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

[calista]

Thanks, SS -- reading through the thread now and glad I'm wrong!

With the surge in popularity of backyard chicken raising, maybe this kind of unnecessary legal wrangling will soon be a thing of the past -- and outlaws don't have to sweat it anymore.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Thanks, Sonoran. I don't mean to quarrel about the MIRTFA, and I take your good word that it applies to this fellow. The point I was trying to make, though perhaps poorly, is that a little bit of up-front work would have avoided this situation. Now, it's a 'fight' when there need not have been one in the first place.

Well, as usual, the courts will be the ones who actually decide whether it applies or not. The fact that he is selling eggs helps his case. If he just wanted eggs for personal use, it would not apply.

In general, I really do agree that do diligence is required, and I do not support flouting the law or ignoring it. In many urban/suburban places chickens are disallowed or limited, and finding out the rules first is the correct way to proceed. Then, if you dislike whatever rules you find, you work to mke the changes you believe necessary first.

However, when he was told he could not have them, he petitioned to have hte ordinance changed, and in the process became aware of the state-wide law. The counsil said "oh, it doesn't apply to us" in direct conflict with the wording in the statute. That is why he is heading to court.

 

[Gotta Love the Drake]

Any updates? Poor old guy, hope he wins.

 

[dukejer]

Judge says hens must go: Milford chicken farmer, 93, loses in court!

It appears that the Judge overruled Archie Noon because his farm was not considered profitable. Not sure how you can determine if it is profitable or not. I guess we have to shut down any farm in Michigan that does not make a profit. Do we consider it profitable after subsidies or before?

http://www.hometownlife.com/article...loses-court?odyssey=tab|topnews|img|Frontpage

-Dukejer

 

[sunnyvera]

This is a very sad day. Most of us have chickens as pets with perks, few of us enter into chickeneering hoping to profit. I hope his appeal turns out well.

 

[Gotta Love the Drake]

I thought the standard set by your supreme court was commercial intent, not profitability?

 

[Your_neighbor]

This is bad news for ALL backyard farms, but particularly disastrous for the illegally created ones. The city officials understand the law. If he had won the city would have appealed to circuit court, where he would definitely lose. He did not create his farm legally.

You have to follow all the applicable ordinances and become a farm legally. You also have to be a commercial operation. Only then do you enjoy RTFA protections. 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!

So why is this so bad for all backyard farmers?

I believe most people do not yet realize how significant this case is. 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, and his lawyer will rightly inform him it is a waste of time/money Since he won't appeal, the case won't be overturned and is able to be used as precedent in other cases. This was a feat of intelligence that is rarely seen these days.

The ability to abuse the commercial requirement for RTFA protection has just been curtailed.

 

[MI-CHick]

I hope Archie he appeals this. He is totally right that it is too early to show a profit. Also, many ordinances state a maximum number of hens allowed and this maximum does not provide enough eggs to feed a family, let alone extras to sell. If Archie is serious about this I hope he ensures he is GAAMP compliant and then increases his flock, posts his prices and does up a business plan with numbers to show when he expects to generate a profit.

 

[andrea98]

Being 90+ could he have them for companionship??? Really he could benefit from them....

 

[KrisH]

If the city did not want anyone to break the rules, they should not have made them