To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Chris Baldyga, owner and general manager of 2 Lads Winery, writes that the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) are not looking to commercialize the OMP. Rather, they are deeply committed to preserving the agricultural character of the community. “What we want are fair, clear, and consistent rules that allow farms to stay viable while continuing to respect our neighbors,” he writes. Read on for his thoughts. -jb
As a vineyard owner and fellow community member, I wanted to take the time to address a recent opinion piece that suggested the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) is looking to commercialize our beautiful land. That description is not only wrong, it is harmful to our community and out of step with the facts.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
The Old Mission Peninsula is one of the most unique pieces of agricultural land in North America. For generations, this peninsula has been one of the most important farming areas in Michigan. We are deeply committed to preserving that character. The vineyards and orchards you see today exist because families have invested in keeping this land productive and beautiful, not paving it over.
Wineries are not outsiders exploiting preservation programs. We are farmers and business owners who are deeply invested in this land, as many of our families have been for generations. The wineries are proud stewards of the peninsula’s natural and cultural heritage. Our work helps protect the scenic views, open space, and rural character that make Old Mission special. What we want are fair, clear, and consistent rules that allow farms to stay viable while continuing to respect our neighbors.
And we are your neighbors. We live here. We raise our children here. We shop at the same stores and care about the same roads, water, and fields. The goal has never been to change Old Mission’s soul. It is to make sure that farm families can continue working this land for generations to come.
Like many farmers across the Peninsula, wineries have long raised concerns that the Township’s current approach to agriculture makes it difficult to sustain a living from the land. The amount of property required to start or expand a farm is excessive, and restrictions on processing and selling what farmers grow make success nearly impossible unless you already have significant resources. These limits also prevent farms from adapting or diversifying during challenging seasons or market shifts. Together, these barriers threaten the future of agriculture on Old Mission more than any farmer ever could.
Calling Old Mission “the most farm-friendly suburban township in the United States” means very little if the policies in place make it harder for farm families to survive. The goal is not to make anyone wealthy, but to ensure that farmers have a fair chance to make a living in an industry full of uncertainty. Supporting that future should be something we can all agree on.
Finally, the recent court ruling did not create new rights for wineries. It affirmed basic constitutional protections that apply to everyone, including farmers. You can disagree with the outcome and still respect the process, but constitutional rights cannot simply be set aside because they are inconvenient to enforce.
Old Mission deserves honest, forward-looking conversations that focus on solutions, not divisions. By working together, we can protect farmland, support farm families, and keep our community thriving for generations to come.
– Chris Baldyga, owner and general manager of 2 Lads Winery, president of WOMP, and an alternate member of Peninsula Township’s Agricultural Advisory Committee
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Chris, I appreciate the desire to evolve and be able to co-exist with your neighbors and other residents. The part I am missing is the working together element. Right now this lawsuit means that all residents are likely to end up paying significantly to evolve the business outcome of 11 Wineries at every property owner’s tax expense. The same neighbors that frequent and enjoy your businesses are being wrongfully penalized. If there is a desire to work together on this, what is delaying that action? I think I am a good representation of most residents that would love to see a sensible way forward that does not cost $50M in damages that we did not cause but get to pay, and also doesn’t degrade our quality of life here on the Peninsula that we chose to call home. I would welcome a longer conversation about how you see this playing out for you and your neighbors on Old Mission Peninsula.
Chris, your article goes to the essence of what Todd Anson wrote about several weeks ago. It starts with the farming community and the view sheds that every property owner and resident on OMP enjoys each day. I’m a strong believer that those common interests far outweigh any differences of opinion in how to preserve the legacy we hold in our hands.
Most importantly, your reference to “honest, forward-looking conversations that focus on solutions” seems to me to be an open invitation to the parties and a glimpse of your receptiveness to find a negotiated resolution to the lawsuit. I certainly read it that way, and I don’t think I’m wrong.
Call me immensely naive, but I never understood the lawsuit to be so much abut money as it was about being able to operate an agricultural business on a level playing field with full possession of constitutional rights to do so. If true, the lack of a final outcome on the damages component does not preclude the parties from addressing the other issues — predominantly the ordinance structure impacting the agricultural community and businesses that support it. Yes, the attorneys fees issues need to be addressed by the trial court and the attorneys all need to be paid. (And they will be.) Yes, the insurance coverage issues need to be resolved — and they will, eventually. But those facts do not preclude work on the underlying ordinance scheme that everyone knows will be essential for our community to move forward.
