To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP farm owner Marc Santucci gives some backstory to the winery lawsuit, and says the Township Board should think about the economic interests of OMP residents. Read on for his thoughts, and if you’ve got something to say, write it up and send it to me, [email protected]. -jb
There has been a lot of misinformation regarding the positions taken by the wineries and the Township, and there are a lot of misunderstandings regarding the next steps in the lawsuit. Before discussing where we are, we need to better understand where we have been.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
I have been closely following the back and forth between the wineries and the proposed wineries (before they became wineries) and the Township since the mid 1980’s. I have also watched Protect the Peninsula‘s (PTP) role in the process.
In 1984, I moved to Michigan from Washington DC and was hired as the Director for the Office of International Development, Michigan Department of Commerce. Our office was responsible for promoting Michigan exports and attracting foreign investment to Michigan. One of my first acts as director was to put together a Michigan consumer products show at the Tokyu Department Store in Tokyo.
Michigan wines from vinifera grapes were in their infancy, and Ed O’Keefe, owner of Chateau Grand Traverse (CGT), was the godfather of this movement. We brought his wines to Japan and introduced them to a number of wine buyers. The problem for CGT was shipping costs and competition from much larger producers from around the world, not to mention that Michigan wines at that time were virtually unknown anywhere, including Michigan.
CGT did not have a lot of financial success during those early years. However, Ed showed others that a high quality wine could be made on Mission Peninsula. This led to other wineries like Chateau Chantal starting up. By the late 1990’s there was a desire on the part of several farmers and others to start up wineries.
While the motive may have been profit for some, I think others did it as a status symbol. The desire by others on the Peninsula to grow wine grapes and build wineries led to the need for controlling ordinances.
This led to the fight between PTP and those wanting to build wineries and farmers wanting to take advantage of another cash crop. This led to the famous tractor parade where most of the farmers on the Peninsula and those with winery interest paraded around the township in support of an inclusive winery ordinance.
An ordinance — Ordinance 128 — was passed in 1999. This would have allowed tasting rooms on as little as 15 acres. PTP organized a petition and then a referendum opposing Ordinance 128. As a result of the vote, the ordinance was overturned, and the opportunity to add value to their products was taken away from the farmers.
The result was that no small wineries were allowed. A new ordinance was then put in place requiring 50 acres for a winery chateau and 40 acres for a winery with limited ability to serve and sell wine and food. In addition, each time someone wanted to start a winery, he or she was required to meet Special Use Permit (SUP) requirements that were in addition to the requirements of the ordinance.
Over the next 15-plus years, the wineries individually and together would try to get the Township Board to address their concerns regarding the negative impact the SUPs and ordinances were having on their business.
However, all was not doom and gloom during this period. The nature of the business for wineries changed for the better. First, they were allowed to serve wine by the glass. Then the Liquor Control Commission overrode the Township and not only allowed, but required, wineries to serve food.
As small wineries, none of the wineries could rely on liquor store and supermarket retail business. Once there were more than a half dozen wineries, wine experiences became a major source of sales. The wineries became a destination for young and old adults alike. Summer and harvest time made up the greatest portion of sales.
In order to take advantage of their investments in infrastructure, wineries started looking to host events that would create opportunities to sell their wine. Because their SUPs and the ordinances did not provide a clear path for the wineries to take advantage of this opportunity, the wineries had to ask permission at least 30 days in advance each time they wanted to host an event. Often, these requests were denied.
From the wineries’ perspective, what was the difference between having 100 individuals stop in for a glass of wine and a small plate, or having 100 people come as a group to do the same thing? The feeling among the winery owners was that this was unfair, but how to address it? Some of the winery owners knew that what the Township was doing was unconstitutional, but by themselves none of them had the resources to fight the Township in Federal Court. Also, they knew it would be very time consuming.
In 2020, they had their lawyer put together a legal argument showing where the Township ordinances and SUPs were violating their constitutional rights. There was positive feedback at first from some on the Township Board and their attorney. However, once this got past the initial discussion stage, members of PTP stepped in and basically brow beat the board, reminding them of what happened in 2000. From that point on, negotiations went nowhere.
At this point, the wineries realized that discussions were not going anywhere as long as PTP was opposed. The nuclear option was the only option. The only question was, would all of the wineries participate in the lawsuit? Their exasperation level at that point was such that all of them agreed to take this course. They were willing to risk a lot of money — that not all of them had — in order to have the court address their grievances.
Thus the lawsuit was born. From this point on, I am not privy to any of the discussions between the Township and the wineries. I know eight of the winery owners and would consider myself friends with a few of them. To the extent I know them, I like all eight of them. I can tell you this, they would have never sued if they thought the Township would compromise with them. They knew this would be a long battle, five years and counting, and would have preferred negotiation over confrontation.
