To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Writing on behalf of Protect the Peninsula (PTP), Board member Mike Dettmer corrects misinformation about the group that’s making the rounds on social media. PTP was formed in 1979 when multiple developers pursued a 1000-acre housing complex with commercial and golf operations on land near the present Bluffs Subdivision on Bluff Road. PTP ran two successive successful referendums against these development proposals. -jb
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
I write on behalf of Protect the Peninsula (PTP) in response to Todd Anson’s most recently published discourse titled, “Litigation is an Avocation for Some.” (Editor’s Note: Read it on NextDoor here. -jb)
Since the July 2025 judgment, Mr. Anson has regularly criticized PTP for its role defending against the wineries’ $200 million lawsuit. I have met with Mr. Anson to engage directly, but he appears intent on besmirching PTP publicly.
While PTP hosts informational public forums and a repository of original source material on its website, Mr. Anson appears resolute to disregard facts. It is clear Mr. Anson is motivated to take PTP out of the case; it is unclear why. PTP acknowledges the public is generally tired of this subject, particularly the back-and-forth. Because Mr. Anson’s latest piece reaches a new level of groundless disparagement, PTP reluctantly responds.
1. PTP is a local nonprofit established in 1988 that intervened in the winery lawsuit to defend decades-old zoning.
(PTP was formed in 1979 and formally incorporated as a Nonprofit in 1988. Read more here. -jb)
Mr. Anson says PTP and its members are a deceitful, anonymous group of eleven with obscure objectives that claim to speak for the majority, while the wineries and Township “mostly operate in plain view.” The truth is PTP has been around for decades, publicly advocating for Peninsula Township residents. PTP is transparent about who its board and members are and about its interests and intentions in defending against the winery lawsuit.
PTP members presented testimony under oath to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to support intervention and were deposed by the wineries about their interests and concerns. Because PTP and its members have been harassed by the wineries and their minions, PTP has limited its membership and rightfully keeps donor information private. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that donation information is protected by the First Amendment right of association, especially when disclosure might lead to harassment or chill a person’s willingness to support a cause.
The Sixth Circuit opinion, pages 5-8, available on the PTP website, considered PTP members’ testimony and concluded their property and quality of life interests are protected under Michigan zoning law and this case threatens their interests, so PTP became a defendant in the lawsuit to protect those interests. Read more here.
After intervening, PTP presented solid legal arguments supported by evidence and law to defend the ordinances the wineries challenge as unlawful. PTP has filed thousands of pages in the District Court and hundreds of pages in the Court of Appeals – every word written by local humans.
They are all public, most are available on the PTP website, and they explain precisely and publicly what PTP’s lawsuit objectives are – defending the validity of the zoning provisions enacted decades ago through collaboration and compromise. PTP also presented its settlement positions publicly and hosted two open, public forums to discuss them.
2. PTP is addressing the $49M+ award urgently and effectively.
Mr. Anson claims PTP lacks urgency in addressing the “unprecedented $49M+ exposure.” In reality, PTP is fighting the $49M+ judgment with compelling, well-supported legal arguments according to the appeal schedule established by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the wineries and Township sought schedule extensions, PTP is the only party that did not ask for a delay. PTP’s appeal brief, pages 53-66, available on the PTP website, directly attacks the $49M+ judgment – the right arguments in the right place at the right time. Read more here.
The $49M+ results from the claim that the term “Guest Activity Use” was vague in violation of constitutional due process. This claim is meritless because the ordinance clearly defined “Guest Activity Uses” through specific permitted categories and explicit exclusions, providing ample notice to sophisticated business owners.
The damages award is flawed since the wineries’ inability to host commercial events is the result of their location in the agricultural district and binding conservation easements (Bonobo, Black Star) rather than any alleged vagueness in the text. Read the appeal brief for more PTP arguments attacking the $49M+ judgment.
If Mr. Anson believes PTP should be more urgent about settlement, he needs to take it up with the wineries, who have repeatedly rebuffed PTP in negotiations. The wineries kept their consent judgment proposal from PTP, ignored PTP’s settlement framework, and avoided PTP’s public forums.
