Michigan Officials Tried To Stop a 'Green' Cemetery. They Just Lost in Court.
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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"In the past, cemeteries elsewhere have taken up large amounts of sometimes otherwise productive land,"
But enough about Detroit...
Detroit is now more hostile, and harder to colonize (for productive normal-human uses), than Mars is!
COLONIZE DETROIT! Elon Musk, of the Elongated Tusk, get on BOARD with us, PLEASE! Nuclear weapons for Mars Terra-forming? Ha!!! Nuclear weapons for urban renewal of Detroit!!! Nuke 'em from orbit; nothing else will do!
Crime is down.
For a hilarious allegory about Detroit, see the movie Barbarian.
the cemetaries are the only places in Detroit that haven't been destroyed
Bring out yer dead!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEmfsmasjVA
Bring out yer brain-dead!
(Trumpistas will volunteer in Zombie-drone-droves!!!)
Probably be a good place to go dig worms for fishing. Seems only fair.
Something smells rotten here
"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.
Friend who comes to visit: What is that awful smell?
Visited friend: Oh that's the human composting next door.
With any composting, if you can smell it, then you're not doing it right. In the context of a cemetary (green or otherwise), that would violate several already existing laws about the proper functioning of a cemetary. So yes, you can sue them and force them to remediate but not until after they screw up. All that means that your argument is not a valid reason to preemptively forbid the business.
Coffins are not used for burials in Israel. Simple burial shrouds. Even outside of Israel, plain pine boxes that degrade quickly are used for Jewish burials and embalming is never done. There aren't even any nails in the coffins -- just dowels and glue. Objecting to these centuries old religious practices is anti-Semitic.
CHARLIE HALL!
that's the reason graves must be at least 6 feet deep
Breaking: Kamala will be giving her first long form press interview. Tim Walz will be interviewing her on her youtube channel.
A joke, right? I swear it's getting hard to tell
No. 127% deadly serious.
The old hippie in me is intrigued by this concept. In my family it's just ashes to the wind. The dead don't care but if people find this comforting or environmentally friendly good on them. I don't see how a twenty acre piece of land surrounded by forest and managed into perpetuity next to fucking Muskegon poses a threat to anybody. My parents came from that area and the family still owns property up there. There are thousands of acres of forest there full of non human carcasses. Nobody gives a shit. Can't grow corn so there it is. Petty tyrants have nothing better to do apparently. Glad they found a judge willing to shut this shit down.
I seem to recall driving past onion fields south of Newaygo.
A band I was in back in the 80s and 90s, we played at a bar in Newaygo, next to the lake there. Played a lot of gigs there.
Yea, I remember this one.
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.
This is a weird counterargument to it anyway. OK, so 20 acres IS a pretty big tract of land - but the question I had was: what surrounds this 20 acres? Is it government owned land, or are there other property owners?
Well, I looked it up - and it turns out there's private property there. Owned and lived on by the Norburg’s, Wightman’s, and Jibson’s, depending on which direction you go.
And now you've got some nutjob green weenie sociopaths literally just dumping corpses in shallow unmarked/barely marked graves right across your property line. That's... not weird?
Also, what a great place to dispose of illicit bodies!
If you want your remains to become compost after you shuffle off your mortal coil, there's got to be better ways to doing it than this.
And your "better ways to doing" this are...?!?!
Oh, OK, I get it, just calling those who do NOT embalm dead bodies with poisonous chemicals "nutjob green weenie sociopaths", THAT will MASSIVELY help the shituation!
"Also, what a great place to dispose of illicit bodies!" How is this more or less true of the place being discussed, than any other piece of woodlands? Seems to me, since the beloved of the deceased are more likely to frequent this graveyard, then regular woodlands are a better place to dump bodies on the sly. TWAT IS GOVERNMENT ALMIGHTY DOING TO PROTECT US ALL from all these millions of acres of undeveloped woodlands?!?!?!
Formaldehyde wasn't discovered until the 1850s. Cemeteries long predated them. I can show you much older burial grounds in New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. I have seen no record of any complaints even though they are in small lots in densely populated areas.
Aldgate pump
Bronte sisters
famous examples of deaths related to graveyards
And your “better ways to doing” this are…?!?!
Bro, every civilization alive has figured out the best means of human burial. Dumping them unceremoniously somewhere in a shallow grave in the middle of the forest so they can become compost was not among the ideas that gradually took hold.
How is this more or less true of the place being discussed, than any other piece of woodlands?
Because other pieces of woodlands aren't filled with lots and lots of other corpses.
Dumping them unceremoniously somewhere in a shallow grave in the middle of the forest so they can become compost was not among the ideas that gradually took hold.