At this point, our community fully expects the parties to be at the table, working to achieve that goal and resolve the litigation. We know that the attorneys for all parties are going to continue to try and position their respective clients for the best outcome possible. That’s understood. That’s what they do. But it’s up to the respective parties (the Wineries, the Township and PTP) to communicate to their counsel that the path forward won’t happen without ongoing dialogue between them on the core issue that you highlight in your article. And there’s no reason that can’t be happening right now.
Can you imagine the public support all parties would achieve if there was an announcement that even one component of this litigation was nearing resolution? I find it hard to believe that PTP, the Wineries and the Township don’t want many of the same things for the future of successful agriculture on the Peninsula. I challenge all parties to get back to the table — relentlessly — and work on finding common ground where you can. Our community deserves that. I’m glad to see what I interpret as receptiveness on that front. Thank you, Chris. Jim Grove
Chris Moyer, “what is delaying that action” is total inaction by our elected and appointed officials to initiate and complete a revision of our zoning ordinance to make it more farmer and winery friendly. The $40 MM judgement is the only bargaining chip Womp holds at this point. Most likely this will not be waived until our PTZO is changed to become constitutionally compliant.
Curt, it is an interesting bargaining chip that all of us are funding. We can always elect different officials at the next opportunity, but many of the ones there didn’t initiate the fight, but inherited the results. I hope they can find a way through the challenge. I probably need to go read the SUP agreements that the wineries knew when they opened their establishments. We all make investment decisions based on the current situation, rules and regulations.
Thank you Chris for sharing your thoughts on this. I have the feeling that most of the residents ( silent majority ) would like to work together to benefit all who reside here. WOMP continued success will benefit the peninsula in many ways now and in the future.
This is
Peninsula Township needs to get outside informed advice on how to draft the regulations, and then to provide consistent application of the rules. The $50 million will never be paid, and with fair zoning and planning it can be dropped. Calling names and throwing stones is just a continuation of the policies which got the township into this trouble. It’s
time for adults to respond and get this done.
I appreciate your post and the respectful tone you’ve brought to this conversation. But I have to admit, I struggle with the contradiction at the heart of this issue. If the goal is truly to preserve Old Mission’s land and rural character, how do large-scale events — weddings, concerts, and other high-traffic gatherings — fit into that vision? These activities inevitably alter the landscape and the quiet nature of the Peninsula that make this place so special.
There also needs to be a fair balance between the wineries’ pursuit of profit and residents’ desire to preserve the land. Why should the financial interests of a few outweigh the investment generations of residents have made to protect it?
For many residents, one of the most pressing and ongoing concerns is traffic. On a typical summer or harvest weekend, the roads already feel overburdened. If multiple wineries host events simultaneously, how will the Peninsula handle the added congestion, noise, and safety risks? So far, rather than offering broad statements of intent — let alone detailed solutions — the winery community has largely skirted the issue, sidestepping the practical realities that affect everyone who lives here. The conversation from winery supporters often feels one-sided, with little acknowledgment of how these changes affect the broader community; instead we are told “change is inevitable” and “traffic isn’t really that bad.” (Yes…yes it is.)
If we’re truly committed to “honest, forward-looking conversations,” then we need more than reassurances. We need transparency — real, specific proposals showing how wineries intend to mitigate traffic, protect farmland, and share in the responsibility of preserving what makes Old Mission unique.
— Cary
I applaud the civil discourse beginning to take place and appreciate your views on this, Chris. I see that you are a lawyer with significant litigation experience & hope that you will continue to share your views along with Curt, Cary, Dennis & Kennard. I encourage us to avoid drawing lines in the sand about whether the $50M will be paid. Some meaningful portion will most certainly be paid (the attys’ fees are already $2.1M-$3M & climbing and making those vanish requires the Township to “prevail.)” That is highly improbable given the Constitutional violations by our ordinance. They should, IMO, be reduced as I have shared to 5%/7%/8% of the gross revenue amount the court determines, but not eliminated. So, even if the appeal is successful it will require bonding by the Township to cover attorneys’ fees & repayment via our tax bills.
