Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[RaZ]

Thank you, Wingless. Believe it or not, I gave the township the link to the MSU Land Use document along with a link to the actual RTFA. They, in turn, supposedly shared that with their attorneys. A couple days later I get an email saying the attorneys decided I'm not protected and that I will receive a letter by Wednesday. I cannot even begin to imagine what their reasoning is. Nobody even asked me any questions, such as am I selling anything. How do I go about getting my case before a panel as those were in the links you shared?

Wingless has provided you with good documentation. That documentation has been upheld in several court cases and has case law that supports MRTA.

However, some communities have refused to accept state law and appellate court decisions. I spent all of my day today in court arguing the legalities and merits of the case. The letter of the law is clear. However, some jurisdictions seem to think that they have a better interpretation. Thus we go to court.

Without going into details of my own case here, I suggest that you challenge those who seek to deprive you of your rights. Make them prove their case against you. They probably can not do that within any legal scope.

PM me if you think that I can help.

 

[shadygrovefarm]

I would also direct them to this link ~ http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news_...chler-v-ForsythTwp-Solk-opinion2012-12-18.pdf. You can also let them know that Judge Solka just ruled yesterday (Jan 30, 2013) that Forsyth Township also has to pay a large sum of the legal fees that resulted from our case! These rulings should send a clear message about how the Michigan Right to Farm Act is supposed to work!

 

[shadygrovefarm]

I would also consider the MAEAP Verification. This verification was key for our case and it proves GAAMP compliance. http://www.maeap.org/

 

[happyhomemom]

I wrote to my township claiming the right to farm act after reading this long thread. This is the response I got. Can any one help me respond?

"I received your letter in regards to your chickens and the Michigan Right to Farm Act; Act 93 of 1981, but unfortunately, I must still deny you the keeping of chickens at the above location.

We have read over the Michigan Right to Farm Act and subsection 286.474: which you noted but, however, you must first read subsection 286.473-Section3(2). A farm or farm operation shall not be found a nuisance it the fame existed before a change in the land use. Your property never existed as a farm nor was livestock ever permitted in that area (a platted subdivision). So, you are not "grandfathered in" for livestock in that location.

Therefore, you are not protected by the Michigan Right to Farm Act on this and again, I must ask you to remove the chickens by February 28, 2013.

If you have any questions, please contact this office. "



My understanding is if I follow GAAMP in subsection 1 then subsection 2 does not need to be true. Is that correct? Is there a nice way for me to explain it to my zoning administrator? Thanks for the help!

 

[wingless]

I would also direct them to this link ~ http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news_...chler-v-ForsythTwp-Solk-opinion2012-12-18.pdf. You can also let them know that Judge Solka just ruled yesterday (Jan 30, 2013) that Forsyth Township also has to pay a large sum of the legal fees that resulted from our case! These rulings should send a clear message about how the Michigan Right to Farm Act is supposed to work!

Way to go shadygrove! Does this mean that the farm to consumer defense fund is ready to take on more RTF cases?

 

[wingless]

I wrote to my township claiming the right to farm act after reading this long thread. This is the response I got. Can any one help me respond?

"I received your letter in regards to your chickens and the Michigan Right to Farm Act; Act 93 of 1981, but unfortunately, I must still deny you the keeping of chickens at the above location.

We have read over the Michigan Right to Farm Act and subsection 286.474: which you noted but, however, you must first read subsection 286.473-Section3(2). A farm or farm operation shall not be found a nuisance it the fame existed before a change in the land use. Your property never existed as a farm nor was livestock ever permitted in that area (a platted subdivision). So, you are not "grandfathered in" for livestock in that location.

Therefore, you are not protected by the Michigan Right to Farm Act on this and again, I must ask you to remove the chickens by February 28, 2013.

If you have any questions, please contact this office. "

My understanding is if I follow GAAMP in subsection 1 then subsection 2 does not need to be true. Is that correct? Is there a nice way for me to explain it to my zoning administrator? Thanks for the help!

happyhomemom - the case you want to look at is Papadelis from 2006, in which the Court of Appeals stated that sections 1 and 2 should be read separately: "A farm operation that conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices is entitled to the protection provided by the RTFA without regard to the historic use of the property in question."

This is discussed in this document, on page 9: http://lu.msue.msu.edu/pamphlet/Blaw/SelectedPlan&ZoneCourt RTFA 1964-2006.pdf.

