To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Old Mission Peninsula resident Marty Lagina responds to an opinion piece by Grant Parsons published on August 1, 2024, “Here Are the Damages WOMP is Seeking; Response to Kate Jerman’s Q&A.” Read on for Marty’s thoughts, which are solely his opinion as the owner of Mari Vineyards. -jb)
I will start this by saying I do not like (in fact, I abhor) personal attacks. It is very unfortunate to have to reply to one.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.
But Mr. Parsons has accused the owners of the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP), including my son, of committing perjury and/or outright lying to a candidate in an important election. That accusation is way out of bounds, but it’s typical of Protect the Peninsula‘s M.O.: make outrageous, unsupported claims to defame the other party and inflame neighbors against neighbors.
In his zeal (in my opinion) to distort and demonize the WOMP owners, Mr. Parsons actually published the following quote:
“WOMP wineries are either lying to the United States District Court by filing false claims for mega-millions, or lying to Ms. Jerman in her ‘private discussions’ with wineries.”
Here are some things the citizens of Old Mission Peninsula should know about that outrageous quote:
Mr. Parsons has made his living as a personal injury lawyer who, according to his website, is a fabulous trial lawyer. He knows exactly what it means to accuse someone of perjury or as a lawyer, use perjured testimony.
In my view, To throw out such an accusation without any evidence shows a profound disrespect for the very United States court system from which Mr. Parsons made his living.
His accusation is shameful, I think.
If the wineries truly committed perjury and filed “false claims,” their testimony should have been easily refutable in court by Peninsula Township and something any competent lawyer would have easily pointed out to the Court.
Funny thing; that didn’t happen.
Here is what actually happened:
Even though Peninsula Township had complete access to records produced by the wineries in the lawsuit; the wineries’ damages expert’s report; and all of the records he relied on, Peninsula Township did not call any witness of their own at trial to refute the wineries’ expert. Even the Judge asked Peninsula Township at a hearing this past week if they had any evidence to refute the wineries’ damage claim other than cross examination of the expert witness. The answer was no.
The only logical conclusion I can draw from this is that Peninsula Township could not find any credible witness or any evidence to refute the wineries’ damage calculation.
Er … perhaps that’s because … the wineries were ACTUALLY damaged by the Township’s behavior.
Don’t forget that a year before this lawsuit was filed, the Township attorney advised the Township Board that the Winery Ordinances were illegal and needed to be changed. The Township Board ignored this advice.
At trial, the Township’s explanation for this is that “as crazy as it sounds, that’s just the way it is” in Peninsula Township. Think about that.
According to this Township Board, that’s “just the way it is”? That’s what sounds crazy to me.
So the accomplished attorneys running Protect the Peninsula (PTP) and their partners (the Peninsula Township Board and their attorneys) failed to meaningfully challenge the damages in court. So they instead resorted to libelous name calling.
My opinion is that PTP is basically a shadow government “wannabe” (only without any consequence or controls for their behavior). If you don’t believe that, ask Mr. Parsons about the secret “joint defense agreement.”
There is a lot more malicious data that has been spread by PTP — A LOT MORE — but to me, here’s the inescapable conclusion:
This Township Board has failed.
They failed by listening to PTP regarding an issue which would otherwise have been settled long ago.
They failed because they let PTP pit neighbor against neighbor. (That ridiculous “damage calculator,” which is designed to scare every landowner in the township, is still on their website, EVEN THOUGH Mr. Dettmer just wrote a lengthy article about Peninsula Township insurance coverage.)
I won’t resort to name calling; I think many of the current Township Board members are well-intentioned people. Good intentions, however, aren’t enough for qualified leadership. The current Board has been led around by the nose by PTP, and in my opinion, by bad legal advice which is what’s actually costing millions.
We need a new Township Board.
The community is divided, and it doesn’t need to be. PTP and others have distorted the whole WOMP issue from the outset. Contrary to how this has been presented (that WOMP filed an outrageous lawsuit in a fit of unwarranted greed), the truth is that WOMP filed a lawsuit ONLY after the Township (guided by PTP, in my opinion) became totally unworkable and unwilling to follow a reasonable interpretation of THEIR OWN RULES.
