To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP resident John Wunsch maps out eight myths surrunding the ongoing winery lawsuit. Read on for his thoughts, and if you have something to say, write it up and send it to me, [email protected]. -jb
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth,” is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
So, in the interest of truth, let’s dispel eight myths surrounding the Peninsula Township winery lawsuit.
Myth #1: There have been no attempts to hold settlement discussions without lawyers.
Fact: In the last month, Township Supervisor Maura Sanders initiated discussions with four wineries. Those discussions halted when the wineries’ lawyer Joe Infante ordered the wineries to stop communication with her.
There have also been other attempts to hold discussions without lawyers. In January of 2021, the Township Board formed a citizen group to try to work things out without lawyers, and provided three seats for winery representatives, but they declined to attend or participate.
In August 2023, an independent group of citizen leaders invited Protect the Peninsula (PTP), Township representatives, and wineries to meet without lawyers. PTP and Township leadership both agreed to attend, but winery representatives refused.
And, in February 2025, a PTP representative called WOMP’s president three times to discuss a path forward and never received a response.
Throughout this years’ long process, PTP has been asked if they had interest in settling this outside the courtroom. With every query, PTP has without hesitation urged that if parties can be brought together, PTP will participate. No such efforts have been fruitful, but PTP remains ready to meet with anyone willing to talk settlement. Are the wineries willing to meet?
Myth #2: The wineries lost $50 million due to unlawful township restrictions.
Fact: Aside from dubious projections of how much business they might have done, that $50 million figure is based on gross profit, without deductions for staff and other costs of doing business. If they suffered any lost profits, it would have been net profit after costs were deducted, since they would have had to pay those costs. Their own expert witness testified that if expenses were deducted, the lost profits calculation would be 1/13th of $50 million, or about $3.8 million.
Also, to be clear, the wineries won the $50 million damages award under a “vagueness” theory, but the judge did not find it unlawful for the Township to restrict commercial events at wineries (yes, very confusing). Appeals are occurring for both of these — and many other — reasons.
Myth #3: The Township broke off talks with the wineries, leaving filing a lawsuit as the wineries’ only option.
Fact: The Township canceled the April 2020 meeting at the request of the wineries, due to their desire to focus on helping their businesses cope with Covid, with the understanding that talks would restart when the wineries were ready, as documented here. Without further contact, WOMP sued the Township in October 2020.
The wineries also had other options besides filing a lawsuit. Any one of them could have spoken at a Township Board or Planning Commission meeting. They could have asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider their plight. There are other options besides filing a federal lawsuit for $200 million.
Myth #4: PTP never offered a settlement proposal in the lawsuit.
Fact: Since the earliest days of the lawsuit, PTP has proposed multiple settlement offers and participated in multiple settlement conferences involving all three parties (wineries, township, and PTP). PTP has never objected to sharing any settlement offers with the public, believing the process should be transparent.
But, when a citizen submitted a FOIA request to see the summer 2023 settlement offers, the wineries successfully petitioned the court to seal all documents related to that settlement process. Why are they so afraid of us seeing their proposals?
Myth #5: The whole Township Board was cowed by PTP to unanimously reject the fabled settlement at a widely attended Township Board meeting in October 2021 at St. Joseph Catholic Church.
Fact: Nonsense. Hundreds of citizens attended and many spoke at the St. Joseph meeting. While none saw the settlement agreement, some spoke in support of the wineries’ position and some did not. A small number of PTP members also spoke to urge the Township Board to seek a reasonable resolution that did not undermine the Township’s long-standing zoning.
Those Township Board members are intelligent, dedicated stewards of our community who were presented with a proposal that (we later learned) had already been rejected in the mediation process by the Township Board participants. It is an insult to those board members to suggest they all wanted to accept that settlement but all reneged because of anything PTP members said.
Myth #6. The Township started this legal battle with the wineries.
Fact: The wineries started the lawsuit by filing in Federal Court against the Township on October 21, 2020. The Township was forced to defend a legal battle they did not start or want.
Myth #7: The Township Board agreed to a settlement they later rejected.
The Township’s attorney at the time, in a rogue action in 2021, without the approval of the Board or the Township Board mediation participants, gave his assent to the fabled (but still secret) settlement offer. Board approval, not simply that of an attorney, is required to ratify a settlement. That action, among others, is one reason why he is being sued by the township for malpractice.
As documented here, Township Clerk Becky Chown, states: “….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.”
The Board never approved any kind of settlement. Yet some members of the community insist otherwise.
Myth #8: PTP never supported anything having to do with the crafting of winery ordinances.
Fact: In 2001 and 2002, Protect The Peninsula encouraged and extensively supported the creation and passage of the then-new Amendment 139, the “use by right” processing ordinance, under which several of our wineries operate.
Additionally, in 2018 a PTP board member teamed up with the owner of a 139 permitted winery to support developing and passing of an amendment to expand the allowed size of the production area for wineries operating under the Amendment 139 use by right ordinance.
-John Wunsch, Old Mission Peninsula resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
It is not in the financial interest of the lawyers to advise the wineries to mediate. The solicitors know they have a big cash cow that can keep paying out if they can handle their business. I don’t think this is how our judicial system was supposed to work, but that seems how it has for the last several hundred years. With each step I feel more and more confused.