It seems Mr. Anson really wants PTP to go away rather than address the liability more urgently.
3. PTP is responsible for reducing the wineries’ judgment.
Mr. Anson claims PTP created the $49M++ liability. Obviously, the $49M++ liability resulted from the wineries’ $203M lawsuit against Peninsula Township. By court order, PTP intervened to defend the case, then PTP successfully limited the wineries’ claims and reduced their damages award.
For example, a ruling before trial in PTP’s favor resulted in Black Star, Peninsula Cellars, Tabone, and Two Lads being awarded $0 damages for “Annual Lost Profits for Large Events.” The $49M++ liability faces serious risk on appeal largely because PTP intervened and developed effective defenses, which the District Court ignored but the Sixth Circuit cannot ignore. PTP’s litigation successes may explain why the wineries and their foot soldiers want to take PTP out of the case.
4. PTP is reasonably concerned that increasing farmland prices drive out farming.
Mr. Anson claims that a PTP supporter testified she’s hoping to scoop up cheap farmland, which is patently false. The truth is that PTP member Barbara Wunsch testified that she, the sole proprietor of Wunsch Farms, wants cherry farming to remain a sustainable, growing business on the Old Mission Peninsula. She is concerned that new commercial activities at wineries may increase farmland prices, and Wunsch Farms does not want escalating farmland prices that would prevent the opportunity for business growth in the fruit industry.
She is also concerned about lack of parity between opportunities available to some but not all farming operations on the peninsula creating a “lopsided” environment. She also admitted that she is at retirement age, she eventually hopes to pass her farm down to the next generation, and her intention is to give some or all of Wunsch Farms to her son.
At trial, Dr. Tom Daniels, author of multiple books and studies on agricultural land use and planning, testified that authorizing lucrative non-farming activities in the agricultural district would put upward pressure on farmland values, undermining the long-term sustainability of agricultural production.
That increasing farmland values seriously threaten farming is well documented, including in the recent Record-Eagle article, Where is the land going? Michigan lost 100,000 acres of farmland in a year (March 2, 2026), which reported that, “Although development, renewable energy projects and the new pressure of data centers have chipped away at Michigan’s farmland, experts say the main threat to farmers is the skyrocketing cost of agricultural acres.”
The American Farmland Trust reiterated the threat to farming from increasing farmland values in their amicus brief filed in the lawsuit, available on the PTP website, at pages 26-27:
“Much of U.S. farmland is zoned for other, more monetarily valuable uses (such as residential housing, industrial development, commercial districts, etc.) and most of the value of the land is associated with the potential conversion of the land to some form of non-agricultural development. This non-agricultural development potential makes farmland more expensive, and as a result, it is very difficult for most farmers to compete with developers to purchase farmland for agricultural purposes. Zoning that allows large-scale economic investment in nonagricultural infrastructure on farmland it wants to protect, or has already protected, (such as wedding venues or oversized residential structures) has the effect of making the farmland attractive to nonagricultural buyers, thus driving up the market value of the land and reducing the ability of farmers to compete for, own, and invest in the land for continued agricultural production purposes. See Daniels Testimony, RE 604, Page ID 23919-23921. Conversely, then, zoning for agriculture with appropriate restrictions on non-agricultural structures and uses makes the land less attractive to non-farmers, increasing the likelihood the property stays in farming.”
5. PTP has no veto power over the Township, but is a party whose consent is necessary to reach a consent judgment.
Mr. Anson speculates that PTP holds a “nefarious” veto power over the Township via a Joint Defense Agreement (JDA). It is surprising that an attorney and developer who has sued and been sued more than once misunderstands Joint Defense and Joint Prosecution Agreements (JPA), also known as Common Interest Agreements.
These standard litigation contracts efficiently protect confidential communications when multiple parties are defending or prosecuting the same claims. If Mr. Anson represented a co-defendant in a lawsuit, his communications with attorneys for other co-defendants were likely protected by a JDA; if he pursued common claims alongside co-plaintiffs, there was likely a JPA in place to protect his rough drafts.
Mr. Anson’s recent discovery of the existence of a JDA does not mean the Township Board was unwittingly bamboozled into surrendering Township sovereignty and assigning away settlement veto power to PTP. It means the Township’s attorney executed a typical litigation agreement.
