How We Got Here
Paragraph.
In August of 2007, our former landlord terminated our lease as he wanted to tear the buildings down for a parking lot. We had 90 days to find a new location. During those 3 months of searching, only one location was found. No other potential landlord wanted to house horses. In Chicago, horse housing is limited to areas designated as Manufacturing/Industrial. There are not many zoned areas left that are within easy reach of downtown by walking out with the horse and carriage. The only locations that would potentially take us were too far from downtown and not easily accessible by public transportation for drivers.
It left us with accepting a property that was in need of a complete build out. The building itself had sound walls, but the roof was shot and there was no eastern facing wall. From November of 2007 to March of 2008, drivers alternatively worked on a stable while driving a carriage. Walls were built, a sub-roof was made, and all was good. Or so we thought.
In January of 2008, Animal Control came in for our annual inspection for license renewal. I was warned by an ACC inspector that "the folks back at the office weren't going to like the new place." I was like, "Why? You know as well as I do that ACC has accepted much lesser standards in the past. One carriage company owner couldn't build stalls in one location, so horses were tied to walls instead. ACC had no problem with it then.
The very next day in January, ACC came out and called out Dept of Buildings as well as the Fire dept and Streets and Sans. Dept of Buildings felt that the building was structurally sound, landlord needed to fix certain areas, but the building itself was not in any danger of collapsing. I had a sit down with Mark Rosenthal and an Inspector a day later. Mark Rosenthal told me to my face that "he believed me. He believed that I was going to fix everything I said I was going to fix and that they were going to give me time to finish building."
In April 2008, ACC responded to a call about a ribby horse and a horse with duct tape on its' foot hiding an "open wound in it's foot." Ribby horse was a rising 3-year old going through a growth spurt, and the horse with duct tape on his foot had a fungal infection, a la athlete's foot, and was being treated by the farrier. The duct tape was on the hoof to keep cotton balls soaked with anti-fungal inside. Once again ACC brought the forces. This time, however, they got a Building Dept. inspector to declare the building unsafe, and took the landlord back to court, which took until May.
In May, we got word that we had to get the horses out of the building and into the courtyard. This was agreed upon by ACC, Buildings, and Law Dept in front of a judge. So all of the work that we had just finished two months prior had to be undone. We had to rebuid stalls in the courtyard. What we weren't told is that the stalls were "too close to the wall that was at issue in court."
Fast forward to June when a couple of buiding inspectors, once again, came through to inspect. They told the employees there at the time that "the owner could be arrested for endangering the animals." Because the stalls were, literally, too close to a wall. Once again, ACC and Buildings pushed up the continued court date from September to June. On June 12th, it was settled that J.C. Cutters would construct a temporary shelter for the housing of the horses, obtain a permit simultaneously, and create plans for a more permanent shelter to be put up in the long run. On June 20th, Consumer Services released a set of rules for housing horses which basically made the temporary structure that was going to be built illegal, despite the court settlement.
No one caught the implications of those rules at the time, however. Court had ordered us to build, so we built. A concrete slab was poured, the tent poles were set in the concrete, as well as making sleeves to set in the 4x4 posts. New wood was purchased, for the umpteenth time, and stalls were built fresh. Not one stall was under 10'x10'. A permit was applied for.
Throughout all of this construction, ACC inspectors came through, constantly. At least once a week during some periods. We'd be cleaning stalls and we'd be ticketed for "unwholesome conditions." Stalls could be freshly cleaned, but because there'd be a pile of junk, we'd get ticketed for "unwholesome conditions." It went on so much that the inspectors admitted they were sick and tired of having to come by. The source of their visits? Anonymous phone calls from "concerned citizens" who couldn't even see inside the courtyard or the tent unless they trespassed. Those "concerned citizens" were actually the competition.
In December, we had a maintenance hearing on the tent. Kerri Stojack, a representative for our Alderman, came in and told the court why the Alderman wouldn't sign off on the permit. "They're being cruel to the horses! They're living in a tent by the river! All of these tickets, they're abusing the horses!" The judge pointed out to her that administrative hearing tickets with no actual proof of abuse does not constitute actual abuse. Ms Stojack later sent out an email telling anyone who would listen that Consumer Services had decided to deny our licenses. Yet I could not get an answer from CS as to the reality of that.
On January 5th, I learned that indeed, Consumer Services was denying our license renewal. A subsequent appeal on the 23rd of January, 2009 was held. On February 5th, I learned that the denial was upheld. And on February 6th, the horses were seized. And that's where we come to the first page.
