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

[RaZ]

Quote:
Interesting..."where farming is allowed".
The city I live in has ordinances that prohibit farming, poultry, bees and any plant that grows taller than 5 inches in height. With the exception of the "bee ordinance" all of these "laws" date back to 1963. Oddly enough, there is a provision to have a horse.

What is ironic, is that the Chamber of Commerce has been advertising for us city dwellers to bring our "backyard farm products" to a city-wide market. They are providing free space so they we can sell out products to the community. So is this a legimate request to support the community, or a ploy to bust us "illegal' farmers?

The main problem with any local ordinance is that is provides a venue for a single dis-gruntled citizen to impose his/her will upon a neighbor. It is a complaint driven vehicle that favours an individual over the good of the community or the potential benefits to society. Just look at how the city of Detroit has stonewalled about community gardens on vacant lots that could feed the hungry.

Regarding the "smell" issue...any proper garden, coop or farm has little if any smell. I get more offensive odor from the 5-lane road, 500 yards away. I can smell the neighbor's dryer sheets everyday. And I get woken up every day at 3:30am when he drives his car into his garage. Oddly enough, they complained about the smell from my chickens was all over their house. Come to find out, they had a broken sewer line under their house from when hubby put in an illegal bathroom.

This has been an interesting discussion with various opinions on both sides, but that is a cornerstone that this country was built upon. But as for me, I'm siding with the civil disobedience group.

See ya in court!

 

[Your_neighbor]

"See ya in Court!"

Not exactly. I don't have to be bothered with the cost and stress of going to court. You will see the city attorney in court, for violating a cease and desist order. Can't remember offhand if the fine is $500 or $900 here, but add in the court costs, lost costs of establishing the coop, and the ill will of your neighbors.

Civil disobedience doesn't come cheap. All because you chose to break the law. At least there is no jail time.

Also, one critical point. All of this only applies to lots where farming isn't allowed. Even in residentially zoned areas farming is often allowed by zoning ordinance if the property is above a certain size. From what I have seen it seems like you can farm almost anywhere if you have at least 5 acres. The ordinances appear to be extremely generous. The restrictions in the ordinances are mainly there to prevent people from farming on land parcels so small that their nearby neighbors will most likely be offended by the sights, sounds, and smells. I do not find it ironic at all what your chamber of commerce is doing. If you want to farm and your lot is too small, buy a bigger lot! What's the big deal? You will be following the law and won't have the neighbor problem to begin with. If you can't afford the land, how is that any different than wanting to drive an expensive car, but you can't afford it? Do you go out and steal the car (i.e. break the law) in order to drive it anyways because you see nothing wrong with driving an expensive car? Do you think the judge is going to care that you thought you were not breaking the law when you did it? He/she will politely listen to your side and then implement the law. In an incredibly rare circumstance, like Shelby vs Papesh, you might sway the judge to "bend" the law to accommodate you, but those cases are so rare that they aren't normally worth considering.

 

[Your_neighbor]

For people trying to find a circuit court case supporting continuance of illegally created farms, here's a hint: Other than Shelby vs Papesh there are none. If you think you found one, look deeper. The important things to compare are

1. Do the local ordinances at the time of the dispute allow the farm to exist? In the majority of cases the answer is yes and the farm is therefore legal.
2. If the answer to 1 is no, was the farm already in existence at the time the ordinance was implemented? If the answer is yes the farm is most likely a legal non-conforming farm. It is called a non-conforming farm because it might not conform to the ordinances in place today. The judges don't care about that. What is important are the ordinances in place when it was created. To be REALLY sure you have check the farm was created legally, but this shortcut saves a lot of time.
3. If the answer to 1 and 2 are both no, the farm is illegal and does not qualify for RTFA protection according to circuit court precedent, which is implicitly endorsed in supreme court rulings.

If the farm is legal AND it's operations are commercial in nature AND it follows GAAMP, it is protected by RTFA.
There is a minor flaw in the above logic but it is nullified by the fact that the judge will always follow the intent of the law. The intent of RTFA is to protect legitimate commercial farming operations from nuisance suits.

It really is that simple, except for the case of Shelby vs Papesh. They didn't qualify under this logic but their intentions were honest. The judge made a special ruling in that case to implement the intent of RTFA. The special circumstances there was such that it is unlikely to ever apply to backyard chicken farming.

 

[moetrout]

After following this post I found this add today on craigslist very interesting!

http://annarbor.craigslist.org/grd/2552104535.html

 

[patman75]

Either he did not present his case well or the judge had his mind made before it started. Appeal...

Time to call in the reinforcements.

 

[RaZ]

Page 6A of today's Free Press, the guy said that he would pay the fine and is considering keeping the 3 hens during the appeal.

The blurb says that he's had them since last summer and they have been laying since May.

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
That should be an interesting case. May actually go sit in the courtroom to hear the story firsthand.

 

[RaZ]

What is also interesting is that the presiding judge owns several businesses within the village and seems to have agenda.

In other words, "follow the money".

 

[TeePants]

Augh. Poor guy, but I agree he probably shouldn't have gotten the hens when he knew they were illegal.

As for Your_Neighbor, I have to say, it was INCREDIBLY rude for them to build a coop adjacent to your side of the fence, and then keep roosters! There's a difference between responsible backyard farming, illegal or no, and just being a jerk, and I think that that crosses the line.

I can see why you'd want their chickens to go somewhere else. I assume you've tried to reason with your neighbor? Although really, it's not your responsibility. They're adults and they should know better than to be so discourteous.

I LIKE chickens, but I would go bananas if someone else's rooster woke me up at 4am.

 

[wingless]

Quote:
I have read every page of the MRTFA thread, have read the Thomason case, have read the 2009 Papedelis appeal in response to the Supreme Court remand, and have read the entire review of MRTFA cases published by the Michigan State Extension Service. I have never, not a single time, seen any language consistent with your assertion that whether or not farms are 'legal' depends on the language of local ordinances at the time the farm was started. Quite the reverse; my understanding is that local ordinances can not interfere with the rights of individuals who have established a commercial farm (because they sell even a small number of eggs, for example) and who follow good agricultural management practice (by good waste management practices, for example).

Furthermore, because this is the argument that you intend to use to have your neighbors flock removed - as you have stated explicitly on the MRTFA thread - you clearly have a strong personal motive for wanting it to be true, and even for trying to persuade people that it is true even if it is not. That is what I hear in your posts: you want your view to be true, and think if you say it enough times it will be true.

Based on what I've read so far, I don't think your view of the MRTFA is accurate. However, I not an expert, and the issues are complicated. I am very willing to be educated - but not to be snookered. If you really believe that your assertions are true - based on previous legal decisions, not your opinion - please state explicitly the cases that support your views. I would be glad to read them. Otherwise, I would ask you very nicely to be a good neighbor to all of us, and refrain from dominating all conversations on this subject with opinions portrayed as facts.

I am sorry about the roosters waking you at 4 a.m. Does your neighbor know that one way to manage that problem is to keep the roosters in a more confined space at night, such that they are comfortable, but can't extend their necks far enough to crow? I've also heard of people keeping roosters in their garage at night to help control the noise. Best wishes solving that problem.