Opinion: Truth vs Myth and the Winery Lawsuit

Editor’s Note: OMP resident Lou Santucci maps out “5 Truths” in response to John Wunsch’s recent “8 Myths” story here. Read on for his thoughts, and if you’ve got something to say, write it up and send it to me, [email protected]. -jb

—————————–

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is finally accepted as being self evident.“ – Arthur Schopenhauer

Truth #1 – Protect the Peninsula (PTP) has no interest in compromise.

Their own website never mentions working with wineries or developers to find common ground. Here is their own statement on what the word protect means from their website: “Protect” – We defend the rights and interests of the Peninsula residents, land owners, and businesses through litigation and referendum when needed.”

Truth #2 – PTP undermines the small farmer.

From my brother‘s Gazette piece, “Farmers successfully convinced the township to support the small farmers by enacting an amendment to allow them to process 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 no small wineries were allowed.” So much for protecting the small farmers on the peninsula!

Truth #3 – PTP members often dominate Township meetings.

In particular, John Wunsch plays an outside role on many of them. In my view, the rewrite of Amendment 201 was substantially the result of the committee’s unholy alliance and dominance by the trio of PTP members John Wunsch and John Jacobs, along with former Township Planner Jenn Cram.

201 ensures that no new winery will ever be able to operate successfully. Worse, the Township has stated if ever an existing winery wants to amend their SUP, they will come under the draconian rules of 201, thus most likely putting them out of business.

I believe the dominance of that committee by PTP members ended up recommending provisions that were adopted by the Township Board over the objection of 90 percent of the Peninsula farmers. I often wonder if PTP’s plan was to ensure that its members sit on these committees in order to push their agenda that has been developed internally and, in particular, create ordinances that ensure wineries will not succeed.

In fact, 201 is subject to another lawsuit by a potential winery developer. Perhaps we will find out if PTP members’ dominance of committees had ulterior motives to promote PTP views rather than those more favorable to small farmers.

As a sidenote, the survey committee has as members John Jacobs, Treasurer of PTP, and Dennis Arouca, founding member of another anti-winery group allied with PTP. How do you think those survey questions will be framed when it comes to questions about the wineries?

Truth #4 – The meeting at St. Joseph Catholic Church shows that people can be led to believe the worst even when they have no knowledge of the facts.

I was there. I witnessed members of our community led by PTP objecting to a compromise of which they had no idea of what it entailed. Maybe PTP did. I do not know. At the end of the meeting or sometime thereafter, as I recall, it was said one reason for objection was that it was an all or nothing deal. Well, that is what a compromise is about, isn’t it? That’s what presumably had been discussed and when it was presented, of course it was not the time to renegotiate.

Perhaps we will learn the truth of what the Township’s lawyer had agreed to, presumably with some kind of Township agreement before that night. Both sides obviously spent many hours discussing changes, and it belies common sense to believe nothing had been laid on the table as possible points of agreement.

In fact, I found minutes of a citizens agricultural committee meeting of March 2022, where Township Clerk Becky Chown was forwarding a note from then-Township lawyer Greg Meihn in which he outlines that the Magistrate in charge of the mediation has adopted the Township’s view that they should take bites on the issues rather than trying to eat the entire meal at one sitting.

Accordingly, they were going to have attorney-only meetings on sets of issues. The meetings were to last approximately 90 minutes with the aim that the parties come to the meeting with their client’s position on the issue. The first set of issues were as follows:

1. Hours of operation.
2. Kinds of events and groups; in other words, what will be allowed in terms of events.
3. Limitation on numbers of people and events.

He went on to say that he would need to meet with Becky, the team, and citizens committee before then to get solid positions, (opening offer, best offer, walk away). So obviously, there were discussions and maybe positions agreed on these issues. Others may have been discussed in later meetings. What other bites were there?

Truth #5 – Farmers need to have continuous revenue streams to succeed.

The new ag committee, which thankfully does not have any PTP members, is composed of local farmers. It is struggling with the new realities facing Peninsula farmers. Perhaps solutions will be proposed that do not align with PTP’s viewpoints.

Maybe it is the farmers who are really carrying the mantle of protecting the peninsula. Thankfully, they are having robust discussions on the future of farming on the peninsula, including what is needed for it to succeed. It remains to be seen if PTP will support the recommendations of this committee.

– Lou Santucci, OMP Resident

(Read all winery lawsuit stories and opinions here. -jb)

Also Read…