Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

Got it.

I guess you said that before and I just wasn't thinking about it in those terms. Thanks!

 

[Newchickiemomx2]

Just had someone from the city here to let us know we cant have chickens. She said she will "overlook it" for now, but what will our next step be if she wants to make us get rid of them? Right now we only have two chickens in an enclosed run.

 

[wingless]

Just had someone from the city here to let us know we cant have chickens. She said she will "overlook it" for now, but what will our next step be if she wants to make us get rid of them? Right now we only have two chickens in an enclosed run.

Well, one option is to try to persuade your city to pass a city ordinance that allows chickens. Many folks here have tried that, and some have succeeded. Others have failed and have given up, or have failed and then gone to court. Some of those court cases have been won, some lost. Some people have persisted with their chicken keeping despite local ordinances against them, and some of those folks now face criminal charges. We know of at least 2 in Garden City currently in that situation, and one in Plymouth.

Alternatively, if you sell a few eggs and are commercial, then you have a new set of options, because under those circumstances RTF protects you regardless of local regulations - or at least that is what I believe. Others, of course, do not. Some folks have pursued this by providing RTF documentation to their city. Some cities recognize that RTF trumps city ordinance, and some do not. Some folks have called MDARD for support of their RTF claim, and some have received it. In recent years, however, under Director Creagh, they have not, and the position of the new Director Jamie Clover Adams is not yet clear - but appears to be dependent on a forthcoming opinion on the matter by Attorney General Schuette. And, some folks have attended meetings of the Ag Commission to lobby them to maintain RTF protection, despite proposed changes that would largely eliminate RTF protection for residential and urban farmers.

Hope that makes everything perfectly clear.

That last option of attending Ag Commission meetings is especially important right now, as those 5 Commissioners will in December be voting on proposed changes to the GAAMPS that will exempt most Michiganders - those not living on land that is zoned agricultural - from RTF protection. If you'd like to join up with those of us who can make the next meeting on October 31st in Lansing, just let us know. We'd be very glad to bring another voice.

 

[wingless]

Here is something new about the proposed 2013 GAAMPS:


Published on The National Law Review (http://www.natlawreview.com)

Reining In Urban Farming – No More RTFA Protection?
In 2000, the Michigan Legislature amended the Michigan Right to Farm Act (RTFA), making it one of the most protective farm statutes in the country. One of its more potent features is that it overrules any local ordinances that conflict with it or the Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPS) of the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development (MDARD). The GAAMPs are critical to the reach of the RFTA.

If a farm complies with GAAMPs, then it is protected under the RTFA. If a farm does not comply with GAAMPs, it is not protected under the RTFA.
Similarly, if an ordinance purports to regulate farming beyond what is required in the GAAMPs, then it is unenforceable.

Small Scale Farming
Not long after the 2000 amendments, a clash between small "farms" and local governments began. The conflict is best illustrated by the case of Shelby Charter Township v. Papesh . The defendants in that case raised chickens (allegedly for commercial purposes; only commercial farming is protected) on a one acre lot, which violated local zoning (ordinance required three acre minimum lot sizes for raising small animals). The township insisted that the defendants remove the chickens, and the dispute ended up at the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals concluded that "any township ordinance, including a zoning ordinance, is unenforceable to the extent that it would prohibit conduct protected by the RTFA." Because the ordinance placed an acreage requirement on the raising of chickens that the GAAMPs did not, the ordinance was in conflict with the GAAMPs, and therefore could not be enforced.
The Shelby Township case has become the most cited authority for those attempting urban farming as it stands for the proposition that local government cannot prohibit small scale commercial farming – so long as the farming activity complies with GAAMPs.

Proposed Revisions
The conflict between small farms and government has persisted even though MDARD long ago approved "Site Selection" GAAMPs. Those GAAMPs were designed to keep "livestock production facilities" away from urban areas, but the GAAMPs, by their own definition, only apply to large-scale farms (for example, you would have to have 5,000 chickens to be covered by these GAAMPs).
To address this issue, MDARD recently proposed revising the Site Selection GAAMPs to include small farms. Once covered by the GAAMPs, small farms will need to follow the site selection requirements, which provide that farms may only be sited in areas zoned for agriculture. This will greatly increase the power of local governments to regulate where farming takes place.

