The Cecil County Council in Maryland is considering an ordinance that would allow property owners to keep up to eight chickens in their backyard, so long as they have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. One of the provisions of the bill is that chicken owners must obtain an annual license from the county government. A sponsor of the bill said,
People all over the county have backyard chickens and there’s no way to keep track of whether or not they’re registered with the state. At least this gives some level of accountability for people to make sure they’re not infringing on their neighbor’s rights.
She didn’t explain how licensing chicken owners protects anyone’s rights or why the state needs to keep track of what people do in their backyard. And that is because government licensing doesn’t protect anyone’s rights. In restricting an individual’s freedom of action, licensing is a violation of rights.
One opponent of the bill said,
People are talking about their property rights, but zoning is about controlling people’s property rights to protect the general public.
He didn’t explain how prohibiting chickens in backyards protects the general public. And that is because such a prohibition doesn’t protect the general public. In restricting an individual’s freedom of action, these types of prohibitions are a violation of rights.
This is the kind of silliness that occurs when the concept of rights is misunderstood.
Rights pertain to freedom of action. Rights protect our freedom to act as we judge best, so long as we respect the freedom of others to do the same. Our rights are not violated when someone does something that we don’t like, no matter how repugnant we find it.
For example, a family might decide that, with the schools closed, raising chickens might be a fun and educational experience for the children. This is precisely what many of the residents in Cecil County did. In and of itself, raising chickens violates nobody’s rights, even if there were 500 chickens on a 10,000 square foot lot.
The solution isn’t a ban on raising chickens, licensing of chicken owners, or anything of the sort. The solution is the application of nuisance.
Nuisance is founded on the premise that property owners have the right to the peaceful use of their property. But nuisance is highly contextual. What is a nuisance in one context may not be in another. To illustrate, we will look at two different property owners—Bob and Mike—with 500 chickens on a 10,000 square foot lot.
Bob keeps his chickens outside all of the time. He provides shelter for them, but they can roam freely around his fenced property. Bob also has four roosters to mate with the hens. At dawn, the four roosters wake the neighbors with their crowing. Bob is creating a nuisance. In addition, Bob puts all of the chicken waste in the corner of his lot. At times, the odor is so bad that neighbors keep their children inside. Again, Bob is creating a nuisance. The noise and the odor prevent others from peacefully enjoying their property.
In contrast, Mike keeps his chickens in an enclosed structure. He too has four roosters, but they are kept in an area that has been soundproofed. The ruckus that they raise each morning disturbs nobody. In fact, the neighbors don’t even know that Mike has roosters. Mike also has a process for composting the chicken waste that prevents irritating odors from wafting into the neighbors’ yards. Mike is not creating a nuisance.
We have two different people raising 500 chickens and four roosters. Mike has taken precautions to eliminate any negative impact on his neighbors and does not violate their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. Bob, however, has not taken such precautions and the noise and odor prevent his neighbors from peacefully enjoying their property.
Rather than passing laws that restrict what people can do, the Cecil County Council should clarify (and amend if necessary) its nuisance laws.