To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
In a press release today, the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) sent the following note…
After five months without meaningful engagement from Peninsula Township officials, the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP) announced today that they will begin the process of enforcing the federal judgment awarded earlier this year. Having waited more than three months for engagement, the Wineries took the first step in October by providing the Township with a proposal to resolve the litigation.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
While the parties briefly discussed mediating, the Wineries emphasized to the Township that they first needed a response to their settlement proposal confirming they share enough common ground to move to mediation. To date, no response from the Township has been received. The Wineries remain committed to finding an agreeable settlement that respects their constitutional rights, protects the community, and is in the best interest of their neighbors. (Editor’s Note: See Township Supervisor Maura Sander’s note here. Appeals are ongoing with WOMP, Protect the Peninsula, and Peninsula Township. -jb)
In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Maloney awarded WOMP and its member wineries nearly $50 million in damages, finding that Peninsula Township had “repeatedly and pervasively violated the Wineries’ constitutional rights” through unlawful zoning restrictions and the prohibition of events on winery properties. The court also affirmed that wineries — including Bonobo Winery — were legally approved to host events under their previously issued permits. Despite that ruling, Peninsula Township has taken steps to delay meaningful settlement discussions and has continued to take enforcement actions against wineries for activities the federal court expressly held were lawful.
In the nearly six months since the Court’s ruling, the Township has refused to engage with the Wineries in substantive one-on-one dialogue, nor has the Township provided a single settlement offer to the Wineries. While Township officials have made limited attempts to initiate conversations, those efforts have included outside groups such as Protect the Peninsula (PTP). These steps do not replace the meaningful one-on-one dialogue the wineries have repeatedly requested.
“WOMP has been patient and committed to finding common ground,” said Chris Baldyga, vineyard owner, farmer, and President of WOMP. “We gave the Township every opportunity to begin a meaningful one-on-one conversation without the influence of special-interest groups like PTP. We waited while around $6,000 per day in interest continued to grow.”
Despite beginning enforcement, WOMP again extended an open invitation for dialogue. The wineries stated that a fair settlement is still possible and that they can work with the Township if officials are willing to enter into good faith discussions. WOMP also expressed appreciation for Peninsula Township Trustee J.P. Milliken, who has worked diligently to arrange a meeting for substantive discussions on resolving the suit. The wineries look forward to engaging with the newly announced Town Board Settlement Committee.
“The wineries have waited nearly half a year for the Township to take a single step toward resolving this matter,” said Joseph Infante, attorney for WOMP. “Because the Township has made zero progress toward settling this on behalf of taxpayers, enforcement must begin. Even so, the wineries remain willing to sit down today and work toward a solution that protects residents and creates long-term clarity.” Infante reiterated, “there is still time for the Township to come to the table before the judgment is assessed on next year’s taxes.”
Survey findings released by the Township in November show that many residents share the Wineries’ frustration. A solid majority now believes the Township is on the wrong track, and many cite the lawsuit and the handling of it as a leading concern. Residents also express strong support for normal winery and farm activities such as tastings, food service, and events.
“This community deserves a resolution,” Baldyga said. “We are enforcing our rights, but our door remains open to settlement because it is the right thing to do.”
The wineries’ settlement framework mirrors the successful rules used on the Leelanau Peninsula. These standards protect and expand agricultural land, respect neighborhoods, and allow wineries to operate in a way that is consistent with state law and industry practice. WOMP has asked only for the same rules every other major winery region in Northern Michigan already follows.
“The wineries are making every effort to resolve this responsibly,” said Infante. “They won in federal court, and they have offered a clear framework for settlement. What is needed now is leadership from the Township. A fair agreement is still possible, but it requires a willingness to come to the table.”
WOMP noted that the Township’s reluctance to negotiate appears to be influenced by Protect the Peninsula, a small, unelected group that has pushed the Township toward more litigation instead of resolution. Residents, according to the recent survey, want stability and a responsible end to the lawsuit, not prolonged conflict.
Key Historical Context of the Case
WOMP had previously refrained from enforcing the $50 million judgment in an effort to negotiate a resolution that would avoid burdening Township residents. However, Peninsula Township has insisted that a private advocacy group, Protect the Peninsula (PTP), be included in settlement discussions — even though the group has no financial liability or legal authority in the case –and has simultaneously maintained enforcement actions that conflict with the federal ruling. The Township has gone so far as to inform the Wineries that any settlement must first be approved by PTP.
“PTP’s president signed an affidavit in 2023 stating that PTP has 11 members. The Township leadership appears willing to let those 11 unelected people hold the settlement process hostage instead of doing the job the voters elected them to do,” said Infante.
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
I would hope that this sets the stage for the township to finally meet forthwith with WOMP. They do not need their PTP minders. They are capable of dealing with this matter as they are the ones given the legal authority to come to an agreement. PTP has no such authority. It was disheartening to see at the town board meeting that the members seemed unaware that WOMP had not heard one word from the town on WOMP’s settlement proposal. Who is in charge here – the law firm for the town or the town officials.
Let’s get this meeting underway. Instead of the mini vacation so called “working” from home the next two weeks, let’s get to a neutral site and have a real sit down of the two affected parties. No need for PTP at this stage.
I agree!! PTP needs to stay out of this. We elected the board and they need to get this mess settled!
As expected..Ransom expected from all Old Mission Peninsula residents from our “friends” of WOMP.
We can’t ignore this. We need to start being as aggressive as they are to defend our property values and avoid a huge tax bill.
Why not urge the township to start negotiating instead of urging aggression. Seems like that already has proven to be a losing proposition.
Based on the current situation as of December 11, 2025, your intuition about “bankruptcy” captures the severity of the financial threat, but the legal reality in Michigan is slightly different and arguably more direct for taxpayers.
