Welcome to BYC, melodymom4!
Bluemoon420 doesn't appear to be around anymore - her last post on BYC was in 2011. Sorry, I don't know any particulars of what has happened in Taylor.
Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?
- Thread starter festivefeet
- Start date
Welcome to BYC, melodymom4!
Bluemoon420 doesn't appear to be around anymore - her last post on BYC was in 2011. Sorry, I don't know any particulars of what has happened in Taylor.
Melidymom4,
I don't live near Taylor, but after attending that RTF workshop, and based on my own personal experience with my township regarding being in violation of ordinance by owning animals, when faced with an ultimatum, the township backed down.
This workshop implied that's what to do. To "enforce your ordinance" but if taken to court, the township will likely lose.
Personally, I call their bluff. They wrote me violation notices, but when I told them they would have to take it to court, they suggested I "just pay the fee, or pay to get a variance" I'm standing up for what is right, and told them I'm not applying for a variance OR getting rid of my animals. It's been months now, and I have not had another issue with the township.
All of this can change tomorrow though! The Ag commission will be taking up the site selection GAAMPS.
Please contact them and let them know what a bad idea changing GAAMPS would be! Even in that workshop the presenter addressed the 700+ public comments received from the last public comment period. Personally I think BYC and MSFC should be applauded for much of that 700+ comments.
Rosa Parks was just one woman with tired feet who changed the world by being fed up with segregation, and made a huge difference in this country by advocating for what's right. I know we can peacefully make big waves by writing to the commission, and advocating for our RTF. Media devices make this so much easier too ;-)
I don't live near Taylor, but after attending that RTF workshop, and based on my own personal experience with my township regarding being in violation of ordinance by owning animals, when faced with an ultimatum, the township backed down.
This workshop implied that's what to do. To "enforce your ordinance" but if taken to court, the township will likely lose.
Personally, I call their bluff. They wrote me violation notices, but when I told them they would have to take it to court, they suggested I "just pay the fee, or pay to get a variance" I'm standing up for what is right, and told them I'm not applying for a variance OR getting rid of my animals. It's been months now, and I have not had another issue with the township.
All of this can change tomorrow though! The Ag commission will be taking up the site selection GAAMPS.
Please contact them and let them know what a bad idea changing GAAMPS would be! Even in that workshop the presenter addressed the 700+ public comments received from the last public comment period. Personally I think BYC and MSFC should be applauded for much of that 700+ comments.
Rosa Parks was just one woman with tired feet who changed the world by being fed up with segregation, and made a huge difference in this country by advocating for what's right. I know we can peacefully make big waves by writing to the commission, and advocating for our RTF. Media devices make this so much easier too ;-)
Regarding Taylor: A friend lives there and she was targeted by the ordinance officer and told to get rid of her animals and more. She capitulated as she was not willing to go through a legal battle.
So if you do decide to exercise your legal rights you are likely to be involved in a long, drawn-out process that gets expensive and emotionally draining. I think it is a design to wear you down and simply give up.
So if you do decide to exercise your legal rights you are likely to be involved in a long, drawn-out process that gets expensive and emotionally draining. I think it is a design to wear you down and simply give up.
- Apr 17, 2012
- 68
- 11
- 43
So....If I establish my farm today...and am no longer a 'new and expanding livestock facility'....if tomorrow's vote doesn't go our way, will those GAAMPS still apply?!
I don't think anyone knows, Cara, but it would certainly give you one more argument to make if you ever have to defend your operation in court.
- May 8, 2013
- 722
- 60
- 201
Did you get a chance to get this on the internet, possibly YouTube? I think it very important and maybe something our politicians should hear!
Public meeting, no "do not record" signs, I think this needs to end up with Michigan Public Radio. Also, remember Mit Romney and the recording of his "private'" meeting that went viral? I'm thinking you are fine. Contact the public radio group that did the first interviews - today - and let them decide and keep copies!!
