Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

Two comments, cowcreekgeek:

First, although both the law and the court cases are clear, MDARD continues to tell citizens and local units of government in Michigan that RTF does NOT protect commercial farms in residential and urban areas. shadygrovefarm posted several months ago that MDARD is the ONLY person or group who said he wasn't protected by RTF - but that was enough for his township to be willing to take him to court. Note that MDARD says this now even though MDARD previously argued the other side and fought for residential farms, AND even though Jim Johnson of MDARD has stated publicly that "it has been clear from the beginning that RTF covers everyone in Michigan." Or something close to that. So one thing we are fighting for here is to get MDARD to acknowledge the truth of our claim that we are protected by RTF, because what they say to local units of government is effectively causing us to lose our rights.

Second, MDARD is currently undertaking a new strategy to deny us our RTF protection, without taking RTF back to the legislature, by changing the language of the GAAMPS to specifically exclude anyone not living on agriculturally zoned land from RTF protection. Note that they do not have the authority to make this kind of change to the GAAMPS, AND note that if this language passes it will put the language of the GAAMPS (to require local zoning to affect RTF protection) in direct conflict with the language of the RTF Law (which specifically prohibits local regulation from impinging on RTF protection).

So yes, we have a complicated situation here in Michigan - the strongest Right to Farm Law in the nation, undermined every day by the actions of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Many of us here think, of course, that Right to Farm is worth fighting for; in general, that is what this thread is about. I am working on creating a website to explain what has happened in Michigan since the 1999 amendment, and to accumulate the historical documents that tell that story. It is incomplete and much of the language is still rough, but I invite you to take a look:

http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org

 

[cowcreekgeek]

Two comments, cowcreekgeek:

First, although both the law and the court cases are clear, MDARD continues to tell citizens and local units of government in Michigan that RTF does NOT protect commercial farms in residential and urban areas. shadygrovefarm posted several months ago that MDARD is the ONLY person or group who said he wasn't protected by RTF - but that was enough for his township to be willing to take him to court. Note that MDARD says this now even though MDARD previously argued the other side and fought for residential farms, AND even though Jim Johnson of MDARD has stated publicly that "it has been clear from the beginning that RTF covers everyone in Michigan." Or something close to that. So one thing we are fighting for here is to get MDARD to acknowledge the truth of our claim that we are protected by RTF, because what they say to local units of government is effectively causing us to lose our rights.

Second, MDARD is currently undertaking a new strategy to deny us our RTF protection, without taking RTF back to the legislature, by changing the language of the GAAMPS to specifically exclude anyone not living on agriculturally zoned land from RTF protection. Note that they do not have the authority to make this kind of change to the GAAMPS, AND note that if this language passes it will put the language of the GAAMPS (to require local zoning to affect RTF protection) in direct conflict with the language of the RTF Law (which specifically prohibits local regulation from impinging on RTF protection).

So yes, we have a complicated situation here in Michigan - the strongest Right to Farm Law in the nation, undermined every day by the actions of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Many of us here think, of course, that Right to Farm is worth fighting for; in general, that is what this thread is about. I am working on creating a website to explain what has happened in Michigan since the 1999 amendment, and to accumulate the historical documents that tell that story. It is incomplete and much of the language is still rough, but I invite you to take a look:

http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org

You've got a nice Website for a good cause; PM if you're in need of any help w/ it ...

Completely understand the stop-gap solution your opposition is using ... surprised the Court of Appeals ruled as it has, but 'til this Act is changed (and, it will be, for sure), they'll most probably go after the Michigan commission of agriculture, so as to have 'em modify what they consider to be acceptable, to better control who farms where.