Thanks for sharing your point of view Chris. It’s a very interesting perspective so I appreciate you’re sharing it with us…. As I understand you, you want the peninsula to appear, serene, bucolic and peaceful and wish to preserve that characteristic. And, it sounds like you want neighbors to see you as a regular joe farmers and neighbors and go along with any of the proposals that WOMP has put forward for township review because you are just one of the locals that’s trying to get along as a farmer and make things better for everyone.
As you know, one thing that unites everyone in the world is that we all have something to complain about. And, to that point, there is another perspective for you to consider. What about the perspective of the neighbors that you are seemingly concerned about making peace with now? I’ll share my opinion.
I’ll start with the recognition that change is constant. I think all the residents of OMP realize that changing times have brought harsh realities for the local farmers. OMP residents have collectively seen once prosperous farm fields stand vacant for years. Eventually, where fields of cherries once stood, houses sprouted up in their place. And when the wineries first started, it was a good thing for everyone. Winery farmers were indeed good stewards of the land, preserved the agricultural nature of OMP and were good neighbors. Sure, locals complain about being stuck behind a line of cars with one slow poke tourist at the head driving on Center Road but really no worse than being stuck behind an even slower farm tractor from the past. Like I mentioned, everyone has something to complain about, no matter how trivial.
Along with changing times, wineries had second thoughts about the Special Use Permits that originally allowed wineries to open and operate a commercial business on agricultural / residentially zoned property. They decided they could make more money if they tore up their original SUP agreements and operated their commercial business in a manner to better maximize profit.
Whineries of Old Mission Peninsula (yes I know how to spell wineries) imagined collective losses of over $200M from 2018 to 2022. Is that so? We haven’t seen any actual proof of loss but only speculation about unrealized potential possibilities if everything goes perfectly in an imagined business plan.
Looking at statistics, it turns out that an average 65% of restaurants that all start out with an optimistic business plan go out of business within 10 years of opening. I know that Chateau Grand Traverse is the granddaddy of them all and has successfully been in business for 51 years. In fact most of the other wineries on OMP have been in business for more than 10 years. None have failed. When I drive by, whinery parking lots are packed with carloads of visitors and a regular cadence of tourists on busses bringing more customers. It seems that whineries aren’t losing money hand over fist but they just aren’t able to maximize profits to the extent they would prefer.
Could it be that whinery profits area off due to the fact that overall wine sales in the US have gone down and the market in northern Michigan is saturated? Perhaps it’s due to legal cannabis as a competitor to the wine industry as of December 2018? Perhaps the pandemic from 2020 to 2022? Maybe it’s just that the wines sold at the local whineries are OK but not all that great? These could also explain lower than desired profits rather than onerous zoning restrictions.
So that’s a short version of history as we know but here is one neighbor’s perspective…
Literally none of the residences on the peninsula forced any of the whineries to locate their wineries on the peninsula. Yet, individually, eleven whineries decided to locate on the peninsula, they agreed to the conditions of their original SUPs and, built their business. If the wineries didn’t like the conditions of the SUP, they certainly could have located elsewhere. Imagine the visitation a winery could have if they located on Mackinaw Island? Of course, they would have to sue the locals there to allow operation of a commercial business in a residential area but with one win under their belt now so odds are in favor of the whineries. Or perhaps pivot with the recognition that land is cheaper on the Leelanau peninsula or Torch Lake, Charlevoix and Petosky. All are also nice places too. Why didn’t whineries decide to operate there? With lower land purchase costs, lower taxes, and an imaginary business plan in hand, whineries would be much better off. Don’t you agree? But apparently it’s now the OMP township trustees and residents of OMP fault for whineries not understanding implications of starting and operating a business on OMP.
The neighbors of OMP are mostly farmers, families, retirees and part time summer residents.
For instance, my dad was a teacher, worked his life at the equivalent of $45 to $50K in today’s dollars. We never had much money but did have summers on the peninsula to look forward to. As a small kid, our cottage was really just a concrete block basement. Every spring, we had to chase out mice and re-tar the old flat roof. It was a very humble start but who cares? You just sleep there at night and then play all day on the sandy beach and splash in the bay when the sun shines. By the time I was a teenager, I had the privilege of being able to help load our little homemade trailer with wood from Red Mill lumber, then put up stud walls and hang sheetrock and always more roof work. My dad and I spent all summer expanding and modernizing our little summer retreat. Neighbors on both sides of us were also teachers and pretty much the same story there too. I think many of the other residents also spent their lives toiling in their regular jobs so they could spend more effort building our own little retreats on OMP.
