Update: (City Oppression) Milford tickets 93 year old man for hens - Page 3  

Sonoran Silkies and dianaross77,

I am deeply puzzled by your statements.  I have directly cited both Appeals Court rulings and Supreme Court rulings that say you have to create your farm legally (and be commercial)  BEFORE you can use RTFA, which appears to directly contradict your claims.  The wording in the rulings is clear and unambiguous.  I can not find a single case that supports your position and I believe I have now looked at every upper court ruling that pertains to RTFA.  Can you please help me out and point me to some cases that support your statements?  I really want to understand your side of the legal story.  And please, I am only interested in court cases.  Since precedent has already been clearly established, opinions of "experts" on the subject mean nothing.  No offense intended to the experts but that's just how things work.

Many Thanks!

FWIW, I definitely support farming of all sorts where it is allowed.

Could you please define "legally create a commercial farm"? I'm not doubting that there is a definition for that, but I haven't seen it yet.

That's a toughie.  A good starting point is can we define an ILLEGALLY created commercial farm, and the answer to that is yes. The circuit court of appeals has already done this.

From Jerome Township vs Milchi:  The appeals court concluded that apiary was a farm operation for purposes of the RTFA, but the RTFA did not apply since the apiary did not exist prior to the 1965 zoning ordinance.

So in a sense we have a rough definition for a legally created farm.  It is potentially any farm that was not illegally created.

You keep saying the same exact things, and not even quoting anything from the cases. Regardless, you didn't answer my question. You may feel that that is the more appropriate question, you keep saying that a legal commercial farm needs to be established. You seem to know a lot about this, and you keep saying that, but you can't say what you mean.

And I'm beginning to think you are not so sure about yourself. You go back and edit your posts countless times...

My apologies for that.  I am not very good at communicating and my english isn't that great.  As I read what I have posted I often realize there are typos, or that there is a clearer way of getting my point across.

You keep saying the same exact things, and not even quoting anything from the cases. Regardless, you didn't answer my question.

You are joking, right?

I am sad that this poor old man lost his case.  He did in fact go about this the wrong way.  Besides, at least in California, the Right to Farm act applies only to farms which were established BEFORE buildings surrounded the place; his "farm" did not comply to this.  Further, 3 hens a farm does not make.  Perhaps if he had persued them as "pets", he may have been able to persuade the town to change their ordinance.

I believe the city and the judge where he lives look like fools to not let the man keep his measely three hens.  What a bunch of turds.

Edited for language/censor-bypassing. ~Lisa~

No

That's an interesting idea.  I wonder if they would qualify as companion animals... (Not service animals, but companion animals).