<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ordinance Prohibiting Keeping Farm Animals in the City Does Not Constitute Zoning Regulation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/ordinance-prohibiting-keeping-farm-animals-in-the-city-does-not-constitute-zoning-regulation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/ordinance-prohibiting-keeping-farm-animals-in-the-city-does-not-constitute-zoning-regulation/</link>
	<description>A blog on land use law and zoning</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:37:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Thomas</title>
		<link>http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/ordinance-prohibiting-keeping-farm-animals-in-the-city-does-not-constitute-zoning-regulation/#comment-144</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/ordinance-prohibiting-keeping-farm-animals-in-the-city-does-not-constitute-zoning-regulation/#comment-144</guid>
		<description>I guess to the court if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it&#039;s a horse.  

Of course not all HSW ordinances are &quot;zoning&quot; ordinances, and I suppose the City asserted this was simply an anti-farm animal ordinance, not a use restriction, and it could ban farm animals within its jurisdiction in the interests of HSW in the same fashion a few California cities have enacted citywide smoking bans.

But an ordinance that says what uses you can or can&#039;t do on certain property -- even if it is a citywide ban -- sure comes close to being &quot;zoning.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess to the court if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it&#8217;s a horse.  </p>
<p>Of course not all HSW ordinances are &#8220;zoning&#8221; ordinances, and I suppose the City asserted this was simply an anti-farm animal ordinance, not a use restriction, and it could ban farm animals within its jurisdiction in the interests of HSW in the same fashion a few California cities have enacted citywide smoking bans.</p>
<p>But an ordinance that says what uses you can or can&#8217;t do on certain property &#8212; even if it is a citywide ban &#8212; sure comes close to being &#8220;zoning.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
