Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[RaZ]

I think that you are missing some information regarding the Papadelis case.

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
You are right. It was late and I missed a page of my notes. The two lots were not the same size. The Papadelis's needed a larger plot to grow the plants. The nursery was on a much larger residential plot and the size allowed them to farm according to the zoning restrictions in force at the time. That is why it was a nonconforming farm and protected by RTFA.

Still no inconsistency in the court's application of RTFA.

Sorry about the mixup. Wouldn't want to misinform or confuse anyone.

 

[googlearlene]

Thank you everyone, I appreciate all the help.

 

[eldenbrady]

It has been a while since I checked this thread. There is a lot of material posted that seems to make th same mistakes. MRTF was amended in 1999 from just covering nuisance suits to covering conflicting local ordinances.

There are a couple of cases from the 90s that keep getting referenced, while these were good at the time they no longer apply because of the 1999 amendment to the act.

Please take into account the 1999 amendment when reading any case from before that time (I think there was actually a 2000 case where the court said he was protected for what he did after 1999 but not before). This doesn't solve any of the ambiguity (especially that created by the one Supreme Court ruling) but you need to look at this change to understand what at first appears to be an inconsistency.

And a side note to those who say if you want to farm you should live in the country, in my part of the state I can't afford country land. City land is about $250/acre (unfortunately you have to piece together .2 acre lots) country land starts at $3,000 and acre and goes on up (most of it is $6,000-10,000/acre). Plus you have all the extra cost to commute to your day job/jobs in the city.

 

[eldenbrady]

Quick response to three cases that are causing a trip up (I think I pulled them from the linked thread but it is the same issues that keep getting rehashed here)


1. Jerome Township vs Milchi (1990 Circuit Court of Appeals). Cut and dry case of RTFA not applying because farm is illegal. Court flat out states that the logic of many here is wrong.

NO LONGER GOOD LAW Case from before the 1999 amendment, when the law is changed the case interpreting the old law means nothing!


2. Padgett vs Mason County (2003 Circuit Court of Appeals). Nice example of what a non-conforming farm is and isn't. RTFA didn't apply because Farm was illegal.

NON-BINDING & NO LONGER GOOD LAW Unpublished case (which means lower courts don't have to follow it) and references Belvidere Tp. v. Heinze, 241 Mich.App. 324 as its primary source, a case which also predates the 99 amendment.


3. Troy vs Papadelis (2007 Michigan Supreme Court) Nice statement by court in ruling that implies if farm not legally created then their ruling doesn't apply.

SAYS NOTHING EVEN RESEMBLING THAT Papadelis v. City of Troy, 478 Mich. 934, 733 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. 2007) said (in a single paragraph) that since the GAAMPs said nothing about size, permits, setback, etc for greenhouses the local restriction didn't conflict with MRTF.

 

[Your_neighbor]

Court rulings both before and after the amendment were listed. The courts interpretations were clear and consistent before and after the amendment if people actually take the time to READ the rulings, which almost nobody bothered to do. The Supreme Court also chimed in after the amendment went into effect and indicated in their wording that they supported what the lower courts were doing. If people don't want to accept what the courts have been saying that is their choice but the opinions are in the public record in plain language for all to see. Compared to the documents I read every day, the judges rulings are in incredibly plain and unambiguous English. They are so remarkably consistent that when I looked at them all from the correct perspective I could not find a contradiction in any of their rulings.

The actions of the legislature when making the amendment were also clearly to protect legitimate commercial farms, honest and true commercial farms that make profits and pay taxes. Anyone who bothers to read the history of the legislation will quickly realize this. There is also a reference here to a high level MDA Director recently stating that RTFA ammendment was not meant to be used in the way some people are trying to use it.

Some people choose to go by what they think the law says. Others go by what the judges think the law says. I am one of the latter because the judges make the decisions. To me it is perfectly obvious why residential backyard farmers have been losing in court when trying to manipulate RTFA to get their way. Even if one of these people have found a sympathetic judge at the first level, so far all have lost on appeal. That is an easily verifiable fact.

