Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[RTFchickens]

I think you are right. I just painted a target on my back...
I guess it's unpopular to exercise our rights.

 

[wingless]

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.

And no one understands that better than you, of course.

I guess I just wanted to make the point that MDARD being dismissive of the professors at MSU is not because the profs at MSU are not doing their jobs well. Patricia Norris in particular is outstanding at summarizing legal material very thoroughly and very clearly. It is very frustrating that MDARD publicly undermines her work without saying anything specific about how they think her analysis is flawed.

I've been at Ag Commission meetings where I've heard these kinds of comments, but I missed the July meeting this year. What was said at that meeting about the work of university scholars?

 

[RTFchickens]

http://www.bsmlawpc.com/_blog/Munic...n_Farming_and_the_Michigan_Right_to_Farm_Act/

This is the article the township handed me yesterday. Sorry it's just a link, but I'm on my iPod....

 

[wingless]

http://www.bsmlawpc.com/_blog/Munic...n_Farming_and_the_Michigan_Right_to_Farm_Act/

This is the article the township handed me yesterday. Sorry it's just a link, but I'm on my iPod....

Thanks Deanna. This is the kind of detail in the language of the law, the court cases, and even attorney general opinions that I wish MDARD would use to substantiate their position. They may actually have a valid argument, but none of us would ever know because it hasn't been articulated.

That said, all of the arguments against RTF protection in non-rural areas that are stated in that blog can be answered. Here is what I would say:

Many urban farm advocates assert that urban farming is fully protected by the RTFA. However, some advocates may not realize that in order to receive protection under the RTFA, the farming operation must be for profit or commercial in nature. Accordingly, to the extent a local ordinance pertains only to an urban landowner who is raising farm animals for pleasure or personal use only, the RTFA would not preempt the local ordinance requirements.

Folks on this thread certainly understand that farming operations have to be commercial to be protected by RTF. No confusion there.

Their next point is more interesting:

In addition, recent court decisions and the Michigan Attorney General have indicated that the RTFA does not prevent local regulation of urban farms. (However, it should also be kept in mind that, to date, neither the Michigan Court of Appeals nor the Michigan Supreme Court has definitively addressed this issue.)
The Michigan Attorney General has addressed local regulation of urban farming in two different informal opinions. In an October 31, 2006 informal opinion to State Senator Bob Emerson, the Michigan Attorney General addressed a local zoning ordinance requiring all farming to be conducted on 10 acres of land. The Attorney General stated that if the farm at issue met all of the standards of the relevant GAAMPs, then the RTFA would preempt the local ordinance.

I have FOIA'd all attorney general opinions that speak to RTF issues, including the one listed above, and posted them here: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-attorney-general/

If you open the 2006 opinion to Senator Emerson and scroll to the last paragraph in the document you'll discover that back in 2006 MDA asserted to the attorney general that it had recently changed the Site Selection GAAMPs to cover any number of animal units (instead of only 50 animal units or more) so that local units of government could enforce zoning restrictions.

This is of course not true. Anyone participating on this thread for the past year knows that the kind of change to the Site Selection GAAMPs described above was attempted by MDARD last year - in 2012, for the proposed 2013 GAAMPs - and that it failed.

And, just to be sure that I didn't miss anything relevant that happened between 2006 and 2012, I also FOIA'd all of the Site Selection GAAMPS for those years, and checked whether the definition of "Livestock Production Facility" on page 3 of the document changed in any of those years. It did not. You can take a look at all of those documents yourself, if you like, by clicking each of the Site Selection GAAMPs links at the bottom of this page: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-agency/

So why does all of this matter? Because Senator Emerson was asking whether the Site Selection GAAMPs only apply to operations with a certain number of animal units (50 or more), and if so whether local governments can enforce zoning for farming operations with fewer than that number. And the attorney general replied that since MDA expanded the Site Selection GAAMPs to cover operations with any number of animal units that the question was moot - but MDA never actually made that change to the GAAMPS, meaning that it is not moot at all. In fact, the judges in the Buchler case in 2012, and the Santieu case in 2013, both ruled that the Site Selection GAAMPS do not apply to operations of less than 50 animal units. You can find those rulings here: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/

And moving on through the document, Deanna, provided by your township:

In an informal opinion issued to State Representative John J. Walsh on February 9, 2011, the Michigan Attorney General reemphasized that the RTFA does not preempt local zoning ordinances that prohibit the raising of poultry, deer, and livestock in residential districts. Again, the Michigan Attorney General wrote that “[a] livestock facility would not comply with the GAAMP if the local zoning ordinance excludes agriculture uses, including ‘the raising of poultry, corvidae, and livestock.’ Under those circumstances, the Right to Farm Act would not preempt the local zoning ordinance.”

