To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
(Editor’s Note: OMP resident Jed Hemming writes that entrepreneurial farmers should be able to process and take their finished product to market and sell it without months or years of bureaucratic delay and expense. “If an entrepreneur has an idea for selling agricultural products, we should encourage and support them, not stand in the way,” he says. Read on for his thoughts below. -jb)
Protect the Peninsula’s (PTP) ongoing anti-winery crusade involving Peninsula Township and the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) has resulted in an unnecessary lawsuit and local anti-winery policies, which translate to anti-agriculture policies. Now I see PTP is soliciting funds to continue this unnecessary burden on both the Township and its farmers.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
Agriculture is a commercial use. Although we all appreciate the scenic vineyards and orchards on the Peninsula, farmers do NOT grow crops simply to enhance the view and rural environment of our neighbors. It is a business. We grow crops as a business, and the money is made in the marketing and sales of those crops.
In our little piece of Michigan, mass production of crops has become uneconomical because of factors like terrain, parcel size, transportation, and residential development. For example, for a cherry grower to plant in one year a solid 10-acre block of cherries is substantial on the Peninsula. In other parts of Michigan, single plantings of 40, 50 or even 100-acre blocks are more the norm.
Efficiency of scale enters this formula very quickly. A tractor which just five years ago was $65,000 is now $95,000 or more. Farm labor is a minimum of $27 per hour. The price of cherries has changed little in 50 years. Specialty crops and local markets are and will be the trend if agriculture is to continue in communities such as ours.
Anti-winery policies are anti-agriculture policies. Current anti-winery policies in our township have created a huge financial barrier to small farms and entrepreneurs. In the attempt to limit wineries, Peninsula Township has created a framework for wealthy individuals and corporations to develop facilities which require a large monetary investment.
A local vineyard management company estimates the current cost of starting a vertically integrated farm business (a winery) at $10 million. This means if a person wants to make ag products and taste or consume those products in any manner on site, current township regulations create the need for a huge capital investment in land and infrastructure.
This limits access to the market for small land owners while creating advantages and cheaper access to land for existing wineries and fruit packers. PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) land is especially impacted because the land owners are not only limited in use, but also access to the market.
I am currently aware of three entrepreneurs who are struggling with years-long conflicts with the Township while trying to start their own businesses. One is a small vineyard who wishes only to have their grapes processed elsewhere and returned to them as wine, which they wish to age and direct market themselves. No tasting room, just sales to local restaurants, wine shops, etc. Peninsula Township denied the use!
The second is a small-acreage lavender grower who wished to direct market lavender products like scents, soaps, oils, etc. This is an entrepreneur with an idea and her version of a roadside stand. A sauna on Lightwell Lavender was approved by the Township, but with conditions which eliminated the profitability of her business. The land and buildings were listed for sale!
The third is Local Yokels, who own the farm market at the corner of Gray Road and Center Road. The Bramers would like to use local products to make and sell baked goods, jams, jellies, apple cider, farm to table dinners, etc. Apparently, even though it is allowed under Michigan’s GAAMPs — Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices — under the Township zoning ordinance, it is not allowed without substantial investment in land and infrastructure.
The Bramers were eventually told that sales of their products would be allowed, but with no on-site tasting or consumption. Also, their proposed sign had to be amended to meet the Township ordinance.
It was then discovered that a Township board member was not only violating the sign ordinance with his old pickup, but also providing cider tasting along with donut and T-shirt sales at his farm market. Instead of enforcing the ordinance, it was and is still suspended. After two years and the purchase of additional land at great expense, the Bramers now have “permission” to open a farm market. Coincidentally, the old pickup is back on the corner of Wilson Road and Center Road.
Sales of agricultural products provide an incentive for farmers to plant more land, which is all most of us want. Agricultural entrepreneurs should be encouraged and allowed a reasonable building size and sales area. A five- or 10-acre winery, for example, would require limited tasting. If the business grows, provide reasonable guidelines for expansion, additional acreage and building size. If an entrepreneur wants to provide sampling of their wine, cider, pie, lavender, fresh cherries or apples, it is part of a marketing plan and should be encouraged.
