Tonight’s City Council meeting was more fun than any of the movies showing at Woodstock Cinema, and $6.00 cheaper. You “shoulda” been there…
Bob Stroh was recognized with a Proclamation for his long-time involvement with Little League. Woodstock Finance Director Roscoe Stelford was presented with a 2007 Ten under 40 Award by the Business Journal of McHenry County. Happy 40th birthday in 22 days, Roscoe.
OK, that’s it for the serious part of the meeting.
The real fun was the Jenny and Bean Show. The Plan Commission had previously approved a recommendation to allow these two ducks to live in Woodstock. Tolerance is alive and well. Tonight’s meeting involved consideration of a Special Use Permit to allow Jenny and Bean to return to Woodstock. They were shipped out recently, after being found in violation of Woodstock City Code against farm animals and also in violation of the Covenants of the Savanna Grove Homeowners’ Association.
No doubt about this being an emotional issue. There was a Resolution to be voted on, and then the slashing and bashing began. The resident and owner of the offending ducks was there and expressed her desire to the Council that it approve the Ordinance. One councilman asked what would be the case if her granddaughter had fallen in love with a calf, instead of the two ducks. The resident answered, “I would have gotten a bigger shovel.” She deserved a round of applause over that one!
Mayor Sager grilled the resident on three contingencies of the Ordinance, and the resident indicated that she would agree to all three. When she said that the ducks had had to leave the farm where they had been, a question popped into my mind.
“Where are the ducks now?” And would you believe that not one Councilperson raised the question???
The Homeowners’ Association property manager explained the position of the homeowners’ association and that the Covenants would have be amended, which would require 2/3 of the 106 property owners to agree. This means that 71 property owners must consent to a change in Covenants.
And then the truth came out… The ducks are already back.
An amendment to the Ordinance was proposed, discussed and then withdrawn. A second amendment was proposed and discussed. Somewhere along in here the format of the City Council meeting imploded. A public comment period was opened, interrupted and never closed.
An attempt was made to create an artificial deadline for the homeowners’ association to make a decision; sort of a drop-dead date. If they didn’t make a decision, then the City Ordinance allowing the ducks would become effective. One councilman objected, saying that the City should not trump the homeowners’ association.
And, indeed, it should not.
When the ordinance was amended and discussed, it was still not clear to some in the audience, including the property manager and me, just what the Council was approving. The property manager informed the Council that she had not received a copy of the proposed Ordinance before the meeting, and this gave the Mayor pause. It was clearly an administrative error not to furnish it to her before the meeting, and it seemed to me like the wheels were turning in the mayor’s head while he decided whether they should really vote on this tonight.
There was considerable discussion about whether the Ordinance should become effective immediately, thereby allowing the ducks to be in the City (and remain where they are now, at the resident’s home) or whether it should become effective only if the homeowners’ association, at some time in the future, approves the change in the Covenants and officially amends them. Making it effective immediately would not mean that the ducks wouldn’t be violating the Covenants of the homeowners’ association; it would just mean that the ducks would not be violating Woodstock City Code.
As I understood Section 2(a) (and I haven’t seen it in writing), there are three contingencies to allowing these two (and only these two) ducks in Woodstock. The first was that the Savanna Grove Homeowners’ Association would have to approve of the ducks. But the Mayor explained that the Ordinance, as amended, and approved, allows the ducks to stay, even before or without the homeowners’ association approval.
Hmmmm, how can it be both ways?
Obviously, the resident wants the ducks there and, I suspect, will refuse to relocate them, pending a decision of the homeowners’ association. This will likely result in a daily fine of $25.00. Nobody needs to get upset. She keeps the ducks, and she pays $25.00/day.
The homeowners’ association will continue to consider the matter, but there is no reason for them to stop the world from spinning while they do so. If the resident wants to save $750/month while the Board is deliberating and preparing to ask the 106 property owners to vote, then she might want to find lodging for them outside the City.
