooster about complaints 717 nuisance to hens. related plaints 2:31 PM), https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-convicted-aldermen- PM), 2:31 a vote by the city-council. There are two theories as to why that is the case: case: the is that why to as theories two are There city-council. the by a vote of network a “growing Chicken Enthusiasts, the by efforts (1) diligent Chicago” & around in enthusiasts poultry backyard 66. Hunter Clauss, Clauss, Hunter 66. of-corruption [https://perma.cc/7ZAF-7VDD] (Chicago’s corruption scandalsdate backto shortly after 64. 64. mittee meetings, and lobbied their aldermen; and (2) Chicago politics being being politics (2) Chicago and aldermen; their lobbied and meetings, mittee are, they what 63. C 63. 67. 67. htmlstory.html [https://perma.cc/6P34-2EU3] (“Thirty Chicago aldermen have pleaded guilty or been or been guilty pleaded have aldermen Chicago (“Thirty [https://perma.cc/6P34-2EU3] htmlstory.html 59. Bouvier, Bouvier, Olkon, 59. 60. the Civil War.); War.); Civil the convicted of crimes related to official duties since 1972” including Ed Burke and Willie Cochran in in Cochran Willie and Burke Ed including 1972” since duties official to related crimes of convicted 2019); Robin Einhorn, [https://perma.cc/C3XE-E35K]. [https://perma.cc/C3XE-E35K]. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 192 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 192 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 192 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 73 Melina, Melina, See See OUNCIL OF THE OUNCIL OF THE 69 C ITY C Roosters therefore therefore Roosters 72 [Vol 95:1 [Vol ROCEEDINGS OF THE ROCEEDINGS P it should not be, even under the the be, even under not it should 71 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM The originalmunicipal ordinance read: 68 ELETE D OURNAL OF THE OT N O CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT § 7-12-300 (2019). (2019). § 7-12-300 , 10,427 (Oct. 21, 2015). ODE 1 EIC 5.4 (D .C note29,at 10,898 (“In fact,is it likely that everyeggyou have evereaten was UN note 12. 12. note ACRO ACRO LLINOIS 70 supra .M M ,I LL supra ., I HI EISZLER HICAGO C 376 376 14 G Moreover, the ordinance is extremely broad because it neither ex- neither it because broad extremely is ordinance the Moreover, The city-council’s adjustment is poorly written: structurally, the ex- structurally, written: poorly is adjustment The city-council’s Chicago’s livestock ordinance remained unchanged until October October until unchanged remained ordinance livestock Chicago’s note 25. No person shall own, keep or otherwise possess or slaughter any sheep, any sheep, or slaughter possess otherwise or keep own, shall No person or dog, cat rabbit, poultry, species, such of young the or cow pig, goat, purposes. food for animal such use to intending animal, any other pur- food own for their possess otherwise or keep own, shall No person prohibition that this however, provided, animal; any or slaughter, poses, by produced milk, or eggs as such byproducts, edible to apply not shall an animal. ITY OF pressly prohibits certain animals, nor does it distinguish between types of of types between distinguish it does nor animals, certain prohibits pressly animals. such of the genders or milk, produce eggs or lay that animals elephant an keep resident Chicago a can question: curious a invites Which practice in we know although And, eggs? her for ostrich an or milk her for in Chicago, roosters to keep legal it is current ordinance. Roosters do not lay eggs, nor are they instrumental to to instrumental they are eggs, nor lay do not Roosters ordinance. current to ferti- is roosters require hens reason only “[t]he process: the egg-laying chicks.” hatch will eggs the so that eggs, [their] lize ception appears to apply to “animals” that are “edible byproducts,” which which byproducts,” “edible are that “animals” to apply to appears ception meant. city-council the what not is surely 2015, when it was amended explicitly to allow Chicago residents to keep keep to residents Chicago allow to explicitly amended was it 2015, when animals. egg and milk-producing 70. C 70. 68. Eng, Eng, 68. C Yet, as it stands today, the roosters of Chicago get a free pass because the the because pass free a get of Chicago roosters the today, stands it Yet, as has no one because them; exclude facially not and does is broad ordinance fe- their and because roosters; against ordinance the to enforce attempted and crow preen, peck, they while byproducts edible produce partners male off. heads little their 69. City Council, Cityof Chi., J The modified municipal ordinance reads: reads: ordinance municipal The modified 72. Bouvier, Bouvier, 72. 71. Mo Cahill a rooster”). ismet case never in point. that hen a by produced eggs. lays longer no she because ordinance Chicago the under crow, prohibited be also the should she including characteristics physical 73. a rooster’s on takes hen a where case rare the In supra fall within the prohibition of the statute because they themselves do not not do themselves they because statute the of prohibition the within fall them. producing for necessary they are nor byproducts,” “edible produce 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 192 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 192 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 193 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 , § NITED NITED ENSUS ENSUS UREAU C HICKENS B , U C RDINANCES TATES O S In contrast, contrast, In 79 ENSUS ACKYARD ACKYARD note 57, at 27-28. C ODE OF ODE Rockford City NITED , B .C , U supra LL Some municipalities municipalities Some ,I 377 377 77 74 TATES TATES . 615/2 (2018). (2018). . 615/2 S OLIET TAT . S . (May 23, 2019, 5:50 AM), RIB OMP NITED Joliet City, Illinois Orbach & Joberg, Orbach . C .T LL see visitation per parcel in any twelve- in per parcel visitation HI ,U Chicago Slips in Population but is Still the Third- the Still but is in Population Slips Chicago § 4-2 (2019) (Rockford has no apparent restrictions restrictions no apparent has (Rockford (2019) § 4-2 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM But because the city’s ordinance places places ordinance the city’s because But , C §§ 9-1, 15 (2019); J (2019); 15 9-1, §§ 78 ELETE D , https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/rockfordcityillinois , https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/rockfordcityillinois OT RDINANCES N § 7-12-100 (2019). O O Naperville residents may keep chickens, but they they but chickens, may keep residents Naperville RDINANCES O 80 ch. 5-3.4(c) (2019); (2019); 5-3.4(c) ch. UREAU ODE B CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE . C ODE ODE OF UN ODE OF ODE OF D. How the Chicago Ordinance Compares Compares Ordinance the Chicago D. How .C 1 EIC 5.4 (D Aurora City, Illinois City, Aurora LL .C ., M 75 ,I , N.J., C , N.J., LL State law addresses the sale of eggs. of sale the addresses law State LL ACRO ACRO ,I 76 M ., I ., ENSUS Chicken Laws and Ordinances (And How to Change Them) Change to How (And Ordinances and Laws Chicken HI C C Illinois Eggand Egg Products410 Act, I URORA OPEWELL OCKFORD EISZLER See See See 2020] 14 G In Chicago, there is no limit on the number of chickens or roosters a a roosters or chickens of number the on limit no is there Chicago, In At 2.7 million residents, Chicago is the largest city in Illinois, and the the and Illinois, in city largest the is Chicago residents, million 2.7 At Chicken ordinances across the country set forth several types of re- of types several forth set country the across ordinances Chicken [R]oosters may visit the property for the purpose of fertilization so long long so of fertilization purpose for the property the may visit [R]oosters of days ten than more no there are as month period, and for no more than five days consecutively, and provid- and consecutively, days five than more no for and period, month of Department Jersey New by the healthy as are certified ed the roosters Agriculture. TATES https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-census-chicago-metro-population-towns-05172019- have devised incredibly unique restrictions on chickens and roosters. In In roosters. and chickens on restrictions unique incredibly have devised resi- allows Ordinance Right-to-Farm town’s the New Jersey, Hopewell, visits: to conjugal limited are however, Roosters, chickens. keep to dents [https://perma.cc/4BZT-TYN4] (last visited Sept. 14,2019) (Rockford’s estimatedpopulation is (June 26, 2013), https://www.backyardchickens.com/articles/chicken-laws-and-ordinances-and-how-to- person may keep. The only clear limits are that private residents may not not may residents private are that limits clear The only may keep. person excessive prohibiting ordinance separate city’s the and birds their slaughter noise. animal 6-10(c) (2019); S 74. Sumi, Sumi, 74. 