To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Grant Parsons responds to a recent opinion piece by Todd Anson, and says that Township trustees should be applauded for defending residents’ quality of life. Read on for Grant’s thoughts. -jb
In a recent opinion piece on Old Mission Gazette, a letter-writer blames Peninsula Township Trustees for not “aligning” with the wineries to end the WOMP lawsuit. He seems to believe all that’s needed is for the Township to “engage the wineries.”
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
He obviously missed the recent Town Hall meeting where Supervisor Sanders reported she tried exactly that – she offered to discuss the lawsuit with WOMP wineries, but WOMP’s attorney called and told Sanders to stop talking to his clients.
Blaming Trustees is an epidemic among WOMP winery supporters. The letter-writer mistakenly blames Supervisor Sanders for not doing something WOMP prevented her from doing. The letter-writer’s essay contains numerous other mistakes.
He wrote this: “Aligning means blocking out the damages issue and working through an amended ordinance …”
Translation: The Township shouldn’t worry about WOMP’s $50 million demand; Trustees should just change the zoning ordinance the way WOMP wants, and trust WOMP to work out the money issue later.
The letter-writer should understand that changing the zoning ordinance to please WOMP isn’t legal; amending a zoning ordinance requires a legal process, public hearings, possibly a referendum.
The letter-writer mistakenly implies settlement with WOMP is a simple matter. He apparently doesn’t know what WOMP wants – the “5 acre Plan.” WOMP demands the right to build wineries on 5 acres of farmland, plus restaurant and bar facilities with 2 a.m. closing times, plus “no maximum building size,” plus 6 additional single family dwellings per 5 acres, plus 20 guest rooms, plus weddings with live music (“both indoors and outdoors”), plus “other forms of entertainment.”
Then there’s the cherry on the sundae – “all activities allowed under Federal and Michigan law without any approval of the Township.”
WOMP wants to commercialize Peninsula agriculture and hand over Peninsula Township’s future zoning to State and Federal officials. No input from neighbors or Trustees. Does the letter-writer really believe WOMP’s “5 acre Plan” is right for the Peninsula? Why did WOMP wineries buy agriculturally-zoned farmland if they want to operate restaurants and bars? Why didn’t they buy commercial land, or toddle into Traverse City and open a bar?
The answer is clear as a bell: WOMP wineries want to operate in – and exploit – the world’s most beautiful, taxpayer-funded, PDR-protected setting on Old Mission Peninsula farmland.
Has the writer considered how WOMP’s “5 acre Plan” would impact neighbors – neighbors who pay property taxes, who voted for farmland preservation, who raised $25,000,000 in taxes and grants for PDR to pay farmers to keep farming? Does he think Township Trustees should turn their back on the residents who created all that?
Does the letter-writer have any understanding of the 40-year history of Peninsula Township’s land use planning – the elections, the amendments, the winery lawsuits, the bumpy road that successive Trustees smoothed out to arrive at the current wonderful community? Peninsula Township may be the most farm-friendly suburban township in the United States.
Before he scoffs at that truth, the letter-writer should consider the suburban nature of Peninsula Township. This is not the wild west or the open plains; this is a township where residential homes stand side-by-side with farms. Farmers have rights, but residential owners have rights, too.
WOMP’s “5 acre Plan” with its late night amplified outdoor music, outdoor lighting obliterating the summer sky, wedding drunks enjoying a loud sing-along is not real farming. It’s exploitation. The “5 acre Plan” wants to turn the Peninsula into a backdrop, a stage-setting for greed.
Does the letter-writer know that two WOMP wineries are on land that received $750,000 in PDR money? Does he know those WOMP properties have conservation easements permanently preserving the property for farming and open space?
The writer seems to make light of farmland preservation and open space. He writes, “What intrigues me as these forces boil over on the OMP is that tensions around the ‘Holy Grail’ of ‘open space’ uses — agricultural use — has created a $50,000,000 liability for us all.”
Preserving farmland didn’t cause a $50,000,000 liability; WOMP wineries with their blue-chip lawyers caused that. Instead of being sarcastic, the letter-writer should try to understand the reason Township residents voted to spend $25,000,000 to preserve farmland. It’s not just an aesthetic issue; the American Farmland Trust study showed real farming reduces infrastructure expenses, reduces over-development, reduces everyone’s tax burden.
The letter-writer should review WOMP’s pattern of conduct. WOMP wineries were always quick to take advantage of incentives given by the Township. They pay less to buy farmland than commercial property costs; they get lower property taxes because of their farm status; two properties took PDR funds; all the WOMP wineries enjoy the rural culture and beauty captured by surrounding PDR properties. WOMP is like a spendthrift heir who hasn’t a clue where the silver spoon came from.