A few points of concern that I'd like you to consider:

[1] In the two cases I've cited, the bigger elephant in the room is the fact that the Court of Appeals expressed the opinion that commercial farms (of even the slightest production) need only comply with subsection (1) OR (2) of Chapter 3. That's one GREAT big elephant, that eats Ordinances like peanuts ~'-)

[2] Your players list should include the Michigan Association of Planning (MAP), which is specifically targeting Michigan's RTFA; w/ a budget of 2/3 M, they might not sound so formidable, but they've successfully stepped up efforts to draw more funding, and have published their clear intention to undo what has been done ... they're droppin' a considerably higher percentage of their budget on advocacy for what's clearly an extremely hot issue w/ their membership.

The Michigan Association of Planning identifies the four following issues as
particular problems that need to be addressed by legislative changes to the
RTFA in the near future:
1. The section MCL 286.473 issue must be addressed to clarify that both parts
(1) and (2) must be met in order to get RTFA protection, not just one or the
other. Part (1) addresses protection if the farm or farm operation conforms to
GAAMPS. Part (2) addresses pre-existing farms or farm operations.
2. Agricultural operations should not be permitted to move into already
established residential areas and qualify for nuisance protection under the
Right to Farm Act by adhering to GAAMPS unless the area is planned and
zoned as such, which could occur as part of an urban agriculture initiative.
3. The location of agricultural buildings in every city, village, township or
county should be required to adhere to basic zoning building setbacks from
streets and abutting properties—the same requirement all other buildings must
meet—but those setbacks should not be allowed to be increased by local
governments to address potential farm nuisances or to implement exclusionary
intents.
4. All farm buildings should be required to conform to the State Construction
Code if they are used for retail operations (like sale of produce or nursery
stock), or for certain commercial operations. This appears to be the law now
(State Construction Code), but should be clearly stated in the RTFA.

Although I still encourage folks to be as good to their neighbors as their neighbors will allow? The time for any Michigan resident that wants to farm where others may not wish them to has come, as the window of opportunity to begin your 'commercial farm' will most certainly be closed -- possibly even for those living just short of five miles away from some municipalities, by the time this pendulum finally comes to rest ...

 

[wingless]

I have thought about adding a local ordinance/zoning page to the sustainablefarmpolicy website, and probably will if I can figure out how to do it in a way that makes clear that these issues are completely separate from RTF issues, for folks with commercial operations. One of the best reasons to create that page is to post the full document that you reference above, which is here: http://www.planningmi.org/downloads/rtfa_board_adopted_policy_feb_19_2010.pdf

And it isn't only people who sit on zoning boards and associations who think that more planning and local regulation is a good idea. Patricia Norris from MSU has written a number of very clear-headed papers about RTF (one is linked in my signature line), but she believes that the solution to the RTF issues will come from bringing all farming operations in non-rural areas back under the control of local units of government.

Ironically, at the last ag commission meeting, some of the commissioners also began to make that argument. Not clear why they think that city-folk are different from country-folk when it comes to needing relief from over-zealous planners - especially when the public health and environmental harm that we cause to other citizens of the state is essentially zero. But it is clear that the legislature did not draw that distinction, and it is wrong for MDARD or the Ag Commission to create that distinction by changing the language of the GAAMPS.

But there is another issue, of course, that you keep bringing up cowcreekgeek - and that is that even if the law gives us these rights we should not insist on them if they are somehow morally wrong. I think this is what MDARD thinks - that RTF was never intended for us, and that we are in the wrong for using a loophole in the language to demand rights that were never ours. To that I would say two things. First, in the years directly following passage of the 1999 amendment that removed local control over RTF, at least 2 residential farmers that I know of were assisted by MDA (as it was called then) to win RTF protection from their local unit of government. So the idea that RTF wasn't intended for us is false - MDA used to fight for us.

And the second thing I'll say is personal. I grew up in Westland, went to schools in Livonia, and for most of my adult life have lived in a small house on a small lot in Ann Arbor. I consider myself an expert on residential living in Michigan, and I can tell you that for most of my life the most interesting parts of my neighbor hood were inside my house, because there just wasn't very much interesting going on outside. Once I got chickens that changed. Not only was I digging in the ground to create a deep base for the coop, but I had to think about which part of the coop should face the sun, which the direction of prevailing winds, and which should sit under the shade of the tree. I had to think about likely predators both in the day and during the night, and how to protect against them. I had to get a pair of boots to live by the backdoor, because I was now going out that door every morning and every evening, at least, to feed and water the birds. So to me having chickens isn't about having chickens, it's about doing interesting resourceful work in the world.

