To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Grant Parsons responds to Todd Anson’s recent opinion pieces and delves further into the “5 Acre Plan” — a winery on every 5 acres of land — that he says WOMP is championing. Read on for his thoughts. -jb
In Mr. Anson’s Oct. 2 essay published in Old Mission Gazette, he blamed Peninsula residents for criticizing the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP). He says they should have a more “constructive attitude.” (He doesn’t say anything about the attitude of WOMP – the bunch who sued their neighbors for $203,000,000.)
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
In his October 29 Gazette essay (“The Blob That Ate Peninsula Township”), Anson accuses the Town Board of “dropping the ball” because their past lawyer, Mr. Meihn, didn’t list a damages expert. (He doesn’t mention that the Town Board voted unanimously to fire Meihn but were vetoed by the insurance carrier. To defend residents, the Township was forced to hire an independent lawyer, who reduced WOMP’s $203,000,000 claim by 75 percent.)
For a man intent on “toning down the inflammatory rhetoric,” he is awfully quick to blame residents and the Board — but never WOMP, who started this mess.
He wrote this in his “Blob” essay: “So, please, no more whining by our trustees or their designees. We need them to find a way to initiate these important discussions, no matter what it takes.”
“Whining” – is that what he thinks of Supervisor Sanders’ attempt to talk to WOMP? (He doesn’t mention Supervisor Sanders contacted the wineries to talk, and she got a hard brush-back from winery lawyers, who told her to stop.)
He says the Township needs to settle. “No matter what it takes.” Hold the presses; stop right there. “No matter what it takes” is outrageous. The “5 Acre Plan” is what WOMP wants, and it would change the Peninsula forever. (Ask the Township for a copy of the “5 Acre Plan,” and then send a comment to OMG.)
Until I saw what WOMP was demanding, I had no problem with wineries. Like most Peninsula Township residents, I had a constructive attitude for 30+ years. Winery entrepreneurs came begging to be allowed to do tasting rooms. So we all compromised constructively, revised the zoning code.
Two generations of Town Boards worked to create and adopt new rules allowing wineries to do more commercial activities than had ever been allowed on AG-zoned farmland. WOMP’s supposed nemesis, Protect the Peninsula (PTP), actually championed “small farm processing” rules to allow wineries to bottle and sell wine and do tastings on farmland. Residents voted for PDR, which raised $25,000,0000 to preserve farmland, including the land where two wineries now operate.
The whole Township worked to preserve a perfect setting for direct Ag sales. If you want proof of constructive attitude, think of the dozens –- probably hundreds of meetings between 1989-2020 – where officials and residents met to find compromise between commercializing all farmland and maintaining Old Mission’s rural quality of life.
Peninsula Township made hard choices and bent the rules to allow wineries to start tasting rooms with small plates of food. It was difficult to compromise our farmland zoning principles, but we did it. Wineries promised to play by the rules, signed Special Use Permits, signed Purchase of Development Rights easements. The Township believed in wineries.
The axiom “no good deed goes unpunished” was never more obvious than here, where Peninsula Township supported wineries and got a thuggish lawsuit in return.
M. Anson brandishes the usual threat: “What comes next if our wineries fail? We know the answer: Housing.” Yes, we know that. That’s why Peninsula residents spent $25,000,000 in PDR taxes and grants to preserve farmland from housing development. Two wineries took $750,000 PDR funds by promising to keep their farmland in agriculture and open space. Now they want to welch.
Residents have done more than their fair share of supporting wineries. Residents have done more than their fair share to save farmland from housing development. Sanders did more than her fair share to start negotiations with wineries. And what does Mr. Anson see in all that effort: “whining” and not enough effort?
Why doesn’t he suggest the wineries withdraw the “5 Acre Plan”, as a first step toward settlement negotiations? Why not give Sanders a small tip o’ the hat for at least trying?
We were duped when wineries said they wanted to farm. And we’re being duped by those who say Trustees aren’t doing their fair share to settle the case.
When Mr. Anson says the Township must settle “No matter what it takes,” he tips his hand. Nowhere in his 1700-word essay does Mr. Anson mention WOMP should settle no matter what. Nowhere does he say we ALL need to protect the Peninsula’s quality of life.
Nowhere does he mention what the “5 Acre Plan” would do to the quality of life on Old Mission Peninsula: A winery on every 5 acres of Ag land, voiding PDR easements, allowing amplified outdoor music until 2 a.m., holding unlimited weddings for the well-heeled drinkers and yahoo-ers having a great time at neighbors’ expense.
Nowhere does he mention the “5 Acre Plan” says wineries want to be free from all Peninsula Township rules: “Wineries and wine tasting rooms may engage in all activities allowed under Federal and Michigan law without prior approval of the Township Board.”
Who do WOMP wineries think they are? Above the law. Not part of the community.
