Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[Sonoran Silkies]

Don't sell the milk. Give it in exchange for "donations".

This likely would not pass muster for being a commercial operation, which is needed for RTFA protection.

 

[wingless]

Don't sell the milk. Give it in exchange for "donations".

This likely would not pass muster for being a commercial operation, which is needed for RTFA protection.

I think you can sell some kind of membership to your farm, and then members are allowed to purchase products of the farm that can't otherwise be sold to the public, like raw milk. Not sure of the details.

And then of course if you had more than one goat and they were of opposite genders, you could breed goats and sell the offspring. And aren't goats highly social animals? I know that now that I've had chickens, I would never consider having only one. Not sure if goats are the same way.

 

[RTFchickens]

Update on my RTF issue...
We went to township today with a letter in hand. We explained we have the right to farm, one person there said "there is no such thing" and the other person handed me an article on RTF cases that were lost by the farmer claiming RTF. The heading on the article was URBAN FARMING. Maybe I'm crazy, but last I knew 59 acres was not known as "URBAN".
Even if it were an urban location, there should still be RTF protection.

 

[RaZ]

Can you cite the article? Or scan and post the article that they gave you?

Just because a case was lost at the local level does not set a precedent for ignoring state law. And not meaning to pick fly poop out of the pepper; rural, urban or suburban mean nothing when the state law says that zoning is superseded by the state action.

 

[wingless]

Update on my RTF issue...
We went to township today with a letter in hand. We explained we have the right to farm, one person there said "there is no such thing" and the other person handed me an article on RTF cases that were lost by the farmer claiming RTF. The heading on the article was URBAN FARMING. Maybe I'm crazy, but last I knew 59 acres was not known as "URBAN".
Even if it were an urban location, there should still be RTF protection.

Deanna, there are professors at MSU who study this issue for a living, and who have looked at ALL of the RTF cases. They have concluded that for those folks who have farming operations that are commercial and follow the GAAMPs, that RTF protects even in cases when local ordinances prohibit: http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/uploads/files/20/Tech Bullitin Land Use.pdf

In addition, I recently attended a class given by Kurt Schindler, a land use expert at MSU-Extension, on the topic of RTF. Except for me, I think everyone present was a city or township official trying to understand whether RTF really does supercede local ordinances. And the answer was a resounding YES for folks who meet the requirements listed above (1. farming operation; 2. commercial; 3. GAAMPs compliant) - with two possible exceptions. One possible exception was something about farm buildings, based on the 2007 Papesh case (but apparently disregarding the 2009 Papesh appeal), and the second was about RTF in cities of over 100,000 (but they questioned whether the changes to the 2012 GAAMPs, which deny RTF protection to folks in cities of over 100,000, is itself legal).

From what I have seen, some cities/townships genuinely don't know that RTF protects everyone who meets RTF criteria, and just need to be educated about the issue. I would have them contact Kurt Schindler at MSU-E. Of course some other cities/township officials understand clearly that they are not in the right, but persist because they think they should have control over the issue, as in other states. In that situation you might have to go to court to prove them wrong, like Randy Buchler did in Forsyth Township last year, and Pete Santieu did in Garden City this year.

 

[RaZ]

I would exercise a bit of caution here. While there are learned professors at MSU who are considered to be experts regarding the Michigan Right to Farm Act, those same experts have been publicly dismissed by MDARD when it seems fit to do so. In public meetings, the director of MDARD discounted the opinion of university scholars (July 2013).

Even when a defendant prevails in a court of law, not all local jurisdictions are willing to recognize that fact.

Consider the cases in Garden City, Michigan (21st District Court). Three cases of keeping chickens were brought before the court:
GC v Zeilinger (12GC1470)
GC v Santieu (12GC1547)
GC v Detoy (12GC1604)

Notice the numbering of the cases. They are chronological in order. However, the court changed the order of prosecution based on a perceived "win". Mr. Santieu obtained hired counsel to fight the charge. Partly due to a familiar dispute with the the judge and his family. The case was moved to the city of Wayne, Michigan with Judge Laura R. Mack presiding. In this venue, under the auspices of the 21st District Court, Judge Mack ruled that the city of Garden City had no cause to bring forth the case and it was dismissed. (Ruling issued on January 7, 2013)

Keep in mind that Judge Mack was representing the 21st District Court of Garden City in this case.

