While I support the Urban Chicken idea, some of the claims being made don't seem to support it's cause. The claims that it's better because free range is better in regards to the quality of the food and eggs. No hormones are added and such.
It is interesting to note that according to the U.S. government laws, hormones cannot be used in pork or poultry. "NO HORMONES (pork or poultry):
Hormones are not allowed in raising hogs or poultry. Therefore, the claim "no hormones added" cannot be used on the labels of pork or poultry unless it is followed by a statement that says "Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones." "
You may also note the free range is simply listed as "FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING:
Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside" It doesn't designate how much access or the even exactly what "access to outside" means. Following this train of thought, a chicken could be labelled as free range if they are in a 2 foot by 2 foot pen with a roof. That is not a building and thusly outside.
They often cite that there would be less salmonella in free range. This study shows this not to be so. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2005/00000068/00000011/art00029;jsessionid=238qh0mvak92n.alexandra
So I guess, maybe I'm just saying that the propents of Urban Chickens should not shoot themselves in the foot by making unverified claims. Stick with ideas like pigeons (up to 80) are allowed so chickens should be as well (to a certain number of course). Focus on a right for choice.