Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[cowcreekgeek]

oops. Nuts, i was hoping for an answer! I hate being up in the air. Good luck with the meeting !

Hi, and ... sorry to say this ... although legal precedents are often set by cases previously heard by another Court, the facts of his different case, and in what most probably is a different jurisdiction, may not apply in your own hypothetical scenario. You've gotta look at your own local zoning and ordinances, and your own specific circumstances, if you wish to determine what your rights are (which I encourage everyone to do ~'-)

 

[fuzzybutt love]

No, what i'm looking at is whether the revised edition of the RTFA will be passed as-is with the "space requirements" that require x amount of residential houses within x amount of miles..............and that although the property they are on is technically zoned ag it is also technically a hair under 5 acres, and i believe they get to decide what is ag and what is no longer if it passes? i could be wrong on that.

I am probably good, but i want to know what properties are zoned ag, how many acres they have to be...........

i want to look at buying a house of our own; Previously if you were in the country you were good to keep a few animals, but if this passes................ well, it looks grim for those without acreage, possibly even for some who do! I looked high and low but there are no county maps to be found online that show where the agricultural zones are, though DH did have a good idea of trying with the conservation maps........

Also i can't figure what's up with the 1,2, or 3 zones? I thought you either were or weren't, so that makes me wonder if they are going to assign properties to a "tier"?

 

[cowcreekgeek]

A correction of my own personal interpretation, because (in my opinion) the Michigan Court of Appeals erred in it's own.

Rather than dig through our history, so as to find and cite specific cases, let's assume we all agree that ours is a nation that interprets law based upon legal precedent, and, providing that any decision stands upon further Appeal to a higher Court, that specific law is to be applied as interpreted by the Court, unless and until the legislative branch changes it (which, rest assured, the People of State of Michigan shall do )-;~

And, this is *exactly* the case, in regard to the Michigan right to farm act:

In both Padadelis v. City of Troy and Charter Township of Shelby v. Papesh, the Court has concluded that the legislature did not require that BOTH subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Section 3 be satisfied in order for farm operations to receive nuisance protection.

The Court of Appeals interpretation is that there is no connection between subsections one and two, therefore any farming operation w/in the State of Michigan that satisfies EITHER subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section 3 has the right to move into any area they wish to, without regard to zoning or other ordinance(s), and qualify for nuisance protection under RTFA by simply adhering to GAAMPs.

Furthermore, once those protections are fully established, they would be very difficult to remove:

(3) A farm or farm operation that is in conformance with subsection (1) shall not be found to be a public or
private nuisance as a result of any of the following:
(a) A change in ownership or size.
(b) Temporary cessation or interruption of farming.
(c) Enrollment in governmental programs.
(d) Adoption of new technology.
(e) A change in type of farm product being produced.

In conclusion of this West 'by God' Virginian stickin' his nose in the business of the good peoples of Michigan, I do wish to encourage you *not* to find some way to work around the laws (e.g. selling one feather, or a single egg, or any such thing), but that you openly and honestly under the protections it offers you -- you can sell your farm products from a road side stand, and be absolutely w/in your protected rights, despite any that would wish to offend them. And, as you exercise those legal rights? Remember that you may still be morally wrong ...

Please, folks, be just as good to your neighbors as they will allow ~'-)

 

[cowcreekgeek]

No, what i'm looking at is whether the revised edition of the RTFA will be passed as-is with the "space requirements" that require x amount of residential houses within x amount of miles..............and that although the property they are on is technically zoned ag it is also technically a hair under 5 acres, and i believe they get to decide what is ag and what is no longer if it passes? i could be wrong on that.

I am probably good, but i want to know what properties are zoned ag, how many acres they have to be...........

i want to look at buying a house of our own; Previously if you were in the country you were good to keep a few animals, but if this passes................ well, it looks grim for those without acreage, possibly even for some who do! I looked high and low but there are no county maps to be found online that show where the agricultural zones are, though DH did have a good idea of trying with the conservation maps........

Also i can't figure what's up with the 1,2, or 3 zones? I thought you either were or weren't, so that makes me wonder if they are going to assign properties to a "tier"?

I wish to suggest an entirely different approach, by an analogy from my own State of West Virginia ... some years back, they changed the laws regarding the carrying of concealed weapons, which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, resulting in everyone that could legally own a weapon havin' every right to carry it anywhere they wished to. Crime rates fell off dramatically, 'cause every criminal suspected most potential victims would simply shoot 'em (as well they should). The State then too quickly revised the law, makin' it so that your weapon could be loaded, but was to be in plain sight ... the dashboard was actually suggested in the law, which demonstated well what idiots can accomplish when they're in a hurry.

So, rather than wait for the change(s) that absolutely shall be made to this Act? Comply w/ it, as it stands, and before it can be changed. If you must? Rent land elsewhere, so as to simply begin your commercial farm, and then move it where you want to later ... but, the point is that you should start now. In my analogy? Just about anyone that applied for license to carry a concealed weapon during our state's lawless period was granted their permit, and any that wished to continue has only been required to pay fees upon renewal ... there's hardly any way they could ever justify revoking them, provided that they don't give the state good reason to.

See my last post, in regard to the RTFA as it currently stands, and why I believe this would be the best approach for anyone w/in your state.

 

[cowcreekgeek]

Ok I went against my zoning I will tell you what I did: I walk out my door to see to idiots (sorry I mean officers) on my property in my fence with those long poles with nooses on the end. GRRRRR so I ask what their intention are? The 1st man said you have chickens on your property & it is illegal here in the city.... I replied with the MI right to farm quoted above. 2nd officer replies that does not apply here you can not have the chickens here it is against the zoning laws. (having some schooling in law) I state the legislature for the state of MI has deemed this law through the supreme court of MI that trumps all... the man says no it does not we make the laws that govern this city over the state of MI, (he reached my locked gate) can you open this? Nope I said if you do not have a warrant signed by a judge I suggest you get off my property.

