Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[mcbeers]

Maybe this has been brought up before, and I am certainly not volunteering to be the guinea pig for this, but could a municipality be sued for not following the state law?

"Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. This section affirms your Michigan right to continuation business farming operating within generally accepted agricultural and management practices (GAAMPS) guidelines and supersedes any city laws that may forbid said farming"

If a municipal code "maintains" a law prohibiting keeping animals for farming purposes, they are in violation of Michigan State law, and also our rights. Would this be a crazy route to take? With all I have read about this and other liberty issues, I don't know why this never crossed my mind, but I'm just curious if anyone else has thought the same thing.

Or maybe in Randy's case, could he sue the city (a corporation) or even the individuals involved against him, for damages from their breaking the law and his losses to his business? Just some thoughts that were rolling around in my little chicken brain, this morning.

 

[wingless]

Honestly, I think if MDARD did not tell cities, townships and individuals that we are not protected by RTF and if they provided GAAMPS inspections, that most of these troubles would disappear. The courts would then look at the law and at previous cases, and would see that RTF protection requires 3 things: a farming operation, commercial activity, and GAAMPS compliance. And when those three are met, the farming operation is protected.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the confusion comes from MDARD rather than from the cities. If MDARD was consistent with their historical position (RTF protects everybody), and with their current position to some audiences ("It has been clear from the beginning that RTF protects everybody", said Jim Johnson to the Ag Commission on Dec 11, 2011), then cities would not be confused and would follow the law as written. As it is, with MDARD saying to us and to cities and townships that we aren't protected, it is no wonder that cities and townships decide to sue, and then are surprised when they lose.

And the situation in Detroit is even worse. MDARD convinced them to accept the 2012 GAAMPS language in lieu of a legislative amendment to RTF that would have legally exempted Detroit from RTF protection. What will Detroit do if that 2012 GAAMPS language doesn't hold up to a court challenge, now that they've already started to sell off large parcels of land to would-be farmers?


So it isn't just small farmers who should be upset at what MDARD is doing here. The clear, public mismanagement of the Right to Farm program is resulting in bad public decision-making from other agencies and groups that they advise: Detroit should not have taken MDARD's advice to accept the 2012 GAAMPs language instead of a change to RTF legislation, the Agriculture Commission should not have taken MDARD's advice to break with their established process to approve those changes without public input, and Forsyth Township should not have taken MDARD's advice that Randy Buchler was not protected by Right to Farm. Forsyth Township has already lost, and I think the City of Detroit and the Ag Commission will also eventually lose on that 2012 GAAMPS issue; I just can't see how it can withstand a court challenge.

And I guess I can come up with one more example. I think even the Attorney General is being plagued by poor management of Right to Farm by MDARD. If you FOIA the informal opinions that the Attorney General's office has produced over the years on RTF, you'll find one from 2006 in which the very last paragraph references MDARD as saying the following; red was added by me:

"Your fifth question is whether the Department of Agriculture can limit its site selection
GAAMP to a certain number of animal units and, if so, whether a local government can enforce
its zoning ordinance when the use involves fewer than that number. The Department has
recently expanded the site selection GAAMP to operations with any number of animal units, thus
rendering this question moot. The most recent site selection GAAMP is available at the
Department of Agriculture's web site at http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-
1567_1599_1605---,00.html. "

This was in 2006 - but the change that MDARD said was made in 2006 was not actually accomplished in 2006, and neither was it accomplished in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or 2012. In fact, it wasn't even attempted until last year, when it was successfully opposed by me and RaZ and many other folks on this thread and indeed across the state.

So why would that be embarrassing to the Attorney General? Because the informal opinions coming out of that office are not correct in the absence of the change that MDARD said had already occurred - but factually had not occurred. And this didn't just happen in 2006, when Mike Cox was the Attorney General. It happened again in 2011, when Bill Schuette was Attorney General, because he was also asked to write an informal opinion on RTF, and his office relied on that previous 2006 letter for their "facts", which were wrong. I even wonder if the reason that Bill Schuette hasn't answered the most recent request for a formal opinion on the 2012 GAAMPS is because without that change that MDARD said happened in 2006 (but didn't), he can't say that folks in urban areas aren't protected by RTF, because we actually are.

So let's see. The folks who in my view have reason to be upset with MDARD over the mismanagement of the Right to Farm program include urban, suburban, and even small rural farmers; the City of Detroit; the Ag Commission; Forsyth Township; and the office of the Attorney General.

If you want to see those opinions by the Attorney General, no need to FOIA as they are all here: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-attorney-general/

Just click the blue links, and let me know if you find any that are broken.

 

[Groveland Sucks]

Howdy neighbor! I also live in Groveland township, or should I call it Naziland, and have an a$$h013 for a neighbor. He cried to the township about the five hens I have in my FENCED in back yard. Of course Sgt Penis, the ordinance officer, showed on at my house on Sunday to issue me a warning. I carefully went through the local ordinance with him which clear states that any residence with less than ten acres can not have more then 10 hens. Needless to say Sgt Penis was speechless and told me that he would talk to the township supervisor about the written ordinance. He called me back two days later telling me that the supervisor stated that I can not have chickens because I do not reside on more than two and one half acres. I have spent the better part of four hours searching the Groveland Township website trying to find any wording that can verify this statement. Well wouldn't you know it, I couldn't even find the words "two and one half acres" anywhere on the website. The ordinance officer told me that it wasn't in writing but they talked about it at one of the township meetings. I told him that he can not enforce and ordinance that has not been posted to inform the general public. I plan on calling the supervisor tomorrow and asking him to provide me the ordinance number that outlines the load of crap that they have been telling me. I will post my results ASAP. I see your post was from mid 2011. What ever came out of this incident?



