To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Becky Chown corrects the record about a rumored winery lawsuit settlement which never took place. “No members of the Township Board reached an agreement at the September 2021 settlement conference,” she writes. -jb)
Life on the Old Mission Peninsula has given us so much. My husband Glen and I were married at the base of the Peninsula in 1994 and moved to our historic farmhouse on the north end a year later, where we raised three sons and a small menagerie of animals.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
Our view is green rolling hills, orchards and vines. We frequent our neighbors’ roadside stands, and we love the fact that the community operates on a first-name basis, that summer visitors call greetings, and that we call back with easy familiarity.
In 2018, having raised our sons to do all the good they could, it was my turn. I wanted to give back to my community, so when the former township clerk resigned her position and it appeared that no one was interested in assuming the responsibilities of clerk, I agreed to contribute to our local government and finish out her term.
My husband, our three sons, and my parents — all township residents — witnessed the county clerk swearing me in. In early 2020, with a successful year under my belt, I filed to run for my own full four-year term.
In the fall of 2020, shortly before the November election, Peninsula Township was sued in federal court by a group of eleven corporations generally calling themselves Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula, or “WOMP.”
Although all of these wineries are located on agricultural-zoned land in the township, WOMP demanded special rights that no farms in the township have ever had: the right to operate bar and restaurant services until 2 a.m., outdoor amplified music until 2 a.m., events and weddings for 200 or more people, plus more than $200 million dollars — now whittled down to more than $120 million dollars — to compensate for alleged lost profits.
Among other allegations, the eleven WOMP corporations claimed their “religious freedom” was being violated because they could not hold wedding events.
Two of these wineries are located on land where the development rights were sold to the Township years earlier for hundreds of thousands of dollars through the voter-approved farm preservation program. In their lawsuit, WOMP demanded these agreements be tossed out without mentioning the money their neighbors had paid in good faith to protect the lands’ agricultural and scenic values by extinguishing the development rights.
There is talk in the community that the Township Board initially agreed to a settlement with WOMP but then backed out. I want to correct the record on this matter once and for all. I’m in a unique position to do so because I was one of the Township’s two elected officials present at the September 2021 settlement conference where the alleged agreement was made.
Simply put, no Township Board members agreed to a settlement. Acting alone without authorization from the Township Board, the Township’s former attorney did so after the day’s negotiations fell apart and my fellow board member and I left.
I know this for a fact based on our former attorney telling us he’d finish up the paperwork after we threw up our hands at our inability to come to a reasonable compromise, the fact that my fellow board member and I left the premises together, and court transcripts in which both WOMP’s attorney and ours confirm the exact time the “settlement” was reached.
By then, I was home, and I have a time-stamped text message to prove it. I could not have predicted our former attorney’s actions in a million years, and I remain stunned and outraged by his actions.
Let me repeat, no members of the Township Board reached an agreement at the September 2021 settlement conference. The Township Board never agreed to the proposed settlement for which we were later improperly sanctioned.
Tellingly, the former Township attorney presented his “agreement” as an offer at the October 2021 meeting held at St. Joseph Catholic Church, and the board unanimously rejected it. At the time, the Township Board included several members who sold grapes grown on their land to local wineries and were strong supporters of the wine industry.
It would be helpful if the community could see the settlement offers that have been made to the Township Board, but the wineries sought to ensure the offers were protected and unavailable for public review.
The wineries were further asked by the Township’s new counsel to participate in public settlement discussions that were likewise never accepted.
Ask yourselves why the Township, not WOMP, wanted the settlement offers made public and wanted to hold transparent settlement discussions out in the open. Today, as always, the board seeks a reasonable compromise that does not pose harm to the community.
Today, three years after the October 2021 meeting at St. Joe’s, life in Peninsula Township has changed. WOMP supporters show up at Township meetings angry and defiant. Township residents want facts about the lawsuit. Rumors swirl.
The worst unfounded rumor is that the Township agreed to settle the lawsuit and then backed out. This rumor went all the way from Peninsula Township to federal court in Kalamazoo with serious consequences.
The truth is, the unauthorized and illegitimate settlement agreement was reached without any Township official’s approval.
With the fall colors changing and the season of Thanksgiving just around the corner, I’m grateful for the many decades of effort by so many individuals to preserve this iconic, unique, and beloved peninsula. Likewise, I remain hopeful that our community will ultimately heal from the divisions that currently divide us.
-Becky Chown
(Editor’s Note: View all winery lawsuit stories and opinions on the Gazette here. View all winery lawsuit and court documents on the Township website here. -jb)
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.