76. 76. third largest in the United States. the United in largest third 77. 77. strictions, alone or in combination: permits and fees, limits on the number number the on limits fees, and permits combination: in or alone strictions, clauses, nuisance requirements, enclosure bans, rooster allowed, of birds regulations. distance and regulations, slaughtering Aurora and Joliet, Illinois’ second and third largest cities, restrict fowl to to fowl restrict cities, largest third and second Illinois’ Joliet, Aurora and farming. for zoned areas https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/auroracityillinois [https://perma.cc/3FHY-8V6X] (last visited Sept. 199,602.); is population estimated (Aurora’s 2019) 14, so few restrictions on chickens, Chicago is unique among her neighbors neighbors her among is unique Chicago on chickens, restrictions so few in cities populated most five the Of cities. American large other and among on chickens. such few restrictions has only Rockford Illinois, 78. O’Connell, M. Patrick & Reyes Cecilia 80. A 146,526.). 80. on keeping chickens except that raising the birds for slaughter is prohibited.); prohibited.); is slaughter for birds the that raising except chickens on keeping 79. R [https://perma.cc/V3ZA-SZBR]. story.html 79. Largest City in the U.S.—For Now U.S.—For the in City Largest 75. H change-them.65675/ [https://perma.cc/JR2Z-XAGX]. 75. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 193 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 193 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 193 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 , The The UREAU 82 B 87 ENSUS C As a compromise, 86 TATES TATES [Vol 95:1 [Vol S The city’s permitting require- permitting The city’s 88 NITED Los Angeles entertained an outright an outright Los Angeles entertained 85 § 10-4-6 (2019) (Requires that fowl be kept in a pen pen a in kept be fowl that (Requires (2019) § 10-4-6 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM 81 , U , § 6-39 (2019). ELETE D OT RDINANCES § 161.19 (2018). (2018). § 161.19 N O O ODE RDINANCES CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT note 57, at6. note 57, at30. ch. 5, art. 3, § 53.71 (2019). (2019). § 53.71 3, 5, art. ch. C O ODE OF ODE supra supra supra New York prohibits roosters, but puts no limits on the the on limits puts no but roosters, New York prohibits .C .C 84 EALTH 1 EIC 5.4 (D ODE OF LL UN ,I ., C note 12. 12. note A little ironic, considering that the big city these suburbs suburbs these city big the that considering ironic, little A ACRO ACRO ., M EX 83 M N.Y., H AL ., T C supra Naperville City, Illinois OUS APERVILLE EISZLER Id. , https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/jolietcityillinois [https://perma.cc/ER9Y-BMDV] (last (last [https://perma.cc/ER9Y-BMDV] , https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/jolietcityillinois 378 378 14 G In Houston, residents may keep chickens, but they are subject to nu- subject are they but chickens, keep may residents Houston, In At least twenty Chicagoland suburbs ban keeping chickens and roost- and chickens ban keeping suburbs Chicagoland twenty At least Of the five largest American cities, Chicago’s permissive livestock livestock permissive Chicago’s cities, American largest five the Of UREAU ban on roosters in 2009, over concerns of cockfighting. of concerns over in 2009, roosters ban on ments for residential chickens are very strict: a person with a permit is is a permit with a person strict: very are chickens residential for ments note a doctor’s present must and chickens seven than more no allowed be to needs structure the chicken fresh eggs; for needing a reason stating permit a premises; the inspect will a director building; any from 100 feet 88. H 88. number of hens a resident may keep. a resident of hens number merous, at times confusing, restrictions. confusing, times at merous, 86. Orbach & Joberg, Joberg, & Orbach 86. the city now allows no more than one rooster per property, subject to nar- subject property, per rooster one than no more now allows the city where or instances industry, film the education, as such row exceptions ordinance. an older in under grandfathered were rooster-owners B are subject to numerous restrictions on their numbers, enclosures, and feed feed and enclosures, numbers, their on restrictions to numerous are subject prohibited. are roosters containers; ers, and another fifteen allow chickens, but restrict their numbers. their restrict but chickens, allow fifteen another and ers, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/napervillecityillinois [https://perma.cc/7KXR-WUT8] (last visited of population an estimated with in Illinois city largest fourth the is Eng, (Naperville 2019) 14, Sept. 148,304.). 82. 84. Orbach & Joberg, Joberg, & Orbach 83. 84. 85. N.Y.C., 85. theory as to why many of the outlying Chicago suburbs passed livestock livestock passed suburbs Chicago outlying the of many to why as theory more appearing images: their redefine to wanted towns the that is bans farm neighboring from themselves distinguishing meant and urban modern communities. 87. L.A., 87. visited Sept. 14, 2019) (Joliet’s estimatedpopulation is148,099.). zoning another by prohibited unless chickens, eight of maximum a allowed are residents coop; or enclo- chicken on restrictions are there and containers; in rodent-proof kept be to needs feed ordinance; most sought to emulate has one of the most liberal livestock ordinances in in ordinances livestock liberal most the one of has emulate to sought most the country. Chicago, Unlike unique. wholly are regulation rooster lax and ordinance in the it re-allowed but century, 19th the in fowl banned century. 20th early 81. N 81. sures.); 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 193 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 193 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 194 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 89 (July 31, 2017), 2017), 31, (July ETRO , M 97 379 379 The city will release the the release will city The 90 They also may be kept for for kept be may also They 96 Philadelphia is the most restrictive is the most restrictive Philadelphia ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM In Philadelphia, chickens are considered considered are chickens Philadelphia, In 93 ELETE The fact that Houston codifies a procedure procedure a codifies Houston that The fact D 92 OT N , tit. 10 § 10-112 (2019). (2019). 10-112 10 § , tit. O ODE Affirmative defenses for keeping a rooster include include a rooster keeping for defenses Affirmative CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE .C 91 For example, two women obtained permits with the the with permits obtained women two example, For UN 98 1 EIC 5.4 (D ., M Although chickens are not banned outright, they are so so are they outright, banned not are chickens Although ACRO ACRO 94 ENN M Chickens may be kept only by those in certain professions professions certain in those by only kept be may Chickens ., P 95 In another instance, a judge threw out $3,000 in chicken-related in chicken-related $3,000 out threw judge a instance, another In § 6-38. § 6-38. 99 HILA EISZLER Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. id. See Id. Id. Id. 2020] 14 G Houston also prohibits roosters, the ordinance extensively detailing detailing extensively ordinance the roosters, prohibits also Houston However, similar to the Chicago “chicken enthusiasts” that helped kill kill helped that enthusiasts” “chicken the Chicago to similar However, Of the five largest American cities, cities, American largest five the Of how the city will deal with someone who harbors an illegal rooster: the the rooster: illegal an harbors who someone with deal will city how the the retrieve may owner the and impounded, and seized be will rooster fee. impound and fine a pays she once rooster rooster on the condition that the owner immediately removes the rooster rooster the removes immediately the owner that condition the on rooster limits. city the from heavily restricted that it is nearly impossible for Philadelphia residents to to residents for Philadelphia impossible nearly it is that restricted heavily them. keep farm animals. farm educational purposes or on lots of three or more acres. more or three of lots on or purposes educational the city’s proposed chicken ban, some Philadelphia chicken owners are are owners chicken Philadelphia ban, some chicken proposed the city’s fight. up a putting when it comes to backyard fowl. to backyard it comes when for dealing with roosters warns that the city is serious about banning the the banning about serious is city the that warns roosters with dealing for that message deeper a sends a whole as ordinance restrictive The animal. farming urban private in itself to involve intends actor, a state Houston, as livestock. urban regulating by harshly help of an alderman by declaring they kept their chickens for educational educational for chickens their they kept by declaring an alderman help of purposes. 