To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP resident Todd Anson says a resolution to the winery lawsuit requires OMP leaders to rise above the litigation fray, prioritizing settlement and peace. Read on for his thoughts. Also, just a note that I don’t give preferential treatment to any op-ed writers. Opinion pieces are posted in the order I receive them (and sometimes, like the past couple weeks, I get behind on posting stories). -jb
The Township Board’s response rejecting the olive branch WOMP extended to it following much vitriol directed at the wineries was swift and decisive. Hardly a “measured response.” Quite shocking. It is difficult to see it as anything other than a power move by the Township’s counsel. It leaves me “wondering.”
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
I wonder what is really behind the Township’s knee-jerk rejection to what we’ve all encouraged, and I saw, as a successful, unprecedented, months-long effort by many to produce dialogue where our trustees’ and its counsel’s efforts had failed?
I wonder whether the Township intended this complete rebuke? Or, was it an in-artful attempt to propose some ground rules going forward? If so, the Township’s lawyers should not waste time publicly encouraging the discussions the wineries opened, while clarifying the board’s support of furthering talks.
There are other things I am wondering about. I wonder why the Trustees would breach protocol by insisting upon complete “transparency” as to these discussions, in violation of every tenet of settlement talks lawyers follow? This is not likely to be productive.
I wonder about our Township’s taking umbrage over a WOMP press release and its attendant expectation for “confidentiality,” in stark contrast to the trustees’ own behavior repeatedly calling closed sessions throughout this mess? The Supervisor herself has “discreetly” (and unsuccessfully) reached out on her own to the wineries to initiate dialogue while facilitating our “knowing” as much through her intermediaries.
I wonder when the trustees will practice the “transparency” they preach and begin publicly sharing their votes throughout the process, including their votes as to this rejection of the WOMP olive branch?
Finally, I wonder why, of all things, in their rebuke the Trustees insist upon PTP’s inclusion in any settlement talks, if PTP is not actually making the calls and pulling the board’s strings? Not a good look. While there is most certainly virtue in PTP’s work, I’m afraid PTP’s unbending zeal is what created this mess in the first place.
Frankly, I wonder why we even need the board involved given how closely it clutches to PTP? Why not simply conduct talks directly between the wineries and PTP? This feels like the Township’s “jump the shark” moment. That moment when we “can’t see the forest for the trees.” This is precisely how litigation spirals. Has PTP hijacked our board? Have the Township’s lawyers? Has interminable litigation just hijacked the peninsula?
PTP (and its lawyers) look to be accomplices. We’ve already been informed that the cost to us in accrued interest to accommodate the challenge to jurisdiction regarding PTP’s intervention is upwards of $1.2M. Over and above the $49M judgment. This is how litigation eats everything in its pathway — our money, our time and our community’s fabric. This is precisely what got us into this mess.
The reflexive rejection of the WOMP outreach is nothing more than legal posturing and manipulation of our public board. I assume the board has some strategy? Do we demand that it be “made public” under the guise of “transparency?” Can we expect the trustees to disclose any and all discussions with PTP members bearing on the wineries? I think not. Just as I think it is absurd to think that this can be resolved on full public display as our trustees have demanded.
The wineries demonstrated their good faith in offering their proposal. We cannot expect the wineries to act as “good neighbors” if the trustees don’t treat them with the same respect and dignity. The Township’s lawyers can’t be expected to have a community-first compass. The trustees must demand it. Litigators are gladiators, not peace makers.
The wisdom to resolve this requires our leaders to rise above the litigation fray, prioritizing settlement and peace, above all else. They must dictate to our lawyers in unequivocal terms that prompt, fair resolution is the top priority. Only the uninitiated allow lawyers to drive the process. We have just shut down a process that took months to facilitate.
I wonder how smart that will prove to be?
-Todd Anson, Old Mission Peninsula resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Todd, I don’t want to keep you wondering if the township Planning Commission is going to fill the seat by the newly retired citizen servant, Larry Dloski. The PC is a great way to engage in the public process and keep hyperbole at bay. My door is always open but I think that your time and talents are best utilitized at the policy level.
