[TulliusCicero]

I don't see the issue you see here. It seems like the city fucked things up and is now penalizing the woman to cover up their own incompetence. One would think that any sensible person would object to this, not just libertarians.

[umanwizard]

The city fucked up by accidentally telling her she was allowed to have chickens when in fact she’s not.

[TulliusCicero]

Right, and if the neighbors have a problem with the city fucking up, that makes sense. The city should be punished for their fuckup.

The person who shouldn't be punished is the woman who only built a chicken coop after the city explicitly granted her permission.

[umanwizard]

She doesn’t have permission and never did. They accidentally told her she did. Now that she knows about the mistake she needs to get rid of her chickens. I’d support her being able to force the city to reimburse her for her costs but it’s ludicrous to say someone should be allowed to permanently do something illegal because at one point they were told it was legal due to a bureaucratic mistake.

[TulliusCicero]

> She doesn’t have permission and never did.

Yes she did. The city explicitly granted her permission. If they fucked up their own process, that's on them, not her.

> I’d support her being able to force the city to reimburse her for her costs but it’s ludicrous to say someone should be allowed to permanently do something illegal because at one point they were told it was legal due to a bureaucratic mistake.

So if someone constructed a high rise in Manhattan and after it was already finished, and NYC tried to say, "oh sorry turns out we gave you that building permit erroneously, we screwed up how we handled the permitting process, you'll have to take it down now", you'd think that was reasonable? 99% of people would think that was absolutely crazy if they tried to do that, unless there was an actual safety issue involved.

[Spooky23]

The difference is in New York, you have article 78 rights to seek judicial review of virtually any government decision.

[Spooky23]

She likely does.

If a board makes a procedural error over a matter it has clear jurisdiction of, it often results in a defacto variance. You usually end up with vested rights if you acted in good faith and made substantial investments.

The fact that board didn’t provide a grievance procedure and immediately moved to fine undermines their case.

[trollbridge]

The entire point of a permit is that you can do something and invest without worrying about the city later saying “oh sorry, you can’t do that”.

[SauciestGNU]

Do you have pets? What if the city made you get rid of your dog because a neighbor didn't appreciate the barking? The neighbor here needs to take their lumps and fuck all the way off.

[tptacek]

Not really? Under the city's rules, she's not allowed to have backyard chickens. She's refusing to get rid of them, and recurring fines are how cities respond to that. (I'm aware there's a claim the city mismanaged its rules).

[Spooky23]

That’s not quite accurate. There was a procedural failure where the city issued a permit while failing to follow its process.

It an internal control failure, and the permitee by all accounts acted in good faith.

[TulliusCicero]

Yes really? She got explicit permission from the city to raise the chickens, and then they tried to pull the rug out from under her later, after she'd already spent thousands on a chicken coop.

> The city claimed that it had forgotten to notify the neighbors of their right to object during the review process and had therefore done so retroactively.

Like lmao, that's not how due process works man. You can't tell someone they can build something, then go "oh whoops we fucked up, you can't build it after all" after they're already done and then punish them for it.

Imagine if NYC tried to pull this for a high-rise after it was already constructed. "Oh you already built it? Sorry man, turns out you're not allowed to put a building that tall there, you'll have to take it down. Oopsies!"

[nemomarx]

Yeah, I can see the neighbors having an issue with the city (failed to notify them) but the remedy should reasonably be between those neighbors and the city for losing an opportunity to object. Retroactively removing permission doesn't make sense.