At that point, the wineries feared for their very existence. The wineries do a tremendous amount of good for Old Mission Peninsula. That is simply not arguable.
They have allowed farming to continue in a very difficult agricultural environment. They protect and enhance the viewshed that we all find so valuable. The owners live here. They are open to reasonable rules.
Winemaking and sales is a very difficult business. It is not very lucrative. It is actually very hard to just make ends meet. The wineries felt they had no choice.
We need a new Township Board.
We (wineries and residents) have a lot more in common than we have differences. The new candidates aren’t “in bed” with the wineries. I personally haven’t spoken in any depth with any of them (and the last I checked, I owned a winery) … I HAVE listened to them speak publicly, however, and they seem well informed and reasonable.
The existing Township Board as guided by PTP seems to desire difficult relations with citizens (ask anybody who has tried to get a simple permit in the last year or so) and endless litigation. For that reason, I encourage all voters to pick a new Township Board on Tuesday.
Oh, I almost forgot: Mr. Parsons owes us all a heartfelt apology. I guess we’ll see.
-Marty Lagina
(Read all Peninsula Township Election 2024 News, Opinions and Candidate Questionnaires here. Read all winery lawsuit news and opinions here. -jb)
To view or leave comments 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.
Since this was posted, I’ve already received several inquiries as to who I believe are the best four candidates to be elected to the Peninsula Township board. Accordingly, here are the four who I believe should be elected:
Kate Jerman
J P Milliken
Fred Swaffer
Dave Sanger
I realize that of these four, Dave Sanger is part of the current board. However, I have found him to be the most rational of the current board and the most open to logical thinking. In order for a completely new board to function properly, someone needs to provide accurate “institutional memory“. I believe Mr. Sanger will do so with integrity and a new board needs that to function properly.
“The Shadow government” I was reluctant to write down my thoughts without actual proof but have felt this way for a long time. We only elect Twp board members but they (some) or all seem to be under the influence (strongly) of an unelected group: Protect the Peninsula (which does not seem to be protecting our rural character that much). Since the infamous meeting at St. Joeseph a few years ago, wherein PTP members whipped up the crowd to tell the twp board to not accept a compromise with the winery owners, to passing Amendment 201 ( PTP had 3 seats on the citizen committee along with some board members creating a majority before any committee voting took place) which was unsuccessfully used in the Winery lawsuit. This resulted in an anti farming amendment (40 farmers advised to not pass) and the wasted money effort and time in the trial. Recently a number of members of the group PTP sent in opinion pieces to the Gazette riddled with false statements supporting thier PTP choices for the board. They just lobbed these fictional writings over the fence hoping they would be unchallenged. And then when the mistakes are pointed out to them they are silent. Like dead limbs on a tree. No opps I would like to amend my statement or I stand corrected and or I apologize. Nope the damage is done and that is what they wanted. They followed how the national politics has been ongoing: not caring about the truth. Shame on them. And to anyone not convinced of the PTP influence over the candidates: Wunsch, Sanger, Alexander, and Queeny think about this. I attended a meet/greet recently at the Congregational Church. I asked a question about the insurance issue and article Ditmer published in the Gazette. Well John Wunsch (not candidate Isaiah Wunsch) started answering the question. I had to interrupt with a “stop, I am asking the candidates ” not the PTP campaign manager.
I was astonished at a recent meet and great at the Congressional Church with the candidates
Marty, thanks for the article. It’s refreshing to get a different perspective on issues instead of the barrage of opinions from members of PTP.
In regard to Mr. Dettmer’s article about the township’s insurance, I asked him the following questions but never got an answer:
1. Are the township insurance policies included in the gag order issued by the judge who decided the settlement letters remain confidential & could only be reviewed by the parties’s counsel & judge’s chambers?
2. Is Dettmer part of the township’s counsel who has approval to view court documents? If yes, then how can he disclose policy specifics to the public?