Yours in chickens, Tom

 

[eldenbrady]

We have now had our business registration application (you have to register a business in order to sell anything here acording to city ordinance - including yardsales) for selling vegetables rejected by the city of Muskegon. Turns out its not just chickens (or even animals) that cities are wilfully ignorant of Right to Farm on. The position of the City of Muskegon (a city that just voted to build a nice new farmers market) is that nobody can grow anything in town and sell it.

One though for others out there is to look if your local government has a business registration process. Yes you might get turned down, but the appeal process will be different if you start the fight instead of ignoring the government until they decide to harass you. Sometimes a different appeal process can make things easier or at least cheaper to fight.

 

[wingless]

Hey everybody -

Late last year, after all the advocating around the proposed 2013 GAAMPs was over, a small group of us decided to create an organization to continue to advocate around farming issues in Michigan. Earlier this year we chose a name for ourselves - the Michigan Small Farm Council - and then later came up with a mission: to protect and extend the rights of urban, suburban, and rural small-scale farming operations throughout the state. We built a website, and also built a discussion forum to have a place to bring in all kinds of farmers from Michigan who might be interested in these (and other) farming issues, but would not find us on a Backyard Chickens forum. And then earlier today we met our latest milestone, when the State of Michigan certified our Articles of Incorporation.

We still have a very long way to go as we build out the organization, set an agenda, and begin to do meaningful work to make it easier for small farmers to farm in Michigan. But before we move on to all of those things, we'd like to open the organization to anyone interested in advocating for the rights of small farms in Michigan. It is easy to join, and you can do so here: http://www.michigansmallfarmcouncil.org

Or, if you're not interested in advocating but would like a place to talk about all kinds of farming issues in Michigan, please join us here: http://www.michigansmallfarmforum.com

Neither of these efforts will replace this RTF thread on BYC, of course, where so many of us met and learned about agricultural policies in our great state. The conversation will also continue here.

Have a great weekend, everybody.

 

[Susan Thompson]

We would like to know how to register for the right to farm act, we are in milford 12 acres and the township keeps coming by, and we are really tired of it. Sue

 

[Susan Thompson]

Someone had told us that we have to register as a farm under Michigans right to farm, my question is what agency?

 

[RaZ]

You can start here: http://michigan.gov/mdard

There are three (3) basis requirements for being protected under the RTFA. I'll paraphrase.
1. Have a farm operation producing an agriculture product.
2. Be commercial ie. sell something what you produce.
3. Be compliant with the GAAMPs.

While the law is clear and protects ALL Michigan citizen farmers, some local governments will try to circumvent the law so be prepared to stand up and fight for your rights.

Milford litigated against a man a few years back. They kept him in court for months and finally ruled that he didn't make enough of a profit. That man gave up.

In Garden City, they made chickens a criminal case and the judge disallowed the RTFA defense. An appeal is underway.

Also check out http://www.michigansmallfarmforum.com/

Good luck

 

[wingless]

Someone had told us that we have to register as a farm under Michigans right to farm, my question is what agency?

The RTF law itself defines what a farm is (""Farm" means land, plants, animals, buildings, structures, including ponds used for agricultural or aquacultural activites, machinery, equipment, and other appurtenances used in the commercial production of farm products.")

I have never heard anyone say that a farm has to be registered under the Right to Farm law, and am pretty sure that your friend is mistaken.

 

[CaraBear]

well...i got my response from the city again today - i have some four-letter words for them.

"Dear Mrs. Baker,

Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2012 (yes, their typo), addressed to Mayor Maureen Donker, City Attorney James Branson, and myself as Director of Planning and Community Development.

The position of the City of Midland relative to the keeping of chickens in residential areas was thoroughly outlined in a letter to you from Mr. Branson, dated May 31, 2012 (copy enclosed). While we appreciate the time and effort that went into your latest letter to us on this matter, your position remains essentially the same as that which you presented to us last year. The May 31, 2012 letter sent to you and reference above was issues in response and remains the position of the City of Midland.

I also wish to acknowledge your request that the Planning Commission bring their recommendation for an ordinance change back to the City Council for approval. The City Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City of Midland Council and has already reviewed and put forth their recommendation on this matter. Upon due consideration of that recommendation, the Midland City Council determined not to amend the current zoning ordinance standards to permit the raising of chickens on residentially zoned lands. There are no plans to revisit this issue at the Planning Commission level.

As previously expressed to you, we appreciate your proactive attempt to avoid any zoning violations. As was also previously expressed, however, chickens continue to not be allowed in residentially zoned areas within the City and violations will subject the home owner to court related actions and penalties as found in our local ordinances.

Thank you for contacting us on this matter and I trust that this letter will ensure that you fully understand the City's position as well as the penalties associated with zoning and ordinance violations.

Sincerely,
...."

so much to say.....................................