To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP resident Todd Anson offers a response to recent opinion pieces by Grant Parsons about a 5-Acre Plan that Anson says no winery has ever proposed. As a reminder, I don’t give preferential treatment to any op-ed writers — submissions are published in the order they’re received, and all sides of any issue are welcome. I just ask that you keep it civil. Also, contributors are limited to one op-ed every 30 days. If you’d like to submit an op-ed, you can send it to me at [email protected]. To address a question raised by reader Craig Rosenberg: I haven’t researched Todd Anson’s background and don’t know whether he has any involvement with the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula, Protect the Peninsula, the Old Mission Citizens Coalition, Peninsula Township, or any of the numerous other OMP groups — nor do I know anything about his family connections. Writers are welcome to include that info when they submit their piece, and they’re also welcome to send a donation our way to help keep the Gazette going. -jb
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
I am confused.
Grant Parsons once again seeks to impose his viewpoint on Old Mission Peninsula, yet doesn’t live here? Civility, common sense and a community working together to solve a tough problem are proposed, yet it elevates his blood pressure?
Encouraging us to gamble “it all on the next spin of the roulette wheel” while once again forcing OMP into divisive tribes, he argues, “trust my judgment,” “I’ve practiced law for 40 years as a Civil Rights lawyer.” Yes, I suggest (as both a resident and merely a 45-year Real Estate and Land Use lawyer and developer myself) prudence in managing the $50 million for which he’s helped get us on the hook, and he’s dismissive and antagonistic?
I speak for concerned OMP residents confronting an unprecedented and enormous municipally created liability and seek to eliminate it, yet he tries to manipulate us all and put me in the pocket of the wineries to fit his imaginary narrative about “5-acre plans”?
Protect the Peninsula’s and his policies have backfired on us, and my reckless critic’s fingerprints are apparent, yet neither, it is now clear, has an interest in seeing this settle as they resist compromise and accepting ANY financial responsibility for the tax or attorneys’ fees liabilities their policies have created for us all?
Supervisor Sanders and her outspoken husband Todd lead the decision making for us, yet have no apparent stake in the property tax consequences?
Mr. Parsons has written a second emotional piece fighting an imaginary ghost in a “5 acre plan” I’ve not heard one winery suggest, and that’s the ghost we are all supposed to slay?
(Editor’s Note: View WOMP’s proposed 5-Acre Plan on the Township Website here under “Wineries’ Demands”; second link from the top. Here is the direct link to the document. -jb)
Our pocketbooks are on the hook, not theirs (or his). What are we doing allowing this to happen to us all? Shouldn’t our policies be set by people who bear their consequences?
(Editor’s Note: According to the Township, if a judgment is collected in the winery lawsuit, it would be a special assessment for all property owners in Peninsula Township. Please refer to the Peninsula Township Assessor’s Page for more information regarding your assessed value (search with either name, address or parcel number). In the event WOMP tries to collect their judgement, all township parcels will be taxed via special assessment based on your assessed values. Regardless of any exceptions (poverty or disabled veteran), all parcel owners would be forced to pay. -jb)
-Todd Anson, Old Mission Peninsula resident (OMP affiliations unknown. -jb)
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Comment by Todd J. Anson:
I will be pleased to answer your questions, Mr. Rosenberg, and make this easier for your readers, Jane.
1. No, I have no involvement with the Wineries of OMP. Several have approached me because of my independent point of view, just as several from PTP have done.
2. Nor am I a member of or supporter of PTP or the Old Mission Citizens Coalition. I have been invited to support PTP & declined.
3. Supervisor Sanders invited me to apply for the open seat on the Planning Commission & I declined. I AM a recent supporter of Jane’s Gazette.
4. My family connections will be of no interest to anyone. My father was a school superintendent.
I am a 45 year California real estate & finance lawyer as well as a 25 year developer of large scale commercial buildings, mostly for my self, Cisco Systems & Biogen Pharmaceuticals. I am a University of Michigan Law grad as well as a CMU graduate with a BS in Mathematics. I grew up in Michigan.
I taught a real estate development & land use process to law, MBA & graduate planning students at UC Berkeley for 5 years while practicing law in SF before moving to San Diego.
I have seen development pressures play out for 45 years as a lawyer starting in CA. The same pressures are present on OMP. As a preservationist and committed steward of the land, but also as a businessman & developer, my perspective is my perspective. I have led many organizations from a very large West Coast law firm to serving as a Trustee of Central Michigan and director of numerous tech startups.
We broke the law overreaching as to WOMP and, as a lawyer & developer, our overreaching illegally offends me. It is unprofessional & unnecessary. I am still waiting for someone to produce the first traffic study relating to the wineries or life on OMP. THAT is the #1 tool used for managing growth. I think the damages are vastly overstated, but I think our attitude regarding the ordinance brought us what we deserved. We choked too hard. Do I want teh floodgates open for the wineries? Of course not. I want rational, fair AND LEGAL policies and pathways for wineries to succeed because they are our best opportunity for preserving agricultural open space. Housing will flood in if we don’t find that solution.
