Posted on 08/23/2024 12:54:25 PM PDT by nickcarraway
After a Michigan couple indicated their intent to open a green cemetery, their local township passed an ordinance to forbid it. A judge found the rule< unconstitutional.
A Michigan couple sued when their local township passed an ordinance to prevent them from opening a cemetery. This week, in a victory for property rights, a judge ruled in the couple's favor and threw out the ordinance entirely.
As Reason reported in January, Peter and Annica Quakenbush wanted to open a "green" cemetery, allowing people to bury their loved ones in a natural and environmentally friendly manner, free of chemicals like formaldehyde and coffins containing metal. They specifically intended to establish a conservation burial ground, in which decedents would be buried in biodegradable coverings like cotton shrouds or wooden caskets and the burial sites would be marked by natural landmarks like rocks or native trees. The site would otherwise remain an undisturbed forest.
The Quakenbushes bought a 20-acre plot near Brooks Township and started putting together the necessary paperwork. But local officials had other plans in mind, and in June 2023, the Brooks Township Board passed an ordinance prohibiting the establishment of all new cemeteries.
"In the past, cemeteries elsewhere have taken up large amounts of sometimes otherwise productive land," the ordinance declared. "Cemetery landscaping, grass cutting, monument repair and upkeep costs have increased dramatically over time. The problems associated with abandoned or 'orphan' cemeteries have increased throughout Michigan, and citizens look to the local municipal government…to take over abandoned or orphan cemeteries."
According to the Quakenbushes' lawsuit, after they first inquired about establishing their cemetery in February 2022, a zoning official emailed the township's legal counsel. "It is our general recommendation that new private cemeteries not be allowed within the Township except under certain very limited circumstances," the attorney replied. "Almost certainly, at some time in the future (whether in a few decades or the distance [sic] future), the family members of the deceased individuals will no longer own the parcel involved. What happens to the burials then? In all likelihood, it would devalue the property and make it unmarketable or difficult to sell."
"My response to that is, what does it matter? It's not your property," Renée Flaherty, an attorney with the Institute for Justice who represented the Quakenbushes, told Reason in January.
Besides, there were numerous mechanisms in place to prevent that outcome: Establishing a conservation burial ground in accordance with the Green Burial Council's criteria, as is the Quakenbushes' intent, requires obtaining a conservation easement—preventing the land from being used for other purposes—and partnering with a land conservancy that can maintain the property in perpetuity.
Michigan state law also requires all private cemeteries to establish an "endowment and perpetual care trust fund," with $50,000 to start and monthly deposits of "not less than 15% of all proceeds received."
"Nearly 250 people had reserved a burial plot even while the ban was in place," a local FOX affiliate reported.
The Quakenbushes sued to overturn the ordinance as a violation of due process. The township filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. This week, after hearing oral arguments, Newaygo County Circuit Court Judge David Glancy not only dismissed the township's motion but found the ordinance unconstitutional
A written order was not available at press time; a representative of the Newaygo County Circuit Court tells Reason that the court directed the plaintiffs' attorneys to prepare a ruling, which the judge will review in a later hearing.
"We're excited and feel vindicated by this ruling," the Quakenbushes said in a statement released by the Institute for Justice. "We are delighted that the judge understood that Brooks Township's ordinance violated our right to use our property and operate our cemetery."
"The Green Burial Council (GBC) is pleased to learn that Newaygo County, Michigan Circuit Judge David Glancy rejected Brooks Township's attempt to throw out a lawsuit against the 'cemetery ban' ordinance," the GBC said in a statement to Reason. "The Green Burial Council has stated before, that we believe Brooks Township's ordinance stood on a weak foundation of misinformation about green burial's negative impact on soil and water, and other similar fears. Though individuals may experience genuine trepidation about a naturally interred body's impact on their environment, local governments can easily find scientific evidence proving no such impact when burial practices are performed according to industry standards."*
UPDATE: This piece has been updated to include a statement from the Green Burial Council.
I mean, some might argue that they sound a bit hippy-dippy (https://www.miburial.com/about-us), but what exactly is morally objectionable about their professed intentions?
I don’t see anything, to be honest. Nothing about their plans are incompatible with a Christian burial.
I’d have no problem being buried that way. In fact, I might prefer it. I wonder if our family cemetery has any policies regarding that; will have to check into it.
> Why would anyone oppose this? <
It’s just the way modern government is, at all levels. Some official personally doesn’t like something. So he makes a law against it.
“I don’t like guns. Therefore, no one must have a gun. I don’t like gas stoves. I think they are bad for the environment. Therefore, no one must have a gas stove.”
That sort of thing.
And if they’d a been Indians, not only could they establish a tutty fruity cemetery, they coulda built a casino, too. So as soon as their tribe gets the dividend checks, they could rush to the casino and lose it all.
news flash; people have been buried this way for thousands of years... you could be standing and/or sitting on someone’s grave at this very moment...
Why did it need to be within city limits? Buy up property
just out of town on some lovely sight, and go for it.
Bet they grown nice tomatoes.
I’m not a big fan of embalming, anyway.
It's not a problem for me, but for some it's a BIG problem.
