To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: OMP resident Chris Moyer warns that the community is being held hostage by WOMP — and urges action to prevent vineyards from becoming nightclubs instead of farms. Read on for his thoughts. -jb
For decades, Old Mission Peninsula residents have honored a quiet covenant: we are stewards of a unique agricultural landscape. We support our farmers, cherish our views, and value the peace of our community.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
However, that covenant is now being held hostage by a recent federal judgment awarding $49 million in damages to the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP). The narrative is terrifyingly simple: give WOMP what they want, or they will bankrupt the township and force taxpayers to cover damages they did not initiate.
While I have been a long-time supporter and wine club member, we cannot allow fear of this questionable judgment to force a surrender that will impact future generations.
The “Farming” Trojan Horse
WOMP claims they are merely farmers seeking survival, but their demands (remember they asked for $200M from their neighbors, the judge decided on the $49M number) suggest otherwise. If this were truly about farming, the debate would center on processing and grape yields. Instead, they demand 2 a.m. closing times, amplified music, large-scale events, and full restaurant capabilities. Their demands are best summarized here: WOMP Demands 11/2020
The demands currently on the table are not minor adjustments to help struggling farmers, they are aggressive extorts to transform agricultural land into commercial entertainment zones without planning control. When a venue serves alcohol and hosts late night parties, it is no longer a farm; it is a nightclub in a vineyard.
Their proposals include merchandise rules akin to placing generic retail stores in tasting rooms and “guest room” allowances that would effectively plant hotels on the peninsula. All without having to adhere to planning and zoning that the rest of us residents live by.
Further evidence of how the wineries want to be neighbors is shown in recent filings where it is clear they want to continue to have judges dictating zoning and local rules, not taxpayer elected officials. Read more here: WOMP Wants More Litigation With Neighbors
Infrastructure and Economic Reality
The proposed expansion threatens both our physical safety and financial security.
Traffic Safety. Our peninsula has one main artery that cannot handle the volume of commercial event traffic and late-night alcohol consumption-compromised drivers that WOMP desires.
Density. Proposals for minimum parcel sizes encourage fracturing large farms. More importantly, “outdoor attendance” limits are virtually non-existent.
Property Values. The $49 million judgment is a start to litigation and continuous uncertainty that impacts all our property values. We are already seeing impact with real estate listings increasing even while the price / square foot drops. This is likely due to fears of future tax liabilities and the possibility of suddenly living in a mostly commercial event driven strip. Just ask any real estate agent if housing is desirable next to a nightclub or if having an unknown financial liability in the potential sale helps sell houses.
If the Township capitulates, it is not a settlement, it is a liquidation of our property values and an increase of our taxes through a potential special assessment to cover damages.
A Call to Action
We must insist that our Township Trustees continue to negotiate with our best interest in mind and not be pushed into solutions that are not for the majority of residents. We want successful wineries, but success cannot come at the expense of the community that hosts them.
In a recent meeting someone asked what can we do? Here are some ideas on how we can respond to this economic aggression. I am sure others will have more ideas.
- Vote with Your Wallet. Cancel wine club memberships and let WOMP members know why. Spend your money at local businesses that are not suing the township, such as The Boathouse, Seven Hills, The Jolly Pumpkin, Mission Table, Old Mission General Store and local farmstands. Should we all cancel our wine memberships on the same day to help reinforce this message?
- Demand “No Negotiation Under Duress.” Urge the Township Board to pursue appeals to the fullest extent. We should not surrender our way of life, property values, planning approach and zoning laws based on a “lost profits” calculation that may not stand up in court. Remain active at every Township meeting.
- Consider supporting “Protect the Peninsula” (PTP). This group has intervened to represent residents’ interests when the Township could not. I am not a member, but attended their recent open session to learn more. I came away understanding that they are advocating for zoning that works for farmers, wineries, and residents alike. The PTP session last week at the Peninsula Community Library showed their willingness to share informative insight, and they were transparent and defended their actions well. Something we have not seen from WOMP members.