I wish the blatant pandering to emotion & hyperbole was not taking place, but people’s passions run high. I am not interested in holding elective or appointed office.
Thank you. I hope this helps.
Todd J. Anson
This is a fascinating proposal that highlights the evolving identity of Old Mission Peninsula. The “5-Acre Plan” seems to strike a deliberate balance, aiming to preserve the agricultural core of the region while allowing for carefully scaled economic development. It will be interesting to see if this model succeeds in preventing the sprawl that has transformed other wine regions.
For the existing wineries, do you see this plan more as a protective measure that maintains the peninsula’s character, or as a potential catalyst for increased commercialization and competition that could ultimately change the very atmosphere it seeks to preserve?
The confusion is over. My sincere Thanksgiving “thank you” to the Old Mission Gazette! In its publication of Mr. Anson’s November 20 essay, “Opinion: Fighting a Ghost – the 5-Acre Plan”, Old Mission Gazette provided an on-line link to the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula’s (WOMP’s) “5 acre Plan”. Readers can click the link, see for themselves which of us – Mr. Anson or I – has accurately described WOMP’s demands. Each reader can see in black-and-white why Peninsula Township rejected WOMP’s demands and defended the Township. Here’s an added bonus: If, as Mr. Anson claims, the “5 acre Plan” is a “ghost”, WOMP can take this opportunity to publicly say so and retract what sections of the “5 acre Plan” it no longer demands: 2:00 a.m. alcohol and outdoor music? large events? no control by Township zoning? restaurant and bar service on AG land? PDR restrictions gone? SUP agreements gone? all activities allowed by State and Federal law without Township approval?
Grant Parsons
Grant. Your facts appear to be wrong & thus misleading. 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. That is a 26 year old document & the players have changed. You stated that “you could only ASSUME that until WOMP discloses it (wants), it is basically just the 5 acre plan.” Your assumptions are not facts. Residents deserve facts if referenced in a document. Please issue a correction to remain credible. Thanks.
This is exactly what WOMP’s 5 acre plan says about the acreage for Wineries and Wine Tasting Rooms:
g. Parcel and Building Requirements:
i. The minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres.
ii. The facility shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of
frontage on a state or county road.
iii. The winery or wine tasting room shall be the principal
building on the site.
iv. No maximum building size;
The 5 acre Plan I am citing was submitted to Peninsula Township in November 2020, shortly after WOMP filed suit. The 2020 5 acre Plan is the one linked by the Old Mission Gazette. You will note this document has identifying numerals in the lower left corner of each page. Those numerals are apparently the internal indexing numerals of WOMP’s representative. This section of the 5 acre Plan does not reference grapes, as you seem to think, and I don’t know why you are confusing the 2020 document with some other document.
Ms. Annes, please read the 5 acre Plan that Old Mission Gazette linked, which is the same one I referenced. The 5 acre Plan I am referencing — and the one linked by the OMG — can be independently verified by requesting a copy from Peninsula Township. The 5 acre Plan document was sent to Peninsula Township in November 2020 by WOMP’s representative. It is NOT a 1999 document. If you look at the document, you will notice a series of numerals in the lower left hand corner of the document. Those numerals apparently are the index system of WOMP’s representative. I can assure you, the document I am referencing, and which was linked by the Old Mission Gazette, was WOMP’s demand in this lawsuit. At paragraph 1.(g) it says exactly what I said: It says the parcel and building size for wineries and wine tasting rooms is 5 acres. It says nothing about grapes.
Apologies, I got error messages so I re-wrote and submitted.
It is a fact that in 1999 the township board passed the 5 Acre Small Winery Ordinance, Amendment NO. 128. The amendment had 3 subsections. The 3rd section indicated only 5 ACRES WERE REQUIRED TO BE IN GRAPES to obtain a SUP. This document can be found on PTP’s website under lawsuit court filings (Winery Ordinance Chronology). Note that neither this document nor the Wineries’ Demand documents indicate a date or author (both are background for context). All subsequent legal filings are dated & identify the author.
I noticed a comment in the article saying Supervisor Sanders and here husband have no stake in the tax implication if WOMP got to collect the current damages. That statement would be untrue. Even disabled veterans pay full value on special assessments, the way it would be collected should that ever occur.
While there was a 1999 5 acre plan the one Supervisor Sanders posted, the one that is relevant to Mr. Parson’s article was proposed by WOMP immediately after filing suit in 2020voudn here
https://protectthepeninsula.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WOMPs-Demands.pdf
While there was a 1999 5 acre plan, the one provided by Supervisor Sanders and linked by the Gazette above this article, and the one that is relevant to Mr. Parson’s article was proposed by WOMP immediately after filing suit in 2020voudn here
While there was a 1999 5 acre plan, the one provided by Supervisor Sanders and linked by the Gazette above this article, and the one that is relevant to Mr. Parson’s article, was proposed by WOMP immediately after filing suit in 2020.