I don't think ordinances should be allowed to prevent that kind of activity in global ways, by preventing all people who live in certain areas from activities as benign as raising chickens. I think the model that the state uses, of establishing a flexible management guideline document that every individual can choose to conform to to win nuisance protection is far better, because it makes more efforts possible, but still requires conformance with basic standards. So I would go even further, and say that this isn't even just about doing interesting resourceful work in my backyard - it is about redefining what residential areas can look like by relieving folks who live there from over-zealous zoning regulations.

So that is my reasoning. It may not be perfect, and may not align with the reasoning of others. But there is nothing to my way of thinking that is morally wrong about fighting this fight.

 

[cowcreekgeek]

I have thought about adding a local ordinance/zoning page to the sustainablefarmpolicy website, and probably will if I can figure out how to do it in a way that makes clear that these issues are completely separate from RTF issues, for folks with commercial operations. One of the best reasons to create that page is to post the full document that you reference above, which is here: http://www.planningmi.org/downloads/rtfa_board_adopted_policy_feb_19_2010.pdf

And it isn't only people who sit on zoning boards and associations who think that more planning and local regulation is a good idea. Patricia Norris from MSU has written a number of very clear-headed papers about RTF (one is linked in my signature line), but she believes that the solution to the RTF issues will come from bringing all farming operations in non-rural areas back under the control of local units of government.

Ironically, at the last ag commission meeting, some of the commissioners also began to make that argument. Not clear why they think that city-folk are different from country-folk when it comes to needing relief from over-zealous planners - especially when the public health and environmental harm that we cause to other citizens of the state is essentially zero. But it is clear that the legislature did not draw that distinction, and it is wrong for MDARD or the Ag Commission to create that distinction by changing the language of the GAAMPS.

But there is another issue, of course, that you keep bringing up cowcreekgeek - and that is that even if the law gives us these rights we should not insist on them if they are somehow morally wrong. I think this is what MDARD thinks - that RTF was never intended for us, and that we are in the wrong for using a loophole in the language to demand rights that were never ours. To that I would say two things. First, in the years directly following passage of the 1999 amendment that removed local control over RTF, at least 2 residential farmers that I know of were assisted by MDA (as it was called then) to win RTF protection from their local unit of government. So the idea that RTF wasn't intended for us is false - MDA used to fight for us.

And the second thing I'll say is personal. I grew up in Westland, went to schools in Livonia, and for most of my adult life have lived in a small house on a small lot in Ann Arbor. I consider myself an expert on residential living in Michigan, and I can tell you that for most of my life the most interesting parts of my neighbor hood were inside my house, because there just wasn't very much interesting going on outside. Once I got chickens that changed. Not only was I digging in the ground to create a deep base for the coop, but I had to think about which part of the coop should face the sun, which the direction of prevailing winds, and which should sit under the shade of the tree. I had to think about likely predators both in the day and during the night, and how to protect against them. I had to get a pair of boots to live by the backdoor, because I was now going out that door every morning and every evening, at least, to feed and water the birds. So to me having chickens isn't about having chickens, it's about doing interesting resourceful work in the world.

I don't think ordinances should be allowed to prevent that kind of activity in global ways, by preventing all people who live in certain areas from activities as benign as raising chickens. I think the model that the state uses, of establishing a flexible management guideline document that every individual can choose to conform to to win nuisance protection is far better, because it makes more efforts possible, but still requires conformance with basic standards. So I would go even further, and say that this isn't even just about doing interesting resourceful work in my backyard - it is about redefining what residential areas can look like by relieving folks who live there from over-zealous zoning regulations.
You
So that is my reasoning. It may not be perfect, and may not align with the reasoning of others. But there is nothing to my way of thinking that is morally wrong about fighting this fight.