The ducks are pets. No pet should become a love-interest for a child. Sure, the child can like the pet. A child can like a pet a whole lot. But it’s a pet. If you want to keep a farm animal (well, I think it’s a stretch to call a duck a “farm animal”), then you move to a farm.
Oh, the second best quote of the evening? If the resident doesn’t get to keep the ducks, then she is going to sell her house to the biggest, baddest, noisiest, smelliest motorcycle gang she can find. She didn’t use all of these exact words, but that’s what she meant.
OK, neighbors. Ducks or motorcycles…. It’s time to vote!
You never know who is interested…
3 months ago
12 comments:
Sign up the neighbor who complained for mandatory common sense / sensitivity training. When does an animal become a farm animal? Should we fine the city of Woodstock for banning goose hunting in Emricson Park?
"No pet should become a love interest for a child."
Couldn't be more wrong. Anything that gives a child-- or anybody-- practice in loving should be encouraged-- no, celebrated. Loving is the most important, and sometimes the most difficult skill we are ever asked to demonstrate. If having ducks can help teach a kid to love, pass them out with the textbooks in first grade.
Q. "When does an animal become a farm animal?"
A. When the City Code reads, as it does, "FARM ANIMALS: Animals typically found on a farm such as horses, asses, donkeys, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, fowl (i.e., turkeys, geese, chickens, ducks) and bison."
tulsa, I wonder if you were present at the City Council meeting to hear the description of the love between the child and the ducks. The ducks were humanized in comments last night which, in my opinion, they should not be. They are animals.
Of course, love is important. Healthy love, that is. Co-dependent, binding, must-have love is not healthy. What's going to happen when one of the ducks becomes ill or dies?
I wonder what role a competent therapist or a hospice grieving program is playing in this picture.
wow, that had to be one of the most cold hearted, insensitive, and ignorant things I've ever seen you say. Did you not have a pet that was treated as a family member?? Did you not get enough hugs or something??
As a "cat whisperer" his pets have never really left him.
A pet, treated as a family member? No, my parents had an English setter. Dad hunted quail with it. In the car, the dog rode on the floor - not on a seat, not on the driver's lap. During meals the dog lay on the floor. The dog did not have a seat at the table, did not beg and did not get fed scraps from the table. The dog slept on the floor and didn't get on the furniture. And we loved the dog and she knew it. I had a dog in college; same rules. Frankly, I would not spend thousands of dollars on vet bills for a pet - any pet. The vets have a real racket going on now. "Gee, don't you want to take care of your pet?" They bill for services like the chiropractors of olden days. You take your dog in for a rabies shot, and they refuse to give the shot unless you ante up for a physical exam for the dog. Baloney! A 15-minute visit to the vet and you get a 3-page bill for $250. A pet is not going to drain my bank account. Heartless? Maybe... And, as a matter of fact, I did not get enough hugs.
Like John Candy in the movie "spaceballs" maybe Gus is a Mog-half man, half dog. He's his own best friend.
Oh my gosh, I can't believe it. I think this is the first time I have agreed with Gus. alert the media.
Whoa..... Thanks!!! Somebody agrees with me! Thanks for making my week-end. Stop the presses! : )
Maybe you should look at this from a little girl's point of view Gus. To here these ducks are her best friends. She is living with grandparents here, not her biological parents. Wonder what would heappen if you cam eto my house, my babies are allowed on whatever furniture they want. They sleep with us, on even has his own pillow on the bed. They have their own couch on the front porch where they can look out the window on nice days. Do I love my dogs, hell yes. Would I see them suffer, HELL NO. Studies have been made that show that people who not only have pets but treat them as a friend live longer healthier lives. Maybe we should all chip in and get Gus a puppy that he can shower with love.
Why? Who's he showering with love now? Nobody that I can see. The dog would probably run away...and above the speed limit too!
Post a Comment