Update: (City Oppression) Milford tickets 93 year old man for hens

[Your_neighbor]

"You've made your OPINION clear."

No, I have made the COURT'S opinion clear. Big difference.

 

[dianaross77]

Quote:
Isn't that what I already said that you disagreed with?

 

[wingless]

Quote:
Your words make only your opinions clear. If you want to make the courts opinion clear you have to quote the exact language of the court documents. The opinion of the courts is in their documents, not in your posts.

This isn't rocket science. Folks contributing to the original RTF thread cited specific legal arguments repeatedly, over many months, to the great benefit of all of us.

 

[Your_neighbor]

Not quite. Please read this very carefully because there are some extremely important concepts here. If you follow them I suspect we will be more or less in agreement.


My position has always been that cities aren't allowing small backyard farms because they don't want RTFA to strip their ability to regulate. The logic is thus:

We want to be nice and allow farms as long as we can enforce nuisance problems. The farmers decide they want to expand. They start selling their products commercially. They are now legal commercial farms. RTFA applies. We lose control.

Many cities would like to allow backyard farms but realize that if they just say "you can have 3 hens if your land doesn't qualify for farming" they will open themselves up to the above legal logic.

Here is the tricky part:

If the cities just say the above, they are in trouble but IF the cities also add the clause "as long as you don't sell any of the products", they are protected. They have allowed the farm to be created but forbidden the commercial aspect. In a court case RTFA will not apply because the farm was not allowed to be commercial. The farmer broke the law to obtain it's protections. You cannot do that. The courts are crystal clear on this.

It may seem a minor point to readers here but it most definitely it is not. It is extremely important. A city that adds the anti-commercial clause should be able to protect itself from RTFA and thus can enforce it's own ordinances. Chickens become just like dogs. I have no problem with that. If they keep me up at night I tell the city and they ticket her, but she gets to keep her chickens.

If this is what you have been saying then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Hopefully it is now clear that I am not "anti-backyard farmer". I simply want my neighbors to have to obey the law, and I don't want my rights to enjoy my property abused by her inability to be considerate.

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
Your words make only your opinions clear. If you want to make the courts opinion clear you have to quote the exact language of the court documents. The opinion of the courts is in their documents, not in your posts.

This isn't rocket science. Folks contributing to the original RTF thread cited specific legal arguments repeatedly, over many months, to the great benefit of all of us.

I HAVE quoted directly from the rulings! If you had ever bothered to read them you would know this. As you said, this isn't rocket science. GO READ THEM!

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
I agree that is your stated opinion, but I have yet to see a judgement that explicitly said that.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Your-neighbor,
Have you actually determined whether your neighbor is actually following GAAMPS? Is she is, then her birds should not normally be odorous--maybe after a long wet and rainy spell, but not on a regular, constant basis. It seems to me that that is your actual best best at re-gaining the pleasure of your property.

As for everyone else who considers using MRTFA protection, don;t just find out what GAAMPS apply to you and use them, actually get docuentation from those who write them that you are correctly implementing them. Tha is at least one of the things that the Milford gentleman failed to do.

 

[kyeschicks]

I wish him the best

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
I agree that is your stated opinion, but I have yet to see a judgement that explicitly said that.

Then you haven't looked in the right place, which is the actual judgements. I have posted several already. The actual rulings are easily obtained online. I am no longer sure of everyone's reading ability so I will just post the information for each person to do their own research. Look at:

Jerome Township vs Milchi (1990 Circuit Court of Appeals). Cut and dry case of RTFA not applying because farm is illegal. Court flat out states that the logic of many here is wrong.

Padgett vs Mason County (2003 Circuit Court of Appeals). Nice example of what a non-conforming farm is and isn't. RTFA didn't apply because Farm was illegal.

Troy vs Papadelis (2007 Michigan Supreme Court) Nice statement by court in ruling that implies if farm not legally created then their ruling doesn't apply.

There are others but these are easy to find. These are also so simple that everyone should be able to understand them.

 

[Your_neighbor]

"Have you actually determined whether your neighbor is actually following GAAMPS? Is she is, then her birds should not normally be odorous--maybe after a long wet and rainy spell, but not on a regular, constant basis. It seems to me that that is your actual best best at re-gaining the pleasure of your property."


At this point I no longer care. She sited the coop 15 feet from my back door, and right next to my patio. I can hear them clucking right now, and can smell the manure. I really don't care about her feelings anymore. The farm is illegal, it probably doesn't follow GAAMP, she doesn't meet the brand new commercial precedent, and she is violating a state zoning setback requirement. The city is almost as ticked off as I am and will be serving a cease and desist order this week. The chickens are history.

We talk about whether or not RTFA applies, and I have shown appeals court cases saying it doesn't. These cases are the result of appeals from the lower court rulings. Most of the time the lower courts just agree RTFA doesn't apply and that's the end of it, because going to a higher court that already agrees is a waste of time and money. People trying to appeal to the appeals courts are typically denied a hearing because there is no issue of law. Only the unusual cases like Shelby vs Papesh or Troy vs Papadelis have gotten through since 1990, when Jerome Township vs Milchi established the precedent. It makes perfect sense to me but I do have a legal background. I regret that I can't explain it any clearer than I already have.

Best bet is to get the right city ordinance in place allowing chickens subject to the no-commercial requirement.