So this 2011 request for an opinion was to directed to Attorney General Bill Schuette. Again, you can find the response from his office here: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-attorney-general/

This 2011 informal opinion is very brief, and relies on the reasoning of the previous opinion to Senator Emerson, and indeed includes a copy of that previous informal opinion. This 2011 opinion would be reasonable if everything in the 2006 Emerson opinion had been true, but that isn't the case.

So yes, the attorney general opinions say what they say, but there are clear, documented errors in those letters that in my humble view casts a great deal of doubt on those decisions. I think if the attorney generals knew the facts, and not only what MDA told them, they would have decided differently.

Ok. One more point in that article that I want to address:

In addition, there are several trial court decisions that have upheld local regulation of urban farming in the face of RTFA challenges. In the City of Ypsilanti v Peter Thomason (Case No. 09-1227-AV), the Washtenaw County Circuit Court held that the City of Ypsilanti ordinance provisions regulating animals (including farm animals) within residential areas did not conflict with the GAAMPs or the RTFA. In fact, the Court held that the farming activities at issue actually violated the site selection and odor control GAAMPs because they were located in a residential district.

If you read the Thomason case it is clear that the judge did not know that "Livestock Production Facility" is not a generic term, but rather has a very defined meaning. If the judge had understood that Livestock Production Facility is defined by MDARD as 50 animal units or more, which is the equivalent of 5000 chickens, then he may well have ruled that the Site Selection GAAMPs did not apply to Mr. Thomason. This was the sole reason that the judge gave for determining that RTF did not protect Mr. Thomason. Again, in two recent cases that pointed out the definition of Livestock Production Facility to the judge, from page 3 of the Site Selection GAAMPs, both judges ruled that RTF protects farming operations even in residential areas. I haven't posted the Thomason case, but if anyone wants it, please just PM me.

Not sure if there are game-changing arguments made in the rest of the document - I didn't see any that would appear to convey a convincing argument that RTF does not cover all Michigan citizens who meet RTF criteria, so I'll leave the rest alone.

I think finding a good lawyer who understands the issues around the Site Selection GAAMPS is key to winning RTF cases. Becoming MAEAP verified is also important, as is getting receipts for sales.

 

[RTFchickens]

In an effort to cover our bases before they take us to court, we are getting the last phase of MAEAP verification September 5th. And LLC should be complete next week. The only "GAAMPS site selection" I think could be a remote possibility is in building a new " animal housing structure" because we are zoned res and not ag.
I think the township is grasping at straws to try to back up their pathetic ordinance. I still can't see how we are zoned residential to begin with...
I'm pretty sure a judge would agree the township is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

In an effort to cover our bases before they take us to court, we are getting the last phase of MAEAP verification September 5th. And LLC should be complete next week. The only "GAAMPS site selection" I think could be a remote possibility is in building a new " animal housing structure" because we are zoned res and not ag.
I think the township is grasping at straws to try to back up their pathetic ordinance. I still can't see how we are zoned residential to begin with...
I'm pretty sure a judge would agree the township is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I'm wondering if they zoned you residential to raise your tax rate? Might be an unrelated point, but also might point to their motives for pushing their case.

 

[RTFchickens]

Yes, you are spot on. It was zoned R2 for tax purposes. And by doing that we pay HUGE tax amounts because its our second home. If it were zoned AG it doesn't matter if you don't live there. Taxes are the same low rate.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Yes, you are spot on. It was zoned R2 for tax purposes. And by doing that we pay HUGE tax amounts because its our second home. If it were zoned AG it doesn't matter if you don't live there. Taxes are the same low rate.

It might then be well worth your while to fight for the correct zoning to be reinstated, RETROACTIVELY. And ask for punitive damages.

 

[RTFchickens]

Anyone know how to go about getting zoning changed? Township made it VERY clear that it will not even be considered. It simply will not happen.
What would next step be?

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Anyone know how to go about getting zoning changed? Township made it VERY clear that it will not even be considered. It simply will not happen.
What would next step be?

How long ago was the change made...and do you have any idea what prompted it? Did you have an opportunity to contest the change?