To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Editor’s Note: Tom Barnhart examines the troubling ties between the Citizens Coalition of Old Mission Peninsula and WOMP, the risks of a federal consent judgment, whether the gag order was violated. and the need for transparency in the Peninsula Township winery lawsuit. Read on for his thoughts. -jb
The recent document sent by Mr. Woodruff on behalf of the Citizens Coalition of Old Mission Peninsula (CCOMP) and included in the recent Township Board package is extremely enlightening and genuinely concerning. Here are a few issues that stood out.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
First, CCOMP has been actively working with the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP)/its counsel since at least early February. Mr. Woodruff states that the group “acknowledge WOMP REQUEST to ‘take out’ PTP but sequence it strategically.”
So by his owns words, Mr. Woodruff confirms that WOMP/its counsel has asked CCOMP to act on WOMP’s behalf. Given this statement, it is safe to assume that anything written or presented by Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Anson, Mr. Kroupa, Mr. Swaffer, Ms. Danielson, and anyone else associated with CCOMP is done as a mouthpiece for WOMP’s attorney.
Next, the desire for a consent judgment makes it clear that CCOMP and WOMP/its attorney want to strip all zoning authority relating to the wineries from the township and provide it to the federal court in Kalamazoo. If this occurs, any time a winery violates the consent judgment, the township will have to go to the federal court to ask the court to prohibit the winery’s action. Any decision will take at least a year and could cost $100,000 or more.
Further, unless the court granted an injunction to the township, the winery will be able to violate the consent judgment during the entire enforcement action. I do not believe that outsourcing the township’s ordinance enforcement to an unelected court in Kalamazoo is in the best interests of the township or its residents.
Third, it is reasonable to ask whether WOMP and/or its counsel have been violating the gag order that they pushed for and refuse to eliminate. WOMP/its attorney clearly requested that CCOMP help “take out” PTP (Protect the Peninsula). What else have they discussed regarding the case?
If I was counsel for either the township or PTP, I would be extremely interested in all communications between CCOMP and its members, and members of WOMP or WOMP’s attorney.
What is the result of the February 10 letter to WOMP and/or its counsel? Mr. Woodruff’s NextDoor post certainly tried to move the focus to the first two letters described in his outline rather than on the contents of the letter to WOMP or its attorney, and any responses or follow-up meetings.
If CCOMP wants to start the process of regaining its credibility, it should release both its letter and any responses from WOMP or WOMP’s attorney – none of which are subject to any privilege unless WOMP’s attorney is now representing CCOMP.
Last, CCOMP has repeatedly requested that PTP provide information relating to itself and the lawsuit. Transparency demands that CCOMP provide exactly the same information it has been banging the table for — or is transparency only for others?
The township and its residents are in a very difficult situation. I am with the clear majority of township residents who are hoping for a settlement between the parties. However, deciding to act on behalf of and represent the interests of WOMP and its $50 million judgment against the township, while at the same time claiming to be disinterested residents, is contemptible.
– Tom Barnhart
Read Also…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Tom:
Thanks for your comments and boiling it down.
I would like to make a point about civility in response to Mr. Barnhart’s piece here. Mr. Barnhart seems to demonstrate contempt for all who disagree with his views. Despite strongly differing views, I would like to encourage us all to be keep our tone civil. Calling anyone “contemptible” for holding an opposing view ensures at least two things. One, our community fabric suffers further erosion, and, two, this complex situation becomes more difficult to resolve.
His objection to the prospect of a Consent Order negotiated by the parties to resolve this lawsuit misses the mark completely. It is likely the sole option, for obvious legal reasons lost on him. Along the way, he characterizes as “contemptible” what I trust are the good faith and honest efforts by citizens like me & others attempting to help uncover important facts. Last minute discoveries like the Joint Defense Agreement don’t help.
Finally, in my assessment, the wineries are not looking for retribution against their neighbors. They are seeking stability and certainty through our viticulture governance overlay. Amanda Danielson has written thoughtfully about why this is critical to sustainability of the PDR and conservation easement programs, both valued on OMP.
My hope has always been to see this resolved with minimal-to-no additional taxpayer exposure. That requires certainty of ag rights as Ms. Danielson has expressed.
Didn’t this new group enter the discussion saying they were a group of middle of the road, non-bias individuals that wanted to find common ground on the WOMP drama all while working to derail PTP’s advocacy for the same ideas? Now come to find out they (OMCC) have strong ties to WOMP and that their original message was just talking points to mislead the public. They ask for transparency, so where is the transparency on their end?
Jim Carruthers. No. That is the word to express PTP’s viewpoint on finding “common ground”. We have not heard or seen one single viewpoint from PTP on compromise. If I missed it/them, please post anything you may have.
I believe that the only route to resolving this topic is for the township policy makers to embrace the message that has been delivered persistently by the courts. The township over reached in their ordinance and has enforced them in ways that are not legally supportable.
The ordinances need to be amended under the guidance of the courts and zoning professionals, and enforcers need to embrace education about appropriate and inappropriate enforcement.
With those steps behind them there is a basis to request relief from the 50M judgement.
Continuing to argue minutia and citizens continuing to fight among themselves will leave lawyers enriched and everyone else lessened.
The township lost. They over reached. Apologize, reform, and pray the court believes it’s earnest.
Agreed
I’ve had questions about the intentions of OMCC, and now I believe my questions have been answered. Thank you Tom for your information and insights.