So the man gets very angry & says oh I will return with a warrant and a 500.00 fine for blocking an officer in the line of duty .... I said that is fine you do what you do & I will do what I do. I then said I was calling PETA on them as they came with dog poles to strangle chickens. They got in their truck & pulled off pretty angry.

I called the head of their department (their boss) he backed them 100% telling me they would be back & trouble was brewing for me. I may as well surrender my chickens. So I repeated the law to him & said if needed they could take me to court. There is something I said as well about caring for the chickens according to some standard (sorry cant remember right now) but they can only apply that law if you have 200 or 400 or more chickens it will not fit small flocks & dept of Agriculture wont even come out for less.

After this I called the city attorney (every city has one) it is an attorney who defends the city against law suits. This is the man who Detroit uses in the Kuamie Kilpatrick mess. This man is surprised I called him to tell him these ppl were on my property. He states to me "It is my job to defend them, so I do not understand why you are calling me, I think you would need to call your own attorney" I state that I am calling him as I mean to call him I state the law along with the code of care (I cant remember what it is called right now) I also tell him I have about 30 chickens used to benefit myself & my family, that I am trying to help him avoid a law suit as I will sue the city for cruelty if they manage to find a judge to sign a warrant. I tell him I will stand up for my rights & if the city can afford a long drawn out court case bring it on. I say every judge who does not rule in my favor I will walk down the hall & file my FREE appeal, I will then be brought back to a HIGHER judge who WILL approve my chickens as I can appeal all the way to the supreme court.

The attorney said "I will look into it" well I have NEVER herd from any of them again. The calls stopped I never got that 500.00 ticket, They NEVER came back for the chickens. The city tries to bluff & scare you but in the chain of command the SUPREME COURT of MICHIGAN is the final say & you can see what they say. Other courts judges may try to help out officers but in reality any one who sticks to their guns will win.

Oh I also forgot to mention I stated I was going to post a bulletin board on my property in both English & Spanish with the law on it & a brief 'what this means for you" explanation lol DON'T MESS WITH MY FEATHERED GIRLS!

I do understand your frustration, and certainly wouldn't be tolerant of anybody stompin' all over my rights, but it'd be best to remain as calm and as respectful as they'll allow you to ... they were mistaken, in that they make the laws of the city, but that those are to not conflict with those of the State and Federal governments.

OK, ok ... I was gonna try 'n suggest bein' nice, and not callin' their officers idiots, but ... nooses instead of nets? Really!? Idiots.

Anyhow ... if they weren't, and they do choose to press this matter, you may still not be protected by the MRFA, unless you meet the test of being a commercial farming operation, and conform to the acceptable standards required under this Act.

And, never think that cities fear lengthy/costly Court cases ... it ain't their money; it's yours (and anybody else's that lives there ~'-)

And, never think that cities ain't gonna come back, once they've got their proverbial ducks in a row, and on some day when your literal chickens ain't ...

 

[wingless]

The Hantz Farms proposed purchase of 1,500 parcels in Detroit - a total of 140 acres - will be discussed at the Detroit City Council meeting tomorrow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/hantz-farms-deal-land-detroit-council_n_2159863.html

 

[cowcreekgeek]

The Hantz Farms proposed purchase of 1,500 parcels in Detroit - a total of 140 acres - will be discussed at the Detroit City Council meeting tomorrow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/hantz-farms-deal-land-detroit-council_n_2159863.html

When I see they "indicated a willingness to purchase and maintain the land simply in order to make the area more livable" and ask this to be considered as a "simple purchase agreement" it sure sounds like somebody's plannin' to develop this land for other undisclosed purposes.

 

[RonEstrada]

I hadn't intended to use the RTFA in my attempt to legalize chickens in Oxford. However, one of the planning board members brought it up. According to her, the act created enough gray area that Oxford's current ordnance would never hold up in court. She may be wrong, but they formed a committee to recommend changes to the ordnance, then put me on the committee. It's politics, folks. The interpretation of the law doesn't need to be right. You just need to cause a stir. We start meeting soon. I'll keep you up to date.

 

[wingless]

Well, shadygrovefarm is causing a stir - his RTF case is being heard today in Marquette County!

Here is his facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Shady-Grove-Farm-UP/438740466142896

 

[cowcreekgeek]

I hadn't intended to use the RTFA in my attempt to legalize chickens in Oxford. However, one of the planning board members brought it up. According to her, the act created enough gray area that Oxford's current ordnance would never hold up in court. She may be wrong, but they formed a committee to recommend changes to the ordnance, then put me on the committee. It's politics, folks. The interpretation of the law doesn't need to be right. You just need to cause a stir. We start meeting soon. I'll keep you up to date.

Well, shadygrovefarm is causing a stir - his RTF case is being heard today in Marquette County!

Here is his facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Shady-Grove-Farm-UP/438740466142896

Pointing back to my last post in regard to Michigan's right to farm, Ron's got a local planning board member that's w/o question correct to revisit any Ordinance that relates to commercial farm operations (and, the concerns shouldn't be limited to chickens), although they'll most probably be spinnin' their wheels 'til the People of Michigan make revisions to this Act. And, there is simply no way that Shady Grove Farm can ultimately lose their case ... they'll likely be postponed, so as to avoid the opportunity to win, but the legal precedent has already been established in the Court of Appeals:

In both Padadelis v. City of Troy and Charter Township of Shelby v. Papesh, the Court has concluded that the legislature did not require that BOTH subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Section 3 be satisfied in order for farm operations to receive nuisance protection.