Opinion: End the Division, Work Together as a Community

Editor’s Note: OMP resident Todd Anson says it’s time to end the division and work together as a community again. Read on for his thoughts. -jb

I’ll begin with a “thank you” to Jane Boursaw for sharing her article. It helps us all better understand the stakes here, which for the residents of OMP are now becoming clearer.

We’d better begin preparing for dire consequences on OMP unless we get this lawsuit settled through making non-economic trade-offs.

At the same time, Protect the Peninsula’s (PTP) role as instigator and intervenor is coming into focus by virtue of the attorney for Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) filing for attorneys’ fees. Resting at $2.1 million+ on a discounted basis, but rising, the wineries’ counsel has requested reimbursement of $3 million in legal fees. Meanwhile, interest on the judgment continues to accrue, adjusting at 1 percent over the five-year Treasuries rate every six months. Think, “about $6,000 per day.”

There is a new twist. Sometimes things backfire. Judges often stick losing parties (namely us — the township) with the prevailing parties’ attorneys’ fees. The wineries have now spent $2.3 to $3 million. But, thanks to their meddling — PTP, not us — the township residents might now find themselves on the hook jointly and severally for a large share or even the entire $3 million. That is exactly what the wineries’ counsel has proposed in its brief.

(See the filing documents here: WOMP’s petition for attorney’s fees, a Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Prejudgment Interest and Attorneys’ Fees, a Bill of Costs, and a Third Declaration of Joseph M. Infante, WOMP’s attorney. View all court filings on the Township website here. -jb)

That would be a sweet irony for PTP. This shift to PTP from us, neighbors, might be fair given PTP’s high handedness. The risk will surely make the list of those claiming to be members of PTP more cautious.

Our interventionists, PTP, now have a direct conflict with each of us, their neighbors and suddenly now with the Township council, whose strings it has arguably been pulling. Not only are they gambling with millions of our taxpayer money, they now need to work a near legal miracle, a complete reversal on appeal, or risk paying also some or all of the $2.1 – $3 million legal bill for the wineries. That might be fitting given the role they’ve played here.

Even if they get stuck with only an allocated portion, PTP risks possible bankruptcy in scrambling to cover its obligations. And, this assumes PTP doesn’t also get sued itself (which might trigger its own Errors & Omissions policy coverage, a good thing). I would certainly recommend that Township counsel and/or residents explore that option unless we get this resolved. That would likely entail much deeper scrutiny of the relationships between PTP and our council members.

In the interest of “full daylight,” it would be very useful to post (from the already public property tax assessments) our council members and PTP’s estimated shares of the judgment amount so the public knows the personal motivation of each of our decision makers. I’m happy to see that math as it applies to Terri’s and my property if someone knowledgeable would calculate it. Anyone who cares to perform that math exercise has my encouragement.

The leaders of PTP may now have successfully placed PTP itself in jeopardy. This is a small group facing a large liability over and above the $50 million confronting the rest of us. Is this smart? PTP has made a strong “no growth at any reasonable expense” impact here. But, it is not going well for either us or PTP at this point. Now might be exactly the time to take stock of what PTP has already accomplished, re-align with the rest of the OMP residents in finding middle ground with the wineries, and unite forces with us in maximizing all third-party insurances available.

“Liability follows control; control follows the money” is a legal maxim learned in Corporations Law. Right now, the council has a chance of convincing the court that PTP deserves the lion’s share of the nearly $3 million in the wineries’ legal fees exposure because of the control it has exerted over the Township. Inevitably, there will be a fight between PTP and the Township shifting responsibility and blame on this point. There may well be a fight within PTP over how it takes the hit. The Township staying in bed much longer with PTP likely shifts some responsibility for these attorneys’ fees back to the Township.

My thoughts about all of this started with application of the Rule of Reason — “common sense.” I’ll end with a common sense idea. Let’s start working together, PTP and OMP residents. The prudent approach might be for PTP to have a strategic change of course. It might acknowledge the obvious exposure it’s facilitated, scramble to preserve itself, withdraw from the melee it precipitated and align with us, the residents, on settlement.

Pursuing the various Township Directors & Officers and law firm malpractice insurers alongside us, as neighbors, and bringing to the table as a starting point for discussion the proposed settlement terms previously in place, if any, that PTP apparently helped disrupt, would be a meaningful place to start. Doing so would reveal where the Township council stands.

Would it be on board or unruly in such a case? My guess is more the latter, but it’s time for each Councilmember to take a public stance. None have. It is quite incredible that facing this liability tsunami, John Wunsch appears to be distracted by writing his version of history around the broken settlement and not on the settlement we so sorely need. It is far more important to know where he and the board stand on wiping out the $50 million obligation they stuck us with.

Let’s end the division. Let’s work together as a community again. This won’t be the last big challenge we all have to address together. Let’s make it the one we handle the best from this point forward.

-Todd Anson, Old Mission Peninsula resident

Also Read…