Why another ordinance?

I believe the Cape Girardeau City Council is ignoring a simple acid test regarding the proposed ordinance that would allow residents to have chickens: Would any of them want to live next door to a chicken coop?

Apparently three do not since they voted against the ordinance in its first reading. But the other four -- Mark Lanzotti, Kathy Swan, Debra Tracy and John Voss -- have been in favor of it. Ironically, Swan already lives in a subdivision with private covenants that prohibit homeowners from having livestock. So this ordinance will never impinge on her personally. Considering this, why should we legalize this for the rest of the city on the impetus of one resident whose own city council member (Meg Davis Proffer) voted against the proposal? Isn't that significant? I think it is.

In addition, this proposed ordinance sets a bad precedent that anyone with a doctor's excuse can try to circumvent existing city laws on the basis of health benefits.

In fairness, the city has drafted a comprehensive ordinance. But even though it specifies how a chicken coop should be built and maintained and where on a property it may be located, ultimately the policing of these rules will fall to the neighbors who have to live next door to these mini egg farms. They will be the ones who have to complain to the city when the rules aren't followed.

Aren't there already enough ordinances on the books that are only enforced if citizens protest? Why add another?

BRAD HOLLERBACH, Cape Girardeau