First, lemme say that I would so love to have you as my neighbor; in fact? I'd welcome you to farm just about anywhere on this land you wished to, based upon nothing more than I can clearly observe about your nature, by reading your words ... can't imagine that you're doin' anthing that would cause your neighbors any reason for concern, but I also know that not everyone would be as considerate/appropriate as you.

I believe it to be absolutely right, both on legal and moral grounds, to fight this fight. Some of those on the other side have w/o prejudice fought back in illegal and/or immoral ways, abusing the powers entrusted to them to offend not merely the rights of a few folks ... they've intentionally offended us all.

You seem to hold the hope that the People of Michigan will modify this Act in some manner as to grant individuals w/in any municipality a favorable distinction from commercial farming operations. And, as reasonable as that may be, I can't imagine any scenario in which they'd feel compelled to do so ... legislators w/ the wisdom/character to do such a thing would surely be almost as rare in your state as they are in my own, and those that are seeking to have it changed most probably have far more than the ears of the majority of the rest: This Act will w/o a doubt be changed quickly.

Where I am most concerned is that municipalities have already been given zoning powers five miles beyond their limits, which I can't imagine to be constitutional, as those living merely one foot beyond these limits almost never have any right to vote there ... and, what happens to those that live w/in that distance of two, or even more, municipalities? Zoning w/in *one* is usually confusing/contradictory at best ... can't imagine havin' to answer to several different commissions, all filled w/ part-time decision makers w/ differing agendas (what a mess that's gonna be ~'-)

Now, as to the intent of RTF? I believe that the legislators failed in their language to properly limit it's application, and that the Court failed to consider the intent of the legislators (which they're supposed to do, but most simply don't). However, the Court of Appeals has ruled, and established the legal precedent upon which every resident currently has the legal right to stand upon, which is what I strongly encourage y'all to do ... not quietly, so as to avoid detection, but openly, and w/ letters of intent, and licensing by the state as a business, and filing proper tax returns, so as to make stopping you most nearly an impossible thing to later do, even after they've modified this Act.

But, most unfortunately, those that have the right to do so also includes the idiots in our world, that will stick cows and hogs and goats in what'll look 'n smell like outhouses, but on tiny lots where nobody expected/wanted any such thing, and their neighbors are gonna watch the value of their already declining home equity suddenly take an enourmous hit ... those sorta people might take advantage of the privacy fences they share, as a way to provide one or two of the stall walls, since their structures are currently exempt of set-backs and code requirements for all other structures around 'em. And, as long as they meet those magic standards, it's too bad for anybody that wishes to enjoy their own backyard anymore. And, sorry 'bout all those flies that our acceptable method to control fails to ... you see what I mean? There's always gonna be somebody out there that's gonna be horribly unfair to others, under the guise of exercising their legal right(s); that attack w/ hatred, but call their actions protected, like the Westboro 'church of Phelps' who continue to attack the loved ones fallen soldiers leave behind. Seems like a big leap, and unrelated, but legally? The principles are equal.

So, I still encourage everyone to consider the moral implications of their own specific circumstances, prior to exercising the legal rights afforded them by the Court of Appeals' interpretation of RTFA; it is a legal precedent upon which every resident of Michigan can currently stand. But, my Dad always taught us that every individual has the right to extend their fist in any direction, so long as they don't interfere w/ the other man's nose. That's why I still went to my neighbors before ordering my guineas and chickens, just to make sure nobody had any objections, and they knew my intentions. I learn their work/sleep schedules, so as to try 'n work elsewhere on our farm when they're asleep, and help watch over their places when they're gone. I try to be the best neighbor my own could hope for, and never knowingly allow our animals/birds to cause 'em any inconvenience ... legally? I can do pretty much anything I wish to, on these fifty acres. But, morally? I've an obligation to allow them to enjoy their own land, and w/o havin' my actions negatively impact their lives. And, if everyone tried their best to live similarly? There'd be no need for any of man's too many laws ~'-)