The link to the 2020 5 acre plan referenced by Mr Parsons is here
https://protectthepeninsula.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WOMPs-Demands.pdf
Where can we see a publicly available document. Where is this document posted. There is no context or discussion. The purpose is not stated. I follow zoning and planning closely. I have never seen this anywhere other than PTP site. Where is the public document?
Curt, I am in accord. Please see my just-posted comment in response to my non-resident critic.
John. Where can I get a copy of the 5 acre plan that Maura recently posted? The document that Parsons is referring to has not date, author, and only appears on PTP website. It was never submitted into the court’s records. Immediately after WOMP filed suit, a private meeting between township officials & WOMP attorneys occurred in November 2020 (PTP was not included or privy to the details of that meeting). How did PTP get this confidential 5 acre document which you alleged were WOMP’s demands? Were these the wants that WOMP demanded but the township board refused to sign the settlement agreement at the St. Joe’s Church meeting? Again, details which were confidential & not made available to the public (including PTP)? Something is suspicious about this 5 acre plan document.
Nice website and also Great Information.
As the wineries broaden their demanded list of permitted activities, It would be appropriate to replace all referennce to wineries simply with the term business establishments. We would then zone all business establishments together, trying to minimize environmental harm, while allowing agritourism. One could use Marthers Vinyard por Nantucket Massachusetts as an example. Also PTP should have no legal standing as they do not represent the property owners who would be responsible for the WOMP settlement
I am disappointed to see this article’s disparaging implication against two local military veterans. Maura and Todd Sanders, wrongly claiming they would have no liability along with other property owners, should the unlikely event of WOMP eventually getting a settlement against the Township occur. They deserve our respect and admiration, not claims that they are irresponsible, playing fast and loose around the WOMP lawsuit because of a claim about their tax liability.
Simply because my critic says the confusion he’s creating regarding the “5 acre plan” is over, doesn’t mean it’s over. That’s his strategy, rile people up over nonsense & distract those of us who want a legal, fair & reasonable resolution while playing his dangerous game of gambling on an appeal.
I avoid “debating” this because it distracts from what matters here. I think he seeks to joust since he has no other apparent reason to be engaged as a non-stakeholder? I seek a fair & just outcome, hopefully at the smallest pass through obligation we can achieve.
NOBODY is advancing my critic’s “5 acre” plan of whom I am aware. This is NOT something that has even come up in connection with current concerns over the $50M exposure the policies he’s helped hard-line the law to impose, no matter how much he protests. His strategy is clear? “Chaos” vs. “calm.” A calm, sensible discussion is apparently what he seeks to avoid? He also clearly prefers to disrupt any potential settlement at any & all cost. Question: How much language of appeasement, reconciliation & pacification have we heard from him? Plaintiff’s lawyers make poor peacemakers. Of course he makes some valid points. They need to be calmly discussed & he keeps throwing rocks at the wineries & independents advancing a “let’s see if we can figure it out, we might just surprise ourselves” agenda.
Does this sit well with those of us seeking common sense & reason?
The appeal is not without some merit (the damages are obviously overstated), but, if completely successful, it only reduces the damages & leaves WOMP as the “prevailing party” and us exposed for $3M(?) of WOMP legal fees, plus the reduced damages. I’ve previously speculated those are in the $4M range. Why risk $45M plus accrued post-judgment interest to roll the dice to satisfy someone who doesn’t even live here anymore? My critic & PTP have avoided articulation of any legal theory that wipes out the entire judgment. Same with our Trustees.
The one simple question I have for both our Trustees & PTP (I DO respect Mike Dettmer) is what are counsel to each laying as the odds for a COMPLETE REVERSAL of the entire judgment? It’s not reasonable to ask counsel to handicap assessing actual odds, but, it IS ENTIRELY NECESSARY that the Trustees & we, the public, know exactly what words counsel for the township & PTP choose in their response to it. Is there “no chance?” A “remote chance?” “A probability” of complete reversal? It it “more likely than not?” These are the terms lawyers use when advising clients.
Now, regarding the question of whether the Supervisor risks a share of the “tax,” of course, we all respect our Vets, and thank you to John Wunsch for (somewhat) clarifying this for us all to settle that issue, which has been circulating around a bit. I think there is some room for debate around how the “taxing” authority can or will be used to impose the obligation to pay off any judgment + attorneys’ fees, and, of course, my critic bears none of the responsibility as a non-resident. Nor does PTP, which is significantly(?) predominantly(?) influencing our policy here, without any financial exposure of its own, by intervening & resisting any allocation of the attorneys’ fee award.
As I have consistently shared, the longer this liability clouds peninsula life, the more corrosive will be its legacy.
Thank you.