Ok, here is something curious.
As we all now know, GAAMPS are living documents that change every year, in a process that begins in the spring with the convening of committees for each GAAMPS and a decision on whether any changes are needed. If changes are desired, then the committees meet and draft those changes into a proposed revision (July), with public comments during the summer (Aug), after which they are presented to the Ag Commission for their consideration (Nov) and then vote (Dec). This is exactly what is going on this year - but it is not what happened last year in the lead up to passing the 2012 GAAMPS.
Below is a link to the
November 9, 2011 Ag Commission meeting, in which the Draft 2012 GAAMPS were presented to the Ag Commission, with no mention of the now famous 2012 preamble language that disenfranchises as many as 1.5 million of us (those living in cities of 100,000 or more) from RTF protection. So that means the 2012 preamble language that eventually passed in December was not on the table in November, and never went through the public review process. It was also not formally presented to the Ag Commission before the meeting in which they voted on it. Here are the minutes, with this part of the discussion beginning on page 20:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/Nov__9_2011_MINUTES_371460_7.pdf
In fact, Jim Johnson was still saying on November 9th that MDARD was considering creating an urban agriculture GAAMP to deal with urban ag issues in Detroit, and was considering options with the Attorney General's office.
Three weeks later, on
November 28, 2011, the Detroit Free Press reported that Virgil Smith and Joe Hune were preparing to introduce a bill
that week that would exempt Detroit from RTF:
http://www.freep.com/article/201111...would-create-Right-Farm-Act-exemption-Detroit.
As we now all know, that bill was never introduced.
Instead, two weeks later at the
December 14, 2011 Ag Commission meeting, the 2012 preamble language was proposed, and passed by the Ag Commission with almost no discussion. Those minutes are here; the RTF discussion begins on page 16:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/Dec_14_2011_MINUTES_373525_7.pdf
Quite the drama, but I still can't see what was so important that they had to circumvent their process, and come up with such unusual and ill considered GAAMPS language at the very last moment.
Is it all about keeping RTF out of the legislature?