To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP resident Sean Goheen says Peninsula Township residents deserve a clear explanation of what the Township is trying to achieve. “Without real policy direction — not just broad principles — the community is left guessing while legal costs continue to rise.” Read on for his thoughts. -jb
The Township’s own survey shows that most residents believe the Township is going in the wrong direction, and the number one reason they give is the ongoing winery lawsuits. Zoning enforcement was rated the Township’s worst-performing service, and a strong share of residents oppose using Township funds to continue these legal battles.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
I want to be clear: I am not taking the side of the Township or the wineries. I simply want what is best for this community, and that starts with clear, lawful, and sustainable land-use policy.
Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that key parts of the Township’s winery regulations were unconstitutional, including sections that were unconstitutionally vague after decades of inconsistent enforcement. That ruling should have been a clear opportunity to step back and realign our policies. (Editor’s Note: At the Dec. 9 Township Board meeting, Township Clerk Becky Chown noted that any regulations deemed unconstitutional were re-worked and changed. -jb)
It’s true that Peninsula Township now has a 2024 Draft Master Plan — a document intended to guide long-term planning. But even this updated plan falls short of providing the clarity our community needs. It outlines broad goals and community values, yet still lacks a winery-policy roadmap, a clear statement of desired land-use outcomes, or a practical framework for how agriculture, wineries, events, and tourism are expected to coexist on the peninsula.
We continue to hear broad phrases about “preserving rural character” or “protecting the peninsula,” but slogans are not a substitute for policy. The Master Plan offers vision, but it does not offer specificity. It does not define what a balanced, lawful, sustainable agricultural-tourism economy should look like — nor does it articulate the standards or next steps needed to get there.
Meanwhile, the Township has continued issuing new enforcement actions that appear to rely on the same underlying regulatory approach the court already rejected. This does not build confidence. It raises real questions about whether the Township is meaningfully adjusting its course in response to the ruling, or simply repeating the patterns that led to expensive litigation in the first place.
Residents deserve a clear explanation of what the Township is trying to achieve. Without real policy direction — not just broad principles — the community is left guessing while legal costs continue to rise.
In the end, this isn’t about choosing sides. It’s about leadership, transparency, and the future of Old Mission Peninsula. And right now, the Township has an opportunity — and a responsibility — to articulate a concrete, actionable vision that reflects the will of the people who live here.
– Sean Goheen, Old Mission Peninsula Resident
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
I hope your clarion call does not go unheard. One has to wonder if the board committee has already contacted WOMP with no conditions on the town’s part for a sit down. PTP should not be part of the sit down. Let the nominated group do their tasked job.
I can not believe the township has been hoodwinked into following the dictates of an 11 member group. Maybe they have more members but that’s what I have learned from public statements.
The only 11 member group trying to hoodwink our community is Womp. Anyone that wants to know the truth can go to the PTP ( https://protectthepeninsula.com/) website. Bypass the rage baiters and read the facts yourself. The wineries deserve nothing other than a seat at the table to hash this out with our representatives and anyone they care to consult-including PTP.
A zoning ordinance is not constitutional just because the board or the township’s attorney says it is. Constitutionality is determined by courts. No court has approved Amendment 201…including judge Maloney. Although the township removed unlawful restrictions, there remain areas where it could still be unconstitutional. Requiring the majority of raw produce to be grown locally is one example that the court might strike down. Should there not be an agreement between the township & WOMP, Amendment 201 will be re-litigated & that is possibly what will happen with Bonobo’s recent lawsuit.
I am a little confused and possibly incorrect, but I don’t believe courts have to approve any of our township rules.
Chris. You are correct that courts don’t have to approve township rules. My comments referred only to amendment 201 (revised ordinance) which the township strongly believes is constitutional. The court will only be involved determining the legality of 201 if WOMP files another lawsuit.
Todd. I’d suggest people refer to court document only for facts, not a website where supposed “facts” are written by a special interest group.
I did have to laugh out loud when someone said go to the PTP site for facts.
I’ll be a bit more brutal. The trustees/township have been grossly negligent for years on this issue which now includes the misguided PTP. The level of control they are trying to exact is unprecedented. This is typical of small minded people trying to control the lives and freedoms of others. OMP must adapt to the times and some of that means things won’t be as they have been for the past hundred years. No one is advocating for party central, high rise buildings, casinos and other such silly examples. Just reasonable use of one’s property within limits that we can all live with.
The trustees/PTP have misused, overreached and been incompetent in their respective positions and responsibilities. They are in jeopardy of losing their/our insurance coverage-unbelievable! They may be facing a class action lawsuit personally and, in their capacity, as grossly negligent trustees. They should all resign immediately if not sooner!