2 Lads Winery on the Old Mission Peninsula | Jane Boursaw Photo
2 Lads Winery | Jane Boursaw Photo
Feel free to share this post...

(Lou Santucci has a few thoughts on the ongoing winery lawsuit, which you can read more about here… -jb)

As a member of Protect the Peninsula Farmers LLC, I wanted to bring to your attention the recent discussion in the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division case regarding the winery lawsuit on the Old Mission Peninsula.

Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.

Our group of interested grape growers, farmers and others have taken the position, as noted in an earlier editorial, that the township needs to work with, rather than against, the wineries to resolve this lawsuit.

To that end, it is interesting to note that in a recent hearing on May 17, 2021 before the Honorable Judge Ray Kent, United States Magistrate Judge, he advocated for the two parties to work together to find a solution to this lawsuit.

While the hearing focused on such legal niceties as admissions and interrogatories, the judge’s comments reflect a desire to see the Township and the wineries find a resolution to this case.

In fact, the judge sent the two parties into a separate room to try to agree to answer many of the questions of the wineries.

The Township’s unwillingness to answer the questions in the first place seems to be a way to drag this process out.

The Township’s refusal to respond to certain questions asked by the wineries caused the judge to note, “It seems to me, as a practical matter, the Township is going to have to answer these questions somehow.”

Throughout the hearing, the judge, in granting some requests for information and denying others, had the approach of ‘Let’s figure out a way to get more agreement than disagreement.’

In a final comment, the judge had this to say to John Gilliam, an attorney with Foley & Mansfield, the law firm which represents Peninsula Township in the lawsuit:

“It seems to me, Mr. Gilliam, this case is a perfect case to settle. Your clients can take the position that it’s been this way since the seventies, we’re not going to change. And I don’t know anything about the legal claims, ok? I’ve not looked at those, but listening to Mr. Infante’s arguments [Joseph Infante, attorney for the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula], it sounds like there’s some pretty significant legal issues here that could be resolved against your client. And if your client was willing to sit down and try to negotiate some kind of a resolution that it can live with and that the wineries can live with.”

As a group of interested farmers and others, we agree wholeheartedly with the Judge that the Township’s best interest is in resolving these issues sooner rather than later. This lawsuit, I am sure, was not undertaken lightly. The constitutional issues, among others, are serious, and a preliminary view is that they have merit. So what’s the holdup? Let’s get agreement going.

While legal tactics such as dragging out the procedural process may seem like the way to go from the Township lawyer’s perspective, it does not serve the interests of the citizens of Peninsula Township.

Also Read…

A NOTE FROM JANE: I started Old Mission Gazette in 2015 because I felt a calling to provide the Old Mission Peninsula community with local news. After decades of writing for newspapers and magazines like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Family Circle and Ladies' Home Journal, I really just wanted to write about my own community where I grew up on a cherry farm and raised my own family. So I started my own newspaper. Because the Gazette is mainly reader-supported, I hope you'll consider tossing a few bucks my way if I mention your event, your business, your organization or your news item, or if you simply love reading about what's happening on the OMP. Check out the donation page here. Thank you so much for your support. -jb

Bay View Insurance of Traverse City Michigan


  1. I think that we are all forgetting an important fact: we live and are situated on a sliver of land approximately 20 miles long by three miles wide – no north, west or east escape (unless by boat or plane?) That means all traffic, all waste, goes – where? If we want to keep our current clean, rural flavor, expansion should stop at some point. I know the argument: “so and so was let in” an/or “they can do thus and so” so X and Y should be allowed the same privileges also! Maybe those privileges should not have been granted in the first place! Were they granted? Was it a mistake? The rules were / are BENT to some, but not others! Where, when does it stop!
    I have witnessed/ visited areas similar to “ours” – little slivers of land or islands, that became so polluted it was very, shall we say, unpleasant!
    I honestly don’t know what the answer is, but remember 20 miles x 3 ……. one narrow exit….
    Susan Feiger


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here
Please enter an e-mail address

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.