In February 2013, the city of Garden City amended charges against Zeilinger to be "criminal' rather than a mere civil infraction. The court appointed attorney was not advised of the change until the date of the trial (April 2013). During the trial, the presiding judge dis-allowed the Santieu case as evidence or cause for dismissal. In fact, he instructed the jury to dis-regard that case because it was tried in a different city. Never mind the fact that is was still within the same jurisdiction. He also went on to instruct the jury that state law does not apply to local governments.

The same judge, Richard L. Hammer, Jr (P25732) found Mr. Detoy guilty of keeping chickens. Once again, this judge ruled that State Law does not apply at the local level. Mr. Detoy was also found to be guilty of the "criminal" offense of having chickens.

So what we often see is a local judge (or government) exercising a personal agenda. '
Gather your data and prepare for a fight.

 

[RTFchickens]

...

Can you cite the article?  Or scan and post the article that they gave you?

Just because a case was lost at the local level does not set a precedent for ignoring state law.  And not meaning to pick fly poop out of the pepper; rural, urban or suburban mean nothing when the state law says that zoning is superseded by the state action.
[/quote
Yes, as I said. "Even if it were an urban location there should still be right to farm protection."
Nothing in RTFA specifies lot size necessary, etc. the only thing I can find about this issue is in regards to GAAMPS. GAAMPS describes "site selection" for farming should be zoned ag but only described for 50 animal units or more (or 5,000 chickens) so I can't see where this applies to anything pertinent to our cause.
I believe RTF protection applies to ALL who meet the three criteria: owning a farm, following GAAMPS, and using your farm as a business. Regardless of township ordinance...

 

[wingless]

I would exercise a bit of caution here. While there are learned professors at MSU who are considered to be experts regarding the Michigan Right to Farm Act, those same experts have been publicly dismissed by MDARD when it seems fit to do so. In public meetings, the director of MDARD discounted the opinion of university scholars (July 2013).

MDARD is indeed quite skilled at being publicly dismissive, but never - and I do mean never - backs up their position on RTF with facts. MDARD never quotes a section of the law, never quotes a court case, never quotes land use experts at MSU-Extension, and never quotes RTF expert professors at MSU. They can't, because ALL of those sources point to the same conclusion (that RTF protects everyone who meets RTF criteria), which is contrary to their position (that RTF protects everyone in rural areas who meet RTF criteria).

The then new Director of MDARD, Jamie Clover Adams, told me in the summer of 2012 that we deserve a point-by-point explanation of how the law is interpreted by MDARD. She said then that they were waiting on the formal opinion of Attorney General Bill Schuette on the question; Bill Schuette never issued that opinion, and a Detroit city official involved in all of that told me this summer that a decision has been made by the attorney general to NOT issue an opinion on that question. I guess that means we will not be getting our point-by-point from MDARD.

But I see no reason to exercise caution here, RaZ. MDARD is using the authority of their office to purposefully create mischief here, for their own goals. We have explained countless times why we think the law protects us, and have given them many opportunities to explain to us why they disagree. They have not provided a point-by-point explanation, because they can not, in my opinion, but they also refuse to back down from their unsubstantiated, personal opinions.

I think we have every right to expect more from our state agricultural agency. And if we let these kinds of shenanigans keep us from growing our own food, well then I guess we deserve whatever comes next.

If anyone wants to know more about that attorney general story, I've written about it here: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-attorney-general/
But to understand the back story, you might also want to read about what happened in Detroit in 2012: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-city/

If anyone wants to become a member of the Michigan Small Farm Council which works on these issues, that link is here: http://www.michigansmallfarmcouncil.org

 

[wingless]

Quote:

Nothing in RTFA specifies lot size necessary, etc. the only thing I can find about this issue is in regards to GAAMPS. GAAMPS describes "site selection" for farming should be zoned ag but only described for 50 animal units or more (or 5,000 chickens) so I can't see where this applies to anything pertinent to our cause.

Agreed!

 

[RaZ]

What I meant about exercising caution is to be aware that once you stand your ground and fight for your rights, you will be targeted by the local government. Even if you win your case you will be on the radar for retaliation.