A link to the full court ruling can be found on this page: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/

Good luck!

 

[happyhomemom]

happyhomemom - the case you want to look at is Papadelis from 2006, in which the Court of Appeals stated that sections 1 and 2 should be read separately: "A farm operation that conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices is entitled to the protection provided by the RTFA without regard to the historic use of the property in question."

This is discussed in this document, on page 9: http://lu.msue.msu.edu/pamphlet/Blaw/SelectedPlan&ZoneCourt RTFA 1964-2006.pdf.

A link to the full court ruling can be found on this page: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/

Good luck!

Thank you so much! I will check this out right now! Lisa

 

[wingless]

I would also consider the MAEAP Verification. This verification was key for our case and it proves GAAMP compliance. http://www.maeap.org/

Thanks for this advice, shadygrove.

I am having an initial MAEAP inspection in Ann Arbor on February 12th, and was asked by the MAEAP verifier to invite anyone else who might be interested in this program. PM me if you'd like to attend.

 

[WashtenawFarmer]

happyhomemom - the case you want to look at is Papadelis from 2006, in which the Court of Appeals stated that sections 1 and 2 should be read separately: "A farm operation that conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices is entitled to the protection provided by the RTFA without regard to the historic use of the property in question."

This is discussed in this document, on page 9: http://lu.msue.msu.edu/pamphlet/Blaw/SelectedPlan&ZoneCourt RTFA 1964-2006.pdf.

A link to the full court ruling can be found on this page: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/

Good luck!

Thank you so much! I will check this out right now! Lisa

This response by happyhomemom's Township concerns me for her, of course, but also more widely. I wonder if this idea that Section 1 and 2 should be read together is their idea or if they are hearing this from someone at MDARD or the Michigan Township Association (MTA).

I wonder this because my Township's refusal to recognize RTFA/GAAMPS protections (not in regard to keeping livestock but in regard to other RTFA/GAAMPS protections) resulted in large measure from the fact that the Township received interpretations/understandings of the law from MDARD officials and the Michigan Township Association that were incorrect both prima facie and in view of case law. They were told by MDARD that 1) something plainly stated as a farm operation in the GAAMPS was not a GAAMPS and was subject to local zoning laws; and 2) the "existing farm operations" clause was not an RTFA/GAAMPS protection but "a matter of law." And the MTA told the Township that the farm operation in question wasn't in the GAAMPS at all (simply untrue--it had been added to the 2012 GAAMPS but apparently MTA wasn't aware of it).

By not pointing to the enormous gap between their understanding of the GAAMPS protections and the courts' understanding, MDARD is having a chilling effect on farming operations that goes beyond livestock issues to other RTFA/GAAMPS issues. It is also putting townships into a situation where it seems inevitable that they will face increasing litigation. Unfortunately, the MTA seems to be contributing to this problem and since it is a private organization with non-transparent operations and a website accessible only to Township officials, it is difficult to deal with any misinformation coming from them.

 

[wingless]

Hey everybody -

The USDA is doing a census of farming operations across the country of ALL sizes.

This is extremely easy, and is a great way to let the USDA know that small farming operations are strong and growing in Michigan.

Link is here: https://www.agcounts.usda.gov/cgi-bin/counts

And in case you have doubts, here is the full set of survey questions (should take about 20 seconds to fill out!)

Make Sure Your Farm or Ranch Counts!​

Your agricultural operation, large or small, is important to U.S. agriculture. NASS conducts a census of all agricultural operations every five years as well as other agricultural surveys. We need to know about all types of agricultural operations of all sizes. Please fill in all the information below. New names will be processed for future surveys and censuses.

​

The Information you provide is kept confidential by law, Title 7, U.S. Code and will not be disclosed to any other government or private entity.

Name
Address
City
State

Select one Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada NewHampshire NewJersey NewMexico NewYork NorthCarolina NorthDakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania RhodeIsland SouthCarolina SouthDakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington WestVirginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico


Zip
Phone Number

Ethnicity:​

​

Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino

​

Race:​

​

(Mark one or more)

​

American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White

Sex:​

​

Male
Female

Comments:​

​

​

​

​

​

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid control number for this survey is OMB number is 0535-0140. The time required to complete this information is estimated to average 5 minutes. Approval Expires 2/28/2013