To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Scott Phillips writes that the wineries’ proposed settlement offer will further disrupt the quality of life for Peninsula Township residents. Read on for his thoughts. -jb
It is reported that the wineries propose that they be permitted to play amplified music outdoors until 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and until 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. I wish to highlight that noise beyond the borders of the wineries at any hour infringes on the rights of others to occupy nearby residential properties.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
The wineries’ properties are zoned agricultural, not commercial entertainment properties. The wineries acquired their property knowing of the ordinances governing agricultural zoning. From this perspective, the wineries’ proposal is far from settling. Instead, it is proof of their intent to further expand commercial operations beyond agriculture, and thereby further disrupt the quality of life for Peninsula Township residents.
It is my understanding that the Township has been and continues to be willing to work with the wineries to implement more uniform ordinances that govern winery operations on agricultural land. But the wineries have chosen to circumvent that process, and instead pursue inflated, pie-in-the-sky damages claims in litigation.
There is no argument that the wineries deserve a fair set of ordinances consistent with agricultural land use. However, those ordinances should in no measure further infringe on the rights of those in residentially zoned areas of the township.
Judged from the historically agricultural nature of their lands, they’ve already created more than a fair share of traffic, congestion and noise. I urge readers to support the Township and reject the wineries’ proposed so-called settlement.
– Scott Phillips, OMP Resident
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Interesting that the author is a member and donor of PTP and was directly involved in the PTP intervenor aspect of the lawsuit. Of course he would urge the township to reject a compromise. PTP has done this from the start. It does not as an organization have a financial stake in the lawsuit. All along starting at St Joe’s they have urged the township to reject any compromise. Following that advice we are all now on the hook for $50 million and climbing. Why should anyone listen to their negative urging. Isn’t $50 million in damages enough to satisfy their drum beating. They are encouraging the town to continue to hold us up for $50 million. And Maura wants them included in discussions on a compromise. Do you think a compromise discussion will be realistically undertaken with PTPs insistence that the town not compromise with the wineries. I think PTP continues to be the puppet masters of the town board. It’s time for the trustees to cut those strings and operate on their own. If Maura can’t do it then the other trustees should say we want to discuss a compromise with WOMP. It’s what most of our citizens want. A discussion! At this point if they choose to folllow PTPs lead they are saying we would rather dump a $ 50 million liability on our citizens so we have the affection of the few PTP folks who think the things that the wineries are seeking is worth holding all of us for ransom. It is this kind of thinking that got us in trouble in the first place. Who ever thinks there is no virtue in at least discussing a compromise with the wineries should be dismissed from any participation and held up to the light as wanting to punish the tax paying citizenry for their destructive attitude. Instead of protect the peninsula let’s call them for what they really should henceforth be known as – DTP! Destroy The Peninsula.
Lou- I hate to disappoint you, but PTP isn’t some sort of society of evil doers. It’s a group of residents who believe the township’s future is better served if the wineries followed the zoning and other ordinances that we, the voters, and our boards have worked cooperatively to create. Many of us support the goals of the PTP group, though we may not be members. Likewise, many of us are very appreciative of our elected officials and the hard, time-consuming work they do, and the difficult decisions they have made on our behalf. They are far from anyone’s puppets, as you suggest, they do act on the citizens’ wishes. Township Board and commission meetings are open to the public as are PTP meetings. You yourself often go to Township meetings and voice your opinions. Are WOMP meetings similarly open to the public? Do we even know who WOMP is, (beyond the wineries themselves)? WE DO NOT KNOW WHO THE MINORITY OWNERS ARE. Many live here on the Peninsula and present themselves as nothing more than concerned citizens at meetings and online. In fact, these people have direct financial interest in the winery revenue growth. Their complaints and their fear mongering is nothing but a manipulative charade. Most recently when WOMP and its supporters made a big deal about offering a compromise to the Township Supervisor, the “offer” appeared in the media first, even in MLive in Ann Arbor. It wasn’t a compromise; it was a restatement of their demands. It was part of their disinformation PR assault.
I can honestly say I am neither a member of PTP or a minority owner in any winery. However, I can say I’ve spent many thousands of dollars at the wineries over more than two decades prior to the lawsuit. My wife and I would buy our favorite wines from all the wineries, by the case, and with pride take it downstate and introduce it to our friends. I won’t set foot in any WOMP winery now and I take out-of-town visitors to the Leelanau wineries. I do miss my old favorites and sincerely hope at least a few of the wineries might drop out of this madness and reconnect with their neighbors.