Moreover, as an attorney, Mr. Anson must certainly understand that a “consent judgment” (the type of settlement the wineries proposed) requires “consent” of all parties. With or without a JDA, PTP is a lawsuit party and therefore entitled to oppose a consent judgment that does not protect its rights that the Court of Appeals granted PTP intervention to defend. That’s basic due process, not a conspiracy.
6. The challenged zoning ordinances resulted from decades of democratic processes, not covert manipulation by a small minority of landholders who stand to reap big rewards at the expense of the majority.
It is Mr. Anson’s “professional legal opinion” that the challenged zoning ordinances are “so obviously illegal” that they must be “the result of extraordinary manipulation” by PTP, in direct contravention of the will of the majority. This is genuinely confounding. The challenged ordinances were adopted between 1998 and 2004 by the Township Board at well-attended public meetings to allow increasingly non-agricultural activities at wineries. From 1998 to 2019, entrepreneurial winery owners – including several attorney-owned wineries – developed thriving businesses under those “so obviously illegal” ordinances without ever once suggesting they trampled anyone’s constitutional rights.
The accusation that the “so obviously illegal” zoning ordinances were the product of PTP’s clandestine manipulation of the elected Township Board is objectively ridiculous, perhaps reflecting that Mr. Anson was elsewhere during those decades or relied on AI, or both.
The history of the addition of winery land uses to the Township zoning ordinance is fully documented in PTP’s appeal brief, cited above, at pages 15-21. Given its prominent role in the $49M+ award, PTP briefly summarizes how the “Guest Activity Use” sections were enacted.
The concept traces back to the 1989 “Winery-Chateau” land use, introduced by Chateau Chantal founder Bob Begin, which allowed wineries to develop overnight guest rooms with facilities for food service (kitchen, dining area) and meetings for “registered guests.” In 1998, seeking to use its food service and meeting facilities to host private events for non-overnight guests, Chateau Chantal sued the Township over the meaning of “registered guests.” That litigation resulted in a consent judgment clarifying that “registered guests” meant overnight guests but obligating the Township to adopt guidelines for additional food service and activities for non-overnight guests, which it did in 1999. Those guidelines served as the bridge toward a more permanent zoning solution, despite significant community pushback.
In 2001, Chateau Chantal proposed an amendment to allow “Contract Groups, Contract Events, and Community Events,” which kicked off a three-year community effort to balance the wineries’ demand for new revenue streams with the goal of preventing the over-commercialization of the agricultural district. This culminated in the 2004 amendment adding “Guest Activity Uses” to the ordinance – a specific class of promotional, revenue-generating activities that could be hosted for the general public, regardless of whether they were overnight guests, in these specific categories: wine and food seminars; cooking classes; and meetings for local nonprofits or agricultural groups.
Since 2004, “Guest Activity Uses” provided the legal framework for Winery-Chateaus to host events like Chateau Chantal’s popular dining series. By labeling dining events as “wine and food seminars,” Chateau Chantal and Mari Vineyards successfully expanded their commercial footprint while technically remaining within the agricultural district zoning framework; other Winery-Chateaus obtained permission to host “Guest Activity Uses” but never used it. After the wineries sued in 2020 and the District Court declared “Guest Activity Uses” illegal in 2022, the Township repealed them via the democratic zoning process.
7. PTP invites Mr. Anson to share his interests and objectives.
Mr. Anson says he supports “100% transparency,” and that getting zoning right “requires honoring agriculture and full transparency.” What is Mr. Anson’s interest in the wineries case? What are his objectives for repeatedly smearing PTP and accusing Township representatives of being PTP puppets on social media and other public outlets?
Why don’t the winery owners speak publicly and directly instead of through mercenaries and the dubious “Old Mission Citizens Coalition” (aka “Citizens Coalition of Old Mission Peninsula”)? What is Mr. Anson’s role with OMCC/CCOMP? Mr. Anson should reveal his interests and objectives in the outcome of the wineries lawsuit.
– Michael Dettmer, Secretary, for and on Behalf of the Protect The Peninsula Board
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