While the financial pressure suggests insolvency, a “Judgment Levy” (a mandatory tax increase) is a far more likely legal outcome than actual municipal bankruptcy.
Here is the detailed breakdown of the most likely outcomes for Peninsula Township, ranked by probability.
1. The “Nuclear” Option: The Judgment Levy (High Probability if Appeal Fails)
You asked if bankruptcy is most likely. In Michigan, townships cannot simply “declare bankruptcy” to wipe out debt like a corporation or individual can. They require specific authorization from the Governor to file for Chapter 9, which is rarely granted.
Instead, Michigan State Law (MCL 600.6093) has a mechanism that is arguably worse for residents: The Judgment Levy.
How it works: If the Township loses its appeal and refuses to pay, the Wineries can take their judgment to the township supervisor. By law, the supervisor must add the debt to the next tax roll.
No Vote Required: Unlike normal millages, this tax increase does not require voter approval. It bypasses the “Headlee Amendment” caps because it is a court-ordered debt.
The Impact: With a judgment now demanded at $51.6 million, this would result in a massive, immediate spike in property taxes for all Peninsula Township residents to pay off the debt in one shot (or over a short period if negotiated).
2. The “Rational” Outcome: A Negotiated Settlement (Most Likely Overall)
Despite the aggressive headlines on December 11 (the Wineries demanding $51.6M), this is likely a strategic move to force the Township to the table. A settlement remains the most logical end game for both sides for several reasons:
For the Township: It avoids the political suicide of hitting residents with a massive Judgment Levy tax.
For the Wineries: Collecting $50M via a tax levy would take years, face endless procedural appeals, and permanently alienate the very neighbors who are their potential customers. They have already signaled they are willing to accept a “reduced amount” in exchange for better zoning rules (operational freedom).
The Obstacle: The Township has been insisting that the citizens’ group “Protect the Peninsula” (PTP) be part of the settlement. The Wineries refuse to negotiate with PTP. If the Township drops this condition, a settlement (likely in the $10M–$20M range + zoning changes) becomes probable.
3. The “Long Shot”: Chapter 9 Bankruptcy (Unlikely)
State leaders in Lansing generally try to prevent municipal bankruptcies because they ruin the credit rating for the whole state.
Before bankruptcy is allowed, the State would likely appoint an Emergency Financial Manager (EFM) to take over the Township.
The EFM’s job would be to cut costs and sell assets (like the Lighthouse or development rights) to pay the debt before filing for bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy is a last resort that the State Governor would likely block until every potential tax dollar is squeezed from the township.
Summary of the Situation (Dec 11, 2025)
The Demand: The Wineries have officially demanded $51,609,073.90 to be paid by September 2026.
The Township’s Defense: They are currently appealing to the Sixth Circuit Court. If they win the appeal, the debt vanishes or shrinks. If they lose, the Judgment Levy (Scenario 1) is triggered.
Insurance: It is currently estimated that the Township’s insurance may only cover $5 million to $10 million of the damages, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the remaining $40M+.
Conclusion: What is the “Most Likely” Outcome?
A Settlement is the most likely final outcome, but it will get uglier before it happens.
The “Bankruptcy” you fear will likely manifest as a Judgment Levy (Tax Hike). Expect the Township to fight the appeal for another 6-12 months. If that appeal looks like it is failing, the Township will likely be forced to settle with the wineries—giving them the zoning freedoms they want and a smaller cash payment—to avoid the catastrophic tax increase on residents.
Next Step: If you are a resident of Peninsula Township, would you like me to help you find the contact information for the Township Board or the schedule for the next public meeting so you can voice your concerns about the settlement negotiations?
I have to hand it to PTP. For an 11 member organization they have been an effective PR outlet for what they believe. Unfortunately being stuck in a bygone era isn’t working out so well. We now have this $50MM judgement against us due primarily to their “sky is falling” stance at the infamous St. Joe Church meeting. It is time to jettison them from this negotiation process that they have stymied with their inflexible dismal miniscule compromise of allowing logo wear to be sold and that the wineries can have two events per year with no fee charge. Even so our Board hangs on to them while saying last night that PTP will be part of any negotiation. This has to stop and we need to move forward with reasonable compromise and without PTP. I am not sure what the 3 person board committee will do but suggest looking at what other geographical areas are doing with respect to wineries such as Leelanau. I don’t see them overrun with events and weddings ( yes there are some) and they are not open until 2am either. Restaurants at wineries will be a good thing. I saw first hand in New Zealand. The wineries had the best restaurants. And the customer practice was to taste a few possible selections and then pick your choices and take them to your dinner table. So customers stayed at a particular winery for say 2 – 2.5 hours instead of driving around to winery after winery for sips of wine. It cut down on traffic and patrons had alcohol absorbing food in their system. This is a win win. For events the same scenario may occur. People will be fixed in a given location for an extended period of time. So Township Board the choice is yours. It is time to make a serious offer (its been 4 months already) to the wineries and get going on making appropriate zoning changes. The house is burning and you need to put the fire out and concentrate on this issue primarily instead of pretending it is business as usual at Town Hall.
Curt
Well said.
Mr. Peterson’s comment sums up the situation most accurately. The wineries on the Leelanau peninsula do not seem to cause any problems. What is PTP trying to protect us from? Winery operations are not cheap to run. Winery owners should have a variety of options to stay in business. Please put out the fire!
“What is PTP trying to protect us from? ”
A overly commercialized freak show that attracts dullards from around the country (I prefer my dullards to be local!) so they can drive painfully slow on Center Road as well as the cranking up of rent prices as more and more parasit- I mean rich and well off people who have multiple homes convert to Airbnbs instead of renting out to locals.
Well said Curt