Playing chicken
Toolbox
Published: September 10, 2009
It always is a shame when neighbors become pitted against one another, especially when it comes to issues of quality of life. These disputes are subjective, and easily escalate from spark to smoke to fire in no time. Rarely are such disputes resolved amicably or to everyone's satisfaction.
But the repercussions of one central Vermont spat may truly run afoul.
In the case of Kathy Rubalcaba and her neighbors in East Barre, the Barre Town Selectboard's decision Tuesday night may only prove to be a further provocation in what has all of the telltale signs of a full-scale neighborhood conflagration.
For months now, Rubalcaba's neighbors have complained to the town that her chicken and egg business — Layed In Vermont — on Church Street, which is flanked on both sides of her quarter-acre lot by homes and a nearby church, is a nuisance and that she is blatantly inconsiderate.
The neighbors have stated, both in complaints to police and the town, that, among other things, roosters crowed too early and late, the chickens repeatedly escaped and did damage to at least one of their properties, and that, in general, they have seen the quality of life negatively affected by Rubalcaba's business. At a hearing Tuesday, the board maintained it found credible evidence to believe Rubalcaba's chickens had violated the town's "Nuisance Control Ordinance" by roaming, and her roosters had violated another ordinance by crowing. The board also planned to fine Rubalcaba $300 for an April incident, and require that she keep her chickens — a brood numbering somewhere between 70 and 100 — confined on her property or risk that the town "humanely destroy" the strays. The board planned to fine Rubalcaba another $300 for her crowing roosters, all but one of which must be relocated in 15 days. Any stragglers will be seized by the town and "humanely destroyed," the board ruled.
Rubalcaba has denied her chickens caused neighborhood damage as alleged, but admitted the roosters do crow. She also explained that she has clipped her chickens' wings and added height to a chain-link fence in her yard. Rubalcaba said she was scheduled to kill most of her roosters this fall anyway.
But that has not been enough.
Tensions have mounted, and both sides are pushing hard, and urging the town and law enforcement to help clarify or define that ever-subjective "nuisance." There have been bitter claims of posturing, accusations and even challenges of planted evidence or collusion.
Rubalcaba has, by her own admission, ruffled feathers in the neighborhood by expanding her brood in order to fight for what she sees as her rights as both a businesswoman in a rural, agricultural state and as a homeowner: "That's what people don't know and the towns don't want them to know," she told The Times Argus this week. "In a state with (a statue of) the Goddess of Agriculture on the top of the Statehouse, how can I not have a few chickens in my back yard?"
There are several things here that are as troubling as the dispute itself. The fines – a first offense for Rubalcaba – seem steep for a municipality to impose without a warning. Just because Rubalcaba is outspoken and obstinate does not mean she should be punished for an offense when she has been making some efforts to remedy the situation. Neighbors may be angry, but they should not be influencing that kind of decision.
Plus, does the town want to be imposing such stiff penalties for its nuisance ordinance, which it claims to handle on a case-by-case basis, when every dog-barking case comes before it? Or screeching cat in heat? Or maybe even a stinky manure pile? These fines are significant and set a standard and precedent for Barre Town – one that unsuspecting citizens may not appreciate in due time.
Although the first complaint surfaced many months ago and Tuesday's hearing had been looming for weeks, selectboard members surprisingly steered clear of both the neighborhood and the "nuisance." If this had been a teeth-rattling pothole, or the source of some other constituent complaint, the board or one of its members certainly would have gone out to see – and in this case hear and smell – the situation for themselves. That did not happen here. Instead, the board waited to hear angry testimony on both sides, even taking cross-examination. Facts got lost in emotion.
Then, the quasi-judicial board made up of public officials met behind closed doors for 30 minutes despite objections by The Times Argus to hold its deliberations in public. The board's actions before, during and after the complaints against Rubalcaba seem hands-off and more like an attempt simply to save face. This debate, as ridiculous as it seems, is based in principles: quality of life versus prosperity. Those are both noble efforts that should be able to work in tandem. Rubalcaba has vowed to take her case all the way to the Supreme Court. It seems destined for some judge.
This certainly looks like quite the game of chicken that no one — in this case — will win.
38