To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Don Coe, a board member of the Old Mission Citizens Coalition, co-founder of Black Star Farms and former Chair of the Michigan Commission of Agriculture, responds to Grant Parsons’ recent op-ed about the winery lawsuit and 5-Acre Plan. “I was asked by the new Citizens’ Coalition to advise them on AgTourism and small farm viability given my experience in agriculture businesses and organizations,” says Don. “I am not a resident of Old Mission Peninsula nor do I have any present financial interest in agriculture business. My residence is in Traverse City.” Read on for his thoughts on Grant’s op-ed. Note that op-ed writers may submit one op-ed every 30 days. -jb
WOMP and Peninsula Township (PT) are not negotiating. BS. Both parties are listening to their lawyers and insurers, whose primary interests are billable hours and avoidance of claims. Both WOMP and PT are the paying clients. They can do what the Court expects of them, sit down and negotiate, stop blaming each other and accept their responsibility. (Editor’s Note: Read Township Supervisor Maura Sanders’ latest update on mediation in her weekly note here. -jb)
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
WOMP wants an ordinance without undergoing the legal process. BS. They had to resort to the courts for relief. That is called DUE Process. Any ordinance changes will go through the normal process, but that does not mean that both parties cannot agree on terms in advance and both push for adoption. (Read what former Township Supervisor Rob Manigold said regarding the chronology of the winery lawsuit here. -jb)
Wineries want a 5-acre business with unlimited services. BS. They want a level playing field for small farms and not setting up winners and losers based on size. PT should not decide arbitrarily what a winery can attempt to do on its property. The marketplace, resources and density will make that decision. (View the wineries’ proposed 5-Acre Plan here; it can also be found in the list of winery lawsuit court filings on the Township website here, second link from the top. -jb)
PT zoning should not be preempted by Federal and State Law. Correct. The Michigan Zoning and Enabling Act confines PT zoning to health, welfare and safety. Federal and State agencies govern licensing and many areas of operations. PT needs to stay in its lane and the other agencies in theirs.
WOMP wants to over-commercialize agriculture. BS. Wineries are businesses that add value to the farmland and farmer. Limit their rights to produce, process and sell direct and all you will achieve will be fallow farmland bordered by encroaching housing estates. So much for the economic activity and beauty of producing vineyards and orchards which actually add value to nearby residences.
Residents have solely supported farming with $25m of PDR funds and grants. BS. Farmers have invested considerably more in their ag businesses, provide many millions more annually in employment, purchases of goods and services overall economic activity with little cost to PT compared to residents. A large portion of the PDR funds are unused by wineries because they add barriers to farm businesses. PDR has saved farmland but not farmers. (Read more about the PDR program here. -jb)
Look at our 40-year history. PT may be the most farm-friendly suburban township in the U.S. BS. Is your shining example Underwood Farms? Ask the farmers who are considering giving up on active farming by taking the developer’s dollar or downsizing or getting out. Adjacent townships have much more farm friendly regulations that work for all. The lawsuit itself proves that PT is far from farm friendly.
Noise, lighting, drunks, sing-alongs. BS. The return of the holier than thou prohibitionists. All of these are addressable by common sense health, welfare and safety regulations. The big one of customers getting drunk is strictly controlled by the full police powers of Federal and State licensing and liquor liability laws. Are residents held to the same standards? Ask the Sheriff’s Department who has been responsible for most drunk driving violations on OMP. They will tell you it’s overwhelmingly residents.
Attacking wineries to threaten the intentions of the PDR. BS. Both the PDR program and wineries are focused on preserving agriculture, one on the land and the other on the farmer. Without both, you end up with fallow brown farm fields and no vineyards or orchards that contribute to the beauty and quality of life on OMP.
PT taxpayers want to live in a rural community with lower property taxes. Yes, but then ensure that farms rather than houses remain the focus.
WOMP is a bad neighbor because it sued PT. BS. Ask your neighbors if they feel that they are listened to where a small clique with conflicts of interest have dominated for years. Having a voice does not mean three minutes of public comment at a PT meeting. For years, PT officials have been able to hide behind a large group of non-homestead residents who don’t participate in local government. The true locals, who are really vested in PT, have little voice except recently through the court system.
How much commercialization does WOMP want given limited infrastructure? BS. The real question is “how can agriculture businesses be helped, given that they require less infrastructure than housing.” Households generate 10 road trips per household a day for residents and service vehicles, plus more PT services than farm businesses for police, fire roads, utilities, education, parks and recreation, and administration.
The writer calls for mediation in good faith. BS. He then goes into full attack mode about zoning violations, winery greed, insulting the wines produced, and generally dragging in any grievances he can think of on the Protect the Peninsula (PTP) list. In good faith? Didn’t PTP enter as an intervenor in the lawsuit that even PT didn’t want till PTP forced them to? Even the judge correctly identified PTP as a NIMBY group. Practice what you preach. If you support mediation don’t throw bricks at those you want at the table.
Finally, the writer gets to his main argument. The Court was wrong, the findings false, and appeal will prevail. BS. More lawyer talk from the consigliere for PTP, advocating for even more appeals in an adversarial system. Settle the lawsuit together, not in the courts. The real issue is not the litigation or even the judgement, it is the future for viable agriculture on OMP.
PT Trustees would be much better off listening to their fellow citizens and fully considering a place for five-acre farms. They are really the one sector of farm growth in developing areas like OMP. Nurture that growth.
– Donald Coe
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Hats off to Mr Coe. He correctly identifies the realities in this ongoing tragi-comedy, and properly calls out the main antagonist: PTP. It seems that if PTP had its way, we’d have no paved roads, no natural gas, no internet. Thank God the gas station was opened in the 60s since it would never be ‘allowed’ today. Even though we are OMP residents, hence are exposed to potential tax increases from the lawsuit, we are on the side of the wineries and small businesses. The reality is the Township LOST, yet they are acting as if they can continue with their Draconian policies.
Time to get put this behind us and if our current ‘leadership’ cannot find a way, it’s time for new leadership.