89. 90. can be revoked for health hazard, nuisance, or failing to get an inspection; inspection; an get to failing or nuisance, hazard, health for revoked can be hearing. a to entitled is holder the permit revoked, is permit the and if 91. 91. P 92. 93. https://www.metro.us/news/local-news/philadelphia/backyard-chickens-philadelphia-legal-fight 94. 94. 95. 96. 97. Mitman, Hayden Northeast Philly Chickenin Philadelphia. Owner owners Beats Fines 98. chicken with Councilman’sclandestine Support1,000 estimated an are There such as circus performers or veterinarians. performers circus such as that the rooster is kept by the government and is participating in a scientific in a scientific participating is and government the by is kept rooster the that is and institution or research educational, owned by a medical, is or study, law. state with in compliance [https://perma.cc/KL6F-DKJH]. [https://perma.cc/KL6F-DKJH]. 99. 99. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 194 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 194 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 194 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 , U. REXEL , D . 1979). 101 The residents who fight fight who residents The [Vol 95:1 [Vol NST OWL 100 I The problem with both the the both with problem The F 102 AW .L M ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM A. Nuisance A. Nuisance § 821D (A UISANCE AND ELETE D N ORTS OT T II. N O OF CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT ) Backyard Battle: Fighting Philadelphia’s Ban on Chickens on Ban Philadelphia’s Fighting Battle: Backyard ECOND While public nuisance concerns “an interference with with interference “an concerns nuisance public While City Takes West Philly Woman to Court Over Backyard Chickens, She Wins She Chickens, Backyard Over to Court Woman Philly West Takes City 1 EIC 5.4 (D (S note 101. 101. note 103 ACRO ACRO ., https://www.lebow.drexel.edu/news/backyard-battle-fighting-philadelphia-s-ban- supra M US . (May 23, 2016,1:06PM), https://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/05/23/are-chickens- ESTATEMENT EISZLER C. B AG 380 380 14 G Nuisance law derives from the English common law and dates back to to law and dates back the common English from law derives Nuisance Although keeping roosters in Chicago is, legally speaking, uncontro- speaking, legally is, in Chicago roosters keeping Although Chicago’s excessive animal noise ordinance codifies common-law common-law codifies ordinance noise animal excessive Chicago’s .M OW B E HILA the 12th century. the 12th legal-in-philadelphia/ [https://perma.cc/C9MJ-4XH2]. [https://perma.cc/C9MJ-4XH2]. legal-in-philadelphia/ restrictive approach in Philadelphia, and Chicago’s extremely liberal ap- liberal extremely and Chicago’s Philadelphia, in approach restrictive own- of livestock the rights to balance a failure is there same: is the proach neighbors. their ers and versial, that is not the case in other parts of Illinois, or the country. While While country. the or Illinois, of parts in other case the not is that versial, purpos- area-specific for roosters and chickens restrict municipalities some and noise health for concerns general of more out come efforts es, other and Chicago between comparisons the are interesting Especially regulation. regu- severely more that Philadelphia and Houston, York, New like cities against at protecting job do a better These cities roosters. and chickens late of these Yet in some roosters. ban they because noise animal excessive prop- the infringe ordinances restrictive overly the Philadelphia, like cities, their enjoy quietly and hens raise to like would who residents of rights erty of would-be majority a out, point residents the Philadelphia As benefits. and hens raise to want they eggs; their for birds the desire owners chicken roosters. keeping of intention no have they 101. Jonathan Hartley, Hartley, Jonathan 101. 100. Victor Fiorillo, Fiorillo, Victor 100. citations accrued by one Philadelphia woman. one Philadelphia by accrued citations L Philadelphia’s restrictive ordinance are all clear that they do not keep do not keep they that clear all are ordinance restrictive Philadelphia’s the does sex which about misconceptions that believe they fact, In roosters. ban. for the chicken to blame are crowing partially nuisance but fails to balance property rights. As a result, the ordinance is is ordinance the a result, As rights. property balance to fails but nuisance and its law nuisance of the history discusses This section not good law. that cases nuisance animal of examples citing law, animal with intersection sides both on rights owners’ property the protecting tests balancing conduct claim. of a nuisance P 103. R 103. chickens [https://perma.cc/2QPQ-E2XH] (last visited Sept. 14, 2019). 14, Sept. visited (last Fiorillo, [https://perma.cc/2QPQ-E2XH] chickens 102. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 194 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 194 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 195 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 , 111 106 EETON 113 . 1979). Courts balance the the balance Courts . 1979). NST 112 381 381 I In privatenuisance ac- NST I AW For example, an Illinois an Illinois For example, 105 AW .L 115 Moreover, courts take into into take courts Moreover, M .L M 110 private nuisance relates to disa- to relates nuisance private 104 109 § 821D (A 821D § ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM § 821F cmt.c (A ORTS ELETE T D ORTS OT OF T ) N O OF ) However, courts do not measure nuisance “by the the “by nuisance measure not do courts However, ECOND § 86, at 618 (5th ed. 1984)). CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE 114 (S 107 ECOND ORTS 1 EIC 5.4 (D (S T ACRO ACRO M § 821F cmt. g. g. cmt. § 821F ESTATEMENT In a barking dog case, for example, “[t]he circuit court was was court circuit “[t]he example, case, for a barking dog In R EETON ON at 41. at 41. § 821E. § 821F cmt. e-g. ESTATEMENT 108 EISZLER Id. See See Id. Id. id. See &K 2020] 14 G At common law, something “offensive, physically, to the senses” cre- the senses” to physically, “offensive, something law, common At Not any mere annoyance qualifies as a nuisance. There must be “a real real “a be must There nuisance. a as qualifies annoyance mere Not any Plaintiffs in private nuisance cases have the burden of proving that an an that proving of burden the have cases nuisance in private Plaintiffs ROSSER 110. R 110. charged with the task of balancing these conflicting interests to determine to determine interests conflicting these of the task balancing with charged there- and, invasion an unreasonable was invasion intentional the whether nuisance.” private an actionable fore, law). Kentucky 107. (applying 1991) Va. (W. 803 795, S.E.2d 412 Inc., Oil, Ashland v. Arnoldt 108. 109. Dobbs v. Wiggins, 929 N.E.2d30,39 (Ill. App.Ct.2010). ates a nuisance if it causes discomfort and interferes with another’s enjoy- another’s with interferes and discomfort causes it if a nuisance ates property. of her ment interference is (1) substantial; (2) intentional or negligent; and, (3) unrea- and, (3) or negligent; intentional (2) substantial; is (1) interference sonable. law nuisance because interests” the plaintiff’s of invasion or appreciable .” . . . trifles with itself concern “does not totality of these factors against the defendant’s property rights. property the defendant’s against of these factors totality 104. City of Chi.v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,821 N.E.2d1099, 1111 (Ill. 2004) (quoting W. K These factors help the plaintiff establish whether the defendant’s use of her of her use defendant’s the whether establish plaintiff the help These factors and unreasonable. negligent, or intentional is land the rights of the community at large,” community the of the rights a in standing have not did plaintiffs three that ruled court a For example, property not were they because refinery an oil against suit nuisance private no ownership [holding] relatives of the homes in “occupants owners but in the land. interest” 105. 