3. If the policies are not part of the gag order then why is he and/or the township not disclosing the maximum liability coverage? He indicated coverage is defined per each & is complicated. Certainly the policy has a maximum that it pays per each. What is it?
The township is suing its previous attorneys for malpractice. If WOMP is granted monetary damages, certainly the township would seek money via its malpractice suit? Gotta think liability insurance & winning a malpractice case would drastically decrease the amount each landowner would owe. The damage calculator is a totally bogus tool that was used solely to scare people.
Finally, the personal attacks & accusations have gone too far. I expect better from certain individuals on the township board & PTP board members. Yes, there are citizens who have strong opinions and have unrelentlessly questioned township policies & procedures. They do not represent the peninsula. Our elected board members do. I expect our leaders to act & respond professionally…. no matter what is directed at them.
Thank you Marty for a helpful and informative response. Unfortunately, many people only look to their emotions and not the facts. The protect the peninsula group is a money only, me only group of people. The attorney’s input, especially GrantParsons, seems shameful to us.
It would be interesting to know
1. Are any board members or candidates also members of PTP or were members
2. What PTP members were part of the settlement negotiations? If they were they obviously had inside knowledge of the settlement offers and then came to St Joe’s to whip up the opposition frenzy without disclosing that they knew what was in the agreement.
Of course I don’t expect an answer to any of these questions.
PTP Board member John Wunsch has indicated that the recent passing of amendment 201 was necessitated by the winery lawsuit (retail sales, restaurant service, alcohol service, hosting events, huge impact on noise, traffic, road safety). PTP’s website states the same. This position & amendment are not farmer friendly. What farmers want who own less than 40 acres is to process their crops on site….no tasting room, no retail sales, no increase in noise/visitors/traffic. They are not asking to have restaurants, social events, weddings, alcohol service, outdoor music, retail sales. Please give factual information as to why on site processing is a problem & threat to our community?
It is my opinion that there is an increase in animosity among individuals within our community. It’s not enough anymore to simply disagree, you must also include disparaging remarks. This has created a feeling in our community of “if you are not with us, you’re against us”. It has become very coarse in terms of how people interact with each other and our civility is slowing being chipped away every time someone engages this way. I agree with Mr. Lagina, our community doesn’t need to be divided.
I encourage all of us to work together and not get caught up in pitting one neighbor against another. I am running because I want to help make a difference, to bring a new set of eyes on our procedures, policies, and ordinances, and I truly believe that I can. It is my hope that I am voted in by our community, but regardless of the outcome I will find ways to get involved in other opportunities within the township. I simply refuse to give up on finding ways to help make a difference in our community and remove the divide we find ourselves in.
In this day and age with so much unrest in the world it would be nice in our small and beautiful community if we could all find a way to unite in some fashion.
I believe it’s called PEACE. Something we seem to have little of these days.
Kindness is a good word as well.
Lets all try to put our best efforts into both!
Marty,
You vented a bit at Mr. Parsons comments but did not address the issue you were upset about.
1) Is the document showing the damages the wineries are asking for in Mr. Parsons opinion letter in the Gazette real?
2) If not, why and are the wineries asking for damages?
3) If so, how much is each winery asking for?
Thanks,
Larry Ward
Marty,
Thank you for a well-written, thought out, response. Unfortunately, the Township, represented by the Township Board, is unwilling to accept the responsibility for the irresponsible, inaccurate advice of past attorneys representing the township. By accepting its wrongful decisions, based on poor, inaccurate advice, then I would think that the WOMP would be willing to reasonably negotiate not just a settlement, but reasonable and fair ordinance for the future wine industry on OMP. As a small acreage winegrower the proposed winery/vineyard ordinance basically forces us to sell our grapes to wineries off of OMP. And note that it is not argued that smaller vineyards can produce some of the best fruit for fine wine. It is time to move on. Not only the future of the wine industry on OMP, but also the good health of relations among OMP residents, is at stake. Thanks.