Please apply:
Planning Commission Vacancy
Peninsula Township is accepting letters of interest and/or resumes for an individual to serve on the Planning Commission. One position is open with the term through August 2027. This commission meets at 7:00 p.m. on the first Tuesday of each month. Additional meetings may be scheduled. Applicants must be qualified electors of the township. Please submit a letter of interest and/or resume to Township Clerk Becky Chown at [email protected] or mail it to her at 13235 Center Road, Traverse City MI 49686 by 4:00 p.m. on December 2, 2025.
Thanks Todd, I hope communication between the township board and WOMP continues to improve
The concept of bad guys WOMP and the board as victims needs to be put to bed. PTP does not represent the residents, but the board does.
Open meetings laws require that the publics business be conducted publicly. There are narrow exceptions for legal and employee matters and a few other narrow circumstances. A quorum of representatives may not discuss public business outside of posted meetings. Even closed sessions need to be publicly posted. I’m bringing this up to discuss round-robin discussions which are specifically prohibited. A quorum of representatives may not discuss public business in a series of events which together would form a quorum. If representatives are meeting with PTP representatives in private individually and in total meeting with a quorum, I believe that is a violation of the open meetings act, both in the spirit and letter of the law.
A good protective step would be to file a FOIA request for information related to PTP agendas, strategy, and spelling out likely representatives. This would include emails, phone records, and any written materials in the possession of township employees and elected representatives.
By marking a point in time where those materials were requested, if in the future it comes out that PTP has had back doors into the publics business, those responsible can be held accountable. It also serves as warning to stop any such errors in the future.
What happens when you find out there’s a ton of communication with womp members? What story will you make up then?
Todd as usual you hit the nails on their heads. There are so many pieces to this ongoing saga you need a big board with interconnecting lines to see the subtle and overt connections. For example, while every citizen has the right to serve on committees why is it that often the ones chosen are PTP board members. Sometimes the same one on different committees. Since we don’t have the right to PTPs membership list we have no way of knowing how many other officials from the Board down to the committees are members.
It is more of a concern now since they are parties to the lawsuit. Why didn’t the township object to PTPs involvement in the lawsuit as a party rather than an amicus. Especially since PTP claimed the township could not adequately represent the interest of the citizens.
We at least know that one of the PTP’s witnesses they used trying to establish harm was one of the Wunsch family farm owners. Did that influence the town’s embrace of PTP? Does it continue to do so? I don’t know.
The judge excluded PTP from the mediation at the trial phase why is Maura so anxious to have them included in any new negotiations. I wonder?
Lou, so that you don’t have to continue to wonder (and all that might be asking the same questions about PTP being part of mediation): https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0165p-06.pdf
The entire exhausting lawsuit is sequential. The judge you are referring to was overruled by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. I appreciate your continued reference to the past but it is the present and the future that commands my energy. Denying a legitimate intervenor defendant a seat at the mediation table is a waste of taxpayer money. This would only extend and delay this good faith mediation effort.
I will offer the opportunity for the open seat on the Planning Commission and look forward to your application. We are looking for all of those interested in being part of the community legislative process to apply. Please reach out if you have any questions about that selection process. (231) 223-7323 or [email protected]
Outright rejection dooms the Penninsula. I agree whole heartedly that peaceful negotiations on the issues without name calling works but placing blame is a road to more disaster. Permanent solutions to bad situations require finding common ground by discussing the needs of the parties and then crafting creative solutions. Hoping for an appeal victory is like a teenager hoping that parents can be negotiated down after the adults have already weighed in. There’s an old proverb that the opposite of a profound truth may be another profound truth. Let’s all stop the race to the bottom!
Thank you, Maura.
I have been wondering whether I’d hear from you at some point throughout this process as I have consistently from residents, PTP, some wineries, growers & any number of concerned OMP residents, some who are attorneys. You’ve singled me out, so, out of respect, I will respond.
If you want my “two cents” I have consistently spoken about “common sense” and understanding the toxicity of a “litigation first” strategy. I see so much “hyperbole” coming from those close to our Board at a time when we (though, not all of us, I’ve learned, not PTP for sure) are on the hook for this $50M judgment concerning us. PTP is playing a high stakes game with our money and bonding capacity. I wonder about the Board-PTP relationship (it seems to be “one voice” with our Board). Clarifying that relationship would serve the peninsula well, I think. They and you speak of “transparency.” I would start there by being fully transparent. Also sharing how each Trustee feels about each issue with no more closed sessions. One can’t play the “transparency card” without walking that talk.