105. 106. 106. greements between individual property owners. property individual between greements P loca- particular in that use of the the the suitability against 113. and land the of plaintiffs use to the done harm defendant’s the the by balance caused must benefit “court at 39 (A N.E.2d 929 Dobbs, 111. 111. 112. tions, “there is liability only to those who have property rights and and rights property have who those to only liability is “there tions, .” . . . affected land the of enjoyment and use to the in respect privileges account the character of the community where the nuisance claim arises; arises; claim nuisance the where community the of character the account the of member a normal would bother harm of complained the whether invasion. property the of frequency and duration the and community; standard of persons of delicate sensibilities and fastidious habits, but by the the by but habits, fastidious and sensibilities delicate of persons of standard .” . . . people ordinary of feelings and habits tion.”) (citation omitted). omitted). (citation tion.”) 114. WahleReinbach, v. 76 Ill.322, 327 (Ill. 1875). 115. Wente v. Commonwealth Fuel Co., 83 N.E. 1049, 1052 (Ill. 1908). 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 195 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 195 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 195 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 L. 117 NIMAL , 11 A 122 Although cer- Although article, her In Because Illinois Illinois Because 123 124 120 Courts strike down down strike Courts 121 [Vol 95:1 [Vol The court determined that these nois- these that determined court The fs were deprived material use of their their use of material deprived fs were ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM 116 ELETE D Municipal ordinances receive a presumption presumption a receive ordinances Municipal OT N 119 O CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT . 5/11-60-2 (1961). B. Animal Legal Status and Nuisance Nuisance and Status B. Animal Legal No Pets Allowed: Housing Issues and Companion Animals Companion and Issues Housing Allowed: Pets No TAT 1 EIC 5.4 (D City of Aurora v. Navar, 568 N.E.2d 978, 984 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (“A city has has city (“A 1991) Ct. App. (Ill. 984 978, N.E.2d 568 v. Navar, Aurora of City . S Animals as Vulnerable Subjects: Beyond Interest-Convergence, Hierarchy, and and Hierarchy, Interest-Convergence, Beyond Subjects: Vulnerable as Animals L. 65, 67 (2009). 67 (2009). 65, L. see ACRO ACRO OMP M , Ani B. Satz points out that animals that are pets or perform a a perform or pets are that animals that out points Satz B. , Ani . C , 568 N.E.2d at 983-84. NIMAL LL at 501; at 310. at 310. 118 EISZLER Id. Id. Navar Id. , 16 A 382 382 14 G The Illinois Municipal Code grants cities the power to “define, pre- “define, to power the cities grants Code Municipal The Illinois Legally speaking, animals are considered property. considered are animals speaking, Legally 119. 65 I 65 118. 119. vent, and abate nuisances.” abate and vent, Animals as Vulnerable Subjects: Beyond Interest-Convergence, Hierarchy, Hierarchy, Interest-Convergence, Beyond Subjects: as Vulnerable Animals and Property legal greater receive eggs) laying hen a as (such owners their for function perform pets or that are not that species same of the animals than protection of validity from the courts: as long as the municipal ordinance bears a rea- bears ordinance the municipal as as long the courts: from of validity uphold will courts to protect, seeks it interests the to relationship sonable power. municipal of exercise valid a as the ordinance nuisance ordinances if the law is especially unclear about what behavior or or what behavior about unclear is especially law the if ordinances nuisance a example, For violations. constitutional other for or prohibited, is nuisance and vague too was it because ordinance noise city’s a down struck court officials. power to administrative gave too much discretionary grants its municipalities broad power to regulate, a court will typically up- typically will a court regulate, power to broad municipalities its grants a that “determination a city’s that finds it unless ordinance hold a nuisance erroneous.” clearly is nuisance a is activity particular 1920). Ct. App. 116. (Ill. 309 306, App. Ill. 217 Co., 117. Refrigerating & Ice Purity v. Lindblom court found that a married couple who lived next to an ice factory did not not did factory ice an to next lived who couple married a that found court emanating noises the about complained they when claim a nuisance have trucks. delivery factory’s the from the to respect with claim nuisance a did have couple same the However, sleeping their onto and roof factory the off blew that ice of sheets massive plaintif the instance, that in porch; property. es, “while vexatious,” were part of the costs of living in an urban area. urban an in living of costs the of part were vexatious,” “while es, 120. 1985). Ct. App. (Ill. 501-02 499, N.E.2d 484 v. Cunningham, Caseyville of Vill. tain types of laws, such as anti-cruelty laws, protect animals, these legal legal these animals, protect laws, anti-cruelty as such laws, of types tain interests. with human alignment in function protections 124. Ani B. Satz, Satz, B. Ani 72 (2005). 69, 124. Property no power to declare that to be a nuisance which is not a nuisance in fact.”). in fact.”). a nuisance not is which to nuisance be a that declare to no power 122. 123. Huss, J. Rebecca 121. 121. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 195 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 195 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 196 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 Each of these these Each of 128 126 . (Jul. 29, 2019, 9:15 AM), AM), 9:15 2019, 29, . (Jul. HI C 383 383 LUB C LOCK , B ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM ELETE D As a result, private citizens who wish to for- to wish who citizens private result, a As OT N 131 O All 114 Roosers, Hens Rescued From Southside Cockfighting Ring Ring Cockfighting Southside From Rescued Hens Roosers, 114 All § 7-12-100 (2019). (2019). § 7-12-100 CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE Compare a backyard hen in Chicago with a rooster in in rooster a with Chicago in hen a backyard Compare ODE 125 . C note 124, at 115. 1 EIC 5.4 (D UN Noise-related animal nuisance cases most commonly arise arise commonly most cases nuisance animal Noise-related ACRO ACRO supra 129 ., M , Kelly Bauer, Bauer, , Kelly M LL Cities regulate animals with licensing, permit, and vaccination vaccination and permit, licensing, with animals regulate Cities Colorado Div. of Wildlife v. Cox, 843 P.2d 662 (Colo. App. 1992) (finding that non- that (finding 1992) App. (Colo. 662 P.2d 843 v. Cox, Wildlife of Div. Colorado Huss, Huss, ., I ., 127 at70-71 (“For example, dogs are protectedunder state anti-cruelty statutes basedon their at 109-10. at 109-10. HI EISZLER See, e.g. See, Id. See See Id. See See 2020] 14 G The Chicago excessive animal noise ordinance requires that the noise noise the that requires ordinance noise animal excessive The Chicago When municipalities regulate animals, they aim to prevent and abate abate and to prevent they aim animals, regulate When municipalities 130 Have Now Found Homes Thanks To ‘Historic’ Rescue ‘Historic’ To Thanks Homes Found Now Have capacity to suffer. Due to their scientific and educational utility, however, dogs who are not pets are are pets not are who dogs however, utility, educational and scientific their to Due suffer. to capacity routinely intensively confined and suffer invasive experimentsinboth laboratory and medical training contexts.”). 