I have a few questions:
It is my understanding (based on an article in the gazette) that the township sued the attorney that they claimed made a settlement offer without their consent. Why then did the township drop the lawsuit against the former attorney very quickly?
I am also under the impression that the township and the wineries started talks, then the township stopped the talks do to Covid – Why could the talks not have continued through zoom meetings?
I am a bit confused regarding that the township has multiple times stated there was a Gag order from the judge. I have read most of the court documents and do not see any Gag order (with the exception of an agreement between the township and the wineries in regard to financial disclosures that wineries gave to the township and the judge entered into the documents) It is my understanding there is no Gag order.
One final question – again, it is my understanding that the township only called one witness during the trial. That witness was a zoning person from another State, and it seems as if that witness was not properly versed in Michigan zoning laws. If this is the case, why would the township not have multiple witness’ and zoning professionals from the State of Michigan to support their stance? It would seem to me that with a lawsuit such as this the township would have gone to court very prepared – I’m not sure they did.
I fully agree with you – there is dark cloud over the peninsula that should not be there. Typically, in a private or public business leadership can solve problems if they are good leaders, if problems continue leadership is usually changed for the health of the company – maybe we need fresh eyes that come unbiased in the leadership roles of the township.
Gary – if OK, I will attempt to answer some of your questions.
1. The lawsuit against PT’s former attorney remains active. It was filed in GT county, file 24-36922. It is currently stayed because how it may move forward is somewhat dependent on the outcome of the WOMP federal case. For instance, if the federal court denies WOMP money damages, then is or how is the township injured? The issue remains open.
2. I really can’t answer your question on the pre-filing meetings. WOMP filed its case October 10, 2020. I understood there was a mutual pause on the ordinance amendment negoiations then WOMP, without notice, filed the lawsuit. But given the timing, I suggest ZOOM was not on anyone’s radar yet.
3. The gag order. The gag order you refer to is federal case filing 1:20-cv-01008, ECF #456 filed 9/22/2023. If you are familar with PACER, the federal court’s public site for reviewing documents, you can find it there. That gag order was unilaterally filed by WOMP over the objections of both the township and PTP, who wanted the documents to be made public. The gag order remains active and sanctionable.
4. As regards to the township’s trial strategy, I defer to its counsel. I only attended one day of the hearings. Though I would indicate that its previous counsel missed certain court ordered deadlines leading to the court defaulting or denying the township its right to call certain witnesses. Most importantly, expert witnesses who could or would counter WOMP monetary damage claims. That issue is part of the township’s malpractice case against its former attorney.
Hope that helps provide some background. If you want to discuss, I am happy to meet over coffee.
AND Lou – I have not “conspired” with Becky Chown to publish articles in the OMG- But happy to meet with you as well to discuss – I actually enjoy your posts- Mike
Becky I find it interesting you and Mike have articles at the same time. Was this coordinated? I wonder?
As far as things go with regard to the negotiations only you and others from the township are privy to what provisions were on the table. If we ever find out we will know if the recalcitrance of the town was worth all of this time and potential cost. Is it worth $120 million so that a winery can’t serve warm food or have a wedding or event now and then? I think if that’s where we end up most of us would say no.
Also they have already stated they don’t want to stay open until 2 am. Even if they wanted with the labor shortage they all couldn’t staff for that. Most don’t even stay open to 9. So this charge is just an attempt to muddy the water.
Mike
Thank you for the clarification on the lawsuit against the former attorney
I will look at the information you provided in regard to the other questions
Thank you
Garry Mannor
Becky-
I want to thank you for your service as an elected official here on OMP. I know how hard it can be to put yourself out as an elected official. I have no argument with your timeline or facts. Thank you for that and thank you for your service.
I do have some questions and concerns regarding the actions of the acting legal counsel at the time. I also have concerns about the transparency and disclosure of any agreements, commitments or promises that were made by that legal counsel.
It is my understanding, and I believe you confirm, the acting attorney for the township came to at minimum a verbal agreement with WOMP. This agreement was not done in your presence or the presence of other board members but nonetheless was done by the acting township attorney. That verbal agreement and the reasons for it should have been disclosed to the residents of this township. That is the major concern that I have with any current or former board members in peninsula township.
The details of the acting attorneys verbal agreement should have been disclosed with the residents here. They were not. I agree it was voted by the board not to agree with that agreement but at that time it should have been openly discussed.
Just my opinion
I have no knowledge of the agreement but perhaps it wasn’t a bad one and only when PTP screamed bloody murder did the township back down. PTP is against any compromise. I don’t know where their money comes from but certainly they must have deep pockets to fund their involvement in this lawsuit. If we ever find out what was in that compromise we may realize that it could have saved a lot of angst, time and money.