Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[dsp]

Gardeningrannie is wrong because written in the law is this:

286.473b Recovery of costs and expenses.
Sec. 3b. In any nuisance action brought in which a farm or farm operation is alleged to be a nuisance, if the defendant farm or farm operation prevails, the farm or farm operation may recover from the plaintiff the actual amount of costs and expenses determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the farm or farm operation in connection with the defense of the action, together with reasonable and actual attorney fees.

I would think this means if you win then you can get your attorneys fees returned.

In fact this was heavily pointed out to me by by state rep that is 100% on my side... but he has no authority/control over my cities government....he made it clear that he felt if it went to court based on previous rulings I would win and thus be entitled to be reimbursed by the city for any cost incurred.

I do not think that the best way to "fight" this is to work with your city to get a "chicken" ordinance in place. If you want to keep hens for their good eggs and sell the extra then you already have a Law that protects you!! Make your city uphold your rights as a tax payer of Michigan! The law is even a current law with recent updates to protect us.

I went into my "fight" with my city because I want to keep my hens for their eggs. But really its even bigger than that. Its about RIGHTS. There is a law that says I can do this. I am following the law. Why should I let my city come in and tell me I can't because basically they don't like it???

If I allow them to take away my chickens this week...what right/freedom will they take away next week??

 

[Gardeninggranny]

It was pointed out to me by a land use educator from MSU that this paragraph refers to an existing farm that someone tries to get closed- say a large poultry operation that has been in existance for years and now a new neighbor wants it closed. Sometimes these neighbors file lawsuit after lawsuit to drive the farmer out of business. If it follows the Gamps and wins- the farm may be re-imbursed. This is usually seen differently than a municipality trying to enforce an ordinace. The word may in legalese is powerful and I have already heard some sad stories about large legal bills not being re-imbursed- usually when a muncipality drops the case after you have invested a lot into it but before you get in front of a judge. You won - but at a cost. If you want to spend more- you can take them back to court to ask for legal costs.

I am not saying you shouldn't fight for your rights- just go in with both eyes open. I worry about people who go all out spending money they can't afford thinking they will get it all back. And when you do get it back it can be years down the line.

Once again I am not a lawyer but have been seeing these cases from several angles. I am pro-chicken keeping and frequently advise people about RTF. But I want them to know exactly what they may be in for.

The RTF law wasn't really written to allow people to keep a few chickens in their backyard. It's a good thing for some chicken keepers but that was not the intent of the law. The law was written to protect commercial farmers from nuisance lawsuits and being forced out of business. It was also to prevent governments from too much or too restrictive legislation on new agricultural operations. The RTF law can and will be amended as time goes on. It is important that people work with their municipalities and get some kind of good ordinances in place for small chicken flocks and other home food production uses before the number of RTF lawsuits by people who want to override zoning ordinances causes the RTF to be amended to leave out the loopholes that are helping us now.

 

[dsp]

I disagree that that part was not written for anybody covered by the Right to Farm Act. The wording is that a "farm" or "farm operation" may seek to be reimbursed for basically harassment. If you go to the beginning of the Michigan Right to farm act - there is the definition of farm and farm operation. No where does it say it only applies to large scale pre existing farms only.

The Right to Farm act may not have been written specifically for small scale farming-- BUT it also does not prohibit it! The way it is written it covers all commercial farming. When I took this issue to my state rep he even researched the notes taken while this law was being written. There was no talk of not including or this not being intended for small scale farming. So the MRTFA does apply to "backyard" chicken farmers. You have to follow the law and GAAMPs ( which even mentions small flocks ( a few birds) in the section on laying hens) but as the law is written even small scare farms are protected.

 

[vicki2x2]

If you go back to page 26 and look at the article posted by Denninmi, scroll to page 11 of that article, it looks like it supports what Gardeninggranny is saying.

 

[FreeMarketChristian]

This is the letter I am sending them monday. I will supply hard copies of the the links below. This post is the first on this forum to have all the links compiled. Use this as resource. Also, if any of you see something in the letter that should be added to bolster, please submit.