126. Houston: the hen enjoys legal protection based on her ability to lay eggs, eggs, to lay ability on her based protection legal hen enjoys the Houston: Both contraband. illegal any other like confiscation faces rooster the while protection legal greater receives one yet species, same of the are members that And perhaps usefulness. recognized legally and location its based on in treatment humane more into translates usefulness recognized legally or hens. roosters not protect do that cities versus Chicago be witnessed by a city officer, or be attested to by three residents who re- residents to by three be attested or officer, city by a be witnessed addresses. separate at side nuisance. in the context of barking dogs. Here, courts struggle to develop bright-line bright-line develop to struggle courts Here, dogs. of barking context in the nui- in any private as burden on the plaintiff’s focus they Instead, rules. her of enjoyment denied is plaintiff the which to degree the case: sance noise, the whether and provides; plaintiff the evidence of type the property; sensibili- ordinary of person a offend would evidence, by the as shown ties. 125. 125. no useful function. no useful mally complain about a barking dog or a noisy rooster under the ordinance ordinance the under rooster a noisy dog or a barking about complain mally provisions seeks to curb any negative externalities, such as nuisance, that that nuisance, as such externalities, negative any curb to seeks provisions regarding neighbors between disputes While ownership. animal flow from create that animals involving cases claims, nuisance private are animals nui- public are community larger the affect that sounds or odors offensive actions. sance https://blockclubchicago.org/2019/07/29/all-114-roosters-hens-rescued-from-south-side-cockfighting- requirements, limits on animal numbers, and outright bans. outright and numbers, on animal limits requirements, 129. 129. 587 v. Hafner, State nuisance); public a were ibex and sheep, Barbary deer, red as such animals native N.W.2d177 (N.D. 1998) (upholding convictionofman a let who hishogs run freeonpublic a high- way); Patterson v. CityofRichmond, 576 S.E.2d759 (Va.Ct. App. 2003) (finding thatbarking dogs were a publicnuisance). C 130. 131. Zang v. Engle,2000 1341326, WL at *4 (Ohio Ct.2000). App. ring-have-now-found-homes-thanks-to-historic-rescue/ [https://perma.cc/WSY6-QSRP] (“While most 128. 128. wouldn’t have to be put down.”). 127. cities will automatically euthanize birds taken from cockfighting rings, Animal Care and Control paired paired Control and Care Animal rings, cockfighting from taken birds they euthanize so chickens automatically the will for cities homes permanent out seek and foster to . . . organizations rescue with up 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 196 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 196 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 196 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 . 138 RIB . T As a HI 136 137 , C The par- The 135 While the trial trial While the 132 139 [Vol 95:1 [Vol rds to fight outside of Mississippi. of outside fight to rds Because cases involving roosters are are roosters involving cases Because ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM 133 a Mississippi case, the plaintiffs sought to sought plaintiffs the case, a Mississippi ELETE D 134 , OT N O CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT HowRid to Get of the Neighborhood NuisanceNext Door C. Balancing in Animal Nuisance Cases Cases Nuisance Animal in C. Balancing 1 EIC 5.4 (D ACRO ACRO M Myer v.Minard, 21 So.2d 72, 76-77 (La. Ct. App.1945) (“Without further proclaiming Robert Bruss, at 1068. at 1068. at 1069. at 1068. EISZLER Lambert v. Matthews v. Lambert Id. Id. Id. See Id. See See 384 384 14 G Courts across the country have come down on different sides of the the of sides different on down come have country the across Courts The Lamberts raised their roosters as part of a gamecock operation, operation, a gamecock of part as roosters their raised The Lamberts In 139. 2000). App. Ct. (Miss. 1068 1066, 2d 757 So. Matthews, v. Lambert 138. 138. 137. 137. rooster-as-private nuisance issue. nuisance rooster-as-private (Aug.1997), 9, https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-08-09-9708090172-story.html 136. result, the plaintiffs brought a common law private nuisance action. nuisance private law a common brought plaintiffs the result, relatively rare, this research focused both on nuisance cases involving noisy noisy involving cases on nuisance both focused research this rare, relatively balance how courts of two examples Below are dogs. and barking roosters nuisance of animal types in these remedies fashion and interests competing cases. permanently enjoin the Lamberts from keeping roosters on their property property on their roosters keeping from Lamberts the enjoin permanently disease. carried birds the that fears and noise to excessive due and although cockfighting was illegal in Mississippi, the evidence showed showed the evidence Mississippi, in was illegal cockfighting and although bi their allowed only the Lamberts that At the time of the trial, the Lamberts had nineteen roosters, but at one time, time, one at but roosters, nineteen had Lamberts the trial, the of time the At property. on their roosters to 100 hens and they had up 132. must present outside affirmations of the noise disruption, and not merely merely not and disruption, noise the of affirmations outside present must a bring may Chicago in a complainant Alternatively, evidence. own their the but animal, a disruptive against claim nuisance private law common the under complaint the as bringing hurdles same the much into runs claim present also must complainant the claim, nuisance private a In ordinance. would that level a at exists noise animal the that only not prove to evidence of result a as suffered so has she that also but person, an ordinary offend a remedy. fashion and in step should court a that the noise ties lived in a “rural residential” area without zoning ordinances or protec- ordinances zoning without area residential” in a “rural lived ties roosters. keeping from the Lamberts prohibited that covenants tive of the rights of the plaintiffs.”); City of St. Paul v. Nelson,hours 404 N.W.2d 890, 891-92 inconvenient at (Minn. Ct. crowing App. frequent rooster’s a of complaints numerous that find (“We 1987) nuisance.”). a demonstrates 134. 135. 7572d So. 1066 (Miss.Ct. App. 2000). [https://perma.cc/T4BD-TWKY] (illustrating the challenges of common law nuisance claims). claims). nuisance law of common challenges the (illustrating [https://perma.cc/T4BD-TWKY] 133. thecheerful and gallant qualitiesofthe big red rooster,convinced we are beyond a reasonabledoubt to a normal a nuisance to become as disturbing be so cannot day of break the at outburst the cheery that derogation a not is crow to rooster the allow to continue to that . and . . sensibilities ordinary of person 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 196 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 196 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 197 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 In this this In 149 142 at 1070. Id. Accordingly, the the Accordingly, . 1979). 147 The noise the Lam- the The noise NST I 385 385 146 AW Therefore, the nature and and the nature Therefore, .L at 1071 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (quot- M 150 Id. The trial court reliedthe on neigh- While the Lamberts objected to the the to objected Lamberts the While 140 143 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM § 821F cmt. e-g (A e-g cmt. 821F § Because the gamecock operation was a a was operation gamecock the Because ELETE D 141 ORTS OT T N O 151 Citing a Maryland case, the appeals court deter- court appeals the case, a Maryland Citing OF ) 144 The court took into account the fact that the parties the parties that fact the account into took The court CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE 148 ECOND 1 EIC 5.4 (D (S , 757 So. 2d at 1069. 145 ACRO ACRO M at1071. at1070. . at 1070 (citing Guarina v. Bogart, 180 A.2d 557, 562 (Penn. 1962)). 1962)). . (Penn. 562 557, 180 A.2d v. Bogart, Guarina (citing 1070 at at 1071. at 1069. ESTATEMENT EISZLER Id. Id. See id. See Id. See id See id. See See Lambert See Id. 2020] 14 G No ordinance prohibited the Lamberts from keeping their roosters so so roosters their keeping from Lamberts the prohibited No ordinance But the chancellor also found that “the absolute banning of roosters in in roosters of banning absolute “the that found also chancellor But the 146. R ing Singerv. James, 100642 A. at 644 (Md.1917)). 146. have specifically pointed out the things that [the defendant] is required to do and to refrain from doing, doing, from to do and refrain to is required defendant] [the that things out the pointed specifically have in order to abate the nuisance which the court foundtoexist.’” ‘should court] lower [the that and vague 145. too was decree the that found court [Maryland] “The 143. 143. 144. 150. 150. 