To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: In the first of a series, OMP resident Todd Sanders asks the question, “How did we end up here?” Read on for his thoughts on the ongoing winery lawsuit. -jb
I’ve been following the lawsuit progress and judgment like most of us in Peninsula Township. I’ve seen how it has pitted the community against each other and against those we’ve elected to guide and support our township. I’ve seen odd factions and alliances arise, all looking to fracture the community with various stories, perspectives and, in some cases, wildly incorrect statements (likely a mix of purposeful and accidental). The curse of social media is the ability to spout whatever comes to mind and see if it sticks in the court of public opinion.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
In the spirit of cutting through the noise, I’ve put together some questions that I believe are important and pertinent. My goal is to share an alternative perspective to the small and vocal group that has rallied around the very root of the conflict – WOMP.
I’ll share an initial question here, and look forward to sharing more in future letters. These perspectives are my own as a resident of this community. I have no insider knowledge of either side’s information. I am voicing for what I have seen are the many, many residents who are cautious and downright afraid to speak due to retaliation (subject of another article to come).
How did we end up here?
Wineries on the Old Mission Peninsula (OMP) have enjoyed increased opportunities for growth and revenue since the very first winery. Contrary to the perception that it has been an uphill battle against the Township, wine production and additional commercial activities have continued to expand. They have, in effect, gotten everything they wanted. Everything. (I encourage the reader to review the extensive Zoning Ordinance on the Township website.)
Individual opinions will vary, but I offer that the residents regularly voiced their opposition to expanding more, as evidenced by 1) responses to the township survey(s), 2) inputs to the Master Plan, and 3) the election of representatives that supported limited expansion for activities, especially those that had a high likelihood of negative impact on the majority of the residents. This is the beauty of democracy in action. A community speaks with its vote and responses, and the elected officials take action.
In my view, the root of this is an unabated hunger by the wineries for more. When the market responded to overproduction and alternatives to their wine, they sought to change the rules. Their desired changes were extreme – operating hours from 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. (not a typo), restaurants, event centers, parties, bars, and plenty of merch to go along with it.
There have been several performative statements by the wineries and their supporters to the tune of “Would wineries destroy the very community that nurtures their produce, raises their families, and provides recreational opportunities for all? No.” or “I don’t think you’ll see us operating our tasting rooms until 2 a.m., but even to have a family reunion or wedding reception from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. is something we want. It’s not that we want to have rock concerts until midnight, but we want what they can do in Leelanau or Benzie counties.”
These themes and others are repeated by their surrogates. In this, I am in TOTAL agreement; no, the majority of the community does NOT want these extreme outcomes. Yes, the community has voiced that regularly. No, the wineries did not care. They were obsessed with more.
Please note, dear reader, that in the examples above and others, there has never been definitive, explicit, or clear language such as “we will not do XYZ.” Instead, we get cute statements like ‘would we do that…’ or ‘I don’t think…’ or ‘we don’t want to collect $XXXM from the community…’ or the sort. I’m afraid cute doesn’t cut it in these cases. The wineries literally sued the entire community.
I know there will be “free market” champions who are opposed to any type of restriction. I know there will be the farmer advocates who will quickly connect wineries to farms. I know there will be those who throw NIMBY around. I’m sure I’ll be surprised by even more novel disagreements with me. All of this is fine. The privilege of living in an amazing community is worth the slings, arrows, and mud that will likely be thrown.
Is there a reason NOT to keep Old Mission Peninsula special? Mackinac Island has remained special. So much of the Upper Peninsula has as well. Why do we have to change this place?
-Todd Sanders, Old Mission Peninsula resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Five words: Because the ordinance is unconstitutional!
Please explain, Annes.
Facts can be found in the court’s order dated 7/7/25 under section VIII Conclusion of Law. The judge ruled that 9 sections of Peninsula Township Zoning Ordinances (PTZO) were unconstitutional violations of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The term “Guest Activity” in dozens of sections was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause. Two other sections unconstitutionally compel speech. Four sections unconstitutionally restrain commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Hi Annes, thanks for sharing. My question and perspectives have to do with the root, not the outcome. The root was the constant “more” by the wineries (which, as I said, had been allowed continuously until the community said enough).
Thanks Todd for the statement of facts. It is difficult to understand how any resident without a direct financial connection to the wineries could advocate for their unbridled expansion.or root for their lawsuit’s success.
Thank you Glen M. I have some thoughts that I’ll expand on in an upcoming article.
I appreciate the time and effort it took to write this piece, Todd; succinct and accurate. I will never believe this is anything other than greed, something that is devouring our country right now.
Thank you Cary. We’ve somehow forgotten the importance of each other. That is a non-political statement.
Thank you, Todd.