Specifically the opposite. Again this is these people trying to have their retard cake and eat it too. I don't particularly care if you want to put the body on a boat, shove the boat off shore and then set it on fire. Just don't give me the bullshit about how such a method offends Gaia and Mother Nature by emitting CO2 or whatever and that your practice of burying people above the frost line and/or at a depth where animals can still get them is more betterer for the environment deities you don't believe in.
Choosing how you go out is free speech. Using the law to secure a particular location, in relative perpetuity, potentially in violation and/or against the local residents' wishes, for you to exercise that free speech and encourage others to speak the same message? I'm not entirely convinced that's an unfettered right. Especially if you're already dead.
re: "literally just dumping corpses in shallow unmarked/barely marked graves right across your property line."
That is "literally" entirely untrue. The article already includes a handy link to the Green Burial Council's criteria. Go read them. That will also help you understand why this is no better a "place to dispose of illicit bodies" than any other rural property.
You say "there’s got to be better ways to doing it than this." So name them, please.
That is “literally” entirely untrue. The article already includes a handy link to the Green Burial Council’s criteria.
Yea, I did. Dumping them in the forest. 3' graves. Maybe a rock or something that's found nearby to mark it. Dumb hippy nonsense.
So name them, please.
Gee, I don't know - how about a formal cemetery with plots and coffins and tombstones. Or perhaps a mausoleum, or columbarium. Or maybe we factor relevant features in, and create stone tombs so that when the area floods the coffins don't all wash to the surface.
It's not like we haven't been effectively doing this sort of thing for thousands of years, such that suddenly we're in dire need of some "green" solution to post-mortem body handling.
It’s not like we haven’t been effectively doing this sort of thing for thousands of years, such that suddenly we’re in dire need of some “green” solution to post-mortem body handling.
And it’s not like we couldn’t put 10X the number of humans currently alive in metal or whatever boxes and burying them without mother nature batting an eye. At least the Amish are humble in their self-righteousness of the eyes of a God whose will they can’t know, as opposed to Green Burial morons being all high and mighty about appeasing a God that doesn’t give a shit (and you supposedly don't believe in).
Joking aside, the whole burial depth and marker issue is a bit in the weeds and/or forest for the trees. It should be clear that this is just legal body dumping and saying otherwise is these, again self-righteous, morons trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the bodies to disappear more quickly than conventional burial but not so conveniently as cremation. They want the markers to be forgotten in a very distinct ‘Eat the bugs. Sleep in pods. Own nothing and be happy. Tear all the statues down. Die. Get chucked in an unmarked shallow grave. Be unburdened by what has been.”
IMO, the more concerning part is the “Green Burial Council”, a non-profit (naturally), helping to set up land trusts/CCnRs/conservation easements in support of the above. You want to be buried in an unmarked grave and forgotten? Seems kinda stupid to stipulate against cremation since you’ll be gone and Gaia is able to suck your CO2 out of the air as easy as leech it from the soil, but fine you do you. However, setting up a Council to encourage others to follow in your footsteps, but not remember you, and utilize and/or manipulate the law to compel those who don’t agree or believe to accommodate you? Seems like a ghoulish as fuck exploit to use your death to force your nihilist social and environmental activism on other people after you’re dead.
Be unburdened by what has been.
Oof. 😀
Also, what a great place to dispose of illicit bodies!
Everybody knows you don't dump bodies whole in the same location. Might as well bury them with their driver's license and the marker for all the money they owed you.
suggest a solution, or you're just a whiner
Uh, townships and wards get to decide on a township-by-township, county-by-county and ward-by-ward basis.
This isn't a Thomas Sowell "When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"-gotcha situation.
I think the biggest problem for the town was that they let conservation easements for other purposes already happen. Tough to argue this doesn't qualify since the express purpose is to plant trees and natural rocks.
How does the Clinton Foundation handle body disposal?
Stupid law. There are urban cemeteries in New York City and Philadelphia in some of the most densely developed areas in the US. No problems even though the burials there long predated modern chemicals such as formaldehyde.
But why is it unconstitutional? Is this another judicial activist? Local governments can and often do make stupid laws all the time.
AS I posted above,
aldgate pump
Bronte sisters
While libertarians love to pretend that there is no reason for regulations, there are in fact reasons for cemetery regulations
How far to the nearest surface water or neighbors well?
distance to groundwater?
All these things are why there are rules about burials
I am not implying that this project should not be allowed, simply saying that the rules are not in and of themselves ridiculous
IF one is building a composting cemetery it makes sense that it should pass similar rules as a septic system.