My point is simple what’s wrong with a meeting between the township and the wineries. I would think that’s what people want. Maybe I am wrong. Talking doesn’t obligate either side other than to listen to each other. We elected our township to represent all of us. We did not elect PTP.
PTP in their own submissions said the township could not adequately represent the township. That always struck me as odd. What they really meant was the township could not represent them if they were going to represent the interests of everyone in the township and not just this small group.
You are free to support any group you want. You are free to take your money anywhere you want.
You are also free to express your opinion as am I.
Saying no to the offer by the wineries means no dialogue, no chance to find common ground and is yet another PTP attempt to thwart common sense in the guise of protecting the peninsula. They sure are not saving my bank account if we end up losing this case in the appeal. Let’s not kid each other where would the world be if two opposing sides can not sit down and hash things out. And let’s not forget the court has ruled that certain aspects of the ordinances are unconstitutional.
In the words of the Beatles let’s “Come Together”. At least for those of us who want a resolution. PTP and its supporters can keep insisting the fight should go on but we all lose.
Agree 👍
I agree with a meeting! We need to move beyond the concept of WOMP being the bad guys here.
Times have changed; business needs have also changed. Let’s start a future of working together to promote a fellowship between the residents and our neighbors who operate business of all kinds.
Oh Louis, no where does Mr. Phillips say that the township shouldn’t sit down with WOMP to talk of a compromise! He said they shouldn’t accept their proposed settlement! And so what if he is a member of PTP? So am I! The wineries agreed to the ordinances when they started up but now want more, more, more! I think the township should sit down with Womp and maybe tweak a few things too, like maybe sell Tshirts or glasses, whatever. That doesn’t affect the residents. Maybe stay open Only to 9pm all nights. Sounds reasonable IMO. Maybe thats too late if you live close, I don’t know. I just know that the township should not just agree to WOMPs proposed settlement as is. And BTW, aren’t you a farmer that has a vested interest in accepting the proposal?
Perfect, Nancy!
Nancy, There is nothing wrong with a person being a member of PTP. What is wrong is that ( correct me if wrong) there has not been one discussion from PTP of any compromise whatsoever. See their letter to members by Jim Rafael from a few days ago. What we need is a community wide citizen discussion on modifying our zoning ordinance to make it constitutionally legal. This needs to be priority number 1 to convince WOMP to forgo the $40MM judgement.
Nancy
I am glad you are supportive of discussing these matters.
However not so with Mr. Phillips of PTP, these are his last words from his piece.”
“I urge readers to support the Township and reject the wineries’ proposed so-called settlement.”
That seems to me to be saying don’t sit down with them if you are going to discuss a settlement. Maybe in your eyes he is not saying it but that is how I interpret it. Anyway wouldn’t it be refreshing to see PTP say. We support your efforts to bring a satisfactory conclusion to this situation. Do the best you can and we will stand with you. But no it’s only do what we want and we are the arbiters of what the populace should like to see happen, and if the citizens get dunned $49 million, well we don’t care because you followed our demand to not settle.
“All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter” Edmund Burke.
by the way this is from the PTP website as of today saying the wineries want these changes
alcohol service until 2 a.m.
amplified outdoor music until 2 a.m.
large events such as weddings and bachelorette parties until 2 a.m.
full restaurant service until 2 a.m.
increased traffic until 2 a.m.
The wineries have already said in the past and most recently with their compromise discussion, they don’t want any of these things until 2 am. Don’t you think they should change this statement. Why would the wineries want to sit down with people who have already shown they have no interest in discussing a compromise and continue to put out false information. Maybe their dues paying members want them to continue in this vein.
