To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP resident Todd Anson responds to Grant Parson’s opinion piece. He says constructive dialogue is key to resolving the winery lawsuit. Read on for his thoughts. -jb
I seem to have struck a nerve with a critic — Protect the Peninsula‘s long-time lawyer and spokesperson. Can you imagine calling for our community to come together to seek “an inspiring last chapter” to clean up this mess, as I did, and eliciting such a response?
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
His reflexive, tribal rancor is exactly as predicted and feared. Reconciliations that make meaningful differences usually require an olive branch of some sort, typically finding common ground.
The continued assault on the wineries, who need to be brought to the table, only further polarizes them. With his attitude, we can expect the next decade or more on our once tranquil Old Mission Peninsula to include more of the same. This would be sad, to say the least. Nobody “wins” through litigation. The wise use it to compromise. Somebody must deliver the foresight to rise above the fray and make solving this problem their top priority.
I won’t take his bait.
I believe I speak for the majority of Peninsula residents who want sensible, legal planning guidelines and to mitigate our $50 million liability. Like many who live here, I suspect, I don’t frequent or have friendships with the wineries. I simply want common sense to carry the moment and see nothing at stake here worth anything close to $50 million, despite the chaos my critic fears.
His response speaks loudly to me about exactly where the problem lies. It seems obvious that the shrill words he chose may well be those of our Township Trustees. If not, they should clarify themselves. He even speaks for Supervisor Sanders in voicing concern that the “wineries won’t play ball” with her. Who would, given the various tantrums they see?
It is equally clear to me, just as it was to the court, that we “went too far” in our governance. That doesn’t mean caving to the wineries. It does mean discussions are necessary. Lots of them, in fact. A compromise is rational and essential.
We should not expect the wineries, who have already prevailed in court with a record $50 million judgment, to come to the table while we continue to throw rocks at them.
I’ll be the first to give him credit if, as he asserts, his hand has contributed to OMP’s being a wonderful place to live. But, perhaps a constructive attitude with a dose of self-reflection might help him and others see that they are now part of the continuing problem. Mine are efforts calculated to encourage necessary dialogue.
-Todd Anson, Old Mission Peninsula resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
I do not want the quality of life of thousands of residents degraded by a dozen wealthy winery owners. Giving in to a bully is never a good policy.
100% 👍
Agree
No disrespect to Grant, but here are some corrections of fact –
1. Grant Parsons has not served as an attorney for Protect The Peninsula for many, many years – I believe decades.
2. Grant Parsons is not on the board of, or a spokesperson for, Protect the Peninsula. As a current Protect The Peninsula board member I provide these corrections of fact.
No disrespect to you or my critic, those were his claims in the sign off to his post, not my words. Thank you for clarifying, John.
I stand partially corrected. While, as I said, Grant has not served as Protect The Peninsula’s active attorney representing PTP in court for many many years, is not on the PTP board, and was not speaking on PTP’s behalf, as he indicated in this article, I am informed by PTP’s current attorney that he has served more recently in some pro bono consultation with her.
Totally agree
This attitude is why we’re here now!!
Time for change perhaps even in our leadership if they do not reproach this problem soon.
I’ve been watching from TC for years as this has unfolded. Although the township has some admirable goals, I believe the execution has been poor at times, and as one outside of the loop the outcome has looked likely for years. There are core principles of governance around consistency and fairness which township officials appear to have ignored. When boards ignore the advice of counsel and double down, the task of opposing attorneys is half done at the outset.
Regarding Mr. Parsons comments, it was disappointing to read such courtroom sophistry used in public debate. Using straw men to attack the views of someone who has a different view is beneath a trained litigator. Please save that for swaying a jury rather than against neighbors.
I also support our Township officials. The Wineries sued the Township/their neighbors and the Township had no choice but to respond. Township officials are working on behalf of the residents to honor the rural, agricultural nature of our community for which we residents pay taxes to support and from which the Wineries benefit. Again, thank you, Grant, for voicing the position of so many of us.
Curious statement by John. Would be interesting to know at what point was he providing”pro bono” advice to PTP. Was it while he was being deposed as a possible witness for PTP? Maybe PTP’s lawyer TJ will enlighten us further on this matter.