Thursday, June 16, 2011
Oakland Takes First Step Toward Embracing Urban Agriculture
Food Nate Seltenrich — Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:23 AM
At last night's city planning commission meeting, Oakland quietly took its first steps toward allowing commercial urban agriculture on private land. Tucked amidst a packed agenda featuring fifteen separate items was a provision to amend the city's Planning Code to allow crop-growing as a home occupation — meaning it would be legal to sell produce grown on private residential land, provided the activity did not result in noise, traffic, or smell nuisances. Three members of the public delivered opinions, all in favor, and the planning commission issued its stamp of approval and moved the item along to city council.
"Currently, the city’s home occupation regulations allow the manufacture of products, but only if the manufacturing occurs within a dwelling unit," explained city planner Heather Klein in an email. "This restriction has made the growing of vegetables, fruits, and other crops for sale impossible as a home occupation. Staff proposes to lift this restriction for the home production of crops."
The move was the first in a projected series of meetings and planning code revisions designed to overhaul Oakland's rules about raising crops — and potentially animals — for consumption and sale on private residential land. In the coming months, the city plans to hold a series of meetings with community members, advisory committees, and the Oakland Food Policy Council to address related issues including the raising and sale of livestock within the city.
In a high-profile case in March, the city threatened to fine urban ag advocate Novella Carpenter $5,000 for selling produce and animal products raised on her residential plot in West Oakland. In order to avoid the fine, she was forced to close her pop-up produce stand. If approved by council, the city planning commission's decision last night will allow Carpenter to resume selling produce from her home. Now we'll have to see what the city wants to do about her goats, rabbits, and pigs.
Comments (19)
Showing 1-19 of 19
like
dislike
Hey Lawngun,
Check this out: polaricausa.com
Now that's my kind of meat market. On a good day, they've got everything from Aligator to Zebra.
I have taken a clue from the story on PG&E's sale of carbon credits. I'd like to announce that I am now selling bunny credits -- if I receive $100 in unmarked bills by 5pm Monday, I will not eat a rabbit for dinner. Same deal on Wednesday. For $100, I promise not to eat some other small furry mammal -- possibly a hamster.
Apparently, every time this issue comes up in any major city, anti-meat radicals try to use it to win points.
We should allow Oaklanders to raise a reasonable amount of livestock on urban lots. Cattle and Swine are probably too big to allow, but I can't think of anything else that would really be a problem.
Chickens, rabbits and goats should absolutely be permitted, with sensible regulations that set a limit to the number of animals per parcel or per acre. They should also cover hygienic practices.
The council and the press should make sure to check and see if voices raised in opposition to allowing livestock are genuine concerns about the impact on the community, or if they're ideologically based opposition to consumption of animals in general. The latter should be completely ignored.
Vegans make up less than 1% of the population, so it stands to reason that vegans who are actively trying to force their lifestyle choice make up a smaller percentage of the population. A niche group, no matter how insistent, must not be allowed to impose it's views on others. I respect animal rights activists choice to not eat meat and to believe it is wrong to do so. I expect my right to eat meat to be respected too.
Rabbits, incidentally, should get no special protection because of their cuteness. They've been raised for food for thousands of years. They're delicious, and they also, when raised free range, are great at fertilizing soil.
Lawngun, Funny, my post about your wife (of whose existence I was unaware) in the Jerry Brown thread just crossed this one...
Yoyo-g
yoyo g, any anthropologist who came up with a heirarchy with white males at the top has never met my wife. Said lecturer would quickly become an anthropologist-turned-animal-advocate-turned-to-begging-for-mercy.
OK, peeps. Let's stay on topic here. This could quickly devolve into a Soylent Green is People discussion and...oh...I guess it just did.
@rabbit fanster, It's grotesque and repulsive even if you DON'T think of rabbits as pets. Not to one-up you, but an animal doesn't have to have the status of a pet (in this country or any other) to have the right to be treated humanely. I went to a lecture once by an anthropologist-turned-animal-advocate who talked about the "hierarchy" of creatures, starting with the white male, going down through people of color, then non-human primates, then certain mammals ("pet quality" in whatever culture), then the rest of the mammals, etc. We don't butcher and eat "pet" animals but it's OK to treat the rest horribly. That is not right IMO. They all deserve to be treated as living beings and not "living protein" (as some factory farmers would prefer), and to have the same "rights" and respect as the "pet-quality" (whatever that means, wherever you are) animals.
