By Jason C. Mattox

Como aldermen, after a 90-plus minute hearing Tuesday night, voted to revise a proposed livestock ordinance following protests that the measure under consideration would be too restrictive.

The town’s elected officials were considering adoption of an ordinance that would have allowed only two head of livestock – sheep, horses, cattle were mentioned – for 1.5 acres of property.

The municipal meeting room was filled with concerned citizens, some of whom voiced their opinions on the matter more than once.

“I hate to see an ordinance adopted because this town has always had mules and livestock,” Mark Lipscomb said. “Lipscomb Brothers is exempt, but what happens if we decided to sell and the next owners are limited on how many head they can put in there? That would seriously devalue my property.

“This is not Senatobia or Olive Branch, and I don’t want to see Como base an ordinance on what other towns might do,” one resident said.

Other residents echoed those sentiments, telling aldermen they chose to move to Como because of the lack of stringent regulations.

“There are a lot of us in this room who moved here because the town didn’t have too many rules, and we want it to stay that way,” another resident said.

Others in the crowd felt like the sticking point of the ordinance was how many animals could be allowed on how much property.

“This all comes down to how many animals on how much land,” Joe Barbour said. “We don’t want to see 20 animals on a quarter or an acre.”

Another concern voiced was whether or not the ordinance would be enforced by the city.

“There’s no point to have an ordinance if you don’t enforce it,” Alderman-at-Large Forster Ruhl said.

Alderman Ruby Higgenbottom then took the floor.

“We are the smallest municipality anywhere and we have the biggest problems,” she said. “I haven’t seen the problems with animals like this until the last two years, and we have always had them. People just need to keep your animals under control.

“Como is Como, and I would like to see it stay that way,” Higgenbottom added.

Barber said he was open to compromise on the number of animals.

“I can’t believe that a compromise can’t be reached,” Mayor Judy Sumner said.

Alderman Bill Mitchell said a possible solution would be for the city to develop agricultural zones in the town.

“This really boils down to people not be considerate of their neighbors,” Alderman Clark Gregory said.

Alderman Everette Hill said he supported an ordinance, but said he had no problem with the animals in town.

“They have been here all my life, so I’m OK with them,” he said. “But the police can’t enforce an ordinance if we don’t have one.”

Sumner explained to the crowd that the concerns seemed to be the number of animals and the size of the property.

“We are not going to be able to please everyone,” Ruhl said. “But we are basically going to need a do-over.”

Aldermen voted to revise the ordinance and present it at the regular board meeting on October 6.