I have developed respect for Mike Dettmer who is doing the right thing encouraging dialogue. He is, of course, extremely invested in PTP’s limiting winery activities. We have choked the wineries too hard for the law’s tolerance. That’s my view as a real estate lawyer and, separately, as a citizen. Is this at the direction of or to indulge PTP? So far, the law agrees. What is the right balance? How much is enough?
THAT is the $64K question, of course. The wineries are our last, best shot at open space. For me, the answer is “Just enough to eliminate much of the judgment AND provide sustainable, long-term pathways for the wineries so we can enjoy the open space they provide for the benefit of all.” We are one of only three U.S. municipalities (WA & PA states have the others) that has triggered liability for its citizens. Clearly we are doing something the wrong way. We violated their Constitutional rights & shouldn’t expect them to buy into Mike’s proposed inflexibility regarding the ordinance WHILE backing away from their judgment. Mike’s proposal was, to me, unrealistic and unfair. I understand that it played to his PTP constituents. There is common ground, of course.
And I don’t think the flexibility needed to resolve this changes OMP as much as those promoting otherwise. I encouraged our community to rise above this “and come together to write an inspiring last chapter together” based upon how we resolve this fairly. That notion was actually mocked by “my critic,” a prominent PTPer, rather than well received. His hyperbolic response spoke volumes. Not a word of it tamped down by our Trustees. It leaves one wondering where our Trustees stand individually as they call for transparency? Does PTP speak for our Trustees? Why did our Trustees response to the WOMP outreach insist upon including PTP? Are they doing the thinking for our Board? I do not say this to provoke contention. I think addressing this would go a long way towards calming things down.
For me, the knee-jerk rejection of the WOMP outreach was a strategic mistake at a time when our Board needed to encourage dialogue. It smacked of “classic lawyer hardball.”
I am certain of little, but, I am certain of this- following our lawyers’ advice without your leadership prioritizing our community fabric first WILL NOT GET this resolved in a manner that reduces rather than accelerates community acrimony.
It takes leadership, guts and compromise to make THAT our Top Priority and to put this behind our community. That means doing the “sometimes unpopular things” to compromise despite the political ramifications. It is a mistake to think that community fabric & compromise can come from law firms. That wisdom must come from you!
Much of the inflammatory rhetoric is coming from your own Todd, for whom I carry a commanding respect as a USNA grad & Vet. His rhetoric condemning new organizations and fresh voices is divisive. I personally don’t find his projecting his intense, intolerance of other viewpoints and stifling of others to be constructive, particularly when he is not a stakeholder in important ways.
Thank you for your encouragement regarding the opening on the PC board, but I have clearly stated that this is about finding a solution, not about me.
I have no interest in holding any representative office.
Maura thank you for the invite. I would consider applying to some committee if it were not for the fact that I am absent 5 months and a few days each year. I checked with the state after Covid was over and was told zoom meetings are a no go. I am healthy so far so no exception there.
I have given my input loads of ways by direct comments in the meeting and by gazette and next door pieces.i will continue my civic duty that way.
One final note is I do not see any of the towns briefs on WOMPs last motions. Will you be posting them soon. And the insurance companies briefs.
Maura, I find it interesting that you would ask those who are concerned with the way things are being handled by our leaders to apply for the open Planning Commission spot. Do you want them to become members or are you just asking them because you know they can’t or won’t apply.
I ask this because I did apply for a spot on the Agriculture Committee and was one of 12 who applied for seven spots. Not to toot my own horn but my farm is 90 acres. I grow grapes, cherries, chestnuts, and hay and have grown vegetables. I have also had pigs, sheep, goats, and chickens on my farm. I dare say no one on the Peninsula has had more variety in their agricultural products. I also am one of the few operations with a pick your own business.
On top of this I have extensive experience with and spoken often about the value of Agritourism. My non farm work life has been full of experiences in negotiations at the state, Federal, and international level. I have spent countless hours preparing for and providing my thoughts on agricultural related issues to this Township.
However, when it came time to pick those seven committee members I was not chosen. I believe I know why, but I will ask you. Why was I not chosen? And why would Todd and Lou be treated any differently than I was?
Thank you, Maura.
I have been wondering whether I’d hear from you at some point throughout this process as I have consistently from residents, PTP, some wineries, growers & any number of concerned OMP residents, some who are attorneys. You’ve singled me out, so, out of respect, I will respond.
