Red Phone, what is the city of Gilroy’s policy on raising
chickens in the backyard in a residential area in Gilroy? Not only
are they noisy, but the additional flies are a problem.
Those noisy neighborhood fowl are a real problem
“Red Phone, what is the city of Gilroy’s policy on raising chickens in the backyard in a residential area in Gilroy? Not only are they noisy, but the additional flies are a problem. The chickens are at 1131 Third St. Thank you.”
Dear Clucked,
Red Phone contacted Scott Barron, in code enforcement, who said Municipal Code Section 4.20 states that it is unlawful to keep or maintain chickens within the city except in an agricultural zone. He said this type of violation should be referred to animal control at 846-0340.
So Red Phone called Community Service Officer Aaron Avila and gave him the address. He said they’ll go out and inform the residents that they are in violation of city code.
“We tell them they cannot have them and have to get rid of the chickens,” Avila said. “Most often they do.”
So good caller, that should solve your problem. If not, you know how to contact Red Phone. Anyone else got a problem with noisy fowl, you know who to call.
What’s up with the speed signs?
“I saw some of those solar speed signs on Murray Avenue and was just wondering how do I get one on my street. I’d be willing to give up a spot in my flower garden out front. Thanks.”
Dear Willing,
Red Phone contacted City Transportation Engineer Don Dey. He said the solar speed signs on Murray Avenue are part of a test program developed by the County of Santa Clara.
“The County of Santa Clara was able to provide these signs free of charge to all cities for testing,” he said. “At this time, Gilroy has no formal program to install additional signs at other locations.”
So good caller, keep your garden growing.
Family is also responsible
I’m calling about the March 21 story about wrongful death claims the city settled with the Trejo family. I wonder if the money will be able to cover up the parents for their part in their son’s death? Drivers should always pay attention and she was definitely at fault, but also I would have never let my child at 5 years of age cross that street with only a 13-year-old boy as a guardian. I don’t see the city as the one to be held accountable for the death of the little boy. Just wondering why the city settled?
Dear Wondering,
A couple of things.
One, society is litigious. Heck, a woman sued – and won – when she burned herself from spilling hot coffee on her lap. Secondly, Red Phone is sure the Trejo family sued the city as well as the driver because they believe the city should have installed a dedicated left turn lane years ago. And, the city has what’s known as deep pockets.
The driver, Robertina Franco, carried the minimum amount of insurance, so the city ended up paying $100,000 to settle, and probably saved tens of not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees had the case gone to trial.
So, in Red Phone’s mind, the culpability is as follows: The driver is 95 percent at fault, the city 5 percent. Finally, Red Phone doesn’t believe the family is at fault. Letting a 13-year-old take care of his 5-year-old brother is perfectly reasonable. They followed the rules, waited for a green light and crossed in the crosswalk. They were the unfortunate victims of an accident, and though the family won $130,000, Red Phone is sure they’d return every penny plus some to get their son back.
