Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

RaZ, Garden City has less than 30,000 residents, which means that even the new 2012 GAAMPS - even if legal and binding for cities of over 100,000 - don't apply to you.


Who is the city attorney?

 

[RaZ]

@Raz - do you sell your extra eggs? If so, do you have records showing you are a business - a farm?

I do sell my eggs.
In fact, after the story ran, I sold 2 dozen eggs to a lady yesterday. Just because she saw the article.

I also have a landscaping business that I am trying to grow. Not that I'm using the landscape for selling eggs, but I do use the chicken manure as part of the business for fertilizer as a natural alternative in my work

I also have records.

 

[RaZ]

RaZ, Garden City has less than 30,000 residents, which means that even the new 2012 GAAMPS - even if legal and binding for cities of over 100,000 - don't apply to you.


Who is the city attorney?

I didn't get a chance to voice that argument. In fact, I was prohibited from speaking at all. All i was afforded was the option of a bench trial or a jury trial.

My hearing is not that good and when I said that I did not catch the prosecutor's name, he told me that it didn't matter and go talk to the judge. He declined to identify himself even when I asked.

We had a visiting judge (Brookover) and he deferred the case over to July 17,

I asked a friend who is a legal secretary to get the name and she was told to "call back later". And even then, she didn't get the name of the city attorney/prosecutor.

Here in Garden City, the city manager was appointed, not elected, and he hired the contracted city attorney/prosecutor without oversight of city council. Both have taken a hard line stance against chickens.

Oddly enough, neither live in the city or have any real ties to the community.

 

[thewaggonerfami]

Ugh. The village informed me today that they were following through on their original letter about the chickens and that they had to be gone by tomorrow or face prosecution. They have not responded to my original response or said why I am not covered under RTFA or dispute my assertions at all. The Chickens have been moved to a foster home while I fight this and determine how far I want to take this. (It helps that we have 3 attorneys in the family, although this is not any of their areas of expertise.) I have requested a hearing with the appeal committee. And a letter from them responding to my response that I posted here. I spoke to my local MSUE land use educator and he said, going by what I told him that I should be protected under the RTFA. He was also the one that suggested the appeal. But basically said that he can't come and talk to the village unless they request him. I also talked to the guy in charge of this at MDARD. Had a very long and informative convo with him. It appears that MDARD and MSUE are in a pissing match over the RTFA and how it applies. MSUE sides with us (basically...) and MDARD sides with the municipalities (basically...) that they can zone in regard to livestock/chickens/etc. Basically his position is that if you are zoned residential, you cannot meet GAAMP because of the zoning. He was very clear that there is no difference between less that 50 animal units and more than 50 animal units. (Like has been discussed in this thread) Everyone must comply with all of GAAMP including the zoning and site selection. It appears that MADARD is ticked with MSUE about the RTFA "if/then" chart because they feel it is horribly incorrect and simplistic and is leading to tons of people like me and many of you getting backyard chickens to have a mini-homestead believing they are covered under RTFA when the MDARD believes they are not. The problem is that MSUE is putting out a ton of documents and such that say people are covered under the RTFA, but MSUE has no power of follow thru or jurisdiction over RTFA or GAAMP. That is MDARD, and MDARD has jurisdiction and interprets RTFA directly opposite of MSUE but has no info/documents to get that info out so that people like I would know not to get started with chickens when we do our research on this. He started out rather huffy, like "why don't people do research on this, and believe opinions on the internet" until I pointed out to him that most of us feel like we did do our research and based our beliefs off of the MSUE documents and information and that MDARD did not have anything out there for us to tell us otherwise. I think he did get that point, but also implied that in some ways their hands are tied because they are trying to get MSUE to pull some of their stuff through political channels. So basically they don't want to post anything because then they are seen as giving legal advice and the real decision making happens in the courts, so basically you either give in or sue to protect your rights. I pointed that out to this guy. I guess that Schindler's Land Use page is a thorn in MDARD's side. Hopefully he will put a bug in someone's ear that they need to have some sort of concrete document out there for the public. I hope this wasn't too confusing, but I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

 

[RaZ]

Even though it has been fought several times, it seems like we have to start the fight all over again in each community.