While they believed they were right in their grievances, they knew there was no guarantee that the court would find in their favor. Still, they risked their own money to take this matter to court. The Township Board risked the money of the citizens, not their own, so their decision to go to court was a political one, not an economic or justice one.
Becky Chown stated at the August 12 Township Board meeting that she knew the Township would lose as soon as they were sanctioned, but she also knew that they would win in the appeals court. The Township was sanctioned because the Federal Magistrate felt that the Township had walked away from an agreement. Becky says there was never an agreement of any kind, so she is calling the magistrate a liar.
I don’t know what I believe, but I can easily imagine that there was some kind of outline of an agreement and the Board asked their lawyer to wrap it up for them. Upon seeing the final details, they probably felt it did not reflect what they thought had been agreed to. I just can’t imagine the Judge sanctioning them for no reason whatsoever. I don’t know if we will ever know the real story.
So here we are between the Judge’s decision and the appeal. We don’t have the Township’s legal brief yet, so we can’t know what their thinking is regarding the appeal. Here is what I do know. They cannot appeal any of the facts in the case. They can appeal the judge’s decisions, but they must be based on his misinterpretation of the law. They can also appeal the size of the monetary judgment.
As I understand it, neither party to the suit can talk to the other party at this time. Almost always, the court will require both parties to mediate with the idea of coming up with a mutually agreed upon outcome. So what will each party bring to the table?
Remember, for the Board, this is political, and for the wineries, it is economic. Clerk Chown laid down the gauntlet, daring the wineries to collect their rightful compensation. That was a political statement playing to PTP and their ilk, not one intended to find common ground. The wineries have been silent, leaving open their options once the negotiating starts.
The question now is the same as it was in 2020 — how willing are the Township officials to negotiate, and what are the wineries looking for? Unless the Township officials show that they are truly ready to negotiate, mediation will be a dead end. Some, if not all, of our officials should publicly state that they are willing to do what it takes to meet the current concerns of the wineries for their present and possible future operations.
Right now, all we have heard from the Township is how bad the wineries are and how dare they take any money. This will not make the wineries cower after they just spent five years and two million dollars defending their rights.
No one should expect the wineries to give up anything if this goes beyond mediation. If the Township takes it to trial and loses again, I don’t expect the wineries to be in a giving mood.
We need our Board to think more about the economic interests of its citizens and less about their political or personal interests. There is a risk/reward for every option. Know what they are and what the odds for success are for each path.
Finally, one thing I have been impressed with is the depth and breadth of knowledge about different aspects of this type of lawsuit that is possessed by a number of our fellow citizens. Our officials would be wise to utilize their wisdom instead of blowing them off and only allowing them three minutes to impart their knowledge. I learned a lot in those three-minute vignettes, and they could, too.
– Marc Santucci, OMP Farm Owner
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Thank You Marc
We can use help from some of the skilled mediators currently offering their services in this mess!
I believe WOMP would really like a clear path to better footprint on their properties for current and future growth. The wineries could be viewed as a destination facility for a resident and summer guest.
This would benefit both the residents and township from a tax standpoint. Additional revenue would find its way for township improvements! Progress and change are constant and with the heavy-handed approach being a negative illegal path, lets move forward in a different manner.
Are you suggesting that the wineries (as destination facilities for residents and summer guests) be zoned commercial and thus pay higher tax rates?
I am saying that mediation with WOMP can result in benefits for all. Even physical growth in footprint size of facilities can be a win for all.
How would it benefit both the residents and township from a tax standpoint?
What about the rest of us that cant afford to pay the ‘tax’ associated with this. What about our peace?
Traffic already is getting crazy. The poisons associated with the wineries are not wonderful. Maybe the residents should get paid by the wineries for the loss of peace and healthy life style. Maybe we should think about suing the wineries.
Excellent article, I learned a lot about the history.
Marc, there’s a lot to discuss in this article. I’ll keep to the most glaring issues –
1. “As I understand it, neither party to the suit can talk to the other party at this time.” – Wrong, and has been rebutted many many times. FACT – The Township reached out continuously from the announcement of the judgment. That is a matter of public record. How did those discussions go? Pretty short since their attorney told the wineries NOT to talk with the Township. When it was proposed that the Township meet with the winery owners, they gladly accepted. WOMP response? Only our attorney will come.
Does this strike anyone as counter to the continued noise of ‘the wineries would never hurt the community’ and ‘it was never about the money ’?
I mean, seriously. Does anyone – who doesn’t have a direct benefit from being aligned with WOMP – really believe anything they have said?
2. “No one should expect the wineries to give up anything if this goes beyond mediation.” – You are 100% correct. In fact, they have continuously shown they WILL NOT GIVE ANYTHING up, in mediation, conversation, or otherwise, including the money they were awarded. Remember that “settlement” they presented – which you commented on? I’ve said before, complete smokescreen. There was no settlement, insofar as they likely gave ZERO and presented it as “all or nothing”. Otherwise, why hide it? Another very simple question NEVER answered.
