[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.