During my pre-trial hearing on Tuesday (6/26) the prosecutor stated that GAAMPs and MRTF do not apply and the people at MSU wrong. Then he mentions that the GAAMPS were changed on June 4 and chickens were outlawed in high density areas.

I didn't argue with him that Garden City is not a high density area. He is a hired contractor and appears to be following his boss's marching orders. The matter is being held over for a jury trial with another pre-trial meeting on July 17, 2012.

It seems that the city wants to make an example of me since I spoke out at council meetings and the newspaper article ran.

 

[wingless]

Ugh. The village informed me today that they were following through on their original letter about the chickens and that they had to be gone by tomorrow or face prosecution. They have not responded to my original response or said why I am not covered under RTFA or dispute my assertions at all. The Chickens have been moved to a foster home while I fight this and determine how far I want to take this. (It helps that we have 3 attorneys in the family, although this is not any of their areas of expertise.) I have requested a hearing with the appeal committee. And a letter from them responding to my response that I posted here. I spoke to my local MSUE land use educator and he said, going by what I told him that I should be protected under the RTFA. He was also the one that suggested the appeal. But basically said that he can't come and talk to the village unless they request him. I also talked to the guy in charge of this at MDARD. Had a very long and informative convo with him. It appears that MDARD and MSUE are in a pissing match over the RTFA and how it applies. MSUE sides with us (basically...) and MDARD sides with the municipalities (basically...) that they can zone in regard to livestock/chickens/etc. Basically his position is that if you are zoned residential, you cannot meet GAAMP because of the zoning. He was very clear that there is no difference between less that 50 animal units and more than 50 animal units. (Like has been discussed in this thread) Everyone must comply with all of GAAMP including the zoning and site selection. It appears that MADARD is ticked with MSUE about the RTFA "if/then" chart because they feel it is horribly incorrect and simplistic and is leading to tons of people like me and many of you getting backyard chickens to have a mini-homestead believing they are covered under RTFA when the MDARD believes they are not. The problem is that MSUE is putting out a ton of documents and such that say people are covered under the RTFA, but MSUE has no power of follow thru or jurisdiction over RTFA or GAAMP. That is MDARD, and MDARD has jurisdiction and interprets RTFA directly opposite of MSUE but has no info/documents to get that info out so that people like I would know not to get started with chickens when we do our research on this. He started out rather huffy, like "why don't people do research on this, and believe opinions on the internet" until I pointed out to him that most of us feel like we did do our research and based our beliefs off of the MSUE documents and information and that MDARD did not have anything out there for us to tell us otherwise. I think he did get that point, but also implied that in some ways their hands are tied because they are trying to get MSUE to pull some of their stuff through political channels. So basically they don't want to post anything because then they are seen as giving legal advice and the real decision making happens in the courts, so basically you either give in or sue to protect your rights. I pointed that out to this guy. I guess that Schindler's Land Use page is a thorn in MDARD's side. Hopefully he will put a bug in someone's ear that they need to have some sort of concrete document out there for the public. I hope this wasn't too confusing, but I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

I know of three published documents that state the MDARD position:

One is in the minutes of the December 2011 Mich Agriculture Commission, which pretty clearly states that they recognize that MRTFA covers all of us, but that they consider it a problem and intend to change it legislatively: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/Dec_14_2011_MINUTES_373525_7.pdf

One is on Schindler's land use page, which was written with Patricia Norris, and is pretty explicit about where they part ways - but NOT explicit in their justification for their position
(Sorry, I can't find that link right now, am late for work...)

And finally, there is that MSU Extension document that was updated just a couple of weeks ago: http://lu.msue.msu.edu/pamphlet/Blaw/AcrobatZoningCanNot.PDF


The trouble with ALL of them is that they do NOT substantiate their position - I get that they don't agree with the law, but that doesn't justify them not withholding the law. I also get that they want to try to change it - and that they have the right to try. However, in the meantime the law is what it is, and it is their job to uphold it, no matter their personal preferences.