Jackie
Public meeting, no "do not record" signs, I think this needs to end up with Michigan Public Radio. Also, remember Mit Romney and the recording of his "private'" meeting that went viral? I'm thinking you are fine. Contact the public radio group that did the first interviews - today - and let them decide and keep copies!!
Jackie
Analysis of 3/16/14 Draft Site Selection GAAMP
I've spent quite a bit of time analyzing the draft Site Selection GAAMP, which will be voted on tomorrow by the MDARD Commissioners. Both MDARD officials and the Michigan Farm Bureau have stated publicly, on many occasions, that the changes are about "closing a loophole" that allows Right to Farm protection in residentially zoned areas. I would oppose the changes on that basis alone, but the statement is simply untrue: the proposed changes are sweeping, far-reaching and represent a major shift in the state's land use policy; they are likely to have a major affect on land use and values of zoned agricultural land in rural and especially what MDARD terms "transitional agricultural" areas.
I find the mostly black-box process by which this document was generated to be very concerning, and my concern is borne out by my analysis. Even if you agree with the GAAMP's policy goals (which are not entirely clear), it is:
1. internally inconsistent;
2. ambiguous and difficult to understand (requiring several hours for my husband and I to determine whether livestock production is allowed, and where, on our farm, and leaving us—highly educated people with five graduate degrees between us— unsure);
3. inclusive of sweeping public policy changes that will profoundly affect land use and values not only in urban and suburban areas but also in rural and especially what MDARD is terming "transitional" agricultural-zoned areas;
4. without evidence that MDARD officials have assessed and documented the proposal's projected consequences—in other words, carried out the policy impact assessment that is both customary and advisable for even a much less sweeping policy change—leaving the public and the Commission to assess the proposal in an information vacuum.
I've written a long analysis of the GAAMP, but I thought I'd share here my analysis of the language about "Category 3 Farmland" on page 12 (and please let me know if you think I've got it wrong! One caveat: I'm not a lawyer, and while this analysis was carried out to the best of my abilities and in good faith, it's not guaranteed to be correct...)
Category 3: Cat. 3 Farmland Left in Regulatory Limbo
The proposed GAAMP says Cat 3 land "may be suitable" for livestock facilities with fewer than 50 animal units, but does not state by whom, how, or by what standards (or any method of appeal) the determination of suitability would be made for Category 3 land.(p. 12)
Further, even if we assume that local government is making the determination, the GAAMP does not state whether RTF covers livestock facilities on Cat. 3 land even if the local unit of government does allow those facilities. If not, then why is the local government's ability to allow up to 50 animal units on Cat. 3 mentioned at all? This should be clarified.
If this section does not extend RTF protection to Cat. 3 land livestock facilities where permitted by local government, then the only reason for the inclusion of language referring to Cat. 3 livestock facilities of under 50 animal is that MDARD is actually not allowing local units of governments to permit more than 50 animal units on all Cat. 3 land. It certainly is a possible reading of page 12. If this is the case, it is very problematic and should certainly be made clear.
Previously, Cat. 3 sites with fewer than 50 animal units were not addressed in the GAAMP, and by practice and common understanding were apparently not subject to setback restrictions or to the possible exclusion of all livestock (see p. 9 of the 2012 Site Selection GAAMP, referring only to Livestock Production Facilities vis à vis Cat. 3 sites). However, new language in the proposed GAAMP states: Category 3 sites "may [italics mine] be suitable for livestock facilities with less [sic] than 50 animal units” (p. 12). Taken together with the changed heading for Category 3 (livestock now deemed "generally not acceptable" instead of "generally not appropriate" (2012 GAAMP), this indicates that under most circumstances, Category 3 sites are viewed by MDARD as not suitable for Livestock Facilities of any size.
o Analysis:
This is a huge, sweeping change. It creates a new category of quasi-agricultural land that suddenly no longer has RTF protection for even fifty chickens. It is at minimum a very poorly thought-out regulatory policy, and one that should be the subject of debate by the Commission. It is completely new for Cat. 3 land which until this GAAMP allowed up to fifty animal units without question, and was considered fully agricultural. This is also definitely not just "closing a loophole" about residential-zoned farms, as the GAAMP changes have been described repeatedly by MDARD officials in numerous media outlets.
