To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: Todd Anson responds to Protect the Peninsula’s (PTP) position on the recent judgment in the winery lawsuit. If you have an opinion on the lawsuit or other township matters, feel free to write it up and send it to me, [email protected]. -jb)
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
I appreciate Mike Dettmer’s piece on behalf of PTP. It ignores, however, the principal concerns I have called to the attention of OMP residents. It precipitated a lawsuit. And lost handily. That places our entire community on the defensive.
There is no mention in Mr. Dettmer’s piece, nor was there any mention at the July 14 Township meeting, of prioritizing reduction of the $50 million+ exposure. This needs to be the top priority, and our community needs to be aligned around it as the top priority to have a chance at the best outcome. The principal currencies the Township has to barter will be readily found through thoughtful exploration of the operating flexibilities initially sought by the wineries.
PTP is playing a dangerous game with our money. Had it prevailed, rather than be humbled by the devastating $50 million judgment, a different case could be made here. PTP does not place the highest (or any) priority on reducing the $50 million exposure it has helped create for its OMP neighbors!
If I am wrong, I invite PTP to publicly state that reduction of the judgment amount is its top priority, just as it is for many of us whose money it has taken to the craps table by forcing this ill-fated litigation.
This seems only fair. Residents are entitled to understand the degree to which PTP’s goals are at variance with those of the rest of us. Many of us are appalled by the exposure created for us through PTP’s influence of Township representatives. One can only assume the views of our elected representatives must align closely with those expressed by PTP.
-Todd Anson, Old Mission Peninsula resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Todd, as your neighbor here on OPM, I want to let you know that I completely appreciate your opinions and you ability to write not only to be understood, but that you are not misunderstood. Your background lends itself to this situation and those of us who have a stake in the game here (not a game), should stand along side you, and listen to you. You make more sense out of this issue than I’ve seen over the years. How do we come together, at this point, to effectively and efficiently make a difference. What can we do at this point.
Thank you, Patricia.
“Common sense” is our solution. Right now, we aren’t showing much of it. Our planners, council & PTP over-reached & were under-prepared & we got slammed because of their unreasonable, lack of common sense approach. They “wanted it all.” What’s shocking to me is that despite triggering a $50M verdict, PTP still refuses to use common sense. “Common sense” dictates contrition, respect & the reality that you’ve triggered a horrible outcome for your neighbors. I am not seeing any of those sentiments being expressed by PTP or the township. “Common sense” dictates that PTP acknowledge the role it’s played in the creation of this mess. Mr. Dettmer, on behalf of PTP, fails to extend even that common courtesy to us all while underscoring what he considers their “victory” in the planning restraints still left in tact, as if he & the PTP group are seeking our appreciation while blowing $50M of our money. In the next breath he wants to “double down” in litigation (which might be the right startegy so long as it’s a tool to get this settled promptly at minimal cost to us all). Well, Mike & PTP, your group’s conduct comes with a bill! It’s $50M + attorneys’ fees and about tp grow.
Deluding anyone on the peninsula into the belief that the appeal likely bails us out is a Fool’s Game. I surely hope it is successful. It’s a long shot. I have funded many state appellate court appeals personally and it is imprudent to make that your prevailing strategy. Likewise any malpractice claims. The insurance amounts held by firms like Mr. Meihn’s ($5M? $10M?) won’t touch an amount this big. Another’s Fool’s Errand as a potential solution, though worthy of pursuit.
I view the wineries differently. As a blessing. Somewhat as an “open space” gift from God. They make this bucolic peninsula what it is and represent its best chance at a sustainable open space solution. $50M buys a whole lotta development & open space rights, doesn’t it? Well, we get nothing for our$50M except we’re providing “entertainment” for “wise” old lawyers like Mike. I don’t want “to be like Mike.” PTP believes, I am sure, that it is doing “God’s work here.” Consider what next if we choke off our wineries? Consider the plight of France:
https://www.thefp.com/p/why-doesnt-anyone-want-to-make-french-wine
I have no particular affinity for any of the wineries. I love the open space & the vineyards they plant & meticulously maintain. Generally, I want to see them do well financially. If a few more wine busses & wedding season events is all it takes to help them prosper over the long haul, I am all for it. There is NO evidence that anyone in the business is getting rich at our community’s expense or we’d see properties turning over at exorbitant multiples. NIMBY-ism is a cancer in my mind. It breaks the “social compact” we have with others, often younger Americans, who might also want to enjoy the “sanctuaries” the older generation has discovered.