If you want my “two cents” I have consistently spoken about “common sense” and understanding the toxicity of a “litigation first” strategy. I see so much “hyperbole” coming from those close to our Board at a time when we (though, not all of us, I’ve learned, not PTP for sure) are on the hook for this $50M judgment concerning us. PTP is playing a high stakes game with our money and bonding capacity. I wonder about the Board-PTP relationship (it seems to be “one voice” with our Board). Clarifying that relationship would serve the peninsula well, I think. They and you speak of “transparency.” I would start there by being fully transparent. Also sharing how each Trustee feels about each issue with no more closed sessions. One can’t play the “transparency card” without walking that talk.
I have developed respect for Mike Dettmer who is doing the right thing encouraging dialogue. He is, of course, extremely invested in PTP’s limiting winery activities. We have choked the wineries too hard for the law’s tolerance. That’s my view as a real estate lawyer and, separately, as a citizen. Is this at the direction of or to indulge PTP? So far, the law agrees. What is the right balance? How much is enough?
THAT is the $64K question, of course. The wineries are our last, best shot at open space. For me, the answer is “Just enough to eliminate much of the judgment AND provide sustainable, long-term pathways for the wineries so we can enjoy the open space they provide for the benefit of all.” We are one of only three U.S. municipalities (WA & PA states have the others) that has triggered liability for its citizens. Clearly we are doing something the wrong way. We violated their Constitutional rights & shouldn’t expect them to buy into Mike’s proposed inflexibility regarding the ordinance WHILE backing away from their judgment. Mike’s proposal was, to me, unrealistic and unfair. I understand that it played to his PTP constituents. There is common ground, of course.
And I don’t think the flexibility needed to resolve this changes OMP as much as those promoting otherwise. I encouraged our community to rise above this “and come together to write an inspiring last chapter together” based upon how we resolve this fairly. That notion was actually mocked by “my critic,” a prominent PTPer, rather than well received. His hyperbolic response spoke volumes. Not a word of it tamped down by our Trustees. It leaves one wondering where our Trustees stand individually as they call for transparency? Does PTP speak for our Trustees? Why did our Trustees response to the WOMP outreach insist upon including PTP? Are they doing the thinking for our Board? I do not say this to provoke contention. I think addressing this would go a long way towards calming things down.
For me, the knee-jerk rejection of the WOMP outreach was a strategic mistake at a time when our Board needed to encourage dialogue. It smacked of “classic lawyer hardball.”
I am certain of little, but, I am certain of this- following our lawyers’ advice without your leadership prioritizing our community fabric first WILL NOT GET this resolved in a manner that reduces rather than accelerates community acrimony.
It takes leadership, guts and compromise to make THAT our Top Priority and to put this behind our community. That means doing the “sometimes unpopular things” to compromise despite the political ramifications. It is a mistake to think that community fabric & compromise can come from law firms. That wisdom must come from you!
Much of the inflammatory rhetoric is coming from your own Todd, for whom I carry a commanding respect as a USNA grad & Vet. His rhetoric condemning new organizations and fresh voices is divisive. I personally don’t find his projecting his intense, intolerance of other viewpoints and stifling of others to be constructive, particularly when he is not a stakeholder in important ways.
Thank you for your encouragement regarding the opening on the PC board, but I have clearly stated that this is about finding a solution, not about me.
I have no interest in holding any representative office.
I wonder why the WOMP settlement offer is being referred to as an olive branch. I read: “Give us everything we want, and then, maybe, we’ll consider reducing the fifty million dollars…or not.” This is not a good faith offer, it’s soaked in cynicism. I wonder what’s not obvious about that.
I concluded my recent comment, “I have no interest in holding any representative office,” a bit abruptly. I have great respect for the important work our Trustees & planning committee members perform. However, I do not seek appointed office. I try my best to keep up, but, we have two young grandsons near our San Diego home, one now in his 23rd month fighting Stage IV Neuroblastoma who demands our attention, with our kids expecting a baby sister for the boys any day now.
So, to be clear, my sole reason for devoting my attention to the WOMP situation is to help us all achieve the best outcome we can, i.e. the Township’s & WOMP’s being “content” with guidelines and as close to $0 out of pocket as possible.