3. “Our officials would be wise to utilize their wisdom instead of blowing them off and only allowing them three minutes to impart their knowledge.” – Who has been ‘blown off ’? Do you know who the Township has talked with or not? In fact, as publicly stated again, the Township has been more than open to discussions. Why has the WOMP attorney not allowed it? Because he wants his money, and he’s obviously the one calling the shots for WOMP.
Lastly – You still haven’t answered the question – do you stand to gain, in favor or material, with the success of the WOMP lawsuit? I imagine the answer is yes. Current example – you were listed as a party to the outrageous request by Bonobo to hold a COMMERCIAL FIREWORKS display for them (see recent Board packet). Commercial. Fireworks. Just when the community is trying to sort through everything, Bonobo decides it’s a perfect time to be good stewards and host a commercial fireworks display. You can’t make this stuff up.
I don’t fault WOMP for wanting theirs. I vehemently disagree, but that is their choice. What I do fault is all of the continued BS about how great community stewards they are and how they really don’t want to do anything bad to our community, how they want to talk, etc. The facts simply say otherwise.
Todd, Thank you for your continued interest in my thoughts and financial well being. I will try to answer all of your questions and respond to your thoughts.
First, with regard to you stating that I was wrong on whether or not the parties can talk outside of the appeals court process, you correctly quoted me as saying “as I understand it”. I never stated it as a fact. I believe it was the last Board meeting where Dave Sanger said he was not able to meet with the wineries and I think he said it was at the request of the lawyers for the insurance company. As to following the lawyers lead, don’t you think it makes sense for the wineries at this point to speak with one voice and who better to be the spokesman than their lawyer. As for believing anything they have said, with a few exceptions, they have not said anything. On the other hand Township officials and PTP have not stopped talking and demonizing. Not a very good policy if you want to have a serious negotiation. Once the broad issues are covered by a broad agreement I would imagine each winery would then have their own discussion with the Township on issues germane to them.
As to your number 2, there is no reason to let everyone know what they were willing to give up way back then, as everyone would assume that they should go back to that position. So not a good tactical move to let that out at this time. I would hope that when this whole thing is over we all learn exactly what happened back then. It won’t change anything but it would satiate my curiosity.
3. No I do not know who the township has talked to. If you do, please let the rest of us know so we can feel better about what they are doing.
Now to the question you seem to feel the need and right to know: Do I stand to gain with the success of the lawsuit. My answer is it all depends. My and my wife’s biggest investment is our farm. As a result of Ordinance amendment 201 my property has lost significant value, especially the PDR part of my farm. So instead of a winery or other food processing facility being the highest and best use of my property, it is the ten houses I or someone else can build. I believe a winery would be better for everyone, but with the changes in our ordinances it is no longer a profitable alternative. However, in order for me to benefit, the wineries would have to negotiate something with the township that would be beneficial to me and other farmers.
As to me being listed as a party to the Bonobo request to have “commercial” fireworks. Well, I was called by the person who was going to put on the ten minute fireworks display asking me if he could launch the fireworks from my property so it would light up over the winery’s land. I was not getting paid anything except I would be able to enjoy the spectacle from my deck. I told him that I would be happy to oblige. I also told him that I often speak truth to power and it was very likely that if my name was attached to the request it would be denied. True to form it was denied, but if those who denied the request thought they were targeting me, they missed. I could have cared less if it took place or not.
Also, just this past weekend, I was asked by a neighbor if he could use my tractor for a project that his tractor could not handle. Also, this weekend I was asked by another farmer if he could use my cooler to store his peaches and plums as his had broken down. In both cases I said yes as that was the neighborly thing to do and is done here in the farm community. But you see only a financial ulterior motive. I guess with you it is all about self and not service.
Marc, thank you for writing this!
Todd. A few thoughts:
1. During the 7/14/25 township meeting, Maura emphatically stated the wineries can come to the township. At a later board meeting the board members claimed they were not allowed to discuss anything about a settlement (they’d go to jail) & it was up to their lawyers. However, Maura claimed she reached out to several wineries yet did not disclose which wineries (owners), the dates or specifics about what was discussed. Also, why is a farming entity who has ties to a winery vilified? Thought the township wanted the wineries to buy local grapes & support its growers. Growers rely on local personnel & management services to grow quality grapes. These local growers certainly benefit as the goal of growing grapes is to make money. Also please provide actual statements on all the things the wineries have “said” over the years.
2. How can you state for FACT that the wineries have shown they will not give up anything? I thought mediation & settlement discussions were confidential? Please provide the factual statement where the wineries indicated they would not give up anything awarded by the court. Making a statement that claims the wineries will “likely” give zero is total speculation.
3. Again, you must have details about who the township talked to so please give the details. Interesting how the board cannot talk about potential solutions (only their attorneys can) but you expect WOMP to do so without representation.