As defined in the Draft GAAMPs, Category 3 land includes a large proportion of zoned agricultural land in many Townships, and approximately 50% of my own 80-acre zoned agricultural, rural 150-year-old farm.
What other RTF protection will next be removed from Category 3 land? Dust from plowing, noise from combines, use of herbicides or fungicides, flame weeding, deer fencing that is higher than local ordinances meant for non-farmers but now suddenly applicable to agriculturally zoned land? The question is not far-fetched, as some of my other analysis shows.
I've spent quite a bit of time analyzing the draft Site Selection GAAMP, which will be voted on tomorrow by the MDARD Commissioners. Both MDARD officials and the Michigan Farm Bureau have stated publicly, on many occasions, that the changes are about "closing a loophole" that allows Right to Farm protection in residentially zoned areas. I would oppose the changes on that basis alone, but the statement is simply untrue: the proposed changes are sweeping, far-reaching and represent a major shift in the state's land use policy; they are likely to have a major affect on land use and values of zoned agricultural land in rural and especially what MDARD terms "transitional agricultural" areas.
I find the mostly black-box process by which this document was generated to be very concerning, and my concern is borne out by my analysis. Even if you agree with the GAAMP's policy goals (which are not entirely clear), it is:
1. internally inconsistent;
2. ambiguous and difficult to understand (requiring several hours for my husband and I to determine whether livestock production is allowed, and where, on our farm, and leaving us—highly educated people with five graduate degrees between us— unsure);
3. inclusive of sweeping public policy changes that will profoundly affect land use and values not only in urban and suburban areas but also in rural and especially what MDARD is terming "transitional" agricultural-zoned areas;
4. without evidence that MDARD officials have assessed and documented the proposal's projected consequences—in other words, carried out the policy impact assessment that is both customary and advisable for even a much less sweeping policy change—leaving the public and the Commission to assess the proposal in an information vacuum.
I've written a long analysis of the GAAMP, but I thought I'd share here my analysis of the language about "Category 3 Farmland" on page 12 (and please let me know if you think I've got it wrong! One caveat: I'm not a lawyer, and while this analysis was carried out to the best of my abilities and in good faith, it's not guaranteed to be correct...)
Category 3: Cat. 3 Farmland Left in Regulatory Limbo
The proposed GAAMP says Cat 3 land "may be suitable" for livestock facilities with fewer than 50 animal units, but does not state by whom, how, or by what standards (or any method of appeal) the determination of suitability would be made for Category 3 land.(p. 12)
Further, even if we assume that local government is making the determination, the GAAMP does not state whether RTF covers livestock facilities on Cat. 3 land even if the local unit of government does allow those facilities. If not, then why is the local government's ability to allow up to 50 animal units on Cat. 3 mentioned at all? This should be clarified.
If this section does not extend RTF protection to Cat. 3 land livestock facilities where permitted by local government, then the only reason for the inclusion of language referring to Cat. 3 livestock facilities of under 50 animal is that MDARD is actually not allowing local units of governments to permit more than 50 animal units on all Cat. 3 land. It certainly is a possible reading of page 12. If this is the case, it is very problematic and should certainly be made clear.
Previously, Cat. 3 sites with fewer than 50 animal units were not addressed in the GAAMP, and by practice and common understanding were apparently not subject to setback restrictions or to the possible exclusion of all livestock (see p. 9 of the 2012 Site Selection GAAMP, referring only to Livestock Production Facilities vis à vis Cat. 3 sites). However, new language in the proposed GAAMP states: Category 3 sites "may [italics mine] be suitable for livestock facilities with less [sic] than 50 animal units” (p. 12). Taken together with the changed heading for Category 3 (livestock now deemed "generally not acceptable" instead of "generally not appropriate" (2012 GAAMP), this indicates that under most circumstances, Category 3 sites are viewed by MDARD as not suitable for Livestock Facilities of any size.
o Analysis:
This is a huge, sweeping change. It creates a new category of quasi-agricultural land that suddenly no longer has RTF protection for even fifty chickens. It is at minimum a very poorly thought-out regulatory policy, and one that should be the subject of debate by the Commission. It is completely new for Cat. 3 land which until this GAAMP allowed up to fifty animal units without question, and was considered fully agricultural. This is also definitely not just "closing a loophole" about residential-zoned farms, as the GAAMP changes have been described repeatedly by MDARD officials in numerous media outlets.
