To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Rudy Rudolph is singing the praises of the wineries for proposing a settlement offer to the long-standing lawsuit. But, wait… is there really anything new here? Read on for his thoughts. -jb
Hallelujah … Imagine my surprise and delight to be greeted with Jordan Travis’s article in the Record Eagle on Friday, October 31st. The Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula are offering to settle the lawsuit they brought against us, the residents and taxpayers, of Old Mission Peninsula … how many years ago now? Five? My, how time flies!
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
I am so excited! As a former Township Trustee, I know how difficult and frustrating this situation has been for all of us as residents and taxpayers alike. I also know how hard the Township Trustees have worked to resolve this issue and how often those overtures have been rebuffed. I know how frustrated the Trustees and their constituents have been that none of the court ordered mediation attempts have been allowed to be aired in public.
And everyone should understand that this “cone of secrecy” was not because the Township, or their attorneys, required it, but because the wineries and their attorney had blocked any public disclosure of the mediation proceedings by demanding a court order to that effect.
So now, to see that the wineries are finally willing to enter into settlement discussions. How exciting! I can hardly wait to see this resolved!
But waaaaiiiiiit a minute. Now that I read this more closely, the wineries still insist that any settlement discussions must be held in private. Huh? That’s not good! And, do I read this right, any discussion of the approximately $50 million judgment against the taxpayers of the Township would not be on the table? Oh Gosh Darn it! That is definitely not moving the needle!
What’s new with this proposal then? Nothing that I can see. And, if there is nothing new, why should we expect that it is likely to lead to a resolution? Now that I think more deeply about it, this sure smells a lot like a publicity stunt, at least to me.
The public has a right to know exactly what the wineries are demanding and exactly what the Township is offering in any settlement negotiations that go on. After all, the residents and taxpayers of the Township are ultimately the ones who will be affected by the end result of any settlement negotiations.
So, after consideration, I just have to say, Thank You, Town Board, for immediately responding to this disingenuous offer by insisting that any negotiations between the Township and the wineries must be done in an open and public way.
It is my humble opinion that, if the wineries had followed the official process, as provided by Michigan Zoning law, to publicly request reasonable changes to the zoning ordinances, giving them more freedom to operate their businesses, this whole thing would have been settled long ago. When the wineries decided that suing their neighbors was more expedient for them than openly engaging with their neighbors, I think they made a tactical error in judgment that has not been good for them.
But that’s just my take on it. For sure, what I can tell you is, when the wineries came out originally with a $200 plus million dollar demand for damages, that really got my attention. In the end, I think that their flagrant attempt at extortion was a strategic error on the part of their attorney. It woke a lot of us up! The many of us who were initially friends to the wineries, even customers.
It doesn’t take too much pondering to come to the conclusion that a monetary judgment in favor of the wineries, against the Township, is really a monetary judgment against each of us as taxpayers in the Township. After all, what is the Township but, collectively, each and every citizen of the Township?
Now, I don’t know what a fair resolution could be, or even if it will happen. But so long as the lawsuit is reality, and it continues to reside in secrecy, it appears to me that there is slim chance for compromise. And that can’t be good for any of us, residents or winery alike.
– Rudy Rudolph, OMP Resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Exactly. If we are all on the hook for damages, we all should be able to see what has been proposed. Transparency. Not a hard concept to understand.
I suggest no more closed sessions with the township attorney. If the board truly wants to be transparent, then be transparent. The wineries tried for years, prior to the lawsuit, to negotiate a working ordinance that was fair and right for all. The township board would not negotiate in good faith (many of the same people on the board today were involved in the past ).
I’ve seen people say the Township hasn’t been transparent, but much of the available information tells a different story. As for the claim that the wineries “tried for years to negotiate,” that’s only one side’s telling of the story. The court filings — including the wineries’ own — show they were pushing for dramatically expanded event rights and capacities. For many residents, it didn’t feel like compromise; it felt like pressure to rewrite long-standing protections.
Transparency matters, but claims about it depend heavily on who you talk to and which version of events they’re hearing.
Rudy. I couldn’t agree more. Thanks to the Township Board and others in the community most involved in defending the WOMP lawsuit.
Agreed!
Thank you, Rudy, for clearly defending the residents of Old Mission.
The wineries know that the first-round, $50 mil court award could be drastically reduced by the judge on appeal and may not represent much leverage to change their rules of operation. Hence their recent mistimed attempt proposing the township loosen on crowd sizes, hours of operation, and amplified music. The assumption behind the current womp proposal still erroneously conflates entertainment functions with “just farmers trying to make a living.” Weddings are not agriculture.
We must still work to prevent large scale, noisy entertainment venues with alcohol involved operating late at night just down the road.
“The assumption behind the current womp proposal still erroneously conflates entertainment functions with “just farmers trying to make a living.” Weddings are not agriculture.”
The truth distilled down to it’s essence. Thanks, Jim.
Transparency from all sides is a must if we are going to move forward, but moving forward we must. We can no longer ignore changes in what business require to evolve. A clear path needs to be worked out.
Thank you for your frank and truthful analysis. Many on the peninsula share your concerns. It’s time everyone stops listening to the wineries bs which is only about gaining extraordinary high personal profits off of township residents and getting the very zoning changes they wanted that they are suing for in the first place. Yes, each and every winery could have asked for zoning amendments but they rather sue and keep all negotiations private because they don’t want to show the rest of us openly their true grift and greed. I remember being told as a kid by my parents, you can’t always have what you want. Thank you for calling a spade a spade!
Not a fan
Rudy, Thank you for sharing. Your article is very insightful, open and honest. The wineries are hiding behind lawyers for monetary gain. They know they can’t explain away bad actions like their lawyers can. Transparency and honesty is owed to the taxpayers.