151. ers. Or in the case of the Lamberts,notquiet, so because they could still elect to keeptwo roost- berts’ roosters made persisted over a long period of time, substantially in- substantially of time, period a long over persisted made roosters berts’ property. their use of neighbors’ their with terfering 141. 141. to sufficient be would had.” [roosters] two that Lamberts the hens testimony on of 142. number relied the have for may services chancellor] rooster “[The required the provide hobby, not a source of income for the Lamberts, the chancellor enjoined the the enjoined the chancellor Lamberts, the for income of a source hobby, not property. on their two roosters than more keeping from Lamberts type of a community, the court determined, it was reasonable to permit the the permit to reasonable it was determined, court the a community, type of roosters. of number finite a keep to Lamberts all lived on large tracts of land of ten acres or more in a rural area. a rural in more or acres ten of land of tracts large on lived all 149. 149. 148. 148. 147. 147. bors’ testimony, as well as videotaped evidence that demonstrated the ex- the demonstrated that evidence videotaped as as well testimony, bors’ crowing. roosters’ the of tent 140. 140. mined that a specific number was necessary to inform the Lamberts and and Lamberts the inform to necessary was number a specific that mined creat- to avoid done be must and what permitted, is behavior what of others ing a nuisance. court found no evidence that the roosters carried diseases, it did find that that find did it diseases, carried roosters the that evidence no found court full having from [plaintiffs] prevented roosters by the produced “the noise property.” their of use and enjoyment size of the properties at issue helped the court balance the competing inter- the competing balance court the helped issue at properties the size of a ests and fashion remedy. limit on the number of roosters they were allowed to keep, the appeals appeals the to keep, allowed they were roosters of the number on limit ruling. the upheld court court recognized that it needed to create a remedy that lessened the noise noise the lessened that a remedy create to needed it that recognized court in property their use to continue to Lamberts the allowed also but impact, wished. they the way the court conducted a common law balancing test. balancing law common a conducted court the this setting would be unreasonable.” be would setting this 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 197 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 197 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 197 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 The The 156 Ultimate- Part of the the of Part 157 155 It also recognized recognized also It 159 court recognized that the the that recognized court [Vol 95:1 [Vol 158 a New York case brought under an an under brought case York a New 152 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM , Curry Chevrolet Curry ELETE D OT N O CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT In light of this, and because Curry Chevrolet al- Chevrolet Curry and because this, of light In court, the the court, 160 1 EIC 5.4 (D ACRO ACRO The dogs helped the dealership see a decrease in crime, and Lambert M 153 154 at 936. 936. at at 939. at 939. at 938. at 938. at 939. at 935. at 935. at 935-36. at 938-39. . at 938 (“When these dogs bark at intruders or what appears to be potential intruders on the the on intruders potential be to appears what or intruders at bark dogs these (“When 938 at . EISZLER People v. Curry Chevrolet Curry v. People Id. Id. Id. Id. Id Id. Id. Id. 386 386 14 G Like the In After the dealership implemented numerous measures to decrease the the decrease to measures numerous implemented dealership the After outside of the chain link fence, they are demonstrating their training and are barking for the protection protection the for barking are and training their demonstrating are they fence, link chain of the outside property.”). master’s their of preservation the and 160. problem was that Mr. McDonald’s property was zoned for residential use, use, residential for was zoned property McDonald’s Mr. that was problem use. commercial for zoned which was dealership, the but abutted 155. 155. 157. 158. 159. animal noise ordinance, the dispute stemmed from repeated complaints complaints repeated from stemmed dispute the ordinance, noise animal To John McDonald. neighbor from dogs guard dealership’s a car about keeping began dealership the vandalism, and theft with problems address dogs. guard ready complied with a number to remedies to lessen the dogs’ barking, the the dogs’ barking, the to lessen remedies to a number with ready complied from dealership Curry the prohibit completely to inclined not was court balancing type of the demonstrate cases these dogs. Both guard the keeping ac- into took courts The nuisance. assessing when in engage courts that of as well as the nature by the complainants, faced distress the count both dogs’ barking, McDonald was still annoyed by the noise. the by annoyed was still McDonald barking, dogs’ that the two properties at issue were zoned for different uses, and that that and uses, different for zoned were issue at properties two the that he before dogs guard kept property the neighboring that knew McDonald house. his purchased 152. 153. 415 N.Y.S.2d933, 934 (N.Y. Just.Ct. 1979). 154. 156. after several years, McDonald moved into the property abutting the Curry the Curry abutting into the property moved McDonald years, several after dealership. court remarked that “[t]his court responds empathetically and compassion- and empathetically responds court “[t]his that remarked court are there . [But] . . complainant the of distress evident very to the ately their to continue right the have Curry people The sides. on both equities use.” such for commercially zoned area an in are and business defendant had a right to keep animals on its property. its on animals keep to right had a defendant ly, the court required that the dealership remove one of its three dogs; that that dogs; three of its one remove dealership the that required court ly, the in work- they were to ensure collars anti-bark dog’s the check regularly it ing condition; that it renew training for the remaining dogs every two two every dogs remaining the for training renew it that ing condition; the feasibil- “as to owners property local other with it confer and that years; measures.” ameliorating of unthought other ity of 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 197 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 197 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 198 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 162 387 387 AMES . 1979). G NST I 161 AW .L did. OOSTER M R ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM ELETE D NDING NDING A. Banning Roosters Roosters A. Banning E OT N O § 821F cmt. e (A e cmt. § 821F III. Curry Chevrolet Chevrolet Curry CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE ORTS T 1 EIC 5.4 (D OF ) and ACRO ACRO notes15,18-22 and accompanying text. M ECOND at 938; Lambert v. Matthews, 757 So. 2d 1066, 1070 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000); 2000); App. Ct. (Miss. 1070 1066, 2d So. 757 Matthews, v. Lambert 938; at (S Lambert EISZLER See supra See See id. 2020] 14 G Back in Chicago, the excessive animal noise ordinance codifies nui- codifies ordinance noise animal excessive the Chicago, Back in To preserve property interests, the city should codify nuisance law in in law nuisance codify should city the interests, property To preserve As stated previously, treating a rooster like any overzealous barking barking overzealous any like rooster a treating previously, As stated First, the most glaring reason supporting why the Chicago ordinance ordinance why the Chicago supporting reason glaring most the First, ESTATEMENT 162. 162. 161. 