As defined in the Draft GAAMPs, Category 3 land includes a large proportion of zoned agricultural land in many Townships, and approximately 50% of my own 80-acre zoned agricultural, rural 150-year-old farm.
What other RTF protection will next be removed from Category 3 land? Dust from plowing, noise from combines, use of herbicides or fungicides, flame weeding, deer fencing that is higher than local ordinances meant for non-farmers but now suddenly applicable to agriculturally zoned land? The question is not far-fetched, as some of my other analysis shows.
Last edited:
What it is is a knee jerk reaction to a policy problem they created by attempting to circumvent the RTF Act as it was written and intended. They are in panic mode. They don't care if you (that's a generic "you", by the way) don't understand because they don't understand it either. We ran into that with the first development code and when I was on Planning and Zoning we spent literally months trying to clarify, to end contradictions within the code, and take out conflicting redundancies. That sounds strange, but it's true - there would be a section that defined something, then a few pages and sections later the entire passage would be rewritten with a change in it, so even though it was redundant it still managed to conflict just enough to create confusion for people coming to us for guidance and plan approval. Ridiculous. Toss in so many regulations and legal sounding words that it looks like the job is being done. If the intent is to do away with backyard producing then they will succeed by doing what we here call "squidding" it......make the masquerading ink so thick that those trying to get to the meat of it get tangled up and can't act within a law they can't interpret. Makes me almost embarrassed to be a public official.
Yes, MDARD will take away residential livestock farming's RTF protection with this (or at least, they think they will--in my view, what they're doing isn't going to stand up in court), but they will also remove RTF protection from zoned agricultural, rural farms...Over 30% of the zoned agricultural land in my Township, for example.
And the Townships really shouldn't want this to pass...It's going to result in court case after court case since the case law will be in conflict with the regulation. People like me whose zoned agricultural parcels will suddenly lose value since they can't be used for livestock are going to be petitioning for property tax reductions. Townships without real regulation (or whose regulation actually references the GAAMPS that now suddenly say something quite different) are going to have to create new land use and zoning ordinances.
I also think this is a big enough change it will end up in the national press, and could play a role in the November elections. This is an issue that the right and left can come together on.
And the Townships really shouldn't want this to pass...It's going to result in court case after court case since the case law will be in conflict with the regulation. People like me whose zoned agricultural parcels will suddenly lose value since they can't be used for livestock are going to be petitioning for property tax reductions. Townships without real regulation (or whose regulation actually references the GAAMPS that now suddenly say something quite different) are going to have to create new land use and zoning ordinances.
I also think this is a big enough change it will end up in the national press, and could play a role in the November elections. This is an issue that the right and left can come together on.
Last edited:
I'm very sorry I won't have access to it until tomorrow.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Official BYC Poll: Do you use electrolytes in your chickens' water during the summer?- Started by BYC Project Manager
- Replies: 2
-
Rehoming Black Australorp Roos - Prescott AZ
- Started by GPx
- Replies: 1
-
Friend of the family chickens- Started by jlogsdon92
- Replies: 1
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
Caged Bird and Parrot Thread!!!!- Started by ShrekDawg
- Replies: 406
-
This is what a balanced layer feed with no treats delivers- Started by Perris
- Replies: 143
-
Our first call duck incubation adventure (hatch-a-long)- Started by MrsWinterWheat
- Replies: 124
-
-
Ducklings are pipping!! - would love some distractions!- Started by PuddlesandWaddles
- Replies: 112
-