Let’s stop the anti-winery rhetoric from getting in the way of all agricultural business. Any person with agricultural land should be able to process and take their finished product to market and sell it without months or years of bureaucratic delay and expense. If an entrepreneur has an idea for selling agricultural products, we should encourage and support them, not stand in the way.
If the business grows to need a larger facility, GREAT. Then provide guidelines and encouragement for growth and opportunity. Our rural landscape is then preserved, and agricultural land is being planted because farming is profitable.
– Jed Hemming, OMP Resident
———————-
Editor’s Note: After this opinion piece ran, I received a text from Isaiah Wunsch. Jed references Isaiah’s farm market on Wilson Road, including the Wunsch truck parked on the corner of Center Road and Wilson Road. Here is what Isaiah wrote:
“Hi Jane, Jed’s recent article mischaracterizes our farm market operation in several important ways.
- We have never sold cider or doughnuts for onsite consumption. He claims that we have offered “cider tasting and doughnuts,” which is simply not true.
- We sold t-shirts for about one week until I stopped by the market. I saw them for sale and advised Attia that it was in violation and needed to be stopped without any other outside pressure from the township.
- We operate under a more restrictive land use permit than Bramer’s. They are upset because they were not allowed to open a restaurant, which is not an allowed use under the farm market ordinance under which we both operate, but their LUP (Land Use Permit) is significantly more generous than ours.
As a public official, I have no legal protections from slander, but I would appreciate the public being accurately informed in your publication, even if Jed and friends lack the integrity to stick to the facts. I am disappointed in Jed and in the lack of fact-checking in your article since it explicitly attacks our family farm.”
Isaiah went on to say, “I appreciate what the Gazette does and am reaching out because I know that you would want the record to be set straight. I also appreciate that you are a one-woman show and that it’s not feasible to fact-check every story that hits your desk.”
I will add that while I fact-check reported news pieces that I myself write, Isaiah is correct in that I don’t have time to fact-check every opinion piece that comes in. I rely on the integrity of the writer to ensure that what they’re saying is true, and will do my best to keep the writer from being sued if they say something defamatory against another OMP resident. But these are opinion pieces, which I note at the top of each one. These are not *my opinions; they are the opinions of the writers who send them in.
Isaiah is also correct in that I want the information on the Gazette to be true and factual. If you see something that needs to be corrected, please send me a note, [email protected], and I will make the changes. I rely on the OMP community to help me out and be my field reporters, and appreciate all of you for doing that.
And, as always, if you have something to say, write it up in an opinion piece and send it over! -jb
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
The Township Board does not understand that you need a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker in order to support, public service institutions {Policemen, firemen, libraries, etc)
What the township board did to Erin Hafeli and her plans for her Lavender farm demonstrated township government at its worst. The Planning Commission approved her SUP for an accessory use but when it moved to the township board for final approval the board added a stipulation that she had to disclose financial P/L data (profit and loss) to prove that the lavender infused sauna was not more than 50% of her profit. So the township wanted her to publicly disclose her business financials. Can you imagine opening up your business data for all your competitors to view. This was preposterous and I have never heard of another Peninsula Twp SUP that requires such a clause. Our township board needs to start thinking about how to help our farmers as the author explains.
Over reach would be an understatement as I recall one of the requirements was that participants wear a bathing suit inside the sauna. Huh ! Who was supposed to police that and would Dave be making raids to see if they were complying. People do not realize the onerous demands that are placed on farmers who want to try new things or businesses that want to expand their business. These are one way demands. You do it my way or you don’t get your sup. That’s the way it’s been done.
At one time Jen Cram was demanding that Ben and Jennifer could only have a certain number of employees helping them make jam for example. How or why she came up with that number is beyond me other than a power trip which guides a lot of actions by a lot of people. Why should one person have this unchecked power and who is she to tell them how to run their business. She had zero business experience. Yet the board allowed her to go unchecked. Who can forget her unilateral letter to the liquor control agency regarding seven hills. That is the kind of letter that only the supervisor should sign and the board should weigh in on.