Re: “Oakland Takes First Step Toward Embracing Urban Agriculture”
As a pet rabbit fan, I think the possibility of the butchering of rabbits next door could be an issue. There are millions (estimated at 1.5 to 4 million) people who have rabbits as pets in the United States. In fact, there are several rabbit rescue organizations in the Bay Area including the House Rabbit Society which is headquartered near Oakland. Rabbits are the third most popular pet in the USA behind cats and dogs. This isn't an issue with being a vegan or an overly sentimental attachment to Thumper, or Bugs Bunny cartoon characters, as some rabbit meat producers, “urban” farmers and trendy chefs like to suggest. It is a big issue with the growing number of people who know these animals as pets. Plus, the so called "meat" rabbits such as the New Zealand Whites, Californians, Harlequins, Satins and others are some of the best socialized pets. They also make great “therapy rabbits” just like dogs who visit long-term care facilities and hospices. There are places in this world, particularly in some areas of Asian countries where dogs and cats are consumed as food routinely. Just recently 500 dogs were rescued from a truck bound for a slaughterhouse in China. We don't eat cats and dogs in this country because of a cartoon images in the movies or on TV and we don't want them butchered in the next door neighbor's backyard. People with rabbits as companion animals definitely don't want this slaughter in their neighborhood. Rabbits are exactly like dogs and cats in many ways. They purr (softly grinding their teeth) when petted, can be littered box trained, clicker trained like dogs, enjoy affection, bond with their owners for life and other animals, and can be cage free in a bunny-proofed home. We don't poach Poodles or simmer Siamese cats. Since humans are omnivores why braise a bunny. People have plenty of other choices for food and protein. Rabbits carry zoonotic diseases that can be transmitted if not cooked properly, too. Most are kept in small wire cages for their short lives which do not provide adequate room. The wires cut into rabbit feet since they don’t have pads on them like cats or dogs. However, since rabbits are butchered for meat anywhere from 7 weeks to 12 weeks old with many killed even before they are weaned at 8 weeks, some who raise them for meat feel there is no need to provide adequate accommodations. There is nothing cartoonish about eating a baby rabbit - it is grotesque and repulsive to the millions of us who know them as pets.
As a pet rabbit fan, I think the possibility of the butchering of rabbits next door could be an issue. There are millions (estimated at 1.5 to 4 million) of people who have rabbits as pets in the United States. In fact, there are several rabbit rescue organizations in the Bay Area including the House Rabbit Society which is headquartered near Oakland. Rabbits are the third most popular pet in the USA behind cats and dogs. This isn't an issue with being a vegan or an overly sentimental attachment to Thumper, or Bugs Bunny cartoon characters, as some rabbit meat producers, “urban” farmers and trendy chefs like to suggest. It is a big issue with the growing number of people who know these animals as pets. Plus, the so called "meat" rabbits such as the New Zealand Whites, Californians, Harlequins, Satins and others are some of the best socialized pets. They also make great “therapy rabbits” just like dogs who visit long-term care facilities and hospices. There are places in this world, particularly in some areas of Asian countries where dogs and cats are consumed as food routinely. Just recently 500 dogs were rescued from a truck bound for a slaughterhouse in China. We don't eat cats and dogs in this country because of a cartoon images in the movies or on TV and we don't want them butchered in the next door neighbor's backyard. People with rabbits as companion animals definitely don't want this slaughter in their neighborhood. Rabbits are exactly like dogs and cats in many ways. They purr (softly grinding their teeth) when petted, can be littered box trained, clicker trained like dogs, enjoy affection, bond with their owners for life and other animals, and can be cage free in a bunny-proofed home. We don't poach Poodles or simmer Siamese cats. Since humans are omnivores why braise a bunny. People have plenty of other choices for food and protein. Rabbits carry zoonotic diseases that can be transmitted if not cooked properly, too. Most are kept in small wire cages for their short lives which do not provide adequate room. The wires cut into rabbit feet since they don’t have pads on them like cats or dogs. However, since rabbits are butchered for meat anywhere from 7 weeks to 12 weeks old with many killed even before they are weaned at 8 weeks, there is no need to provide adequate accommodations. There is nothing cartoonish about eating a baby rabbit - it is grotesque and repulsive to the millions of us who know them as pets.
