What's at stake?
The Board’s current proposal will restrict country residents to five roosters per property, with few exceptions. A second hearing will happen next month, which could lead enforcement to beginning in early November.
The board also approved to officially oppose Proposition 50, and they adjourned Tuesday’s meeting in memory of Charlie Kirk.
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved to move toward restricting the number of roosters per property to five through a new ordinance that will allow local officials to fight back against what they say is a common nuisance.
The ordinance was brought forward by Board Chair Buddy Mendes, Supervisor Nathan Magsig, the county sheriff’s office and the county department of public health.
Magsig said the ordinance has been a long time coming. He said his office first heard about rooster-based complaints in 2019.
“Unfortunately, it took six years to get to where we are today,” Magsig said “but it became apparent that we needed an ordinance to deal with limiting the number of roosters.”
The county currently has no policies in place to restrict the number of roosters per property. Roosters had been lumped into the same category as birds, which are restricted to 500 birds — of any variety — per property, according to Sevag Tateosian — the county administrative officer presenting the ordinance to the board on Tuesday.
Tateosian also said that while California lawmakers are also working on a statewide ordinance to restrict the number of roosters per property, there is nothing preventing the county from passing their own laws to handle the issue.
Tuesday’s meeting saw the board amend the drafted ordinance to reduce the number of roosters residents can keep for free from 10 to five — the original proposed amount.
Residents will be able to apply for a permit to increase the total amount to allow them to house up to 24 roosters. The process would include applying for an annual $240 permit, and a one-time $440 fee to cover the costs involved with county officials inspecting residents’ properties.
Exceptions to the ordinance can be made to some commercial farms, and local groups like the University of California and Future Farmers of America.
The ordinance will go through a second hearing at the Oct. 7 board meeting. If approved then, the ordinance will go into effect 30 days later.
Fresno County board opposes Democratic gerrymandering
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution officially opposing Proposition 50 — a Gavin Newsom-backed measure on the ballot in this year’s November special election that will ask California voters to approve gerrymandered congressional district maps in the state in response to GOP gerrymandering in Texas.
Supervisor Garry Bredefeld, joined Magsig and Mendes in opposition to Democratic gerrymandering. Supervisor Luis Chavez dissented, and Supervisor Brian Pacheco abstained.
Magsig said that Proposition 50 would split Fresno County into “little bits” through the newly drawn map. The maps would increase the number of representatives in the county from four to six, and in a city like Clovis, it would increase it from one to three.
“In addition to this measure costing the taxpayers of California about $250 million,” Magsig said, “it reduces our representation by taking those individuals who really understand the Valley and placing our representation in the hands of people who are in the Bay Area out of the Central Valley.”
Proposition 50 will ask voters to allow the California legislature to gerrymander the map before the 10-year mark— creating a new political landscape while virtually guaranteeing more seats for Democrats in Congress. The effects would take place in the 2026 midterm elections.
Typically, an independent body known as the California Citizens Redistricting Commission generates congressional maps. They do so every 10 years based on data from the United States Census Bureau.
California leaders like Newsom and the state legislature brought forward Proposition 50 in response to a similar, now-approved gerrymandering effort in Texas, which adopted its new map last month, and will take effect in the 2026 elections.
Chavez, the lone dissenting vote, said that the Lone Star State’s actions are necessary pieces of context to spur California voters to decide their fate in November.
“I do have concerns, obviously, with what’s going on in other states as well,” Chavez said, ”but I do think that we should never, ever be afraid to ask our residents to chime in and exercise their Constitutional right of vote. And that’s what this does. It’s asking our residents to actually take the position and vote on whether they want it.”
Pacheco disagreed with the actions of both governors, leading to his refusal to vote on Tuesday.
“I don’t believe what’s happening in Texas is right. I don’t believe what California is doing is right,” Pacheco said. “So I would be of the opinion that two wrongs don’t make a right.”
The Proposition 50 special election will be on Nov. 4. County elections offices are expected to start mailing out ballots to voters on Oct. 6, and drop boxes for those ballots will become available the next day.
Tuesday’s meeting adjourns in memory of Charlie Kirk
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors approved to adjourn Tuesday’s meeting in memory of Charlie Kirk — a prominent conservative voice in American politics.
The adjournment request came from Bredefeld, and the rest of the board approved the move through a vote on the consent agenda.
Tuesday’s biggest public comment period came after an audience member pulled the item for discussion — drawing a handful of residents mostly opposed to the board approving the ordinance.
One public commenter, Hernan Trevino, said to honor Kirk’s legacy would be what he believed to be harmful rhetoric.
“I think it’s about validating his legacy,” Trevino said. “A legacy built on rhetoric that harmed people of color, women, transgender youth and even the very idea of empathy. How he died does not redeem how he lived, nor does it obligate us to celebrate or legitimize his words. ”
He then quoted words from Kirk that he said prove his statement.
Magsig, along with the sole public commenter in support of the ordinance, said that quotes like the ones Trevino used are an example of people taking Kirk’s words out of context.
“The comments made by the first speaker were very inaccurate because they were cherry picked quotes from his debates,” Magsig said. “And if you go online and watch those actual debates, the whole thing, not just the cherry picked quotes, you will see what he said about empathy and what he said about how he preferred sympathy, and he just always expressed his opinion. ”
Magsig added that with this resolution, he hopes the county can do its part to “turn the temperature down” in American politics. A sentiment Chavez agreed with.
“We have to be in a space where we universally condemn political violence on both sides,” Chavez said.
Comments are closed.