I know the board and many people here think that stymying small business here is a wonderful way to go to keep the peninsula a self contained sterile and unimaginative desert.
Of course if their own jobs or livelihoods were put in jeopardy it would be a different story. I’ve said it so many times wouldn’t it be nice if the township board said let us see how we can help you. A perfect example would be seven hills. Instead of jumping on them with the cry of you agreed to this or that how about this.
It looks like we were over regulating you and we recognize that some of these restrictions need some work to make things work for you. So let’s put a moratorium in place like we did for our supervisor ( after we tried to cite someone else for a de minimus sign violation and never cited the supervisor for a gross multi faceted set of violations) and see which of these conditions should be changed to help you succeed.
This place is becoming more and more like an HOA.
I’ve heard people complaining for example they don’t like the way the hoists on shore in the winter look. Eee gaads
their view of what a water community should look like makes me laugh. I can’t wait till they start pulling stunts like saying we can only paint our houses a certain color.
Love the example of the Hampton story the township placed in the packet for the meeting next week. Do they support people using drones to see if someone god forbid painted their roof white? Is this article a warning shot of where they want to go in further controlling our property rights which have been slowly eroded over time. Nothing surprises me any more with this current gang.
I’m confused by this article because it’s not based in fact at all and the author clearly has no understanding of the ordinances – even though he sat on the township board that approved at least one of the ordinances that got the township sued for over $200 million dollars and that my husband has worked tirelessly and in spite of unceasing personal and professional attacks to whittle down to its current level.
The lack of basic understanding of something Jed was professionally involved with is frankly concerning and it speaks to a past level of unprofessionalism, incompetence, and willful ignorance of prior boards that helps me to better understand how the township got into its current predicament. I’m appalled by the blatant lies that are allowed to be published and consumed as truth.
Per the ordinance, farmers are allowed to sell products that are made of their own crop. We went to great lengths to ensure that the cider and donuts that we sold were made from our own apples, and in order to comply which our land use permit, we offered them only for retail sale and off site consumption. Jed’s attack on my family farm is patently dishonest, but is at least consistent with the lack of integrity shown by the “pro-farmer” crowd who will gleefully attack and shut down any farmer who disagrees with them.
In addition, given the contention of signs and the lack of compliance by the same “struggling farmers” mentioned in the article, the truck was allowed. Why should one farm be penalized when all other farms have a blanket waiver from the township to do whatever they want with signage, including all fruit stands on Center Road who the author so easily “forgot to mention.” It’s a pathetic and targeted attack on a township board member who isn’t doing anything differently than other farmers and is actually one of the few farm stands to follow the ordinance in full about what is allowed to be sold, holding true to the ethos of a farm stand by selling almost all products produced by their own crop. I wonder if the author and his former township board peers are trying to deny their own culpability in the lawsuit since they passed the law that allowed the wineries to win $49,000,000, which will equate to $25,000 per household to pay in additional taxes, when my husband was still in high school. In addition, I also wonder why it would be such a personal and targeted attack against a farmer he has worked with for decades, but now sees fit to tear down because he has given up on farming.
Did you even read the article, Attia? Or did you let emotions take over when Jed briefly stated publicly known FACTS (and frankly OLD NEWS) about your sign debacle?
You have chosen to wildly over react PUBLICLY to an opinion article in which you were never mentioned and only vaguely referred to. The article had little if anything to do with you and instead fully supports businesses like the ones your family would like to continue to build. If you read it, you would know this.
It is rants like yours that make the peninsula a community that feels toxic rather than collaborative. It also cannot be making your family’s life any easier when you attack the character and integrity of generations of farmers and board members. Your father-in-law served this community beautifully and collaboratively, along side people he didn’t always agree with. These people have served our community not only to make this beautiful peninsula what it is, but to encourage thoughtful evolution of our small peninsula for future generations to THRIVE.