With due respect, count us as those who support the Constitutional rights of all Americans, including our wineries. Their rights were violated, not ours. Terri & I are not oenophiles, don’t actively pursue wine culture and have no deep personal relationships with vintners on OMP. I appreciate both Todd & Maura Sanders’ military service, but am concerned that this statement by Todd, “In my view, the root of this is an unabated hunger by the wineries for more,” tells as in its expression of apparent exasperation by our wineries, its support for even stricter winery controls and through its silence regarding who has been legally harmed to the tune of $50M here. If the support I’ve heard over our community’s desire that a common sense approach needs to be taken here is any indication of where our larger community stands, it is not reflected in Mr. Sanders’ comment which, again, like those from PTP with whom he appears to be aligned, fails to prioritize settling this matter out at no cost to our residents. I invite Maura, for whom Terri & I voted, to weigh in now that Todd has entered the household into the fray. Could you kindly clarify for the record whether eliminating the inevitable payout is your top priority? If not, please state what your top priority is? I don’t think in this context hiding behind executive session blinders is an appropriate approach given the stakes, the public exposure and what may well be a pre-conceived bias in favor of the PTP platform. Lastly, I have no animus towards PTP, I simply think they have manipulated the greater public to suit their personal agenda at our expense and I would prefer to see PTP’s collective wisdom & resources devoted towards the same goal as the rest of us- settlement/resolution at $0 out of pocket and on whatever the wineries & Township can agree to as to additional terms.
There is nothing incrementally riding on this at this point worth (by my rough math) $80K to Terri & me. We’ll take a Fire House, bike trails, school, better library, tennis/pickle ball courts, anything, before burning money over Township malfeasance. I’ll invite others whose exposure might well be in the $25K-$35K range to speak for themselves. I, for one, am not distracted by incremental “traffic” after 10-11PM as it is light at those hours & we aren’t likely to encounter it, anyway. Common sense also dictates settling this while “on appeal” & before further services and Township resources are eliminated.
Todd, thank you for your comments. There’s a lot there, so I’ll try to add clarity.
First, I speak for myself, and Maura speaks for herself. Anyone who knows either of us knows neither needs to speak for the other. So I would say I didn’t bring the “household into the fray”. “Fray” also implies actions are being taken frenetically without due consideration, which I assure you is not the case.
Second, I do not have your legal background, so I will refrain from commenting with confidence on the legal aspects. Quite the opposite – I’m focused on the question of why the wineries would sue the community (the entire community), especially if they propose they are such champions of the community? I’m actually super okay with them saying “we want more.” At least that is truth in advertising. I envision a catchy ad campaign like “WOMP – taking care of #1 since day 1.” If this is the way people who take care of the community treat people, yowza.
Third, to clarify, while I know and respect several members of Protect the Peninsula, I also know and respect neighbors who disagree with PTP. So, before you place my “alliance” with someone, it’s best to straight-up ask that question. I’ll say it now – I’m aligned with my tribe, my community, my neighbors, even when it doesn’t personally advantage me.
Lastly, thank you for your kind words on our service, though I’m not sure why that was brought into the discussion. Since you did, it may be useful to explain how that experience has shaped me to this day.
The Marine Corps values are Honor, Courage, and Commitment. They’re burned into my soul; I couldn’t get them out if I tried. That means I speak up when I see something, I protect those who fear sharing their voice, I live service before self, and I don’t back down when odds are stacked against me. This is not a platitude; this is just the way it is.
Semper Fidelis
“Is there a reason NOT to keep Old Mission Peninsula special? Mackinac Island has remained special. So much of the Upper Peninsula has as well. Why do we have to change this place?” Because the OMP is NOT at all like the Upper Peninsula and Mackinac Island. Old Mission is an agricultural environment and, like it or not, is subject to, and victim of, the vagaries of weather, consumer preference, the national economy and the global agricultural economy that includes countries that subsidize and dump their crops. Like it or not the agronomy of the OMP MUST evolve and adapt to maintain it’s unique cultural characteristics.
YMoxness, thank you for sharing. Want to confirm your use of agronomy – the science of crops?
Yes, 100%, I want my farmers using the best techniques to produce.
Agronomics
Autocorrect 🤷🏻♀️
Todd,
Thanks for sharing your perspective and pointing out the realities of where we are at based on the facts from our past. OMP residents have long supported agriculture and have done so multiple times through voting in support of the PDR program. Zoning is in place for a reason and even though not everyone likes it, it protects us from the challenges we face with over development and protection outcomes based on peninsula planning efforts from the past. Some of the same people arguing for unlimited growth on the OMP are the same people who complained to me when I was mayor about the traffic issues on Peninsula Drive going into the city. All I could say was that the increased growth in subdivisions and business activity out on the peninsula is what causes the traffic problem which is out of the hands of the City Commission and not something the city had any control over. People need to look at the broader effects of growth and not just profit margins imo. Thanks for sharing your opinions! Jim