:: edit :: After reading the document prepared by Dr. Patricia Norris & Dr. Gary Taylor, I feel my interpretations to now be completely vindicated, despite the fact that their words hold no more authority over this than my own do ... but, their opinions will surely place considerably more weight upon those that should debate whether the Court was correct, and what revisions to the Act are to come. They've provided the precedents that I cited, along w/ a good deal more, and connected the dots far better than I, but the results are the same: Nah nah nah nah naaaah nah. I'm right now, in regard to how the Court interpreted this Act (and I was right in the first place, in that they shouldn't have interpreted it as they did ~'-)

But, none the less, the opinion of the Court is the only one that matters. <-- 'til revision(s) of this Act, that is. :: /edit ::

 

[fuzzybutt love]

hmph. Then ask the township to do permits based on yearly reviews/ inspections, don't hurt the blasted dairy operations and the small farmers putting meat on our tables! I still don't feel that a few chickens in the city was worth opening this can of worms, especially since no roosters were involved. It's like nuking an anthill!

If all they were doing is protecting the silly city folk they needn't have changed more than the one part of the law; they went crazy and can now tell even country folk what to do now! So yes, even with your 50 acres you might also be affected (If you were in this state); it's so hit and miss who's affected. Don't make a bit of sense, since agriculture is our biggest money maker right now! They shipped our factory jobs out............

(Did anyone see whether farming crops are also being scrutinized as well? I never got that far)

 

[cowcreekgeek]

hmph. Then ask the township to do permits based on yearly reviews/ inspections, don't hurt the blasted dairy operations and the small farmers putting meat on our tables! I still don't feel that a few chickens in the city was worth opening this can of worms, especially since no roosters were involved. It's like nuking an anthill!

If all they were doing is protecting the silly city folk they needn't have changed more than the one part of the law; they went crazy and can now tell even country folk what to do now! So yes, even with your 50 acres you might also be affected (If you were in this state); it's so hit and miss who's affected. Don't make a bit of sense, since agriculture is our biggest money maker right now! They shipped our factory jobs out............

(Did anyone see whether farming crops are also being scrutinized as well? I never got that far)

In regard to the protections afforded by Michigan's RTFA, it applies to any manner/size of commercial farming operation ... the protection against action(s) seems to be available to anyone that complies w/ either subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section 3, and even the slightest production for the intent of making a profit should be sufficient, based upon the opinions -- legal precedent has been established in such a decisive manner that I can't imagine anybody could stop you from starting one now, which would surely make it more difficult for them to ever make you stop later.

Again? I'd do it in a responsible/considerate way ... and, I'd certainly order females only, and contain them properly, and I'd be generous w/ my eggs ~'-)

 

[fuzzybutt love]

"commercial intent" only applies unless they change the law!.

They change the law, bu bye quite a few small operations! We are talking not only chickens, but dairy, pigs.............other types of for-profit or self sustaining farming. And no, i don't mean just the ones in the city/suburbs, we are talking out-in-the country less than 50 animal units technically but still very large farms! Yes, they are commercial farms, but they will no longer be able to meet the strict guidelines being proposed. Families that have been farming for years as their sole/primary income! Even grandfathered farms aren't spared from the new wording, and some properties currently zoned agriculture under grandfathered zoning will be able to be dropped, too!

Since it didn't go to a public vote (As it has for eons) and since it hasn't been televised, the farmers haven't heard of what's happening even! Its ironic that we know more about it than they do, really, since we make the least money off our ventures................ but it's all been kept hush hush.

My birds are safe as far as i know, i'm mad and joined up to this cause because i support sustainability and do not want meat from china, no matter how pretty the package............

