To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
On Monday, Nov. 24, Protect the Peninsula (PTP) is hosting an open public forum at Peninsula Community Library to discuss the winery lawsuit, settlement and mediation. (Note that Peninsula Community Library is not a sponsor of the forum, and is only providing a space for the event.)
Running from 5 to 6:30 p.m., the forum will offer an opportunity for community members to speak with PTP board members and ask questions about the lawsuit, settlement, and next steps in the legal process. The library is located at 2893 Island View Road.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
In a press release, PTP noted that they have been working hard to encourage much needed transparency around the newest round of lawsuit settlement discussions. View all winery lawsuit news and op-eds on the Gazette here.
Below is an op-ed written by Mike Dettmer that was included in the press release. In addition to serving on the PTP Board, Mike is also a certified mediator and the former US Attorney for the Western District of Michigan.
Conflict on the Old Mission Peninsula is Not New; An Inclusive Process is the Way Out
by Mike Dettmer
The Old Mission Peninsula is gripped by conflict in the protracted legal battle concerning the balance of winery activities and their neighbors’ rights. Yet, as Albert Einstein wisely observed, “In the middle of every difficulty lies opportunity.”
Our community should be judged, not by the persistence of this conflict, but by how we work our way out of it. For this truly unique peninsula to move beyond legal combat and deep resentment, we must embrace a comprehensive, fair, and above all, inclusive process to negotiate a lasting resolution.
For five years, this litigation has drained resources, fostered enmity, and created confusion for all peninsula tenants — wineries, farmers, residents, and visitors. The fundamental keys to a successful negotiation are a fair process, open communication, and focusing on common interests. Unfortunately, historic negotiations have been repeatedly flawed by exclusion.
Those calling for negotiation should be deeply concerned that a defendant by right in the lawsuit, Protect the Peninsula (PTP), has repeatedly been marginalized or completely excluded from mediation efforts. To literally send a party home early or confine its representatives to a separate room during high-stakes discussions is not just disrespectful, it is a short-sighted tactic that actively sabotages the likelihood of success. Any agreement reached after excluding a rightful party will be inherently unstable and vulnerable to challenges.
Despite our confidence in our legal defenses against the nearly $50 million judgment, PTP understands that this dispute presents a paradoxical opportunity: to correct years of zoning uncertainty through negotiation rather than endless litigation.
Therefore, PTP prioritizes negotiating a reasonable solution that protects residents, supports wineries, and avoids further costs and conflicts. The shared goal of winery owners and their neighbors should be clear, fair, winery-specific terms that emphasize winemaking and wine sales, while thoughtfully incorporating expanded agritourism and resulting in better compliance.
This approach helps solidify the long-term sustainability of the agricultural community. By negotiating, the parties can agree to tailored revenue streams — like occasional food and wine pairings, cooking classes, and limited ticketed promotional events — which the wineries failed to secure in court, while still respecting the neighborhood setting of each winery.
In contrast, the current status is confusing and unfair. The wineries’ lawsuit succeeded in invalidating historical zoning provisions that authorized wine pairing dinners and promotional merchandise sales, leaving some in limbo – now authorized to offer fewer, not more, revenue-generating activities.
At the same time, others are currently flouting zoning by openly offering to host weddings and other private facility rentals. This inconsistent interpretation of the current status is unfair – both to wineries that respect zoning and to neighbors who rely on it to protect their peaceful enjoyment of their homes. A tailored settlement would bring much-needed clarity.
Ultimately, this community shares common interest in supporting thriving farms and promoting wineries engaged in winemaking. The only path to a stable, durable solution is through an inclusive negotiation table, including PTP, the Township, and the wineries. The more transparency, the better.
It is time for us to set down our swords, sit down together as partners, and forge an agreement that allows the Old Mission Peninsula to thrive by securing a sustainable future for its agricultural heart and preserving this as a peaceful place to live. – Mike Dettmer
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
I have one VERY important question. What makes PTP think that they speak for the residents of Old Mission?
They are a group of lawyers that believe they speak for you, or us. Hold on to your wallets when lawyers enter the frey. And remember a judge is a lawyer.
I have lived on this peninsula for 40 years, much less than some, but more than a lot of people who believe in PTP.
PTP is a BIG part of the problem.
Let PTP pony up to 50 million in damages. I do NOT think that they will!
PTP is all for subdivisions that create a lot more disturbance than the wineries.
SHAME on PTP!
Agree…I’m trying to learn the different groups. Do we HAVE to pick a side?
I think PTO could gain more momentum if they disclosed how many donors and/or active members they have.
Tom,
PTP is a powerful advocacy group of lawyers & successful business people. They have a valid perspective, a NIMBY perspective, but wield an enormous amount of influence. There are not enough governors in place to restrain PTP’s legal & lobbying overreach, in my view. For example, requiring 85% local grapes vs. the more reasonable 30%, no lodging, restaurant or special event uses, seen in other ordinances, and, a startling lack of any objective traffic criteria & data.
PTP is a legal & advocacy group, extremely well organized and speaks out and up, but, has operated in a township without highly trained professional planning expertise at Township Hall which should buffer its influence when it crosses the line of what is/isn’t legal & what is/isn’t reasonable. That, in my mind, is what has resulted in our unprecedented liability. The disconnect is between PTP’s playing roulette with winery restrictions & our pocketbooks. They get a free pass with their efforts to shut down the wineries even when they overreach. This does not mean that I completely disagree with the core notion of thoughtful planning, nor am I “pro-winery.” I am “Pro-residents.”.
The statute shot down was intentionally overreaching. PTP’s lawyers understand the Commerce Clause (restriction on imported grapes) & the 1st Amendment (restriction on advertising, which is speech). Their only objective was to stop the wineries. They FORCED this legal challenge, gambling the wineries wouldn’t challenge their neighbors legally. Well, they had had enough. And won.
Absent here, IMO, are objective planning tools. Never have I heard mention of “traffic” counts or studies tied to our former orchard uses vs. grape & winery use, or traffic counts associated with residential construction and neighborhoods compared to either. Traffic is the #1 tool for planning. It is absent here, which exposes our lack of sophistication on planning. Building density, setbacks, perhaps an upward limit on the total number of wineries & tasting rooms, noise, open space, etc., should also be considered.
Out of curiosity, I looked at some wine growing areas similar in age to OMP’s that obviously have the same issues. UC Davis is a recognized oenology school. It has an academic approach with an organized database & conducts research & surveys. The first that came up allows importation of 70% (vs. our 15%!) of the grapes & have no permitting required for the first two tiers of wineries in a 4 tier system. Most allow restaurant service, lodging & special events.
I attach some links that might be of interest for a wine region with some similarities:
https://patch.com/california/livermore/livermore-valley-wine-region-spotlighted-uc-davis-study
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/advance/winery/POD_08-012_Final_Ordinance.pdf
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/advance/winery/TieredWineryFAQ.pdf
Thanks Mike and PTP for what you do for the residents of Old Mission. We need PTP’s strong support as the wineries continuously strong arm our Peninsula for financial gain.