By Kasey Fowler, Staff Writer
People who want to keep livestock at their homes, and a few who are bothered by the animals, met Wednesday evening to try to find a solution other than the ordinance recently approved by the Enid city commissioners.
Commissioners approved a livestock ordinance that sets strict guidelines for keeping animals in city limits. A particularly controversial part of the plan was elimination of the grandfather clause, which would allow people who already have animals on their property to keep them.
Under the new guidelines, in order to keep livestock, a person must have a lot more than one acre in size. Owners of property that does not comply must register with the city and will have until Aug. 31, 2010, to find another place for their animals.
Carol Lahman, former Enid city attorney and an outspoken advocate for animals, has filed a petition containing about 500 signatures Tuesday calling for a citywide vote on the ordinance.
The signatures must be validated for the petition to be declared legal. If the petition is legal, the ordinance approved in November cannot take effect until residents vote on it.
Under Oklahoma law, an ordinance can be brought to a vote of the people if a referendum petition with the required number of valid signatures is filed within 30 days of the passage of the ordinance.
People attending the meeting at the Hoover Building Wednesday night were encouraged to sign the petition before the meeting.
Lahman led the meeting and questioned those attending about what complaints are being raised with livestock and what solutions could be generated.
Lahman began by explaining the history of controls put on livestock within city limits, including the most recent development.
“Recently, the city council did away with grandfathering. Basically, if you have under an acre you have until August 2010 to get rid of your animals,” she said.
Lahman also said one of the issues with the new ordinance was the separation of pieces of land so they are not one plot and therefore not enough to have animals.
“If you have a big acreage but it is made up for smaller plots you can’t count it as one,” she said. “You can get it unplatted, but it takes a long time and a 300-foot-long list.”
Lahman then opened the microphone for anyone at the meeting to voice concerns about livestock, opinions or solutions.
Lynn Heim said more laws are not needed for livestock. Current ones just need to be enforced.
“They don’t enforce the nuisance laws we already have. I think that would take care of a lot of the animal problems,” Heim said.
A solution was brought up for the noise caused by chickens in town. The compromise proposal was the elimination of roosters in town and allowing hens.
Lahman asked who at the meeting had roosters and asked if that was an acceptable compromise. Everyone at the meeting agreed if the roosters they already own are grandfathered in, they will not get more once the ones they have die.
Lahman asked Tina Eck to come up to speak about the problems she has with livestock in town.
Eck said her grandparents live across from a two city block stretch of land with livestock on it. She said the place stinks, is not cleaned and floods when it rains.
“We have over a dozen times taken photos and complained. They just tell us to clean it up,” Eck said.
Eck held up several Polaroids showing the property.
“Flooded, flooded, manure, small pens, big hay bales in the pens,” Eck said as she held up the photographs. “We don’t mind animals. Just clean up.”
Lahman proposed the idea of a livestock board to deal with complaints about livestock in the city.
“What about a board of people who own livestock? People can complain anonymously,” she said. “They would go out, possibly with a city staffer, to decide.”
Lahman suggested the board include people who own livestock, a veterinarian, a representative from Enid Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Community Development Support Association.
“If they have enough legitimate complaints, they won’t be able to have animals,” Lahman said.
Several people at the meeting raised concerns the board wouldn’t have the power to do anything more than suggest offenders clean up their acts. Several others said the board may be the best compromise.
“We are trying to come up with something to present to the city to try and compromise,” Lahman said.
The meeting ended with encouragement for more to sign the petition so the ordinance will have to go to a vote.
“If the petition has enough signatures, they have to have a vote,” Lahman said. “We need to keep the grandfather (clause) and the only way is to vote no if we have a vote.”