Vineyard open space is the “win.” The price of preserving it is supporting within reason winery uses. We have been told in 50 million ways that our policies are unreasonable. Compounding the situation is our failure to possess enough savvy to realize that our township counsel on retainer lacked the requisite sophistication needed to handle the dispute we precipitated ourselves following HIS advice. This misstep “shocks the conscience” of anyone reasonably informed as to legal matters.
To me PTP is the silent villain here & they want to let someone ride away with a stage coach filled with $50M of our dollars, rather than owning the divisive problems they’ve helped create and utilizing their collective wisdom to find an affordable solution. If there were NO PTP I don’t believe we would be facing liabilities in the tens of thousands of dollars each! We might have to listen to a little more wedding music in the Summer months. Does anyone think the uses the wineries have proposed generates anything close to the traffic & congestion large scale & infill housing development will bring?
We need to have our eyes wide open here on this one. And we need PTP to be in alignment with what I believe may well be the silent majority viewpoint. The council will follow its community’s lead, so let’s get our priorities aligned and lead towards a solution.
Todd J. Anson
Please excuse iPad typos
Well stated as usual.
We’re with Todd on this matter. Using common sense and finding common ground with the wineries very possibly would’ve averted the township being in the situation that we are currently in. Continuing this legal fight vs trying to find a compromise with the wineries seems like a great way to drag this out even longer while amassing more legal costs which will ultimately be passed onto the residents. It’s important to publicly comment if you’re in agreement, or to privately contact the township to register your thoughts/opinions either way. Township officials were elected to represent the residents of OMP. It’s important for them to know where you stand on this issue.
Anne and Tom Peterson
Common sense coupled with the township and PTP is an oxymoron.
What is the fight always about. Traffic! Claiming phony charges such as wanting to stay open until 2 am, wanting to have a restaurant, wanting to have weddings 2 times a day 2- 7 days a week, wanting events etc. will bring increased traffic as if we will have continued gridlock out here.
Was it worth all this? Ask yourself? Did anyone ask you at St Joe ‘s or anytime after if you want to pay $25,000 so that someone can’t have a wedding at a winery but can have one at the house next door to you? Some Wineries already have events. Has it impacted you at all did you even know they were having one. Is serving warm tapas style plates really a restaurant?
Common sense would have said let’s find a way to work with the wineries to help them. Was that too much to ask
or is it better to dig in and make us all pay $25,000.
As the saying goes you get what you voted for. And those of you who voted for these people I guess left your common sense outside the voting booth. Not one of them promised to try to avoid the fines by working with the wineries. What makes you think they will do so now. Sorry but angrily saying at town meetings put your money where you mouth is to the wineries does not sound like a spirit of compromise to me.
Upon appeal lets first demand in negotiation that damages be calculated with real numbers. Presumably, after the restritive zoning was repealed in 2022, the wineries started holding more events and making more money per year than when the earlier restrictive ordinance was in effect. The damage calculation (calculated annually for the period 2017-2022) should not exceed this increased actual annual profit improvement for 2023, 2024. Wineries should be forced to have their books and tax returns audited 2017 through 2024 so we can find out the real number, not just their wildly optimistic projected numbers. Secondly, the zoning issues subject to lawsuit are not in fact settled law since townships have always been able to enact zoning ordinances to maximize quality of life to residents and businesses, and it cannot be concluded that the township is 100% at fault. If the wineries felt that the township broke settled legal statutes when the original zoning ordanance was issued, and therefore 100% at fault, They should have been able to immediatly negate the ordinance by citing settled state or federal statutes on the books. A current example of unsettled law in zoneing would be the fights by townships country-wide to restrict Air-B & B short term rentals. Courts are finding every which way on this right now. One would not want most homes in a neighborhood to be owned by short term leasing companies nor eliminate short term leasing completely