Before the writer insists Trustees give-in to WOMP’s “5 acre Plan,” he should think about Township Trustees’ duty to represent ALL residents. Old Mission taxpayers voted for PDR, voted for farmland zoning, because they wanted to live in a rural community with lower property taxes. It’s unfair to blame Township Trustees for doing their job. Residents wanted them to stop the commercialization of farmland.
From what he wrote to the Old Mission Gazette, it’s apparent the writer has ties to WOMP wineries. He should use his winery contacts; ask his winery friends why, if they want to change the Township zoning, they won’t do it the way it’s always been done – apply for rezoning, let residents speak and, if necessary, vote on a new zoning ordinance. He should ask them why WOMP doesn’t act like part of the community instead of hiring a downstate law firm to sue neighbors for $203,000,000.
Here’s another question he might ask his winery friends: If the Township relaxes zoning rules to allow WOMP to start commercial uses of farmland, will WOMP refund the PDR money and refund the property tax they ducked by falsely claiming to be farms?
Or how about this question: Does WOMP want to be the only ones to commercialize farmland, or will it support all farmers commercializing their property? Exactly how many commercial wedding sites does WOMP think the Peninsula – with its 2-lane roads and limited infrastructure – should allow?
The OMG letter-writer goes on to blame Trustees for what he calls a “litigation is the answer” strategy. That is pure chutzpah. WOMP filed suit; the Township Trustees aren’t the ones who filed suit. Trustees were negotiating with WOMP when WOMP suddenly filed suit. WOMP ambushed the Township while COVID was rampant and Township offices were partially or totally closed. Township officials were working from home. The only party guilty of having a “litigation is the answer” strategy is WOMP.
The writers’ misinformation isn’t limited to blaming Trustees; he goes on to blame residents for “vilifying” the wineries. Residents are criticizing WOMP wineries for suing their neighbors for $203,000,000. Residents refuse to buy WOMP’s mediocre wine or visit WOMP tasting rooms. And the letter-writer thinks that’s unfair. Really? After WOMP threatens neighbors with financial ruin, WOMP wants to be loved? Poor babies, that’s not the way it works when you threaten your neighbor with financial ruin.
The letter-writer says Trustees should surrender the Township’s farmland preservation plan. He wrote, “That means a new ordinance must be forged, including some painful ‘giveups’ by PTP before the money and insurance matters get settled.” In other words: “Surrender.” Surrender PDR, SUP, farmland preservation, the 40-year history of Peninsula Township’s innovative land use planning. Let the “5 acre Plan” become the rule on the Peninsula, even if it means every greedy developer opens a wedding and events site, operates a bar or restaurant with amplified music until 2 a.m. “Giveups” is easy to say, but it’s not so easy to live next to.
Let me propose the letter-writer do something that might actually move the needle in this dreadful WOMP lawsuit. Instead of blaming Trustees for defending residents’ beautiful quality of life, the letter-writer should ask his winery friends to take a step toward settlement. Ask WOMP’s downstate lawyers to allow Supervisor Sanders to speak to the wineries; tell the Peninsula public what “giveups” WOMP is willing to make to achieve settlement. Tell the Peninsula public – is the “5 acre Plan” still WOMP’s “take-it-or-leave-it” demand?
If WOMP hopes to ever again regain any credibility in the Peninsula Township community, it must make a showing of good faith. The letter-writer probably will say “giving the other side a good faith offer isn’t the way lawsuit negotiations work.” The obvious response to that is simple: Neighbors suing neighbors and threatening financial ruin isn’t the way it works, either. WOMP broke the Township’s zoning code. If you break it, you own it. If WOMP has any hope of cleaning the mud off the wineries, they’re going to have to start scrubbing.
From the type of misinformation the letter-writer uses to make his argument, his bias is clear. He makes a strange comparison between Old Mission and his native home in Coronado, California. He says Coronado has been “sent reeling” by a California law requiring 1,000 new residences. For some reason, he thinks that means Peninsula Township should settle with WOMP.
That’s an attenuated argument only a sophist could love. And it’s an argument that misses two key facts: Avoiding a thousand new residences is precisely why Old Mission residents adopted PDR – to preserve farmland and prevent over-development. The second key point he misses is this: California “wine country” is in complete agreement with Peninsula Township. Like Peninsula Township, California outlawed weddings and commercial events on wineries:
NAPA County in 1990 passed the Winery Definition Ordinance, seeking to preserve the area’s agricultural character by limiting wineries to events “directly related to education and development” of wine consumers, such as tastings and gatherings of club members. “Examples of cultural and social events that are not permitted,” the county wrote later in an explanation of the code, “include weddings, wedding rehearsals, anniversary parties, and similar events where the education and development of consumers is subordinate to non-wine-related content.” (San Francisco Chronicle; Aug. 29, 2025)
California got it right by prohibiting weddings and commercial events, just like Peninsula Township got it right. Why didn’t the letter-writer mention that?