 

[MI-CHick]

This is from a few years ago http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...x75075100/Chickens-coming-home-to-roost-in-TC doesn't this help us?

 

[VikkiP]

I agree that ALL the GAAMPS apply. Has anyone here actually read the site selection GAAMP? http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/2012_FINAL_SITE_SELECTION_GAAMP_378548_7.pdf

Relevant portions outlined below:

Page 3, Definitions:

Animal Units - Animal units are defined as listed in (Table 1) of these GAAMPs.

Livestock Production Facilities - Includes all facilities where farm animals as defined in
the Right to Farm Act are confined with a capacity of 50 animal units or greater and/or
the associated manure storage facilities. Sites such as loafing areas, confinement
areas, or feedlots, which have livestock densities, that preclude a predominance of
desirable forage species, are considered part of a livestock facility. Pasture lands are​

excluded.

Table 1. Animal Units
Animal Units 50 250 500 750 1000
Turkeys 2750 13750 27500 41250 55000
Laying Hens/Broilers 5000 25000 50000 75000 10000

1
All other animal classes, types or sizes (eg. Nursery pigs) not in this table, but defined in the Michigan Right to Farm
Act or described in Michigan Commission of Agriculture Policy, are to be calculated as one thousand pounds live​

weight equals one animal unit.

Okay, at this point, stop and read. How many layers does it take to make 50 animal units? 5,000.
What is the definition of a livestock production facility? ...capacity of 50 animal units or greater.

You do not need site approval, you do not need community approval, you do not need MDARD to do anything but uphold what they've written. Can any of you raise 5,000 layers in your back yard? No? Then you are NOT a livestock production facility, and Site Selection GAAMP does not apply. An attorney does not have to be well versed in agricultural law to read this very plain English text. Why is it so difficult for communities to understand?

 

[wingless]

Ok, found the link to the Schindler's land use page document - and discovered that it was updated in February to reflect the new 2012 GAAMPS. Here is the link to the full document:

http://lu.msue.msu.edu/pamphlet/Blaw/RightToFarmAct LocalRegulationPreemptionTable.pdf

The bottom of page 4 again acknowledges the tenuousness of the MDARD position (this is with respect to cities of more than 100,000 issue in the 2012 GAAMPS):


There is yet a question as to whether MDARD has the authority to implement such an exception – arguing the state statute preemption trumps a GAAMP or action of the Michigan Commission on Agricultural and Rural Development. [Consult with your municipal attorney]

They are not on solid ground here and they know it. Furthermore, the minutes of the Dec 2011 Ag Commission meeting document that what they really think is that MRTFA covers all of us. It is unconscionable that what they tell us they know to be untrue. Here is the language from those minutes, posted here a few days ago. Note that this language is attributed to Jim Johnson, who is Wayne Whitman's boss at MDARD:

The difficulty of the issue, in terms of legal versus non-legal uses, is that the RTF Act itself does not place a restriction in any way on land use or land zoning. It has been very clear from the beginning the RTF Act applies across the entire state.

This is what MDARD people say amongst themselves. What they say to us and to our local governments is the opposite - that RTF does not apply because of local land zoning issues. I doubt that these people went into government to obstruct state laws; I do think these are very likely decent people doing the best they can every day. So I'm not sure how these decent people got themselves here, but I wish they would take a hard look at what they've done and reverse course. Change the law if they want to and can - it certainly wouldn't be without opposition! - but until then honor the law as written.

 

[thewaggonerfami]

So, how do I get the Village to understand then when MDARD is telling them the opposite. Wayne Whitman at MDARD specifically cited your case Vikki and said that it was only because you were rural and the suburbs grew up around you that you were protected under GAAMP and the RTFA. Ugh. Vikki, I wish I could have you and Wingless help me talk to MDARD and the Village.