However, even this change is unlikely to eliminate all of the conflict. Notably, the new GAAMPs probably would not have changed the outcome of the Shelby Township case because farming was an allowed use in the area, but the township imposed an additional lot size requirement. If the property was suitable for farming under the GAAMPs, then the ordinance would still be invalid. Nonetheless, the ability for new urban farms to pop-up in non-ag areas will be greatly diminished.

© 2012 Varnum LLP
About the Author

Aaron M. Phelps
Partner

 

[wingless]

Not sure exactly what this resource is, but it looks like someone is accumulating MRTF and GAAMPS documents in a public place:

http://docsfiles.com/pdf_michigan_right_to_farm_act_generally_accepted_agricultural.html

http://docsfiles.com/pdf_michigan_right_to_farm.html

 

[wingless]

Published earlier this month on the Jason Foscolo LLC|Food Law Blog:
http://jasonfoscolo.com/?p=825


Urban Farming and Michigan’s Right to Farm Law

October 2, 2012
There are some nice legal perks to being a farmer, like the laws known as “right-to-farm” laws that can protect farmers from being sued by neighbors for nuisances typically caused by ordinary agricultural activity. Got some smelly swine? Loud farm equipment? Want to have a DJ blast obnoxious music at your winery and call it “agritourism“? Your state’s right to farm law can protect you.
RTF laws also strengthen farmers’ legal positions against anti-nuisance ordinances and unreasonable controls on farming operations. The laws provide notice to non-farmers that generally accepted agricultural management practices (“GAAMPS”) are reasonable activities that should be expected in certain agricultural communities. In many states, every commercial farming operation following GAAMPS are covered by right to farm laws laws—thus, everyone from large-scale farmers to small backyard and urban farmers are afforded a form of legal redress.

Via Taylor Reid at Beginning Farmers, Michigan is about to change its right to farm laws in a way that could deny as many as 10 million people of right to farm protection in Michigan.
Such broad protection has become increasingly important in our country today, when urban farming has gained great popularity. Growing Power, Will Allen’s urban farm and community food center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin serves as the perfect example of how urban farming transforms communities for the better. Will trains community members to become community farmers capable of growing secure sources of healthy food, free from political or economic oversight. Right to farm protection, extending into urban areas, give people like Will the ability to carry out these types of innovative, profitable, and nutritious programs.

However, across the lake in Michigan, right to farm protection may soon be completely removed for projects like Growing Power. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is changing the language of Michigan’s right to farm laws so that state-wide for protection for farmers is no longer guaranteed. Instead, local governmental units will exercise control over farming operations through local zoning regulations.

The switch may not seem devastating at first, but consider the possibilities. If neighbors cause a big enough fuss over a nearby farm’s practices, a county can place unreasonable restrictions and regulations on farmers in an attempt to make them leave. Even worse, the county can rezone agricultural property toactually force a farmer from his land. Urban agriculture depends on a higher level of intimacy between producers and consumers, to a much greater extent than other types of agriculture. Under the new Michigan regime, the whim of neighbors will dictate the direction of the urban farming movement, especially in those parts of town that are unfamiliar with the less attractive aspects of the business of farming.
Right to farm laws provide farmers with a sense of security that farming is a valued and accepted activity in their communities. By removing this stamp of protection from farmers, we are creating yet another disincentive to farm in America today.

After the jump, check out the comprehensive source for Right to Farm Laws in the United States provided by the National Agricultural Law Center your local and state laws to investigate your level of protection.
–By Gabriella Agostinelli. Follow me on Twitter at @FoodLawGal

 

[wingless]

Hey everybody, the agenda for the October 31 Ag Commission meeting has been published. The final draft 2013 GAAMPS will be presented at 10 am:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/Oct_31_AGENDA_401869_7.pdf

Anyone out there want to carpool to Lansing, early on Halloween morning?

 

[duckluck]

I am so glad to see people actively engaged in fighting Big Brother! You go, people!

 

[jphillips]

Find out what the population is in Mount Clemons. I am in Sterling Heights where you must have 8 acres for a chicken per city ordinance. The City said I was not protected by GAAMPs due to a line in the preamble that states: This GAAMP does not apply to cities with population of greater than 100,000 that has its own farming ordinances. I am still waiting on my court date to see where it goes. Check your ordinances. Honestly I thought Mount Clemons allowed chickens.

 

[mcbeers]

Wikipedia says that our (Mount Clemens) population in 2000 was around 17,000. Sterling Heights is one of a small number of cities that preamble effected. I think I have heard 7 cities. It's such a shame that laws can be shirked this way by small committees re-writing other guidelines.