Too much misinformation, too much unfair blame-shifting has been dumped on Peninsula Trustees. They should instead be congratulated for defending residents’ quality of life.
Finally, I want to allay some of the “sky is falling” attitude that is being promoted by WOMP’s supporters. The sky is not falling, and it is highly likely the sky will not fall. While it is possible WOMP will win the appeal, it is far more likely that the Township will win. We all have seen the wretched TV commercials of lawyers sitting in front of walls full of books. Those books are all appeals opinions – some won and some last. The Township needn’t fear the thought of a poor trial court opinion.
Having clerked for a federal judge in the same court where WOMP filed suit, and having litigated many civil rights cases in that same court, I am shocked by the Opinion the judge wrote about WOMP’s case. The Opinion has an attitude that is different than any federal Opinion I’ve ever read.
The judge wrote (and I quote his word) that he is “deaf” to the Township’s documented history of farmland preservation. The judge wrote (and I quote his words again) Protect the Peninsula (PTP) is a “NIMBY opposed to all development” – a silly misinterpretation of Township history. The judge wrote that WOMP didn’t submit financial documentation to support its damage claim, but then he proceeded to award $50,000,000 theoretical damages.
Most uninformed of all, the judge wrote that he accepted WOMP wineries’ claim that they could hold weddings and serve meals without adding any overhead – an absurdity. The judge didn’t do the basic analysis that every business does – reduce revenue by off-setting costs. The judge just skipped the usual analysis.
This judgment is unprecedented both in terms of judicial attitude and damages. The Opinion will raise red flags in the appeals court, and will cause the judges and clerks to be skeptical about how and why $50,000,000 was awarded. They will find gaping holes in the Opinion: There is no realistic damages analysis. There is no meaningful analysis of 40 years of Peninsula Township planning, or WOMP wineries’ Special Use Permits, or two wineries’ PDR easements that cost the taxpayers $750,000, or the $25,000,000 taxpayers raised for PDR to preserve farmland, or the 3,000 acres saved from development.
What will the clerks and judges make of the failure to address the Peninsula’s partnership with American Farmland Trust and the Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy stewardship? What will the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals do? I believe it will discern bias and reverse the ruling. (Just like it reversed the judge’s original denial of PTP’s intervention.)
WOMP’s lawsuit is wrong, and the Township is right to defend against it. WOMP’s “5 acre Plan” would fundamentally alter Peninsula Township’s quality of life. Trustees are right to reject the “5 acre Plan.” Supervisor Sanders offered to discuss settlement, but WOMP’s attorneys wouldn’t allow it; shame on them.
After all the stress WOMP wineries have caused their neighbors, if WOMP has any good faith interest in settling, WOMP must make the first move. Township Trustees should not give any credence whatsoever to the misinformation in the letter-writer’s essay.
(Disclosure: After living for more than 35 years on Old Mission Peninsula, we recently moved into Traverse City to be closer to kids and grandkids. I am not a member of PTP, but I represented PTP in the past and, in the current case, answered questions in a sworn deposition about the history of Peninsula Township’s land use planning and litigation. This essay has not been authorized or reviewed by PTP or any representative. This is my personal opinion about the issues and facts referenced herein.)
– Grant Parsons
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Excellent analysis, Grant. Hold the line, trusteees. Thanks, Maura.
You are entitled to your opinion. One point stands out though. Your implication that there is something wrong with a lawyer not wanting to have his clients talk to the opposing side. As a personal injury lawyer, Grant I guess you would find it OK if your client talked to the defendant themself or the defendant’s insurance company without you. Of course your take might be lower but as I say I guess you find that ok.
And what’s wrong with referring to Todd by name. Calling him the letter writer is an attempt to characterize him as a non person. I can think of names to refer to you other than your actual name and they are pejorative names for personal injury lawyers.
Finally, the 5 acre situation would help many small farmers out here. And no not every farmer with five acres would open a winery. They might open a maple syrup operation, or a cider operation for example. There are so many economic head winds against farmers these days what we need is people who look to help them allowing different opportunities. Instead we have people like you that will happily see the farmers fail as long as you have your piece. I understand though that you no longer live on OMP so you are no longer impacted by the goings on out here. But I do want to wish you enjoyment with your grandchildren. They will give you lots of joy.
Thank you for your time preparing and presenting this piece Grant Parsons.
Your summary and clearly articulated statements of facts and principles in the OMG piece coupled with many unanswered questions are worth reading and rereading by Peninsula Residents.
I too have difficulty understanding this judge’s strange and powerful bias against the Peninsula, PTP and what in view of my experience looks very much like a very unusual and reckless opinion.
I too am among the many supporting our Township Trustees.
Joe Gorka
Peninsula Township
I agree, well said. And of course, thank you Grant Parsons!