What bothers me most about the October 29 essay is that Mr. Anson is trying to stampede the Township into settling “no matter what it takes.”
As a firm supporter of WOMP, Mr. Anson might better use his relationship with WOMP to give it a nudge to make a public demand – say publicly what it will settle for. If WOMP’s demand is reasonable, it is 100 percent certain Peninsula residents will rise up and support it, and I believe 100 percent that the Town Board will honor what residents want, and will settle.
I think WOMP won’t say publicly what it wants because WOMP knows what it wants is unreasonable. I believe WOMP doesn’t want residents see its offer because, I can only assume until WOMP discloses it, it is basically just the “5 Acre Plan,” which would completely destroy the quality of life on Old Mission Peninsula. (If you want to see what WOMP demanded shortly after it filed suit, ask the Township for a copy of the “5 Acre Plan.” You will be shocked.)
The tell-tale of WOMP’s intentions is this: WOMP sent its alleged “settlement proposal” to local news media before they sent it to Peninsula Township. They still haven’t shared the proposal with PTP – a full, court-ordered party in the lawsuit.
What does it tell us when a party like WOMP makes a publicity splash, but won’t tell the parties to the lawsuit? It tells us WOMP isn’t making a real settlement proposal; WOMP is doing a publicity stunt.
Let’s ignore the shenanigans, and ask the key question for residents to answer: Do you value your life on Old Mission enough to fight for it? Should the Township stand up for Old Mission’s quality of life, or should the Township cave in to WOMP’s “5 Acre plan” – outdoor amplified music until 2 a.m., unlimited high-flying weddings, alcohol service until 2 a.m., catering and all the commercial stuff the wineries want?
Mr. Anson’s October 29 essay compares WOMP’s suit to an old horror movie, ”The Blob.” In the movie, Earth is invaded by an amoeba-like “blob,” which threatens the survival of the community. (I’m in complete agreement with that part of Anson’s description of the lawsuit.)
But here’s how the movie ends: No one panics. The Blob is defeated by small-town people when they discover The Blob cannot stand cold. Spraying it with a fire extinguisher makes The Blob retreat, cold weather makes it retreat, coolness defeats The Blob.
Peninsula residents should stay cool. Trust that your love of Old Mission is righteous. Trust the judicial process to run its natural course. Law library shelves are lined with successful appeals. The Township’s appeal, of all the cases ever reported, is most likely to be successful. WOMP will likely lose because the Appeals Court is a more thoughtful, objective court.
As a civil rights attorney for 40 years, I and my appellate co-counsel successfully won at least ten civil rights appeals in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit already reversed the WOMP judge once by allowing PTP to intervene.
The Sixth Circuit is there for the express purpose of reviewing good and bad lower court decisions. WOMP’s decision is bad, and it won’t survive the Sixth Circuit review. (Gambling is illegal or I’d place a wager.)
Ironically, WOMP’s absurdly-high $50 million award will pay the Township dividends. It will catch the eye of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will be shocked by the size of the award. It will be stunned by the flawed reasoning of the judge. The Appeals Judges will read the Opinion, which is full of bias and speculation (such as, the wineries can operate weddings and food service without adding any overhead), and most likely, the Appeals Court will either reverse the case outright or remand it for modification.
That’s why WOMP wants residents to panic and settle. WOMP knows that the risk of reversal is far higher than the risk of affirmance. WOMP is at a high, high risk of losing – probably 95 percent — because it over-sold its case. The judge was angry at the Peninsula’s prior attorney’s conduct, so he penalized the Township. That’s what the Sixth Circuit will see, and that’s why it will reverse the WOMP judge.
Urban legend is full of run-away verdicts like WOMP’s, and that’s why they occasionally make a movie about one. But the reality is the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals doesn’t deal in movies or urban legends. It looks at weird opinions like WOMP’s, and it reverses them.
The legal battle isn’t nearly over. WOMP won the first round in a multiple-round battle. There’s no need to panic (Mr. Anson insists “time is of the essence,” but WOMP’s blob will be defeated by those who are cool.)
Yes, the Township should ask WOMP what it wants. Yes, ask WOMP if it still wants the “5 Acre Plan.” Yes, the Township should always be willing to discuss a reasonable settlement.
But panic? Never. Believe in farmland preservation, and PDR, and your home, and Old Mission’s peaceful quality of life and defend it all – no matter what it takes.
– Grant Parsons
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Again a fictional article. WOMP was not even an organization when 15 acre ( not 5) was discussed years ago. Grant prove your statement that WOMP wants your quote 5 acre plan.
This is another PTP canard filled piece. why do they keep insisting for example that the wineries want to stay open till 2 am the wineries kept saying that wasn’t their position and even in their latest public release have midnight hours only in the weekend.