So really your arguments, though solid, are a moot point in this case. There is a lot more going on than keeping stink away from neighbors!

 

[cowcreekgeek]

"commercial intent" only applies unless they change the law!.

They change the law, bu bye quite a few small operations! We are talking not only chickens, but dairy, pigs.............other types of for-profit or self sustaining farming. And no, i don't mean just the ones in the city/suburbs, we are talking out-in-the country less than 50 animal units technically but still very large farms! Yes, they are commercial farms, but they will no longer be able to meet the strict guidelines being proposed. Families that have been farming for years as their sole/primary income! Even grandfathered farms aren't spared from the new wording, and some properties currently zoned agriculture under grandfathered zoning will be able to be dropped, too!

Since it didn't go to a public vote (As it has for eons) and since it hasn't been televised, the farmers haven't heard of what's happening even! Its ironic that we know more about it than they do, really, since we make the least money off our ventures................ but it's all been kept hush hush.

My birds are safe as far as i know, i'm mad and joined up to this cause because i support sustainability and do not want meat from china, no matter how pretty the package............

So really your arguments, though solid, are a moot point in this case. There is a lot more going on than keeping stink away from neighbors!

As to commercial intent? It applies now, and will surely be redefined w/in later revisions. However, those that are w/in compliance at the time of these changes will almost have to be allowed to continue operating ... and, of course there's lots more goin' on than the potential for odors (was just makin' a point, using that as an example ~'-)

It's been my experience that advocates for agriculture have been pretty good at gettin' the word out, and that those of us that farm keep fairly informed as to any efforts to interfere w/ our own, but you're right -- some will be completely unaware, and caught unprepared for any changes made. But, hopefully, they'll be afforded the opportunity to comply. Reminds me of those that became entirely too dependent upon government subsidies, and 'pay not to grow' practices, so that they couldn't produce enough from their lands to meet their expenses, and had no reserves from which to recover.

Thank you for the compliment, but the fact is that my own are the arguments of a man powerless to directly affect any change. However, the points are far from moot, in that the later clarifications and revisions will almost certain be made in similar fashion and spirit of the last, so that those in compliance with this Act as it now stands may not be afforded the protections they currently enjoy, but will surely be allowed to continue farming.

 

[RaZ]

With all due respect, I don't think that you appreciate the scope of what we are facing.

The changes being proposed will effectively negate any and all efforts of individuals or small operations of providing sustenance at a basic level. As written, the proposed changes give governance to local bodies that have no idea of what is required of ANY farming operation.

This goes beyond the right to have a few chickens in a backyard.

 

[cowcreekgeek]

With all due respect, I don't think that you appreciate the scope of what we are facing.

The changes being proposed will effectively negate any and all efforts of individuals or small operations of providing sustenance at a basic level. As written, the proposed changes give governance to local bodies that have no idea of what is required of ANY farming operation.

This goes beyond the right to have a few chickens in a backyard.

I'm certainly not as informed as most of ya, when it comes to what has been proposed by advocates on the other side of the pendulum, but here's a snippet from my last response to wingless ...


... as you can see? I've a very strong concern that, once they get the opportunity to codify their desires, some of those that haven't begun a commercial farming operation might find themselves in trouble for so much as planting tomatoes, and possibly from different municipalities, no less.

As unlikely as such a thing might be? I wouldn't miss this opportunity to put my foot down on my shovel, and exercise my right to farm as it currently stands ... start w/ a garden out back, and properly document your operation as commercial. Then, expand to build whatever stands, dwellings and fences you desire while you still can w/o complying w/ all the usual code/zoning requirements normally applied (set-backs, structural, licenses, etc.).

And, continue your efforts to push back on that pendulum, even as you do what you must to establish your own pre-existing operation(s). I wouldn't wish to see it swing so far as to allow anyone to usurp the rights of others in any neighborhood, which it sorta does as currently positioned, but it's almost certain to swing back with far greater force, with all that added momentum of having swung entirely too far in the first place.