Chris Anderson - yes
Carol Berz - no
Moses Freeman - yes
Russell Gilbert - no
Larry Grohn - no
Chip Henderson - yes
Jerry Mitchell - no
Ken Smith - no
Yusuf Hakeem - no
It wasn't just about the chickens. So much more was at stake as friends and foes of urban fowl filled the City Council chamber on Tuesday, when an ordinance that would have allowed chickens within the city limits failed with a 6-3 vote.
On one side, residents argued they ought to have domain of their property. With chickens and their eggs they can control at least one small part of their food supply. Live off the land. See their food from infancy to the dinner table. Liberate themselves, at least a little, from the mass-produced bounty of corporate farms.
And who is the government to say that dogs, cats and parrots are OK, but chickens aren't?
"We seem to be in favor of losing our liberty instead of gaining it," said Councilman Chip Henderson. "Every time we pass a law or an ordinance, somebody loses a little bit of their rights."
But opponents made a play at liberty, too.
Those against backyard chicken coops said the City Council was putting their property rights on the line. Livestock next door could tank their home values. And living in town, they have a right not to be subjected to the sights, sounds and smells of farm animals like chickens.
Because many think chickens don't belong anywhere near a residential neighborhood.
"It's unfair to put a chicken in a coop when they're used to running around," said Eastdale resident Marina Robards. "I don't think that's good and healthy for anyone."
But Chattanooga chickens aren't entirely outlawed under current rules. Current city laws allow chickens on pieces of property at least two acres in size, said Councilman Larry Grohn. So he said there's no need for a change.
"It's totally unnecessary in my opinion," Grohn said.
But supporters of urban chickens noted that homeowners are already raising chickens in neighborhoods across Chattanooga.
Lana Sutton, who launched the group Chicken Legal, said she attended Tuesday's council meeting on behalf of some 400 Chattanooga chicken owners. They didn't attend out of fear of being busted, she said, because chickens are not currently allowed.
"They're part of the chicken underground," she said.
And now that the council has turned down the proposed ordinance, it will lose out on any of the revenue from permit fees it might have seen under the plan.
"It's ridiculous because people are going to have them anyway," said Hixson resident Jami Brown. "They're already here."
Brown said the council's action sent a message that is contrary to the way Chattanooga bills itself as a city focused on green, sustainable eating and living.
This story is featured in today's TimesFreePress newscast.
"They talk about all our farmer's markets and local foods," Brown said. "But when it comes down to it, they don't want you to be sustainable."
Some council members might have been swayed by the removal of an amendment that would have required chicken owners to first get permission from their neighbors. City Attorney Phil Noblett said that provision could raise constitutional issues because it switched governing power away from the city and put it into the hands of neighbors, which could violate the Constitution's mandates of due process and equal protection of the law.
The council discussed an alternative amendment that would have required notification of neighbors through letters or signs, but council members went ahead and voted on a no-strings-attached ordinance.
Councilwoman Carol Berz said that some kind of neighbor notification or approval would protect chicken owners and their neighbors.
"I hate for us to toss that out," Berz said. "I think there's a way for people to have chickens and to have them in this city without it being an all-or-nothing proposal."
Contact staff writer Kevin Hardy at email@example.com or 423-757-6249.