We have the chance this week to see the wheels of justice turn in yet another of the disturbingly increasing number of cases involving private property rights: The Mud Bog Case in Gladwin County against Denise and Kelly Miller.
The motion and settlement conference will take place Tuesday in Gladwin County's 55th Circuit Court. Many of us are planning to attend the hearing, beginning at 8:30 a.m.
The case stems from an “ordinance violation” regarding a 40-acre private property farm belonging to the millers that has been used for years as a popular venue for mud bogs.
In the Summons and Complaint dated April 24, 2013, it is alleged that the Defendant, Denise Miller, owner of the property in question on Nettleton Road, has hosted along with her husband, Kelly Miller, mud bogs on the private property, which the county says is a violation of its Zoning Ordinance.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff, County of Gladwin, asks the court to confirm that mud bogging is a nuisance per se, and is violation of the County's Zoning Ordinance.
They also ask for an injunction against the activity on the Millers’ property, “…or any premises in Gladwin County unless a permit is obtained.”
We've said it in our blog before: This is not about a mud bog. It's about property rights. But it's also about something else - it is about examining the validity of the Zoning Department in enforcing the issue.
For many years, the mud bogs have been a staple at the Miller farm. In fact, aside from the fact that it's private, patented property, over which the county has no jurisdiction, it's been going on longer than the county's zoning has been in place. The County's Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 2007.
According to Michigan Zoning Enabling Act PA 110, 2006 - Activity should be legal nonconforming use, as confirmed by written statements in file. So why does complaint focus on mud bogging as a nuisance per se, and not the Fair/Festival aspect? In any case, non-conforming *legal* use should apply. There have been mud bogs on the property since 2002; others claim as far back as 1999.... Millers have obviously complied with requests - parking, sanitation, noise reduction (berm), which shows cooperation... Not like they have shirked requests. Uninformed on the issue does not constitute disobedience...
This case is yet another example of how Zoning is the death of property rights, and how bureaucratic departments are being used to enforce sometimes bogus "violations" over people, places, and even animals over which they should have no jurisdiction.
Take this case, for example:
Mark Baker vs. The Department of Natural Resources. DNR redefines the words "feral" and "domesticated"; issues Invasive Species Order against their definition of "feral" pigs, allowing them to build a bridge from their intended purpose - to manage wildlife on state land - to exerting their authority over farm animals on private property.
Learn more. Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA_OyraGo-o&feature=c4-overview&list=UU-cAVy-oC3v7ENiQu-Ls-4w
There are countless other cases where questionable measures are used as means to various ends -
FDA attack on organic egg producers by using fear tactics:
EPA making the determination that we can totally eat significantly more amounts of Monsanto's Round-Up this year:
Or a Zoning Authority's impact on a rural hobby farm.
If you read any of these cases and questioned motives, or felt at any time, "That's not fair." You're not alone.
Because of the examples of seeming overreach by unelected bureaucrats, WE - the people - should always examine cases thoroughly, even when they are controversial and emotional. The more we allow an agency to create case law, the more we bolster its authority to commit the same action again.
Think about the implications of creating case law regarding mud bog activity, and more importantly - the dangerous potential in any bureaucratic office to exert a police-like authority over a situation involving what appear to be separate incidents that are criminal in nature, to punish landowners where law enforcement was not able to, using the methods employed by the duties assigned to them by your local government.
This lawsuit was initiated by The County of Gladwin, through its Zoning Department. The County in essence gave the authority to the department to enforce the rules how they see fit, even to the point of initiating litigation, all without a vote.
That's the part that should be concerning: When unelected bureaucrats appointed by the legislative body of a municipality, in this case Gladwin County, are free to initiate lawsuits without a vote BY that legislative body - in this case, the Board of Commissioners - we have lost our representation.
We elect the county commissioners to represent us, not to turn over the checkbook to any of its unelected bureaucratic offices - in this case, the Zoning Department. We elected them to make financial decisions with our tax money, and in this case they have failed us. They have started a lawsuit without a vote.
A lawsuit on our behalf, no less. Who is the County of Gladwin? It's US, folks. It's The People, The Taxpayers. Had the issue been taken to the Board of Commissioners for a vote, we may have been able to weigh in on the potential of spending thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on what some of us feel is a frivolous lawsuit.
Which is why we invite each and every one of you reading this to come out and be there to see this case play out in the courtroom. After all, if you live in Gladwin County, you're essentially a plaintiff; and you're paying the fees to the attorney.
Beyond that, even if you don't live in Gladwin County, we know that many of you feel very strongly about property rights, and we would love to have you there. This case may seem small, but any case that infringes upon the property rights of homeowners on private land - private, patented land in this case - affects all of us.
Learn more about the death of property rights. Watch our video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McN_KI5jUxw
grandfather clausing should set in on this case as in any other case. since the mud bogging started BEFORE the ordinance took effect, then the grandfather clause should kick in and it should be fine as long as they don't stop having them. its the same as in any case as to where something was taking place before any law was enacted. so for this should be applied!
ReplyDeleteThat is absurd . They should have the right to do as they please as long as It is within major long standing laws ( age limits for drinking and violence etc.) . An ordinance that came years after should allow the property to be grandfathered in.
ReplyDelete