I don’t have any reason to doubt peninsula fruit growing farmers and their struggle to make ends meet. As a kid, I used to stretch tarps for Jameson’s and pick berries for Kramer’s. At the time, it appeared to me that farmers were doing OK but not living to excess. I know times have changed with national and international competition, regulations, unpredictable weather and just fixed cost of operation margins are thin. I know PDR funds were originally intended to help farmers on OMP but I see farmland for sale and no one stepping up to take them over as active farms. Whineries of Old Mission are asking the few remaining farmers of Old Mission that are scraping by to make a living by growing cherries, apples and produce to reach into their pockets and subsidize the winery businesses at the expense of their own farms.
You probably know that some farms on OMP only grow grapes for WOMP wines. They aren’t part of the lawsuit so they are now in the position of paying their portion of the judgment like the rest of the neighbors. Also, WOMP has previously wanted remove restrictions that limit purchase of grapes from outside OMP. If that was true, OMP grape farmers could be doubly squeezed by paying judgement and getting a lower market price for their produce.
So it seems a little disingenuous for you to suggest that whinery owners are just regular farmers if you are asking other farmers to pay you damages doesn’t it?
As for the other residents of OMP, I don’t know. There are bunch of retirees that spent their nest egg to retire on OMP. They didn’t cause WOMP any harm. Some families raising kids in an ideal setting. They didn’t cause WOMP any harm. Some residents are mad about not caving into WOMP demands, some are mad because township trustees didn’t retain sufficient legal defense council to defend against WOMP demands. I can’t possibly know everyone’s story but one thing for sure. Residents of OMP did not cause harm or damage to the whineries of OMP but yet will be forced to pay damages in some form or another.
And residents now collectively have privilege of Whineries as neighbors… OMP residents have already contributed $25M to lower tax rates of farmers and protect the peninsula from over development. Clear space and scenic views is something that whineries already benefit from in their tourism focused business. Now residents get to pay our own bills for doctors, groceries, insurance, car payments. We get to pay our own summer and winter taxes with an additional levy for PDR funds. And now, it seems that we also get the honor of subsidizing whinery profits that are already good but not maximized to whineries imaginative possibility. If each of the neighbors kicks in an extra $30 to $50k of their personal after tax savings to cover their portion of “damages”, perhaps that will make up for some of the whineries hardships as Judge Maloney seemed to agree when he handed the wineries a nearly $50M judgment against their neighbors. Still that wasn’t enough as the whineries asked the sympathetic Judge Maloney for an additional $8M because how could a paltry $50M be enough to make up for such grievous damage caused by residents?
So yes, I can see why you and WOMP would like everything on the peninsula to look pretty while you try to grow your crop of tourist customers… And, I can acknowledge whineries promise to be respectful to their neighbors and play loud music in a manner that they think is reasonable, and hold parties that are bigger and later into the night than what they do now but aren’t too large as they see fit. And potentially hold these parties on land areas that are smaller than what is allowed by restrictions in place now. History has shown that the whineries haven’t honored past commitments to their neighbors. In fact, whineries have caused more damage to their peninsula neighbors that can ever possibly be repaired.
I doubt I can ever communicate the neighbor’s perspective as whineries are certainly in a different headspace from other residents. To be clear though – No, you and your select few members of WOMP are not regular neighbors or farmers just scraping by. Very few of your neighbors have ever been in a lawsuit against their neighbors and fewer have won. Especially, when no harm was caused by the neighbors that have now judgment against them. It creates a very adversarial dynamic.
Perhaps Ford and GM should pass the hat and ask whineries of OMP to each contribute 20% or 30% of their after tax savings to prop up automakers profits. It’s really the same you know. Whineies will get exactly the same benefit shoring up automakers profits as OMP neighbors get subsidizing whineries. Automakers could argue that they would provide additional autos for tourist traffic to make you feel better but in reality, the benefits would be Nothing.
SO I can appreciate why whineries want to have a visual appearance that everything is perfect on the peninsula. And, whinery owners are just regular joes with families and ordinary daily concerns. And, the township should just go along with any changes proposed by the whineries without question because whineries really want what’s best for everyone.
Growing the biggest possible crop of tourists is distinctly different than just growing produce which does make WOMP stand out among neighbors. It’s probably why it’s difficult to see each other’s point of view.
From a neighbor’s point of view, WOMP is really “Whineries Obsessed with Maximum Profit”.