Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[calista]

Quote:
So this gentleman will NOT win on appeal?

https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=555595

 

[Your_neighbor]

He lost, but for a different reason. Even if he had won, the city would have appealed to the circuit courts, where he would definitely lose for the reason that his farm was illegally created.

You have to follow all the applicable ordinances and become a farm legally. The circuit court of appeals has ruled on that exact issue in Jerome Township vs Milchi (1990), And they explicitly state what I have said. The supreme Court's ruling on Troy vs Padeleski (2007) also has wording in it that directly implies they agree.

From Jerome Township vs Milchi: The appeals court concluded that apiary was a farm operation for purposes of the RTFA, but the RTFA did not apply since the apiary did not exist prior to the 1965 zoning ordinance.

Cannot get any clearer than that!

On further reflection the judge was remarkably clever in what he did. He just said RTFA doesn't apply, which was what the city was also saying. The judge dramatically raised the bar for the commercial requirement, while at the same time significantly strengthening the city's case if the man appeals. The circuit court can use either the city's claim, which agrees with their earlier decisions and the Supreme Court decision, or they can simply not reverse the judge's decision. Either way, the illegally created farm is history. He can appeal but he has almost no chance of winning. Since he won't appeal, the case won't be overturned and is able to be used as precedent in other cases.

This is much worse news for illegally created farms than people currently think. The bar for using RTFA as a defense has just been raised considerably.

 

[googlearlene]

Can anyone tell me who to contact in Livingston County regarding/reporting GAMPS?? I'm a newbie with nasty neighbors and need help making sure I do everything right to protect my goats and chickens. Thanks.

 

[Your_neighbor]

If you were not violating any ordinances when you created your farm, and want to ensure you are conforming to GAAMP, go to the Michigan Department of Agriculture web site. They have a ton of info there.

If you are not sure whether you were violating ordinances when you created your farm, it is the city/township/village, and not the county, who creates/enforces any zoning ordinances. I would go to township's building inspector's office and ask to speak to the zoning enforcement officer. That is almost always the correct person to deal with and, if they aren't, they will know who you should contact.

If you were violating ordinances when you created your farm I suggest you bend over backwards trying to be nice to your neighbors for as long as you want to keep your farm.

 

[dianaross77]

Quote:
Please don't take any lay person's word on this matter. You were asking for someone to contact and I will answer your actual question. Call the Michigan Dept of Agriculture. Here is a link to their contact information. http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,1607,7-125-2762---C,00.html

 

[Your_neighbor]

yes, definitely contact the MDA. If they say you are fine, but you told them you violated any zoning ordinances when you established your farm, then you will want to contact a lawyer as well. Court precedent trumps what someone at the MDA says, because the courts have the final word.

If you violated zoning ordinances when you set up your farm, but don't mention this to the MDA when you talk to them, their advice is totally worthless. That is a critical piece of information they need.

 

[wingless]

I have only read a little of Troy v Padeleski Supreme Court case but it is pretty clear that Padeleski DID violate city ordinances as understood by the city of Troy while establishing their farm, and that the Supreme Court STILL upheld their rights under MRTFA.

Thus I do not believe that there is language in that case that will support your view that a farm must first be 'legally created' according to local ordinances before farmers can be protected by MRTFA.

You have an interesting habit of making strong statements without supporting your views with actual language from specific cases. The one case you do quote (Jerome Township v Michigan) is absurd, since if it were true that no farm created before 1965 is protected by MRTF is established law, then the Supreme Court would surely not have ruled in favor of the residential farmer (Padeleski) at the expense of the city of Troy. But they did. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the backyard farmer Padeleski, who was sued by the city of Troy for not conforming with city ordinances.

You started your conversation on this thread with invectives against your neighbor, who has backyard chickens. You have stated explicitly on another thread that it is your goal to have those chickens removed, and that you are busy educating city officials about the true status of MRTF. Do you intend to make the case that your neighbor is not protected by MRTF because she violated city ordinances, was never 'legal', and so has no rights? I think you know that case is weak, and that your goal here is to misinform, confuse, and intimidate.

Chicken farmers, however, are a smart bunch, and flock together. Plus, we (I) feel like we're making the world a better place, and don't really want to let someone get in the way of that. As a result, I have three formal announcements to make.

First, I have Faverolles chicken eggs for sale. 25 cents each, 3 dollars a dozen. Please PM if interested.

Second, I am doing a survey of different egg types, and would be very interested in comparing eggs of different breeds. Please let me know if you are also a commercial farm and could sell me a few eggs. Many thanks.

Finally, I am not sure how much longer I can engage in this particular conversation, but if anyone is going to court to protect their backyard flock, I would be glad to contribute in any way I reasonably can. I think the Thomason case was lost because of a lack of information, and that should be the last time we let that happen.

 

[dianaross77]

Quote:

 

[mcbeers]

Quote:

SECONDED

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
I knew someone would eventually get around to mis-interpreting the Troy vs Papadelis case. The case involves two properties, a greenhouse property and a residential property. The greenhouse property was identified as a legal non-conforming farm by the time of the first appeal and thus eligible for RTFA protections. Not sure why but it appears the nursery itself was never attacked by the city. Maybe they had an agreement with the Papadelis family. Anyhow it was a legal non-conforming farm. The house property was contested by the city because it was too small to be a farm. The Papadelis family bought the lot adjacent to it as well, which brought it up to the 5 acre minimum for farming. It became a legal farm under the zoning and thus eligible for RTFA protection. There is no issue here. The law was applied consistently by the time the cases were completed.

"Do you intend to make the case that your neighbor is not protected by MRTF because she violated city ordinances, was never 'legal', and so has no rights?"

I already have, and the city attorney agrees with me.

"I think you know that case is weak, and that your goal here is to misinform, confuse, and intimidate. "

You have it exactly backwards.

"Finally, I am not sure how much longer I can engage in this particular conversation"

So stop if it's too much for you to handle. There is no shame in withdrawing when you get in over your head. This is a very simple conversation compared to an actual courtroom.

"I think the Thomason case was lost because of a lack of information..."

The judge thinks the Thomason case was lost because it didn't qualify for RTFA protection. The judge most likely had access to at least twice as much information as you or I do. If someone is lacking information in the case, it is you and I, not the judge.