Here we go again with the myth busters stories. Well here is a question for you PTP board members. You talk about PTP being willing to negotiate. Tell us what can you possibly negotiate? You have no power whatsoever to direct our Planner and Planning Commission to get started on amending the zoning ordinance to correct the unconstitutional aspects. Why would the wineries negotiate with PTP at all? They might negotiate with the township board if in fact there is a promise or completion of zoning changes to correct the deficiencies. But PTP is irrelevant now.
Thanks John for cutting through the fluff (misinformation) the WOMP supporters are trying to project and manipulate the narrative (from the truth). They act like kings that should not have to abide by zoning regulations, (as the rest of us have to), because it affects their personal profits while the rest of us end up paying for the losses they perceive to have. They ignore years of planning for the future growth of OMP and the fact the residents here pay personal property taxes also to supported agriculture while maintain the integrity the Peninsula was founded on, all while calling us NIMBY. They demonize residents who have been long time investors and partners in the way of life on OMP but are so quick at tossing out our concerns for that of their own, (and I hate to say it but) all based on personal profits. Some of the very people arguing for unlimited growth on the peninsula are the same ones complaining about the traffic back ups in town because of the increased development and business expansion in rural OMP. If people want unchecked growth on OMP then get use to traffic back ups and delays in TC because the growth issues on OMP are not something the city can control or stop from happening. Wait times will just become a fact of life and all people coming on and off the peninsula will just have to accept the traffic mess the growth is creating here because there is nothing that can be done to change it with one road in and one road out, (unless Peninsula Drive and East Shore are made part of the traffic mix to absorb some of the traffic off Center Road). That’s just the reality of this and folks who don’t want traffic will have to realize traffic happens with growth and everyone living along any corridor and on OMP will be affected. The choice is yours but please stop calling the residents NIMBY for protecting the agricultural foundation and environmental integrity of OMP. Many have paid the price to support agriculture here and the way of life OMP was founded on.
Another piece with unknown fictional characters. Who is “they”? You use “they” over and over in your editorial. Your made up “they” characters are not real but you use them to try to create negative statements to justify your claims.
• Who is the they “who demonize residents” and what was this demonization?
• Who are the “some of the very people arguing for unlimited growth? I have never heard of anyone arguing for unlimited growth. In fact I have heard of people wanting to protect farmland and vineyards instead of developing more 5 acres subdivisions.
• Who is the they “calling us NIMBY”? Well Judge Malony did in his verdict.
• “They ignore years of planning ……?” Who is they and what are the years of planning? Do you mean amendment 203 opposed by over 40 farmers as anti farmer in 2022?
• “If people want unchecked growth then get used to traffic.” Well not they but who is the “people”? Have not heard of people wanting unchecked growth but I have heard people being proponents of looking for new and novel ways to help farmers remain or become profitable. Listen to the last Ag committee You tube,
Your editorial is void of real facts, figures, and data in an attempt to sway opinion of OMP residents.
I would like to propose a ninth myth about the Whinery lawsuit.
Wineries mentioned that the lawsuit wasn’t primarily about the money… Yet they sued their neighbors whom are farmers, families and retirees for $200M and won a judgement for $50M from a sympathetic judge. And, apparently that wasn’t enough. Wineries held out their hands and asked for an additional $8M from that same sympathetic judge to further be collected from their neighbors.
So I suppose the wineries motives are really about expanding their business so they can make more money and disturb the rights of their neighbors to quite enjoyment of their own private property… Which is shamelessly about the money…
Robert. Please identify which specific wineries(owners), the video/document that states it was not about the money, and the dates these statements were made prior to the lawsuit. I have not seen any official statement from any winery owner over the years so I may have missed the factual statements. Thanks.
Thank you, John. Township residents and our extended community need to know these important facts.
Susan
Perhaps you should read this as well. These are the true facts and not a helping of misinformation.
https://www.oldmission.net/2025/08/winery-lawsuit-truth-myth/#comment-111378
Subject: Response: Clarifying the “Myths” Surrounding the Winery Lawsuit
The Peninsula community deserves facts and transparency — not just from the wineries, but also from Township leadership and advocacy groups like Protect the Peninsula (PTP).
In response to the recent “Myth vs. Fact” piece by John Wunsch, I’d like to offer a few clarifications and context points that help residents form their own conclusions.
First, it’s true that multiple efforts have been made over the years to initiate informal or non-legal discussions. However, many of those efforts came after years of escalating conflict and entrenched positions. While both sides can point to unanswered calls or missed opportunities, the larger truth is that the relationship between the Township and wineries has long lacked a structured, transparent mediation framework — something that should have been in place before the issue reached federal court.
Second, regarding the $50 million in claimed damages: that number has been widely debated, and both parties have presented conflicting interpretations. What’s clear is that the federal judge awarded damages under specific legal theories — including vagueness and restraint of commerce — that point to legitimate flaws in the Township’s ordinance language. The question now is less about the dollar amount and more about how to prevent similarly costly exposure in the future.
Third, while it’s accurate that the wineries filed the lawsuit, it’s equally true that years of restrictive and inconsistently enforced zoning decisions created the conditions for litigation. The Township’s ordinances — some dating back decades — often conflicted with state law and modern land-use practices. Characterizing the Township purely as a victim ignores that reality.
Finally, the secrecy surrounding proposed settlements — whether initiated by the Township, wineries, or PTP — continues to erode public trust. If all parties truly support transparency, they should jointly agree to unseal past settlement documents and make future negotiations more open to public scrutiny.
At this point, residents are less interested in who’s “right” and more interested in how the Township plans to move forward — with fiscal responsibility, legal prudence, and community unity.