161. In granting citizens broad freedom to keep roosters without a clear remedy remedy clear a without roosters keep to freedom broad citizens granting In prop- the values city the noise, accompanying the by affected neighbors for owning non-livestock their of rights the over owners livestock of rights erty neighbors. them, bans already city the that is roosters address specifically should or- livestock The and vague. confusing is language controlling the though the properties, and what amount of noise was reasonable under the circum- the under reasonable was noise of amount what and the properties, stances. the But doctrine. balancing of type is a form modern its in law, which sance different inherently are cities that point: crucial one neglects ordinance like ordinance in the language Further, areas. rural or farms from spaces is level” conversational “average or portion,” “significant “intermittently,” does little the ordinance witness requirements, vague, of its and because exces- the result, a As claim. nuisance law common a replicate than more concerning rights property the to balance fails ordinance noise sive animal of nature the for account would ordinance better A city. the in animals farm uniquely people, 2.7 million of a city Chicago, that fact the the community: in a found city, and not common- not typically animals and protects permits areas. urban other in ly allowed its livestock ordinance. The Chicago livestock ordinance should be amend- should ordinance livestock Chicago The ordinance. livestock its noise. regulate better to tailored be narrowly should and roosters ed to ban resi- for of action right a private for allow should ordinance the addition, In city so, the doing In livestock. noisy neighbors’ their by affected dents to how the similar issue, at community the of nature for the would account in courts R dog is not the correct approach given that dogs leave their yards while while yards their leave dogs that given approach correct the not dog is than the rec- crow is louder rooster an average that do not; given roosters homes. of Chicago proximity close the given and bark; dog ord-setting 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 198 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 198 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 198 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 but but 165 As Revised Revised 167 . (May 23, 2018, 5:10 PM), PM), 5:10 2018, 23, . (May § 4-384-015(b) (2018); (2018); 4-384-015(b) § In contrast, human human In contrast, RIB 168 ODE represents the distance distance the represents r .T note 29, at 10,898. The only reason to keep to reason keep The only .C (Georgia State University, 2017), 2017), University, State (Georgia note 29, at 10,898. [Vol 95:1 [Vol HI UN 163 , C supra .M supra HYSICS LL P ., I HI YPER , H ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM In other words, other words, In The volume of a rooster’s crow from 100 100 from crow a rooster’s of The volume 171 ELETE Sound IntensityPhysics Problems & Inverse Square Law 170 Further, if the city wanted to permit a way a way permit to wanted city the if Further, D OT 164 N ch. 5-3.4(c). 5-3.4(c). ch. . L.39,. 40-42 (2015); Christy Gutowsky Stacy & St. Clair, O is equal to the distance between the source of the the the source of between to the is equal distance CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT r ch. 5-3.4(c) (2019); Bouvier, Bouvier, (2019); 5-3.4(c) ch. ODE § 7-12-300 (2018); Bouvier, Bouvier, (2018); 7-12-300 § § 7-12-100. § 7-12-100. NVTL ODE ODE note20. ODE &E The Puppy Prohibition Period:Constitutionality The of Chicago’s War on . C 1 EIC 5.4 (D , N.J., C .C note 29, at 10,894. , where , where UN supra Inverse Square Law, Sound Law, Square Inverse 2 UN , N.J., C , N.J., ACRO ACRO (Nov. 18, 2017),https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZQYALZqZNQ. NIMAL supra ., M .M M LL LL UBE OPEWELL T H ., I ., I ., , 7 J. A 169 OU OPEWELL HI HI EISZLER See See , Y 388 388 14 G The intensity of an unobstructed sound traveling from its origin point point origin its from traveling sound unobstructed an of The intensity Second, Chicago should ban roosters because rooster crowing will vir- will crowing rooster because roosters ban should Second, Chicago 166 Christopher Moores, between the rooster and the neighbor who hears its crowing. Applying this this Applying crowing. its who hears neighbor the and the rooster between conversation measures between 50-60 decibels, the same level of hens of hens same level the decibels, 50-60 between measures conversation clucking. for residents to breed their chickens, it could do so by banning roosters roosters by banning so do it could chickens, their to breed for residents does. Jersey New Township, as Hopewell visits” for “conjugal except https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-rescue-puppies-chicago-ordinance-revision- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/invsqs.html [https://perma.cc/TE8Q-9HNR]. [https://perma.cc/TE8Q-9HNR]. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/invsqs.html mentioned, a rooster’s crow averages 130 decibels, and scientists have have and scientists decibels, 130 averages crow rooster’s a mentioned, decibels. 143 can reach crow the that determined 163. C 163. dinance specifies that Chicagoans may keep animals “for eggs or milk,” milk,” or “for eggs keep animals may Chicagoans that specifies dinance production. egg for needed not are and roosters rooster unnecessary down on cuts effectively ordinance That community’s their to propagate opportunity an owners chicken giving still while noise nuisance in modern inherent the balancing embodying thereby flocks, law. sound and the point of interest. interest. of the point sound and 169. Bouvier, Bouvier, Nave, C.R. 169. 170. obeys the Inverse Square Law. Square the Inverse obeys C breeders. from obtained 164. or rabbits cats, the bans of dogs, city sale The Code. Municipal Chicago in the addressed vaguely is only breeding Animal a rooster, then, is for the purpose of breeding more egg-laying hens. Noth- hens. egg-laying more breeding of purpose the for is then, a rooster, specifi- animal any keeping permits ordinance livestock Chicago ing in the purposes. breeding for cally tually always fall within the prohibition of the existing excessive animal animal excessive existing the of prohibition the within fall always tually intermittent- “occurs that “crowing” ordinance, that Under ordinance. noise average than louder “is and night” or day of the portion significant a ly for is prohibited. or more” feet of 100 at a distance level conversational feet away is equal to the power of the sound divided by the area the sound sound the by the area sound divided of the the power to away is equal feet by is defined area a sphere, of shape the in travels sound Because covers. WKHHTXDWLRQʌU Ordinance Aims to Stop Breeders from Selling ‘Rescue’ Puppies ‘Rescue’ Selling from Breeders Stop to Aims Ordinance Tutor, Chemistry 171. Organic The Formula 167. C 167. 166. 166. 168. Muyshondt, 168. see Mills Animal 20180523-story.html [https://perma.cc/89JQ-VVH9]. 165. H 165. 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 198 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 198 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 199 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 1 389 389 So, because a rooster’s rooster’s a because So, 172 (2005), (last visited Sept. 15, 2019), 2019), 15, Sept. visited (last (2005), [or, 100 feet from the rooster, anddistance the 2 [or, the[or,average soundor a rooster’s crow],1R for OOLBOX T p1 p1 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM However, limiting the number of chick- of number the limiting However, 173 ELETE D OT N O Specifying the distance that the animals be kept kept be animals the that distance the Specifying NGINEERING 175 , E CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE note 29, at 10,917-18 (The author recommends that a chicken ordinance ordinance chicken a that recommends author (The 10,917-18 at 29, note note 29, at 10,918 (“A setback actually ensuresthat the chickens will be . There, the court determined that specifically limiting limiting specifically that determined court the . There, 174 1 EIC 5.4 (D note 29, at 10,894. at 29, note supra supra B. Narrowly Tailoring the Livestock Ordinance Ordinance Livestock the Tailoring B. Narrowly ACRO ACRO supra notes 144-46 and accompanying text. text. accompanying and 144-46 notes M Lambert Bouvier, Bouvier, EISZLER Bouvier, Inverse SquareLaw See See supra See See 2020] 14 G Another way the city could narrowly tailor its livestock ordinance to to ordinance its livestock tailor narrowly Another way the could city In addition, the livestock ordinance should be narrowly tailored to ac- tailored be should narrowly ordinance the livestock In addition, see see prevent noise disturbances is to require a setback for chicken coops and and coops chicken for a setback is to require disturbances noise prevent shelters. livestock other ens that any one property owner may keep will not only reduce any risk of of risk any reduce only not will may keep owner property one any that ens to serve bal- will also it but a neighbor, on or imposition noise bothersome neighbors. her of rights the with rights property owner’s livestock a ance by upheld remedy the with in line falls of livestock the number Limiting in the court conduct as to what on notice put them roosters two to keeping the Lamberts a created nuisance. crow is routinely louder than “conversational level,” even at 100 feet away, away, feet 100 at even level,” “conversational than louder routinely is crow intermittent of type the produces lot Chicago average an on any rooster ordinance. noise animal excessive the by prohibited noise should ordinance the roosters, banning from Aside noise. animal for count property. on her keep may resident a livestock of number the specify regulating ordinance an for important is so it animals, social are Chickens flock. small a to permit chickens [or, 1 foot from the source of sound], and 100 for R for 100 and sound], of source the from foot 1 [or, given in the Excessive Animal Noise ordinance]. The calculation yields a sound intensity of 90 deci- 90 of intensity sound a yields calculation The ordinance]. Noise Animal Excessive the in given bels.); 172. 