To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Dennis Arouca encourages Old Mission Peninsula residents to elect responsible leaders and engaged citizens who prioritize dialogue and problem-solving. Read on for his thoughts. -jb)
Mr. Lou Santucci’s NextDoor appeal on behalf of some farmers and processors is the latest example of modern “gaslighting,” and offers no positive way forward for our community.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
Mr. Santucci has one tool in his toolkit — change use (zoning) of Agricultural land to Commercial. But we all know that if your one tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and nothing constructive ever gets built or repaired in those circumstances.
Gaslighting is a colloquialism, defined as attempting to deceive people into questioning their own reality by continuously presenting falsehoods as facts. It is an unfortunate part of modern life, and fosters divisions among people.
Mr. Santucci’s piece seeks to deceive Old Mission Peninsula residents/voters into feeling guilty, asserting that citizens are tone-deaf to farmers’ struggles because zoning decisions by duly-elected representatives over many years, balancing interests as required by Michigan law, are holding back growers from becoming profitable.
Rubbish.
For 40+ years, OMP residents and taxpayers felt like partners with farmers, including the start-up wineries; visiting their facilities, admiring their pluck, buying their wine and other products, introducing friends and family to Northern Michigan wine, and through their elected representatives making difficult zoning decisions, to nurture the growth of a new industry in a harsh climate, while preserving OMP’s character.
The grape farmer/wineries damaged that goodwill by filing a lawsuit to take $200 million from OMP taxpayers, and to rip apart the fabric (some would say the social capital) that constructive citizen dialogue over those 40+ years had shaped. Non-grape farmers felt left out. Overall, a sense emerged that something valuable is being lost. Can we get it back? Not certain, but we have an opportunity … read on.
First, some data: The U.S Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) states the growers’ share of the “food dollar” today is only 14.3 cents of every dollar spent on food. The balance — 85.7 cents — goes to middlemen between grower and consumer, including food processors, and to marketing.
A bad situation to be sure, requiring more action at all levels for farmers to thrive, but it is not new. USDA data shows grower share of the food dollar versus the middlemen has been falling for decades. MSU Ag Extension reps went over this and other data at the June 19 Peninsula Insights Speakers’ forum on “Cultivating Local Farm Economies” at Peninsula Community Library, which attracted record number of residents, farmers and non-farmers, eager to learn more. (Mr. Santucci was present.)
OMP residents have known for years that many farmers are struggling, but let’s exclude wineries from the list. I am not aware of any winery assertion of financial distress in over four years of litigation; they just want to make more money by using their Agriculture land for Commercial purposes, and in addition, take another $100 million to $200 million from Peninsula taxpayers for alleged lost profits.
Come on, Man!!! OMP residents are not tone-deaf and have taken many steps — over nearly 50 years — to help farmers, including:
- PDR — Residents and taxpayers have been taxing ourselves extra to put $60 million into farmers’ pockets by purchasing development rights, which delivers cash to invest in their farms, as well as lower taxes, since the remaining land is restricted to agriculture.
- Accelerating “direct-purchase-from-grower” options through farm stands and farm markets. This means, buy your fruits and veggies from OMP farm stands, not Meijer; i.e., no middleman.
- Creating a farmers-only Agricultural Advisory Committee to help decision makers; check out the impressive credentials of those appointed in this Oct. 19 Gazette story.
I am not aware of limits on the Advisory Committee to consider any and all topics to help growers thrive, like ways to reduce inputs to lower farmer costs, access to capital for investments needed to grow new crops or create new markets, innovative farming practices (check out Mr. Rudolph’s Oct. 22 piece in the Gazette), and other fresh ideas.
The Agricultural Advisory Committee is about Agriculture, including value-added agricultural-based activities like agriculture tourism options that fit OMP’s unique geographical character/limitations.
For example, we know that a consumer who buys direct from the grower gets more revenue right to the grower/away from the middleman. Perhaps the Committee can investigate prospects for a consumer-friendly operation along Center Road, where Peninsula-grown crops (or other Peninsula products) from any Peninsula producer could be purchased.
I recall that about 40,000 cars/year visit Mission Point Lighthouse over its six-month season, and some would stop to purchase Peninsula-made goods at a single convenient location. We have several successful models in the region that we can learn from — Oryana Food Co-op, the local presenters’ success stories at the May 2024 Agriculture Tourism Summit, even Leelanau’s Farm Club.
The Advisory Committee might also benefit from inviting our world-class MSU Ag Extension people to participate in its deliberations, to accelerate progress. The off-farm “processor” of a grower’s crop is a middleman, often with substantial economic power, and therefore also warrants attention.
One way to get more revenue to a struggling grower is for the processor to pay more to the grower for his or her crop! The Michigan Farm Bureau is on record with its concern about the adverse effects of too much concentration — meaning too few companies — in key portions of the Agriculture value chain, like processors, which unfairly increases growers’ costs, cutting into their margins. Read stories on the Farm Bureau website here and here.
Maybe the Advisory Committee can consider consultation with Farm Bureau, and with Michigan’s Attorney General, who has antitrust authority.
The gaslighter always seeks to misdirect or avoid facts that are inconvenient to its true mission; here, their mission is to improve finances by converting Agriculture property into Commercial property. OMP citizens know how to provide for Commercial activity (like event centers) in Commercial zones. The Peninsula Room at the historic Bowers Harbor Inn/Mission Table complex has been operating in one such Commercial zone since 2009. No doubt many readers have attended events/celebrated there.