- Speak Up. Publicize your stance on social media. Ask winery owners directly, not their downstate lawyers, what they are intending to achieve with this lawsuit. Ask them how they justify sending a bill to you for damages you did not cause, and why they believe zoning changes through litigation is fair to their neighbors.
Conclusion
WOMP appears to be betting that residents will fold and lose interest in this attack. They continue to be completely opaque around their current demands and are offering no transparency.
We are the customers, the neighbors, and the voters. We need to stay involved with our local township leaders and remind them at every meeting what we expect and that we demand to vote on any settlement. It is also time to actively reinforce to WOMP that they need customers, positive publicity and visitors.
Failing to act means we are allowing WOMP to ruin the Old Mission Peninsula.
– Chris Moyer, Old Mission Peninsula resident, taxpayer and wine drinker
Editor’s Note: Watch the recent session hosted by Protect the Peninsula below. -jb
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Very well put. Not a resident of OMP, but a very frequent visitor and patron of the wineries on OMP, at least I was. Though I will still visit friends on the peninsula, and eat at The Boathouse and Pumpkin, I will only be visiting the wineries across the bay on Leelanau and spending my money with them.
What a great presentation! As a resident, PTP’s suggestions as presented sound reasonable to me.
Sorry the Q & A session wasn’t recorded also.
Thank you Chris for laying this out so well. The residents of OMP are getting tired of the hyperbole coming from womp and their supporters, who are selling the grift womp is promoting and the manipulation of facts.
The only reason the township is where they are at today is because 11 wineries have sued over zoning regulations on individual SUP’s they don’t like. Basically they want to change agriculturally zoned farmland into unlimited commercial districts without limitations or accountability for actually farming the land. Zoning is in place to regulate and manage growth whether you like it or not. And the OMP Trustees were elected to help manage not only the scenic beauty of OMP but also the agriculture and commercial integrity our master planning and surveys have supported for decades. It’s sad these few wineries are trying to pit farmers and neighbors against one another when most of us support the agricultural nature of OMP.
I heard it stated recently that OMP has 37 farms and 6000 residents. Why should 11 wineries able to dictate what happens on OMP when most everyone supports reasonable agricultural expansions that don’t weigh so heavily on the negatives agro-tourism brings to this region.
PTP is only helping to support the agricultural integrity of OMP and be a voice for people that live and farm here, protecting them from the control and deep pocketed winery owners who just want what they want and be dammed the rest of us. I say yes to OMP and yes to PTP for helping support us in court from the dominance the wineries are trying to sell. Enough all ready.
Great response Jim! I agree!
Chris Moyer has expressed very well how I and so many others feel about protecting our Township against WOMP’s desires to expand as commercial entertainment venues. Thanks for writing it, Chris!
To Jim Carruthers, Your statement of “manipulation of facts”. Lets examine a few of your facts (unfacts).
1. Concerning the wineries: Your statement, “Basically they want to change agriculturally zoned farmland into unlimited commercial districts”. Really, backup this statement with facts.
2. Your statement, “most everyone supports reasonable agricultural expansions.” What reasonable expansions are you supporting or are there any from PTP or the Board ,or the Planning Commission?
3. Your words, “PTP is only helping to support the agricultural integrity of OMP and be a voice for people that live and farm here.” Please explain how a $40MM financial hole ( largely caused by the sky is falling stance of PTP) is being a voice for the people. Additionally explain any facts you have on PTP being a voice for people who farm here. Is there anything, action, or voiced or written documentation of PTP helping farmers in the last four years?
4. Your words, “……the negatives agro-tourism brings to this region”. What negatives specifically? Wasn’t aware we had much agro tourism (other than farm stands) to be even be considered negative or positive for that matter.
Hopefully you can respond and un-manipulate some facts. Thanks, Curt Peterson