Worcester Magazine WHAT THE CLUCK?: Politics is not for the weak or timid. It is a bloodsport where one has to be willing to take a pummeling from any and all directions. But there is one issue so divisive, so heated, that Worcester city officials have sidestepped it for years, quickly dodging and hiding as soon as it rears its ugly head. What is this third rail of Worcester electoral politics that causes so much political carnage that it's usually shuffled out of sight almost as soon as it's raised? Is it residential vs. commercial real estate tax? Defunding the police? Sex education? Well, yes. Actually all of those, but also … backyard chicken farming. It's an issue that brings strife every time it arises, revealing political fault lines, fracturing friendships, ruining reputations … and now it's back. According to an article in the Telegram & Gazette by Steve Foskett, “Members of the Planning Board said Wednesday they liked the idea of reviving a discussion about allowing residents to have chickens. The board didn't make a recommendation on a petition from resident Brian Grinnan asking for chickens to be allowed in areas of the city zoned for single family residences, but continued the discussion, and spoke favorably about allowing poultry to be raised in the city as a way to complement the city's urban agriculture ordinance.” Oh, it sounds so innocent, phrased that way, as members of the board went on to wax poetic about youths spent on farms. Clearly, they don't remember how heated this has gotten in the past. For example, there was the time in 2011 when City Councilor William J. Eddy said, “Over on the west side I can tell you that residents in my district who live on Moreland Hill and live in West Tatnuck routinely hear and see coyotes up there, anything that invites them closer has my attention.” That brought a rebuke from blogger Nicole Apostala, saying, “I know I’m getting into broken-record territory, but D5 is bigger than West Tatnuck. There’s a chicken house that’s been in my backyard for at least fifty years. (Its current residents are bikes and a lawn mower.) The property was likely surrounded by even more woods 50-100 years ago than it is now. If the previous residents were able to keep chickens, there’s really no reason why the current residents shouldn’t be able to. (Though we’re personally holding out for the goat ordinance.)” (The goat ordinance is another column entirely.) In the comments, one person figured, “Twenty-three households at 5 chickens per is 115 chickens on one 200 foot long street. And that’s assuming the 5 chickens per household! We’d be talking potentially hundreds of chickens if they mean 5 per resident – that’s insane!” to which Brendan Melican replied, “This sounds quite a bit like the idea that if drugs were made legal, more people would do them. Clearly your neighborhood is not fit for 115+ chickens. But if it takes a law to make that point to your neighbors I’d suggest chickens are the least of our city's problems.” And so it goes. Every time.