172. equation, and factoring in a distance of 100 feet as specified by the exces- the by as specified feet 100 of a distance in factoring and equation, crow rooster average an of intensity sound the ordinance, noise animal sive and the conversation human of the level decibels, 50-60 surpasses far still ordinance. the noise under animal for ceiling https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/inverse-square-law-d_890.html [https://perma.cc/H7XX-2T33] from any doors or windows other than an owner’s dwelling gives animal animal gives dwelling an owner’s than other windows or doors any from still while animals, their house they where about flexibility some owners will This home. a neighboring and the animals between a buffer creating notice on owners livestock put also will it but impact, noise reduce not only live- Chicago current the Because animals. their manage must of they how 173. 173. (This website features an Inverse Square Law Calculator calibrated to give solutions in decibels. The The decibels. in solutions give to calibrated Calculator Law Square Inverse an features website (This L for 130 figures: following the input should user permit at least four chickens because chickens are flock animals that “do not thrive when left alone.”). alone.”). left when thrive not “do that animals flock are chickens because chickens four at least permit 174. 174. 175. 175. smaller own who people restricting unduly without neighbors from distance appropriate an at kept chickens.”). owning from properties 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 199 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 199 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 199 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 [Vol 95:1 [Vol could be worded as fol- as be worded could 176 § 15-101 (2018). ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM ELETE RDINANCES D O OT N O CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW LAW CHICAGO-KENT ODE OF C. Creating a Private Right of Action of Action Right a Private C. Creating ., C LA 1 EIC 5.4 (D ,F ACRO ACRO IAMI M M OUTH EISZLER 390 390 14 G By explicitly including a private right of action, the ordinance would would ordinance the action, of right a private including By explicitly Finally, the Chicago livestock ordinance should allow a private right right a private allow should ordinance livestock Chicago the Finally, modeled ordinance, livestock Chicago’s in of action right The private Property owners, including but not limited to leaseholders, have a right right have a leaseholders, to limited not but including owners, Property ofpursuant action this to ordinance with respect animal to excessive inces- and/or continuous, frequent, habitual, is noise animal the if noise where premises the of line property the from audible plainly and is sant kept. the animal is plainly signal where a livestock owner’s property right ends and a neigh- and a ends right property owner’s a livestock where signal plainly considering those alert would it Moreover, begins. right property bor’s keepinglivestock that their rights are notlimitless, and if their animalsare 176. S 176. stock ordinance is so broad, livestock owners have no clear guidelines for for guidelines clear no have owners livestock broad, so is ordinance stock of rights property the respects such a way that in animals their how to keep this is to mitigate and or miss, sense hit common Human their owners. livestock give to tailored narrowly be should ordinance Chicago the reality, intrusion little as with animals their keep to how on guidance clear owners as possible. of action for residents bothered by their neighbors’ noisy livestock. This This livestock. noisy neighbors’ their by bothered for residents of action excessive Chicago’s than specific more be should action of right private and issue at animals the of nature the for account to ordinance noise animal It doctrine. balancing law nuisance the of contours the follow should but including owners, property to extends right the that specify also should to those an action to limit serves This language leaseholders. to not limited and who rent, residents to it extends explicitly but interest, a property with leasehold, a not have do but a residence in live individuals where instances a without and tenants immigrants, undocumented guests, long-term such as and the city around driving from people vindictive prevents also This lease. livestock. owns who anyone against complaints noise filing Florida, Miami, South from an ordinance off lows: lows: especially noisy, their neighbors have an express right to complain. The The complain. to right an express have neighbors their noisy, especially a bringing from plaintiffs preempt would not ordinance livestock amended ordinance revised the under a claim but claim, nuisance law common this remedy and to analyze on how guidance specific courts would give limitations with some coupled action, of right A private complaint. unique 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 199 Side B 06/12/2020 13:18:38 B 06/12/2020 199 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 200 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 391 391 ) 5/8/2020) 11:46 PM ONCLUSION C ELETE D OT N O CHICAGO’S LIVESTOCK ORDINANCE 1 EIC 5.4 (D ACRO ACRO M EISZLER 2020] 14 G Chicago need not do away with its livestock ordinance, but it should should it but ordinance, livestock its with away do need not Chicago Chicago’s resurgence of urban farming and the renewed enthusiasm enthusiasm renewed the and farming urban of resurgence Chicago’s for keeping chickens are testament to the fact that the lives of humans and and of humans lives the that fact the to testament are chickens for keeping America, century in twenty-first Even intertwined. inextricably are animals con- city big the in animals farm for room is there whether over debate the live- liberal a drafting In has. always it manner same the in relatively tinues city the that citizens to its sent a message Chicago stock ordinance, their on them raise to rights residents’ respects and animals welcomes a great at come not must owners livestock to any deference But properties. properties. their of enjoyment quiet own their exercising neighbors to cost law nuisance but exclusion, and ownership encompass rights Property Cit- another’s. with interfere rights one person’s when balancing mandates and past the of convergence the where places, vibrant are Chicago like ies notions that age-old means this instances, some In undeniable. are present century. twenty-first the in meaning on new take and farming of property the ordi- and tailor narrowly it should ban roosters, it to revise explicitly city. populated in a densely in a city of living reality the to reflect nance on notice owners property all put would action of right a private Creating the better the Ultimately, a nuisance. creates noise livestock of type of what any solve to courts be for will it the easier noise, animal surrounding notice and ward, Lane’s in Alderman farm, Mo Cahill’s at arising disputes animal between. skyline Chicago of miles many the across on livestock ownership, would go a long way to reduce noise, balance balance noise, reduce to way long a go would ownership, on livestock neighbors. between conflicts prevent and rights, property 42394-ckt_95-1 Sheet No. 200 Side A 06/12/2020 13:18:38 A 06/12/2020 200 Side Sheet No. 42394-ckt_95-1