Conclusion: I spent 25 year of my professional life in Philadelphia. A favorite stop with visitors was Independence National Historic Park, where the orientation film closes with a child asking Ben Franklin, “There is a sun on the chair used by George Washington — is it a rising or a setting sun?” Mr. Franklin answers, “I believe it is a rising sun, but that depends on you. We have a Republic, IF we can keep it.”
We have a terrific peninsula; land, water, people, culture, economy. Keeping it requires electing responsible leaders and engaged citizens, not gaslighting.
VOTE to keep the Peninsula terrific.
VOTE for candidates who prioritize Dialogue and Problem-Solving.
-Dennis Arouca, member of Peninsula Township’s Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Committee; former Board member of the Grand Traverse Economic Development Corp.; member of the planning committee for the successful Agricultural Tourism Summit in Traverse City in May 2024
To leave a comment on this story, click HERE.
Also Read…
SUPPORT YOUR INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSPAPER: 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 Old Mission Gazette is a "Reader Supported Newspaper" -- meaning it exists because of your financial support -- I hope you'll consider tossing a few bucks our 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. In a time when local news is becoming a thing of the past, supporting an independent community newspaper is more important now than ever. Thank you so much for your support! -Jane Boursaw, Editor/Publisher, Old Mission Gazette
To keep the Gazette going, click here to make a donation.
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
You have some good points but too bad credibility is lost with your statement “ Mr. Santucci has one tool in his toolkit — change use (zoning) of Agricultural land to Commercial.”. That is false; a totally untrue statement. Why did you write such a falsehood.
For a true picture of farming on OMP go to the Twp streaming site and listen to 11 farmers talk about farming here and future needs. The meeting date is 10-14-2024 ( just two weeks ago).
Dennis Dennis Dennis what planet do you live on?
Certainly not mine. You have put words in my mouth I have never said.
I challenge you to cite one place where I said in your words I want to “change agricultural land to commercial.”
This is a misstatement at best and an outright lie at worst. You may find this kind of attack brings you accolades from those on the peninsula who don’t like to hear the truth about the many shortchanges that have been visited on our farmers over the years.
Here are two there are many others. Ordinance 201 changed many requirements with regard to processing that hurt the farmer. It increased land ownership requirements and decreased the amount of fruit local farmers could sell to the processor. There are other requirements in 201 that are harmful.
And who can forget when the township went after local farmers who were selling hanging plants at their farm stand. You may have forgotten that but I have not. It took citizen outcry to get that overturned.
So please don’t tell me how for years the peninsula township has supported farmers. These adverse actions were quite recent.
Then of course we had the unequal treatment of one of our farmers with her mini sign and the supervisor’s truck with a gigantic sign. That resulted in a moratorium on enforcement when that unequal treatment was exposed.
Getting back to your commercialization canard this is what I actually said – the Committe should consider the following ideas:
Farm Stays
Farm to Table Dinners
Cooking Classes, using all the great products grown out here
Photo Classes of the farms and barns
Outdoor Exercise, such as yoga, in the fresh air and all the wonderful smells of the farm at blossom time
You yourself agree that the Ag committee should look at these kinds of things.
So contrary to your off the mark charge I did have suggestions to consider. I know that you are trying hard to cast me as somebody who wants to ruin the peninsula with over commercialization. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I live here too. I restored a dilapidated farmhouse and barn. I planted a vineyard, an orchard, berry bushes and for several years had a very large vegetable garden. I have supplied many traverse city restaurants including locally the boathouse, jolly pumpkin and peninsula grill. So before you try to gaslight the readers about my intentions please think twice.
Curt. The reason why Mr. Arouca made the statement about Santucci’s unfounded goal to change agricultural to commercial land is because he knows people’s attention is caught by stories that cause fear. A great strategy is to associate everything bad with individuals who challenge or question the status quo. Thus, we have seen an onslaught of negative comments and articles associated with you & Louis (even Swaffer, Jerman, Milliken who have mostly remained off social media). Most people have not read amendment 201. Most people don’t know that there are growers with less than 40 acres who are processing fruit (without having tasting rooms or increasing traffic). People don’t know that a lot of grape growers on the peninsula are not wineries & do not sell their grapes to WOMP. Even Mr. Arouca wrongly grouped both together. People don’t read the actual “gag order” court documents which indicate the court emphatically wanted the settlement documents to remain confidential to achieve orderly & expeditious case disposition and to ensure no 3rd party would use the letters for improper purposes. Bottom line is people are not going to dig for the data & make an informed decision until an issue affects their pocketbook. It’s easier to just read the headlines or skim over the article & listen to the hype.
Thank you so much for your post, Dennis! There were many important points but for me, you beautifully articulated the essence of this whole issue:
“For 40+ years, OMP residents and taxpayers felt like partners with farmers, including the start-up wineries; visiting their facilities, admiring their pluck, buying their wine and other products, introducing friends and family to Northern Michigan wine, and through their elected representatives making difficult zoning decisions, to nurture the growth of a new industry in a harsh climate, while preserving OMP’s character.
The grape farmer/wineries damaged that goodwill by filing a lawsuit to take $200 million from OMP taxpayers, and to rip apart the fabric (some would say the social capital) that constructive citizen dialogue over those 40+ years had shaped. Non-grape farmers felt left out. Overall, a sense emerged that something valuable is being lost. Can we get it back? Not certain, but we have an opportunity.”
As a resident of OMP, I am interested in leaders who listen to ALL voices, not just the ones who yammer incessantly about the same thing over and over again, not even trying to hide their bias and seeking only to divide. That means people like Wunsch, Shanafelt, Alexander and Queeney are the best and only choice.