yoyo_guru - let's just agree to disagree on the question of eggs being healthful. :) We have no nutritional requirement for the eggs of birds; all of the nutrients we need are in plants (and in the case of B12 - bacteria - since that's what B12 grows on). So, are they necessary? No. Will some people argue they're healthful? Yes. Will I? No. :)
But again - thank you for your thoughtfulness, and good luck to you on your journey!
I was at the meeting. Who was talking about animals being a good thing for Oakland? No one. Everyone was in support of the plant-based agriculture measure, but the only voices in the room that spoke to the issue of raising animals for food were whole heartedly against it.
animaladvocate, Yes, that makes complete sense. Thanks.
Oh, one thing about eggs, though: I believe they are very good for you. There's a myth about cholesterol and fat. I won't go into this because it's a bit OT....
yoyo_guru - Thanks so much for your thoughtfulness. I think the problem is that there's a perception that being vegan is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. For me, being vegan is about doing everything we can to not cause harm when we have the chance to do so. And we have so many opportunities to make compassionate choices. However, we live in an imperfect world, and being vegan is not about being perfect (For instance, I feed my obligate carnivore cats meat. I'm not convinced they can thrive with supplemented vegan food.) And yet there is much we CAN do.
As to the age-old chicken question. For me, it's really about intention. I don't believe animals should be classified as livestock, allowing people to have hens for their eggs. I also don't think the consumption of chicken's eggs is necessary or healthful. However, if someone has a rescued hen (like the quail you mentioned or hens as "pets") who because she's female happens to drop her eggs and someone wants to eat them, then I agree, it's not an ETHICAL issue for me. If the hen is there as a pet, that means they'll love her and care for her until she dies vs. someone having a hen BECAUSE she lays eggs and thus will discard her once her reproductive cycle slows down. What usually happens in that case is they're slaughtered and replaced with new hens. You simply cannot have a slaughter-free animal agriculture system. See the difference?
I hope my 2 cents makes sense. :)
Agreed -- The Oakland City Planning Commission should be commended for moving ahead with plans to foster plant-based urban agriculture. Increasing food security, access to local produce, and community self-sufficiency are all crucial goals, and this move will help.
It needs to stay plant-based, however. From animal welfare, public health, and numerous other perspectives, sanctioning backyard animal slaughter is a terrible idea, which is why there are bans in place against it all over the country. It’s not humane, it’s not safe, and it’s not necessary.
@adnimaladvocate, Totally agree. Animals are sentient beings, not food. What are your feelings on eating eggs from actual (not supposed) free-range hens? Here's a story that's possibly relevant: A friend of mine who lives in the MIssion in SF rescued an injured quail and took him to a widlife place (I think in Marin) who advised him what to feed the bird, and also told him to get a female quail for him so that he would stop screeching. My friend got a female quail from a Chinatown merchant who was selling quails by the dozen for slaughter (ughhh). He paid $1.50 for the bird and took her home, and the male hopped right on her (love at first sight) and the two are living happily ever after. She produces a couple of eggs every so often, which my friend and his partner eat. I don't see anything wrong with that. I am trying to sort out this whole thing for myself - have tried to go totally vegan but then realize the contradiction in feeding my cats, who are obligate carnivores, canned cat food made from meat..What are your feelings on eating eggs, assuming the hens are actually free-range (not just in a barn with a tiny opening at the end that they never really get to, as some supposed "free range" hens are)?
Thanks to the planning commission who recognized the many reasons animals should not be part of urban agriculture and separated them out from this first phase. Thanks especially to Commissioner Michael Colbruno who vocalized his deep concern last night about people who are already killing animals in Oakland (people like Carpenter) and emphatically stated for the record that he believes animals should not fall under urban agriculture. Last night's vote was a great victory for PLANT-BASED urban agriculture and a great victory for those of us who believe any discussion of animals should not come from a "food policy" proposal.
Author Archives