What is interesting is how the lower level judges are going about shooting down the cases. They are implementing what they know is the intent of the law, but without raising the spectre of the courts having to directly interpret the amendments wording. As a result you are getting all kinds of judgments that implement the intent but on the surface don't appear to make sense. This is actually quite fascinating to me as it suggests the judges are honestly trying to respect the line between the legislative and judicial branches of government. My respect for judges in general went up when I realized what they were doing.

 

[Your_neighbor]

"3. Troy vs Papadelis (2007 Michigan Supreme Court) Nice statement by court in ruling that implies if farm not legally created then their ruling doesn't apply.

SAYS NOTHING EVEN RESEMBLING THAT "

Uh...yes, they did. It is the statement starting with "Assuming".

 

[eldenbrady]

Since the Supreme Court case is kind of hard to find here it is:


Papadelis v. City of Troy, 478 Mich. 934, 733 N.W.2d 397 (Mich. 2007)

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgments of the Oakland Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals to the extent that they hold that the Right to Farm Act, MCL 286.471 et seq. (RTFA), and the State Construction Code, MCL 125.1502a(f), exempt the plaintiffs from the defendant city's ordinances governing the permitting, size, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location of structures used in the plaintiffs' greenhouse operations. Assuming that the plaintiffs' acquisition of additional land entitled them under the city's zoning ordinance [733 N.W.2d 398] to make agricultural use of the north parcel (a point on which we express no opinion, in light of the defendant city's failure to exhaust all available avenues of appeal from that ruling after the remand to the Oakland Circuit Court in the prior action, see City of Troy v. Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich.App. 90, 572 N.W.2d 246 (1997)), the plaintiffs' structures remain subject to applicable building permit, size, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location requirements under the defendant city's ordinances. The plaintiffs' greenhouses and pole barn are not "incidental to the use for agricultural purposes of the land" on which they are located within the meaning of MCL 125.1502a(f). As no provisions of the RTFA or any published generally accepted agricultural and management practice address the permitting, size, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location of buildings used for greenhouse or related agricultural purposes, no conflict exists between the RTFA and the defendant city's ordinances regulating such matters that would preclude their enforcement under the facts of this case. We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order. In all other respects, the applications are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.


That is the entire ruling, the only time the Supreme Court has directly ruled on MRTF.

Please tell me which Court of Appeals case from after the Amendment says that?

If you want to talk about what the law was intended to mean the say-so of MDA staff means nothing what does mean something is the congressional record, which shows that attempts to limit the amendment were repeatedly shot down.

 

[eldenbrady]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nk...g.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=1999-SB-0205 lists the entire record.


Twice a Senator attempted to add the following language to the 1999 amendment and both time the Senate voted it down:

SUBSECTION (6) DOES NOT APPLY TO A LOCAL ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR RESOLUTION THAT REGULATES OR PROHIBITS A FARM OR FARM OPERATION WITH 1,000 OR MORE ANIMAL UNITS, AS DEFINED IN APPENDIX B TO PART 122 OF TITLE 40 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS."

trying to add a section to give the power to prohibit certain farming operations clearly shows that the Senators believed (I.E. their intent) that without that section the local government did not have that power.

 

[eldenbrady]

"Assuming that the plaintiffs' acquisition of additional land entitled them under the city's zoning ordinance [733 N.W.2d 398] to make agricultural use of the north parcel (a point on which we express no opinion, in light of the defendant city's failure to exhaust all available avenues of appeal from that ruling after the remand to the Oakland Circuit Court in the prior action, see City of Troy v. Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich.App. 90, 572 N.W.2d 246 (1997)),"


A short lesson in jurisprudence. Court's rule only on the issues brought before them. This means you have to appeal and preserve the issue, Supreme Courts are particular sticklers on this one. If you didn't preserve and issue, or if they can decide while avoiding it, they will not address it.

What the Court said here was that the issue of whether or not the plaintiff had the right to extend the farm onto the new land was not raised or was not preserved on appeal. Therefor, the Court would not rule on it. In order to address the second question, the one they did rule on, they say essentially "assuming that the plaintiff is right on issue #1(which we avoid since the defendant did not preserve it for appeal) the plaintiff still loses so we don't even have to look at issue #1 because they lose either way."