I can’t speak for the 5 acre minimum for a winery because I haven’t seen the document. But I don’t believe that is what they are after. I’ve never heard it. But I do think someone who has five acres or more should be allowed freedom to process the fruits of their labor on their own property. Why shouldn’t say a maple syrup producer or vinegar maker be allowed to process his syrup or vinegar on their land. Again the unfounded claim that every 5 acre parcel will have a winery is not rooted in any demonstrable fact. The cost of a winery is too prohibitive and a 5 acre vineyard could not support the investment. So let’s deal with facts instead of disinformation which PTP has mastered as an art form.
We can argue till the cows come home as to what the appeals court will do. In the meantime Todd is correct.
Time is money, interest is running, the bond has yet to be set and the town needs to decide who should they protect. All the citizens or the few members of PTP.
Where is the downside of talking one group to the other. At this point it is the township that needs to decide what the best interests of the town are. PTP is not an elected body tasked with the duty to determine what is the best course of action in their view to bring this to a conclusion.
Only one body has that legal responsibility and it is the Board not PTP.
Let’s assume the Board works out an acceptable position. PTP has no legal standing to object to that settlement.
I believe the Sixth Circuit will not give PTP veto authority over a duly elected government body.
Bravo bravo bravo , Grant! FINALLY a thoughtful and accurate opinion piece representing what citizens not businesses want to be our life up here. The wineries are just out to screw their neighbors despite all the showboating propaganda they get out there in the media. What are they hiding?
Grant and the rest of the of the TS community.
My quality of life and safety has been constantly compromised since the TS board used the ridicules rationale that handing over local control of M-37 to local control while somehow imped the TS ability to conduct its “ farming” business. Back in 2019.
And now there is talk about selling the Lighhouse , which was the original reason the road was named a State Highway ☹️
Grant,
Amen brother.
Appeal with vigor.
Allow no distractions from the Appeal work .
Joe Gorka
Peninsula Township
Right with you, Grant. Grow the grapes. Sell the wine. Make terms under consideration transparent. And keep the drunks off the road – at any time day or night. Event venues are not agriculture.
Mr. Parson you come off as an angry bitter man.
Times have changed and it is impossible for small farmers to survive without introducing ag-tourism. Several pieces of protected farms are currently for sale on the peninsula. THEY ARE NOT SELLING (some for years).
As a resident of the peninsula I resent the unelected PTP driving decisions in our township. We didn’t vote for you and cannot vote you out.
I do not know anyone in WOMP and have not affiliation with their group. As a matter of fact I do not drink wine.
I find it interesting that no one with PTP or at the township takes issue with massive vacation homes being built on every slice of open land on the peninsula. Where are the complaints of noise, traffic and over congestion? Where are the complaints about the peninsula losing its character?
America is supposed to be a place where freedom and liberty is paramount. Old Mission Peninsula does not feel very free when a handful of well healed people (and former attorneys) decide how the rest of live.
Grant. Since you wrote this article I assume you will entertain questions. I thought neither WOMP nor the Township were allowed to discuss details about the lawsuit? You directed individuals to obtain a document about the 5 acre plan from the township which you opined is what the wineries secretly want. Maura indicated a FOIA request had been received & the township attorney is reviewing prior to public release. How can the township share that data if it is part of the court’s order to not release settlement items that the wineries are demanding?
Annes, per your reply to Grant Parsons opinion piece. I thought the reference was from discussions many many years ago ( before WOMP was formed) about a 15 acre plan for certain farming activities. And now from his article there is reference to written material on the PTP website. I have looked at this article and am surprised in that there is no context or discussion of the material presented. It is not signed by anybody or dated. There is no stated purpose for the material listed. This is a surprise in that I have been on top of Township public documents pertaining to zoning since about 2015 and have never seen such a docoument. To the best of my knowledge this is not a demand that is/was in the lawsuit of WOMP vs. the Twp. or in the available to the public record of the lawsuit.
Curt. Thank you for responding. It will be interesting to see what is released by the township w/r/t this 5 acre plan. Maura made a quick statement at the recent agriculture advisory committee that a FOIA was submitted & the information would be released to the winery who submitted the request.
Grant. Are your facts wrong & thus misleading? Please clarify. You indicated in your article that WOMP wants “a winery on every 5 acres of land”. On Protect the Peninsula’s website & in the township 1999 document you referenced it indicates that only 5 acres were required to be in GRAPES and only 15 acres were required to obtain a SUP. Residents deserve to read facts if you claim they are facts. Perhaps issue a correction to remain credible. Thanks.
This opinion piece falsely states PTP has “no interest in seeing this settle.”
The counterfactual position is stated plainly in Mike Dettmer’s PTP article, “Protect the Peninsula Aligns with Wineries on Need for Clear Standards, Urges Open Dialogue and Relief from $50 Million – Old Mission Gazette”.
One need only look back a couple of weeks in this same publication to read of PTP’s interest in settlement.