I guess protecting a corpse is seen as a way to conquer death, to preserve memories. Consider ancient Egypt's sophisticated embalming and elaborate memorials.
Remember the movie Po;tergeist? The house was haunted because it was built on an old graveyard. They never should have dug that swimming pool...
As I understood it, decomposing bodies will eventually leak down to the water table.
Hypothetically could there be some infectious diseases in which planting an unembalmed corpse in the ground might be a source of infecting others whereas formaldehyde would have killed the infectious agent? I’d doubt it would be a common issue and likely less common than pre-embalming era when infectious diseases caused a higher fraction of deaths. But an honest review of the science might offer a few causes for requiring it. Perhaps anthrax, which certainly can persist in the environment. In rare cases handling dead bodies can transmit disease directly. That’s documented to happen with ebola with folks bleed out covered with still infectious blood. Getting TB from performing an autopsy had its own vocabulary. Embalming can’t prevent exposure before its complete, but requiring ‘modern’ rather than ‘traditional’ care of the body after death, lets ‘modern’ methods reduce significant exposure. Again, not likely needed in most cases, but we should learn from any exceptions. But better to prethink and and debate any needed exceptions in advance as generalities, than to try to apply them as seemingly arbitrary ones in emotional specific cases.
In what way? How does the body traverse through dirt, and the dirt doesn’t?
I am for it as long as measures are taken to keep critters away. You wouldn’t want some coyote digging up Uncle Joe and gnawing on his leg.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/why-are-graves-dug-six-feet-deep-4047407
Where Did “6 Feet Under” Come From?
The idea that graves should always be 6 feet deep has been around for a long time. There is no agreement about where this idea came from. Here are a few theories about why people may have decided to bury their dead 6 feet deep.
The London Plague of 1665
In 1665, London officials issued a pamphlet they hoped would help stop an outbreak of the plague or Black Death. Some people think this was the origin of the 6-foot standard.
The Lord Mayor of London ordered that all “graves shall be at least 6-foot deep” under the presumption that doing so would prevent the spread of disease.7 Unfortunately, the pamphlet didn’t explain the reason for the 6-foot mandate.
There are a few reasons why this probably isn’t the origin of the 6-foot standard.
Between 1665 and 1666, there were an estimated 100,000 plague victims. Many were buried in mass graves called “plague pits.” These graves were sometimes 20 feet deep or more.
The orders also didn’t say in force long. This is because the outbreak quieted in 1666 after the Great London Fire. It’s not likely, then, that the “6-foot requirement” had enough time to become a tradition.
While it’s possible that London’s 1665 plague orders created the lasting impression that graves are always 6 feet deep, it’s not likely.
Gravedigger Safety
Some people think 6 feet was just a matter of safety. Deeper graves might need bracing to prevent cave-ins. This would be especially true if the soil was sandy.
Average Gravedigger Height
The depth could have also made grave digging easier. At 6 feet, an average-sized gravedigger could still toss dirt out with a shovel. He could also get in and out without a ladder.
To Prevent Disturbing the Corpse
Grave robbery or “body snatching” was a serious problem during the early 1800s. This was especially true in England and Scotland.
Medical schools in these places needed bodies for anatomical study. Some people met the demand by digging up fresh corpses.8
Cemeteries had a lot of ways to deter grave robbers, including:
Heavy stone slabs
Stone boxes
Locked above-ground vaults
Mortsafes, iron and stone devices used to protect graves
People may have also buried bodies 6 feet deep to help prevent theft.
There was also concern that animals might disturb graves. Burying a body 6 feet deep may have been a way to stop animals from smelling the decomposing bodies.
A body buried 6 feet deep would also be safe from accidental disturbances like plowing.
To Prevent the Spread of Disease
People have not always understood how diseases spread. During disease outbreaks, they may have feared that bodies could transmit disease.
While it is true that some illnesses like cholera and tuberculosis can infect people who handle bodies, this is not true for other diseases like bubonic plague.9
Still, this may be one of the reasons why people thought bodies should be buried 6 feet deep.
Folklore/Rule of Thumb
An old “rule of thumb” says graves should be as deep as the deceased is long. This rule of thumb has unknown origins.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, the average male was 5.48 feet tall. It’s possible, then, that 6 feet was just a good rule of thumb.10
You bury the ones you are about 6 ft deep, the rest in a shallow grave.
I have often wondered if all those acres of open, rolling land could be put to better use. Most are hesitant to even broach the topic for discussion.There is profound sentimental value attached to gravesites, but it may be time to consider other options. The Dead know they are dead, whether their remains are buried, incinerated or chemically altered.
That video made me laugh.
Back in 2014, I was sprinkling my mom’s ashes on the beach in Indian Rocks Florida. It was one of her favorite places - an actually normal uncrowded residential beach with few high rises.
As I took a large handful of her ashes and flung out ‘em out towards the water, a quick breeze came back and blew the finer ashes back in my face.
I sputtered for a second, wiped my face and laughed. Somewhere my mom was laughing at it too.
After I’m dead just spread my body around with a wood chipper.
What gives you that idea?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.