I am so thankful for Grant Parson’s letter which lays out the situation clearly and honestly. I agree wholeheartedly. I have had many similar thoughts, without the expertise that Grant brings to this opinion piece.
I am a small business owner, running a B&B on the OMP; I’ve live here for 46 years. When I explain the lawsuit to guests who inquire about it, they are dumbfounded to a person. And, they think the WOMP expansion will ruin the special nature of this unique place. So do I.
Mr. Parsons,
Thank you for writing a piece that perfectly articulates how many of us feel but struggle to convey. Your words reflect not only a command of history and law but also the moral courage to defend community values—something increasingly rare in public discourse.
What I found most compelling was how clearly you cut through the misplaced blame. Pro-winery voices keep pointing fingers at Township Trustees, but as you rightly remind us, it was WOMP that filed suit, WOMP that set the terms, and WOMP that shut down dialogue. Blaming Trustees for “not aligning” is corrosive and false.
Even more powerful was your dissection of the so-called “5 acre Plan.” You are absolutely right—this is not farming, it is commercialization. And commercialization on this scale is not just a threat to Old Mission’s farmland, it mirrors what we’re already watching unfold in Traverse City: small-town character giving way to high-rise condos, office buildings, and developments that serve profit over people. Land once meant for farming and community is being swallowed up by the “big guys,” leaving behind little more than a backdrop for greed.
Finally, your insights on the judge’s opinion were eye-opening. To see a federal ruling so dismissive of 40 years of farmland preservation—and to award $50 million in damages without even a serious financial analysis—was staggering. As you say, it will not withstand scrutiny on appeal, but your analysis highlights just how flawed and biased that opinion was.
So let me offer my gratitude: for dismantling the misinformation, for naming commercialization for what it is, and for standing up for residents who have sacrificed to preserve the character and quality of life on Old Mission. Your words give strength to those of us determined to protect this place we call home.
With respect and gratitude.
Thank you, Cary, for your thoughtful response. I agree!
Bravo Grant for your well thought out critique of the recent WOMP supporter opinion. Most people on the peninsula agree with you and are getting tired of the WOMP drama. WOMP seems to think they are the only ones in the room when in reality they are the angry babies in the and box throwing tantrums over not having enough toys. Ruining what is important to peninsula residents, who have spent decades working to protect and financially supporting (the agricultural integrity of OMP), is getting old. Keep preaching my friend!
Grant:
Thanks you for taking the time to detail this issue. Your thoughts are spot on.
M. Mason
Thank you, Grant. Well articulated and expressing how so many of us see the situation. We support our Township Officials, who have listened to the majority of residents and are working on our behalf.
Well said Grant! We live in a very special place. There are other business owners living and working on OMP that have warehouses and workshops “in town” where it’s legal and would not dream of subjecting their neighbors to traffic and events etc. and the demands of lost sales $$ . . .
Something to share again:
The Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy has a postcard with aerial photos and captions: “Old Mission Peninsula: 17,856 acres – 5,500 acres protected forever” and “Manhattan Island: 14,694 acres – Central Park’s kinda nice…”
Grant Parsons states in his opinion piece that, “The letter-writer mistakenly implies settlement with WOMP is a simple matter. He apparently doesn’t know what WOMP wants – the “5 acre Plan.” WOMP demands the right to build wineries on 5 acres of farmland,……..” I do not know where Grant is getting this from. I believe it to be an incorrect statement to try to gain sympathy for PTP and our Township government’s failed position. Nowhere can I find any written information about the “5 Acre Plan” attributed to WOMP. In 1999 the township passed amendment 128 which allowed for a 15 acre piece to be eligible for a special use permit ( with at least 5 acres in grapes ). This was repealed in Aug of 2000 by a citizen referendum vote. Later in 2002 WOMP was originated. So how could they have been a part of something that happened in 1999? And it was 15 acres not 5. Additionally if you look at the findings of case 1:20-cv-1008 issued by Judge Maloney dated July 7, 2025 there is no mention of a 5 acre plan. Please keep to factual statements in trying to defend your opinion. There is no place for misinformation in this important matter to our citizens. Regards, Curt Peterson
I just have to say this…as you drive into town on Center Rd., count every vineyard. Now imagine a housing development in the place of each vineyard. That’s what will destroy this lovely Peninsula with 2.5 cars per house, 365 days a year. Is that what we want? I see that as our only other choice if the wineries were not here.
Becky, the Purchase of Development Rights Program is an alternative. We township residents have taxed ourselves with 3 millage votes to buy the right to develop homes on agricultural acreage.
Question for everyone. Actually two. What about farmers who have nothing to do with an alcohol tasting room? When you shop at stores do you know what is required for farmers to get their products into those stores and even farmers markets (be it in their raw form or “processed”)?