Opinions may differ but viciousness is completely unacceptable.
As it has always been- much love to the Wunsch Family. Your husband and I have a deeply rich history, as do our parents, and I hope we can continue to show respect to one another.
Better days ahead.
The above comment mentioned that Jed Hemming’s piece was full of lies. She pointed out two “lies”. the first one was that farmers could sell products made from their own fruit implying that Jed said they were not able to do that. That is not what Mr. Hemming said. He said that they were not allowed to MAKE and then sell their own products on site. This refers to Zoning Ordinance 201 which requires ANY processor to first have 50+ acres of land before they can process any amount of fruit products. At this point there is no ordinance to allow for small processors who own less than 50 acres of land. One was promised us two years ago when 201 was passed but to date no proposed ordinance has been put on the table.
Second she stated that Mr. Hemming was lying about her husband’s use of a truck as a sign for their pick your own operation. He was not calling for the sign to ne removed. He was just stating the fact that only until it was pointed out that his sign violated the sign ordinance that others were allowed to violate the ordinance as it was suspended.
Finally she stated that they were allowed to sell cider and donuts on site. Again Jed did not contest that fact he simply stated why were they allowed to do this and the Bramer’s were not allowed. I can’t speak for Mr. Hemming but I get the impression from his piece that he would approve everything the Wunches are doing to promote their farm business. He just wants all farmers to have the same opportunity and more.
If you are going to call someone out make sure you stick to the facts and not your interpretation of the facts.
It appears you like to *cherry pick* the words in his article. We follow the ordinance with the products we sell. Anyone else has the same right – if they are farmers and grow products, they can absolutely sell items that incorporate what they grow.
I’m just fed up of my family and family farm being singled out and held to a different standard than everyone else because it’s convenient for their narrative. From this article to posts directly bashing my husband to your wife standing up and disparaging my business, it’s ugly, untruthful and wrong in a small community.
It’s unfortunate that this beautiful peninsula has to be corrupted by such negativity and vitriol that gets posted on a daily or weekly basis hating and calling out individuals who won’t just “go along” – even if the residents have clearly vocalized that they don’t want commercial activity through polling and elections.
It also blows my mind that many of the people fighting for more commercial rights actually got PAID by the township residents to give up those very rights. So people already paid for easements restricting development but now you want people to pay you AGAIN – to the tune of $25,000 per person?
Once again you read words that were not written. No where did I say you should be held to a different standard. I said we all should be held to the same standard so that is the same as you saying you should be held to the standard used for the rest of us. In fact I closed my note by saying
As far as saying my wife disparaging your business again you are reading into her words something that was not said. It is on YouTube. Watch it again and tell me where she even mentioned your farm. Don’t make up things that are not real.
I will close by saying I approve of everything you are doing with your market and hope that in the future you and we will be able to do more.
I really appreciate this article and wanted to offer a perspective as someone who supports the balance between farmland preservation and the realities of running a farm today.
I believe Attia should be allowed to sell farm-branded T-shirts. That kind of promotional effort is part of how farms connect with their community and build recognition. The Michigan Right to Farm Act protects marketing activities when they’re part of the farm operation, and the state’s 2025 Farm Market GAAMPs clearly allow for promotional and educational efforts that are incidental to farm products. Selling a few shirts at a farmstand seems to fit well within that intent.
In the same way, Ben and Jen’s idea of a farm-to-table restaurant is something the state has also recognized as a legitimate farm-related activity. The 2025 GAAMPs specifically mention farm-to-table dinners and cooking classes as examples of what’s allowed. These kinds of uses help farmers engage the public, diversify their operations, and still stay true to the agricultural character of their land.
For anyone who’s curious, these guidelines are published by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and are updated annually. The Right to Farm Act and the GAAMPs were designed to protect and encourage modern, working farms—and that includes thoughtful, appropriate ways of reaching customers.
Let’s support farmers trying to do things the right way. Running a farm is hard enough without unnecessary red tape for activities that are already recognized and supported at the state level.