To: Kristen Mikitaroff- Code Enforcement Officer August 16, 2010


Re: Case # EN101071

Dear Madame,
This letter is a reply to zoning ordinance violation EN101071.

I am replying to request the remittance of the violation and concurrent change of Auburn Hills law to reconcile with the Michigan Right to Farm Act (MRTFA). I consider your notice of violation null and void.
I currently own and operate a family-owned for profit farm, Liberty Poultry, which currently consists of a small garden, chicken raising and bee keeping.

Yesterday, I received a notice that I was in violation of Auburn Hills city ordinance, wherein I was asked to voluntarily comply in removing chickens and roosters from my property or face up to $500 fine or 90 days imprisonment.

This ordinance is in violation of Michigan State law and my corresponding rights under MRFTA (full text enclosed). Specifically note the following section:

(6) Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. 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 my right to continuation of my farm and supersedes any city laws that may forbid said farming. For your reference, Shelby Township v. Papesh is a similar case and may assist in your legal determinations.

The animals of Liberty Poultry are treated humanely, and the farm itself operates in full accord with generally accepted agricultural and management practices (GAAMPS).

As per MRTFA and the supporting documentation detailed below, I request that you deliver a written remission of the alleged violation #EN101071 within 10 business days. I also recommend modification the corresponding Auburn Hills Zoning ordinance(s) to reflect current State of Michigan law.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Owner
Liberty Poultry

Cc: Peter Auger- City Manager
Jeff Spencer- Zoning Board Staff Liaison


Attachments:
(1) Michigan Right to Farm Act
(2) GAAMPS
(3) MI Case Laws: Shelby TWP vs Papesh, Woodland Hills vs Thetford
(4) EIN Number

Web references / documents:

(A) Michigan Right to Farm Act
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4mrnfjua23kyyhugyfxqdjzo))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-act-93-of-1981.pdf

(B)GAAMPS
http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1567_1599_1605-70356--,00.html

(C) Case Law history for MRTFA
http://web5.msue.msu.edu/lu/pamphlet/Blaw/SelectedPlan&ZoneCourt RTFA 1964-2006.pdf

(D) Case Law
https://www.glrsonline.com/Course1000/Module2/Lesson3/woodland_hills_v_thetford.pdf

(E) MSU Extension Zoning- How MRTFA affects local zoning table
http://web5.msue.msu.edu/lu/pamphlet/Blaw/RightToFarmAct PreemptionTable.pdf

 

[FreeMarketChristian]

Quote:
I believe she wrote the article herself. Her article is her interpretation which is contrary to case law and the RTFA simple wording in and of itself. Not to mention this has been discussed on the forum already as seen for the last 25 pages.

 

[Denninmi]

Quote:
I believe she wrote the article herself. Her article is her interpretation which is contrary to case law and the RTFA simple wording in and of itself. Not to mention this has been discussed on the forum already as seen for the last 25 pages.

Hi, I hope I'm not misinterpreting your comments, but let me assure you, I definitely didn't write an MSU Extension publication on Right To Farm case law. If I had, I probably wouldn't be posting on here asking questions about my own situation. No offense meant, and I hope none is taken, I just wanted to set the record straight.

That being said, I wish you the best of luck in your upcoming struggle with Auburn Hills. I hope you can educate them a bit and win this. Please keep posting and let us know how it goes.

 

[patman75]

Quote:
Very well done. Good luck!

 

[tasymo]

@FreeMarketChristian... EXCELLENT letter!! This is the attitude everyone fighting for changes in chicken ordinances should have. I keep seeing folks apologizing and bending over backward to minimize their chickens impact, in order to keep their flocks and it drives me crazy! Stand up for your Rights! Make it clear that you will not back down, and that government officials are working for YOU, the tax payers. They should not be allowed to be bullies. Thank goodness Michigan has a strong Right to Farm Act that we can use to back us up. Why quibble over who or what it was "meant" to protect? It has been used numerous times to support backyard flocks already, so I would think a presidence has been set. I hope lots of folks see this letter and use it in their own fights. Michigan may have plenty of problems right now, but this is one thing we got right!

 

[FreeMarketChristian]

Does anyone know if by being a commercial farmer, does that subject me to health inspections, USDA, etc?