And yes I am a farmer and yes we can all use some help with rules that are fair and helpful to all farmers. The ag committee is working on proposals to help the farmers.L et’s look at one example. The sign ordinance. It was not helpful for those off of center road and for all on center rd given the speed people drive on center rd. You could argue like you and others do that we knew the rules when we started farming or continued farming. That is unhelpful when the rules actually thwart efforts by the farmers to succeed. The sign ordinance for one is being changed to help farmers. So gee I guess we should have just stayed silent instead of working to amend an ordinance that didn’t make sense. After all you would argue you knew what the ordinance was when you moved here. I could go on but you get my point. There are many new factors working against farmers and we should be listening to them and not shutting them down because hey you know the rules. The argument by some is they are static and you need to accept them as they are. Imagine if other things in life followed this wrong headed admonition. We would have no improvements to our life given to us by people who went against static rules. I have been reading a biography of Edison and he had many people telling him what he wanted to do was impossible and he should stick with the status quo. Thank god he didn’t listen to the folks who would say you know the laws of physics and you should just accept them. Movies , phonographs, storage batteries would not exist, the electric light bulb would be a figment of his imagination. Of the more than 1000 patents he held we would not have the world we live in if he had accepted that you should not seek improvement because you know what the world is already like.
Lou, I am a little lost. Do the wineries have any earth changing, patentable ideas that I am missing? They are putting a liability on every property owner on the Peninsula, not trying to improve our lives. I like their intent to negotiate, but I don’t think they deserve to be put in the frame with real inventors and game changers.
Curt and Louis, a quote from the PTP newsletter today “ And, we hope that the wineries will see the value of open, transparent discussions among all parties” I do believe that means that they would like an open discussion of matters. Louis, yes, if the PTP website still has the 2 AM on their site , it should be changed! Nancy
Based on the comments above, I’d like to make clear that I support efforts to settle the litigation. What I object to is WOMP’s reported demand that the wineries be permitted to play outdoor music that can be heard by neighbors beyond the borders of the wineries property at any hour of the day. Many / almost all Township residents understand and would support that. The ordinances need to be clear on this point. We didn’t purchase our residences next to outdoor entertainment venues. I express no opinion about matters beyond that.
References to PTP and other issues by some of the above rebuttal writers are unnecessarily divisive and unrelated to my comments.
Hmmm, I’m all for a resolution between WOMP and the township, but the latest settlement proposal seems to be the equivalent of me stopping at a fruit stand and saying, “I’d like a quart of cherries and I’ll take $8 in cash, and then we can talk about whether I want to pay some of that $8 back.”
Excellent!
Scott, sorry as I am one of two rebuttal writers that you reference, you say I am being “divisive”. How could my comments for “What we need is a community wide citizen discussion on modifying our zoning ordinance to make it constitutionally legal” be considered divisive. My comment are just the opposite by being 100% inclusive. I would like to see all interested citizens come together and get this issue solved. Thank you. Curt Peterson
You certainly went beyond noise when you say and I quote
“I urge readers to support the Township and reject the wineries’ proposed so-called settlement.“
I will stop here, as it doesn’t add anything to the bigger issues.
Scott, thank you for your article. I support what you are saying wholeheartedly. Wineries are on Ag land, not commercially zoned property that permits event centers. Of course Township officials should talk with WOMP, now that WOMP’s attorney is agreeing to that. I continue to support our Township Officials as they work to support the rural and agricultural nature of our community, as we residents (supported by PTP, an organization made up of residents supporting that rural/agricultural nature) have voted for decades to use our tax dollars to preserve.
Well said , Susan!
If there is not going to be a discussion about what the wineries want, then there is no need for a discussion. This is the wineries opening position. It appears to me they have come a long way from what they were asking for in their lawsuit. It also appears to me that PTP and its acolytes are pretty much against anything the wineries are asking for. If that is the attitude the Township officials take, then there is no need to have a discussion and we might as well let everything rest on the appeals court.
I hope the Township officials are smarter than that. Also, the back and forth on OMG and Nextdoor demonstrate why negotiations are done in closed meetings not out in the open where all sides can pick apart any one point making it impossible to have true negotiations. Anyone involved in labor negotiations or trade negotiations know this as a truism.
Conversation is useful. The terms pointed out in the release content from WOMP are not useful as a starting point and to have any compromise without including the damages and any future damages is negligent negotiations on the township’s part which we directly voted in to represent our interests.
The township must hold a referendum among all residents to define what the will of the people is. We can no longer give outsize representation to special interest groups like PTP. The peninsula is not the private back yard of old money, it is part of the United States and basic freedoms must be etended to the population to earn a living even via reasonable agritourism activities.